Blindness and Insight: Ethics of Vision in D. H. Lawrence's Fiction

洞見與不見：勞倫斯小說中的視界倫理

張碧蓉(Pi-Jung Chang)

《東吳外語學報》 29期 (2009/09) Pp. 1-33

https://doi.org/10.29737/SJFLL.200909.0001

摘要

某些歐陸思想家，如德希達、勒維納斯、布朗修等人，皆極其關注「視界矇渾」的問題，本文擬藉由與這些思想家的對話，探討勞倫斯作品中關於眼睛與視界，心智與知識之間的弔詭關係。勞倫斯與這些思想家一樣致力於批判西方思想中的視覺中心主義與自我中心主義，但仔細檢視其小說中的文本脈絡及語言表現，證實勞倫斯並非對智性與洞見作全面性的否定與批判，而是尋求身體／心靈、洞見／不見之間的辨證平衡。勞倫斯藉由語言的複雜性呈現「見」與「知」的議題，有助於我們從語言的角度重新思考視界倫理的問題。

關鍵字

勞倫斯 ； 勒維納斯 ； 德希達 ； 視界 ； 視覺中心主義 ； 倫理 ； 二元論

並列摘要

By having dialogue with some Continental thinkers concerned with the duplicity of vision, such as Derrida, Levinas, and Blanchot, this essay aims to examine Lawrence's exploration of the paradoxical relations between the eye and the field of vision, the mind and the field of knowledge. In his interrogation of ocular-/ego-centrism in Western thought, Lawrence shares with these thinkers the strong urge to expose the blinding function of rational light and the appropriating nature of narcissistic ego. Yet an attentive reading of the textual differences and nuances in his writing demonstrates that his end in view is a redressing of the dialectical balance between mind/light and body/blindness instead of a fundamental critique of the very nature of the former. Lawrence's deliberation of the problem of seeing and knowing contributes to our rethinking of ethical questions in terms of language.

並列關鍵字

D. H. Lawrence ； Emmanuel Levinas ； Jacques Derrida ； vision ； ocularcentrism ； ethics ； Dualism

參考文獻

Blanchot, Maurice.,Ann Smock. (Trans.)(1986).The Writing of the Disaster.Lincoln:U of Nbraska P.

Burack, Charles M.(1997).Mortifying the Reader: The Assault on Verbal and Visual Consciousness in D. H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover.Studies in the Novel.27(4),491-511.

Daleski, H. M.(1965).The Forked Flame: A Study of D. H Lawrence.Evanston:Northwestern UP.

Derrida, Jacques.,Alan Bass. (Trans.)(1978).Writing and Difference.Chicago:U of Chicago P.

Dervin, Daniel.(1980).Rainbow, Phoenix, and Plumed Serpent: D. H. Lawrence's Great Composite Symbols and Their Vicissitudes.Psychoanalytic Review.67(4),515-541.