愛爾蘭身份的政治性：傅利爾劇本中的現代性

Brian Friel's Politcs of Defining Irishness: Irish Modernity in Translations, The Communication Cord and The London Vertigo

楊承豪(Cheng-Hao Yang)

指導教授 ： 莊坤良

國立臺灣師範大學/文學院/英語學系/碩士(2006年)

摘要

本文探討傅利爾劇本中的愛爾蘭身份政治性。伴隨著英國殖民而植入愛爾蘭社會的（殖民）現代性帶給了愛爾蘭人對自身守舊文化的衝擊，也導致了愛爾蘭人身份的分裂，而我將檢視現代性如何影響愛爾蘭性論述的建構。本文的中心論點是愛爾蘭性是英國現代性和凱爾特守舊主義之間一個辯證過程的場域：在英國殖民時期，被殖民的愛爾蘭人對現代性是懷著矛盾的態度；而在獨立後，愛爾蘭國族主義分子操縱國族意識而斷然拒絕甚至試圖抹拭現代性和現代化對愛爾蘭社會的深遠影響；當代的愛爾蘭人則將現代化視為國家發展和提高生活水準的一種理念和社會工程。本論文分成五個章節。在第一章，我將討論傅利爾所論述的愛爾蘭性的政治性：傅利爾以為愛爾蘭性在不同的歷史脈絡和時空背景下會有不同的論述呈現。接著我會討論現代性和愛爾蘭身分建構間密不可分的實體關係。在第二章，我將討論在《翻譯》中翻譯做為英國現代性和愛爾蘭傳統之間協調的一個比喻(trope)。愛爾蘭人拉扯於這兩股文化力量下，經歷了身份建構上的漩渦，而一部份的愛爾蘭人選擇了現代性做為抗衡殖民的利器。在第三章，我將討論傅利爾試著在其作品中解構葉慈及德勒瓦拉(de Valera)對愛爾蘭性所建構的主導性論述，揭露其論述欲建立單一愛爾蘭性的盲點。接著，我將討論傅利爾在《溝通線》中將民族主義者諷刺為新的殖民主義者，他們內化了一套他們不自知而帶殖民色彩的“觀光性民族主義”。在第四章，我將討論被稱為“凱爾特老虎”的當代愛爾蘭在面對全球資本主義的潮流下逐漸放棄獨特的愛爾蘭傳統而變成英美資本消費型態社會的附庸。在《倫敦發暈》中，傅利爾嘲諷盲目地崇拜英美生活型態而導致自我迷失的心態，而他也同時批判了固守傳統凱爾特主義而杜絕了多元化愛爾蘭身份的可能性。在第五章，我總結全篇論文的論點：不同於國族主義認為愛爾蘭身份是個絕對且封閉的主體，現代性和現代化的影響使得愛爾蘭性成為一個本質上矛盾但又是具多元化的主體。

關鍵字

傅利爾 ； 《翻譯》 ； 《溝通線》 ； 《倫敦發暈》 ； 現代性 ； 愛爾蘭身份政治

並列摘要

This thesis investigates Brian Friel's politics of “defining” Irishness by deploying the theories of colonial modernity, nationalism and modernity, and modernization theory. I will explore how the English imposition of colonial modernity in Ireland via colonialism has fractured the Irish identity and how the Irish have responded to modernity: the ambivalent attitude towards colonial modernity in the colonial period, the nationalist rejection of English-initiated modernity in post-independent Ireland, and the contemporary embracing of modernization. This exploration accordingly paves the way to my argument that Irishness is the dialectical site between English modernity and Celtic traditionalism. This thesis consists of five chapters. In Chapter One, I will explore Friel’s politics of “defining” Irishness, which suggests the idea that Irishness is a discourse that is subjected to different articulations in different historical and social contexts, and I will also delineate the ontological connection between modernity and Irishness. In Chapter Two, I will argue that translation serves as a trope for negotiation between English modernity and Gaelic traditionalism in Translations. Torn between the two cultural forces, the Irish people were thrown into a maelstrom of ambivalent identification process, and yet some of them chose to adopt English modernity as a means of negotiation with colonialism. In Chapter Three, I will investigate the hegemonic discourse of Irish nationalism and its discontents in The Communication Cord: Friel has deconstructed the essentialist and exclusivist discourse of nationalism that prescribed a highly rigid narrative of Irishness, and he has also exposed the invalidity of the “ideology of the rural” promoted by the anti-modern nationalists to preserve the rural space of the country in a pre-colonial Celtic state. My tourist reading of this play will show Friel’s satirical portrait of the middle-class nationalists as nationalistic tourists who adopt a “colonially touristic” stance towards the countryside and its inhabitants. In Chapter Four, I will explore how Friel has critically reflected on the phenomenon that Ireland, having experienced material prosperity by integrating itself into global capital market, has given up its “Cathleen” tradition and national character remorselessly and turned itself into a replica of other advanced Euro-American societies in The London Vertigo. In this play, Friel mocks excessive attachment to the English lifestyle by renouncing one's own culture, and he equally critiques an obsessive jealousy of one’s own culture that precludes the possibility of pluralizing national identity. In Chapter Five, I come to the conclusion, in consistent with the initial argument of this thesis, that the Irish experience of modernity has made the discourse of Irishness a constitutionally multiple and ambivalent entity, as opposed to the nationalist illusion of Irishness as an absolute and enclosed entity. An inclusive and liberal discourse of Irishness in which the essentialist nationalist identity gives way to a pluralized national identity would present more alternatives to the constitution of Irishness.

並列關鍵字

Brian Friel ； Translations ； The Communication Cord ； The London Vertigo ； Modernity ； the politics of defining Irishness

參考文獻

Andrews, Elmer. The Art of Brian Friel: Neither Reality Nor Dreams. N. Y.: St. Martin’s Press, 1995.

Berman, Marshall. All That Is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity. N.Y.: Viking Penguin, 1988.

Black, Cyril Edwin. The Dynamics of Modernization: A Study in Comparative History. N. Y.: Harper & Row, 1966.

Brown, Terence. Ireland: A Social and Cultural History, 1922-2002. London: Harper Perennial, 2004.

Carroll, Clare. “Introduction: The Nation and Postcolonial Theory.” Ireland and Postcolonial Theory. Eds. Clare Carroll and Patricia King. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003. 1-15.