五○年代台灣女性小說史觀念之詮釋策略再思考

九○年代中期以後，評論界興起一股不可忽視的現象，即欲以「不同的聲音」提出另類「女性文學史觀」的批評潮流，這股潮流背後的支持者，泰半是出自學院的女性主義文評家，她們以自己的「史觀」重新詮釋五○年代，從不同的角度閱讀五○年代女性作家文本，提出自己的文學史看法，從而樹立強調「性別」與「女性主體」的史觀。今天我們重新省視五○年代的文學發展階段，很難不借重這些評論者的看法，不過，這些看法究竟指出了甚麼樣的文學史進路？在詮釋的思維上，女性主義者慣常以「性別」或「女性」觀點來形塑女性文學史觀，此舉能否確切掌握女性作家的「文學特質」?抑或只是將文學附加於「性別政治」框架之下?女性文學史所使用的建構方式，能否翻轉既定的文學史看法，亦或只是另一種意識形態的詮釋?這些思考點都是急待釐清的關鍵。基於上述問題意識，本文將試圖從文學史詮釋的觀點，重新探討五○年代女性小說史解讀的諸多可能性。

關鍵字

五○年代女性小說史；女性文學史觀；主體性；文學；史詮釋

並列摘要

Since the middle of the 1990s, a noticeable phenomenon has emerged among the critics: the trend of criticism to propose the ＂feminine perspective on literary history＂ with a ＂different voice.＂ That trend was mostly supported by the feminist critics from the institution school. Those critics re-interpreted the 1950s with their own ＂views on the literary history＂, read the feminine works in 1950s from different angles, proposed their own views on that history, and made their views focused on the ＂gender＂ and the ＂female subjectivity.＂ To re-examine the literary development in 1950s today, we cannot but need the views of those critics, but what kind of literary development did those views reflect? In the philosophy of interpretation, the feminists tend to shape the feminist perspective on literary history with the focus on ＂gender＂ or the ＂feminist perspective.＂ Does that really master the ＂literary characteristics＂ of the feminine writers or just put literature under the frame of ＂gender politics＂? Can the feminist way to construct the literary history reverse the fixed views on the literary history or just interpret another ideology? Those questions are the keys to clarifying the thinking. To find out the answers, this study will re-explore the various possibilities of interpreting the history of feminine fictions in the 1950s from the perspective to interpret the literary history.