「轉向」及藝術派反動的純文學論－台灣文藝聯盟路線之爭

本文的目的在以進步與反動路線對抗的關係框架，重新耙梳三○年代台灣文藝聯盟的路線之爭。前行研究大多從「民族」、「階級」的立場之爭，解釋楊逵批評張深切所主導的台灣文藝聯盟及其造成台灣文學界分裂的結果。不過，如果能不對張深切進入戰爭期即前往北京為日本軍方效力的事實視而不見，那麼，將張深切所主導的路線界定為「民族」，其實是無法成立的歷史判斷。有鑑於此，本文將把這場路線之爭，放回九一八事變後法西斯主義高漲的背景中重新評估，除了以「轉向」這個從未進入前行研究視野之中的新問題意識，考察台灣作家面對高漲的法西斯氣焰，有沒有發生「轉向」的現象之外，也將以楊逵批判藝術派時所提出的進步與反動路線對抗的關係框架，重新定位、解釋台灣文藝聯盟的路線之爭。由於前行研究對張深切、李張瑞、楊熾昌等藝術派的純文學論述，討論少之又少，在以新關係框架重新梳理台灣文藝聯盟分裂之論爭過程的同時，本文也將把重點放在鋪陳藝術派的純文學論，並嘗試證明，這種論調正是台灣作家「轉向」日本法西斯主義靠攏後的產物。

關鍵字

法西斯主義；左右路線之爭；台灣文藝聯盟分裂；轉向；藝術派

並列摘要

The article outlines an interpretative framework of the struggle between the reactionary and progressive forces in Taiwanese Cultural Association (abbr. TCA) for re-examining the division of TCA in 1930s. The former research mostly proposed a framework based on the conflict standpoints of ”nationality” or ”social class” to explain why Yang Kui criticized Chang Shen-chieh who led the TCA and ended up the division of TCA. This perspective ignores the historical background that Chang Shen-chieh devoted himself to Japan Empire in Beijing during the Pacific War. Therefore, it is historically inconvincible to define Chang Shen-chieh as a ”nationalist”. And for that reason, it is necessary to put the struggles of TCA into historical context of the Manchurian Incident in 1931 when the Japanese fascism arose quickly. The article tries to use the new problematic concept of ”conversion” to examine how Taiwanese writers reacted to the rising Japanese Fascism. At the same time, owing to the lack of discussion on those Taiwanese writers like Chang Shen-chieh, Li Chang-jui and Yang Chih-Chang who viewed literature as pure aesthetic, the article also wants to focus on their aesthetic position and prove that it was eventually the product of their ”conversion” to Japan fascism.