書寫郭松棻：一個沒有位置和定義的寫作者

Writing about Kuo Sung-Fen：A Writer without a Position and a Definition

簡義明(Yi-Ming Jian)

指導教授 ： 陳萬益

國立清華大學/人文社會學院/中國文學系/博士(2007年)

摘要

這份關於郭松棻的研究，副標題是：「一個沒有位置和定義的寫作者」，它指出了郭松棻文學的意義和精神。在客觀條件上，他不是很容易被現有的台灣文學研究給標定位置，劃入流派與社群；在主觀意志上，他的文學與思想精神，有著一種對「無法定義」、「拒絕位置」的認知與精神向度，當我們真正深入到他一生的知識追尋、獻身保釣運動的毅力與態度、小說書寫的反省與實踐精神時，終究會明瞭，真正深刻的心靈是不容易、也拒絕被簡單分類與劃位的。
在上述問題意識之下，本論文以六章進行書寫：
第一章為「緒論」，說明本研究的問題意識，對現有研究成果進行反思與討論，並進而審視，台灣文學研究當前所面臨的「國族計畫」和「學術商場」的結構性問題，然後，以薩依德為例，我想從他身上吸取更有生命力的論述態度與實踐力量，事實上，我想借薩依德來提出的並不是一種體系、或一套理論，恰恰相反，它是一種反體系、反主導性論述的觀念，借用薩依德的詞彙，是所謂「現世性」（worldliness），這種精神事實上才是貫穿他一生的學術與志業的核心，帶著這樣的態度，薩依德希望我們能夠「航向他者」。
第二章為「學術與行動主義：知識份子的言說與實踐」，首先，我試著把郭松棻放在1960年代全球基進青年世代的感覺結構裡，受到越戰、搖滾樂與學生運動浪潮洗禮的郭松棻，彼時正在美國加州柏克萊大學攻讀博士，剛好在1970年代初期遇上「釣魚台事件」，這種歷史的偶然卻是改變了作家的一生，於是，郭松棻將啟蒙他思想的沙特哲學，放大了「介入」這個觀念的意涵，他將彼時的行動上接到「五四運動」的啟蒙論述裡，左手寫文論，右手高舉著在街頭演講，但這場烏托邦的建構，結局終究是幻滅。1974年的「祖國」之行，徹底撼動了郭松棻對「社會主義」中國的幻想，但這階段的他並未對馬克思主義灰心，他認為是執行和思想的問題。所以，在這之後，他用心苦讀西方哲學、社會學、左翼思想等艱澀書籍，沙特依舊是他融會這一切的主要線索。但我認為，郭松棻即使是在梳理西方學術的議題，或者分辨沙特和卡繆論戰雙方的孰是孰非，或者翻譯馬克思主義者的論著，都還是指向他永不放棄的烏托邦，亦即中國（包括台灣和大陸）社會的正義可能和幸福想望。
第三章為「文學觀念的生成與辯證」，從一個獻身的行動者走向安靜的書寫者之前，我用這一章做為理解的橋樑，將郭松棻在不同時期的文學觀念做一些梳理與辯證，郭松棻對於「什麼是文學？」這個問題的看法並非一成不變的，如果我們將他在不同階段涉及「文學」的文獻置放在作家生命史的脈絡中加以審視的話，會發現一段「建立」與「推翻」相互更迭的過程，也因為這樣的過程，我們才能更加逼近與理解，郭松棻是如何艱辛地推開層層疊疊的框架與意識形態，將那些政治的和革命的大敘述瓦解，進而以餘生的專注和努力，在文學的範疇裡，致力於精神的自由與超越。
第四章為「記憶、存有與歷史想像」，本章主要是透過郭松棻再現「記憶」的幾種關懷，對他的小說寫作進行綜觀的分類與細部的解讀，接著，再從他幾個關乎歷史想像與存有召喚的文本，試著去理解，郭松棻是怎樣藉由書寫抵抗大寫的歷史，保留住敗者的生命意義，創造出文學的精神空間。
第五章為「敘事、語言和現代主義再思考」，本章先分析了福樓拜對郭松棻在視覺敘事和小說語言風格上的影響；接著，在1990年代後，胡蘭成的思想和文體也變成郭松棻小說寫作的摹寫對象，這些美學與形式層次的分析，是以往的郭松棻研究較少觸及的面向；最後，則是藉由郭松棻的案例，反思當前台灣文學界對「現代主義」研究的認識侷限和可能缺失。
第六章為「結論」，總結本論文的貢獻與限制，並指出日後可繼續延伸和擴展的研究方向。在目前後殖民與後現代相互競奪文化領導權的時空底下，現代主義已經成為歷史足跡了嗎？還是，它依舊有可能提供我們一種往前追尋的態度和方案？薩依德提醒我們要「航向他者」，郭松棻的實踐軌跡與書寫關懷也在提醒著我們，現有的台灣文學研究在追求「史」的框架這種邊界意識，和「典律」的追尋這種根源歸屬的過程中時，要時時檢視自身的排他與暴力成分，郭松棻的文學精神所應許的遠方，不是一個位置，不是一種定義，而是一種解消、自由與希望的可能。

關鍵字

郭松棻 ； 保釣運動 ； 現代主義 ； 現世性

並列摘要

This is a study about Kuo Sung-Fen. The subtitle is, “A Writer without a Position and a Definition”, which points out the meaning and spirit of Kuo’s writing. Current Taiwanese literature study found it difficult to pinpoint Kuo’s position, or to categorize him in any literary society. In fact, Kuo’s writing and thoughts had originally resisted to be defined and positioned in anyway. When digging deeper into Kuo’s life, which includes his continuous pursuing of knowledge, devotion to “Defense Movement of Tiao-yu Tai Islands Sovereignty”（保釣運動）, and self-reflection in novel writing, we can finally conclude that a truly profound mind is not to be simply labeled.
This dissertation has six chapters.
The first chapter “Introduction” brings in the research problem by critically analyzing the related current studies. It points out that the field of Taiwanese literature study is encountering two structural problems: ideology of nationalism and capitalism of academia. Further, I juxtapose Kuo’s work with Edward Said’s lively attitude in philosophy and practice. What I adopted from Said is not a system or a theory. On the contrary, I adopted his concept of anti-system and anti-hegemony. In Said’s word, it is “worldliness,” a core concept that guided Said’s work throughout his life. With this attitude, Said wanted us to “sail to the other”.
The second chapter “Academic Works and Activism: Intellectuals’ Thoughts and Practices” pictures Kuo in the progressive 1960 era. The Vietnam War, Rock ‘n’ Roll music, and student activism had greatly influenced Kuo, who at the time was a doctoral student in U.C. Berkeley. It was then the70s’“ Defense Movement of Tiao-yu Tai Islands Sovereignty” completely changed his life. Applying Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy, Kuo expended the concept of engagement and connect such activism with “The May Fourth Movement”（五四運動） in early twentieth century. He wrote about his idea and at the same time spoke out on the street. But, his Utopian ideal was eventually crashed.
A trip to the “motherland,” Kuo’s fantasy toward a socialist China was completely shaken. However, he did not lose confidence in Marxism. He believed that it was the ways of thinking and executing that caused the problem. Thus, he later immersed himself in Western philosophy, sociology, and left-wing thoughts. Above all these, Sartre’s philosophy was still the main guideline of his intellectual exploration. Nevertheless, I argue that all of Kuo’s actions, such as dealing with issues of Western philosophy, analyzing Sartre and Camus’s debates, and translating Marxists’ writings have ultimately pointed to his Utopia—a social justice in China (including both Mainland China and Taiwan) and a happier life for its people.
The third chapter, “The Emergence of Literary Concepts and Dialogue” provides a context for Kuo’s transformation from a devoted activist to a writer. It analyzes Kuo’s literary concepts in his various life stages. For Kuo, the explanation of “What is literature?” was not always the same. His text related to “literature” was a repetitive process of “construction” and “de-construction”. This helped us to understand how Kuo had struggled to push away layers of theoretical frameworks and ideologies, decomposed the grand narratives of politics and revolution, and then spent the rest of his life to concentrate on freedom in literature.
The fourth chapter, “Memory, Existence, and Historical Imagination” dealt with issues of memory in Kuo’s novels. From some of his texts regarding historical imagination and meaning of existence, I attempted to identify how Kuo fought against the historical “grand narratives” through his writing, in which he preserved the historical “loser’s” meaning of existence.
The fifth chapter, “Re-thinking Narratives, Language, and Modernism” analyzes that Flaubert had influenced Kuo’s visual narrative and style of novel language. Later, Hu Lan-Cheng’s thoughts and writing style also became Kuo’s novel writing example after the 1990s. Lastly, I used Kuo’s case as an example to reflect on the limited understanding and possible shortcomings of Taiwanese literature study on “modernism”.
The sixth chapter “Conclusion” states the contribution and limitation of this dissertation. It also points out related research direction for the future: As colonialism and postmodernism are fighting for the cultural leadership of this age, has modernism already become a history or still provides certain valuable attitude and direction? Said reminded us to “sail to the other.” Kuo’s writing and activism also prompted current Taiwanese literature study not to focus solely on pursuing fundamentalism. We have to also examine the intentions of excluding the others and the elements of violence in Taiwanese literature. What Kuo’s literary spirit promised is not a position or a definition but a hope for freedom and liberation?

並列關鍵字

Kuo Sung-Fen ； Defense Movement of Tiao-yu Tai Islands Sovereignty ； modernism ； worldliness

參考文獻

2003，〈認同、敘事、與行動：台灣1970年代黨外的歷史建構〉，《台灣社會學》5期，頁195-250。

1993，《郭松棻集》，台北：前衛。

2002，《流離尋岸：資本國際化下的「外籍新娘」現象》，台北：台灣社會研究季刊社。

2007，〈文革的政治思想根源：史華茲論盧梭、孟子與毛澤東〉，《思想》5期，頁1-25。

2007，〈創傷與重生——從早期作品論郭松棻創作基調的形成〉，《台灣文學研究》創刊號，台南：成功大學台灣文學系，頁33-71。