【學苑春秋】華語語系文學，世界華文文學，華人華文文學－中國大陸學界對華語語系文學（Sinophone literature）主張的肯定與批判

大陸學界對華語語系文學主張大多不關心或不理睬，但是在大體觀望的氛圍裡有一部分學者還表現出關心的態度。大陸學界對於華語語系文學的提出，在展示新的學術視角、使用跨學科的研究方法論、提供跨國研究視野、構建國際研究領域、推動世界學術話語的產生等方面給予了肯定。但是在華語語系文學主張的內容上卻作出了批判。大陸學者對史書美的批判主要集中在華語語系族群（或者華人）與中國的二元對立關係上的反離散論和反中國論，內部殖民主義主張和定居殖民主義主張，以及與其相關的華語語系概念和華語語系文學論述。大陸學者批判她的主張是要將大陸與臺灣分離的分離主義者的主張，她的思維方式是冷戰時期的思維方式。大陸學者不僅針對史書美所主張的基本觀點而且對其理論敘述也進行了批判。他們主要批評她將後殖民理論或少數文學理論等西方學術界的一部分理論簡單套用或誤用在中國和華人的問題上。這些批判不能全盤否定、但是我認為也不乏牽強之處。大陸學者幾乎沒有對王德威的主張和理論做專門的批判。這也許是因為王德威的學術地位和溫和語氣起到一定的作用，但還是主要因為王德威的見解與大陸學者有很多相似之處，正如王德威所說兩者之間完全可以對話。不過並非完全沒有批判王德威的論述，比如大陸學者們批評他把「Sinophone」譯成「華語語系」是犯了學術性錯誤。大陸學者仍然懷疑王德威也可能同樣以為大陸壓迫內部的華語語系族群（少數種族及與國家主義相錯位的群體），霸權性地對待外部的華語語系族群。主張華語語系文學的學者與大陸學者之間，除了在政治立場上的不同以外，在文學見解上也有諸多頗大的不同。其中決定性的不同就在於看待中國文學（中國大陸文學、台灣文學、香港文學、澳門文學）與華人華文文學的觀點上。大陸學界雖然不像過去那麼嚴重,但仍然保持著中國中心主義（或大陸中心主義）視角。相反，主張華語語系文學的學者則認為華語語系文學各自具有獨立性和獨自性，追究起來是與中國文學（或大陸文學）毫無相關的存在，或者至少是與大陸文學具有同等資格的存在。對中國文學與華人華文文學範疇上的區分也許最能體現出主張華語語系文學的學者與大陸學者之間的差異。但是主張華語語系文學的學者與大陸學者之間存在著不能忽視的共同點或相似點。兩者都重視所謂漢語（華語）這一語言要素，執著於解釋華語語系文學（或者世界華文文學）與中國的關系。問題是不管他們各自的立場與意圖如何，這種態度可能會導致不理想的結果。其中最重要的就是這可能超越作為政治實體的中國或者作為歷史文化存在的中國，製造出一個作為巨大的新的想像的共同體的「大中華」。主張華語語系文學的學者不能忽視既是他們自身已經提出的方案，又是大陸學者在批判他們的過程中提出的意見。要擺脫只將華語語系文學概念運用在探究與中國的關系上，也應該積極地適用在與居住地的關系以及與西方中心主義的關系上，尤其應該積極探討與跨國移居者文學的相關性。如果這樣，華語語系文學主張就可以作為對西方中心主義的世界學界主流話語的批判理論，做出有意義的貢獻。

關鍵字

華語語系；華語語系文學；華文文學；世界華文文學；中國大陸文學；華人華文文學

並列摘要

In mainland China, scholars have been keeping an eye on the development of Sinophone literature discourse, with some expressing more direct interest in it. Many mainland scholars find the notion of Sinophone literature valuable in the way that it can potentially offer fresh academic vantage points, mobilize interdisciplinary methodologies, provide transnational perspectives, develop conversations of the international academic field beyond China, and make theoretical contribution to global literature studies. At the same time, however they often take much more critical stances toward the arguments produced from the Sinophone literature discourse. Most criticism is focused on the way Shu-mei Shih counterposes Sinophone communities (or overseas Chinese) with mainland China. Also, they argue against Shih's literary interpretations based on ideas like 「against diaspora」, 「anti-Sino-centrism」, 「internal colonialism」, and 「settler colonialism」. Mainland scholars identify Shih's argument as a separatist one that sets the mainland and Taiwan apart, essentially a vestige of Cold War ideology. Moreover, they do not limit their criticism to the argument itself, but extend to conditions of reasoning. They object that it is a case of simple application or misappropriation of postcolonial theory, minor literature theory, and other Western theories to the Chinese and the oversea Chinese problematics. Although these criticisms are justifiable, some of them are rather unnecessarily excessive. Meanwhile, it is rarer to find mainland scholars making exclusively criticism against David Der-Wei Wang's argument and reasoning. The scarcity can probably be traced from the fact that Wang's argument has many overlaps with those of the mainland scholars, as well as the way his argument highlights the possibility and the need for productive conversations. However, this does not indicate that there are no criticisms against Wang's argument. In fact, mainland scholars challenge the way Wang translates the term 「Sinophone」 to 「Huayu Yuxi (華語語系)」. Also, they are wary of the possibility that Wang comprehends the politics between mainland Chinese and the Sinophone community (which includes internally the ethnic minorities and other communities that do not align with PRC nationalism, and externally, the Taiwanese, Hong Kong, Macau, and Overseas Chinese) as domestically a repressive one and externally an imperial project. Even when political stances are set aside, Sinophone literature scholars and mainland scholars have substantial differences in the way they view literature itself. The differences stand out most sharply in how they understand Chinese literature (mainland Chinese-language literature, Taiwanese literature, Hong Kong literature, Macau literature) and overseas Chinese-language literature. Mainland scholars tend to maintain the Sino-centric (or mainland-centric) perspectives, whereas those arguing for Sinophone literature understand Sinophone literature as an independent and autonomous sphere, which ultimately is unrelated or at least on an equal playing field with Chinese (or mainland Chinese-language) literature. It might as well be said that such disagreement in how each define and categorize Chinese literature and overseas Chinese-language literature signifies the most revealing differences between Sinophone literature scholars and the mainstream mainland scholars. Despite apparent disagreement, one must not overlook their commonalities or similarities. They both attach great importance to linguistic element (Chinese/Hanyu/Huayu), as well as the interpretation of the Sinophone literature(or world Chinese literature)'s relationship with mainland China. Regardless of their political stances or intention, this tendency can lead to perhaps not the most desirable effect: they might end up producing an imagined community that exceeds China as political being or historical/ cultural being, namely, 「the grand Sino-community」. It is imperative that Sinophone literature scholars make serious consideration of both their own arguments and the insights that have emerged from the mainland scholars' criticisms. That is, instead of confining the concept of Sinophone literature to examination of its relationship with China, the concept can be mobilized to discuss its relationship with residence, Eurocentrism (Westcentrism), and most significantly, the transnational migrant literature. Only then the Sinophone literature as a critical theory can make crucial contribution to reshaping the Eurocentric tenor of the World literature conversation.

並列關鍵字

Sinophone ； Sinophone literature ； Chinese literature ； world Chinese literature ； mainland Chinese-language literature ； overseas Chinese-language literature