兒童．文學，分手快樂？－論朱自強「兒童本位論」的限制與挑戰

大陸學者朱自強定義兒童文學為「兒童的文學」，延續周作人「兒童的文學只是兒童本位的，此外更沒有什麼標準」的想法，並試圖超越周作人的兒童文學理論，建構當代中國「兒童本位」的兒童文學觀；朱自強將兒童本位論視為「真理」，據此作為評斷文本是否可以稱為「兒童文學」的標準，此一標準同樣適用兒文研究領域，因為研究者與兒童文學作家都必須抱持兒童本位思考，這種態度「應當是生就的，而不應是造就的。」當一種論述被拉抬到「真理」與「生就」的定位，幾乎再無討論空間，本文除了檢驗「兒童本位論」的過與不及，同時進一步探討，懷抱「兒童本位」的兒童文學評論似乎總能看見一個幽靈，一個「想像的兒童」的幽靈在遊蕩；如果不能擱置「想像的兒童」，所謂「評論」是否無可避免受限於對兒童的想像，因此綁住思考文本的手腳？那麼，「兒童．文學」可以對彼此說，「讓我們在這裡分手」？它們果真可以高唱分手快樂？分手之後，「兒童文學」與「兒童文學評論」又將以何種方式存在？

關鍵字

兒童文學評論；兒童本位論；想像的兒童

並列摘要

Mainland China scholar, Dr. Chu Tzu-chiang defines children's literature as ＂literature for children＂ which in many ways echoes Chou Tso-Jen's child-based theory. However, Chu has been trying to progress not only further but also to construct a child-based children's literature discourse for contemporary China. It would be reasonable to say that Chu's point of view casts certain influences throughout the Chinese-speaking world. He considers this child-based children's literature discourse as a ＂truth＂ and makes it an essential requirement of defining children's literature. He suggests the same goes for the study of children's literature and this child-based way of thinking should be a built-in rather than a built-up. I would suggest that when a discourse has been positioned as a truth and a built-in, it leaves little space for discussion. I am going to disagree with Dr. Chu Tzu-chiang and examine the limits of the child-based theory. I would further suggest that a spectre is haunting the study of children's literature -- a spectre of the imagined child. I would also explore that if we cannot get rid of the spectre one way or another, can we be free enough to do our critical thinking on the text. Then, I would raise questions to myself. In the sense of children's literature, can children and Literature break up and live happily ever after? If they really do, can they be co-existing still, and in what ways?

並列關鍵字

Children's literature criticism ； child-based theory ； the imagined child

國際替代計量

兒童．文學，分手快樂？－論朱自強「兒童本位論」的限制與挑戰

全文下載

主題瀏覽