本文選題：新歷史主義 + 文化人類學(xué)��； 參考：《湖南科技大學(xué)》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 在當(dāng)代西方文學(xué)批評(píng)理論中,新歷史主義是一個(gè)重要的流派。新歷史主義與文化人類學(xué)之間具有廣闊的通約性,可以彼此闡釋和相互彰顯。新歷史主義涉入過去的符號(hào)系統(tǒng),與人類學(xué)涉入他種文化的符號(hào)系統(tǒng),這兩種方法之間具有類比性。前者在進(jìn)行文學(xué)批評(píng)時(shí),試圖實(shí)施人類學(xué)研究并關(guān)注不同文化的相遇及碰撞問題;而后者的“深描”學(xué)說,也吸收了大量的文學(xué)批評(píng)方法。 新歷史主義批評(píng)和文化人類學(xué)都通過“文化”這個(gè)核心概念對(duì)各自所研究的對(duì)象進(jìn)行整合,從這個(gè)意義上來看,二者都具有跨學(xué)科的功能和作用。追溯新歷史主義的淵源,傳統(tǒng)的歷史主義將其所關(guān)照的文化、歷史當(dāng)成一種社會(huì)事實(shí),這與傳統(tǒng)的人類學(xué)民族志進(jìn)行實(shí)證研究有著驚人的相似;而新歷史主義關(guān)于歷史的當(dāng)下性的論述,將其視為與文學(xué)創(chuàng)作一樣具有虛構(gòu)性的主張,恰又暗合了文化人類學(xué)中實(shí)證民族志向體驗(yàn)民族志轉(zhuǎn)向的理論旨趣。 通過對(duì)新歷史主義批評(píng)的理論構(gòu)成進(jìn)行概述,不難看出新歷史主義批評(píng)思想資源的人類學(xué)取向,主要是維柯《新科學(xué)》的人類學(xué)思想與格爾茲的解釋人類學(xué),重點(diǎn)體現(xiàn)在格爾茲文化人類學(xué)影響下的文化詩學(xué)。新歷史主義批評(píng)理論觀點(diǎn)的人類學(xué)取向,表現(xiàn)為文化人類學(xué)理論對(duì)于新歷史主義批評(píng)兩個(gè)方面的影響即:文化人類學(xué)中“文化造物”觀點(diǎn)對(duì)新歷史主義批評(píng)“自我塑造”觀點(diǎn)帶來的影響,以及文化人類學(xué)中民族志寫作的轉(zhuǎn)向?qū)τ谛職v史主義批評(píng)的歷史文化觀帶來的影響,進(jìn)而展示兩種理論在文學(xué)與文化的互通性上所取得的共識(shí),并從人類學(xué)對(duì)于文化的認(rèn)知與闡釋、作為文學(xué)批評(píng)的人類學(xué)方法,以及新歷史主義的文化視角,著重探討了文化人類學(xué)觀點(diǎn)與新歷史主義批評(píng)理論的內(nèi)在聯(lián)系。對(duì)新歷史主義批評(píng)方法的文化人類學(xué)向度的分析,著重于方法論意義探討新歷史主義批評(píng)所采用的“厚描”與文化人類學(xué)的“深描”手法的殊途同歸。
[Abstract]:Neo-historicism is an important school in contemporary western literary criticism theory. New historicism and cultural anthropology have broad compatibility, which can be explained and displayed mutually. New historicism is involved in the symbolic system of the past and anthropology is involved in the symbolic system of other cultures. The two methods have analogies. In literary criticism, the former tries to carry out anthropological research and pays attention to the encounter and collision of different cultures, while the latter's "deep drawing" theory also absorbs a large number of literary criticism methods. Both Neo-historicism criticism and cultural anthropology integrate their objects of study through the core concept of "culture". In this sense, both of them have interdisciplinary functions and functions. Tracing back to the origin of New historicism, the traditional historicism regards its culture as a kind of social fact, which is similar to the empirical study of traditional anthropological ethnography. However, the exposition of New historicism on the present nature of history is regarded as a false proposition as literary creation, which coincides with the theoretical purport of positive national ambition to experience ethnography in cultural anthropology. By summarizing the theoretical composition of New historicism criticism, it is not difficult to find out the anthropological orientation of Neo-historicism criticism ideological resources, mainly the anthropological thought of Vico's New Science and Gertz's hermeneutic Anthropology. The emphasis is on cultural poetics under the influence of Gertz's cultural anthropology. The Anthropological orientation of the New historicism critical Theory, The influence of the theory of cultural anthropology on the criticism of New historicism is as follows: the influence of the viewpoint of "cultural creation" in cultural anthropology on the view of "self-molding" of the criticism of neo-historicism. And the influence of the turn of ethnographic writing in cultural anthropology on the historical and cultural view of New historicism criticism, and then show the common understanding between the two theories in literature and culture. From the perspective of anthropology's cognition and interpretation of culture, the anthropological method of literary criticism, and the cultural perspective of New historicism, this paper mainly discusses the internal relationship between the viewpoint of cultural anthropology and the theory of New historicism criticism. This paper analyzes the cultural anthropology dimension of the new historicism criticism method, focusing on the methodological significance to explore the difference between the "thick drawing" and the "deep drawing" technique used in the new historicism criticism.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南科技大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號(hào)】：I06

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王進(jìn);;歷史與文化的文本對(duì)話:新歷史主義的文化批評(píng)觀念[J];重慶師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年04期

2 王岳川;重寫文學(xué)史與新歷史精神[J];當(dāng)代作家評(píng)論;1999年06期

3 張進(jìn);在“文化詩學(xué)”與“歷史詩學(xué)”之間——新歷史主義的命名危機(jī)與方法論困惑[J];甘肅社會(huì)科學(xué);2001年05期

4 張進(jìn);新歷史主義與語言論轉(zhuǎn)向和歷史轉(zhuǎn)向[J];甘肅社會(huì)科學(xué);2002年02期

5 王銘銘;格爾茲的解釋人類學(xué)[J];教學(xué)與研究;1999年04期

6 周開容;;簡述新歷史主義文藝思潮[J];科技信息(學(xué)術(shù)研究);2008年23期

7 巫丹;;作為一種批評(píng)話語的新歷史主義[J];理論界;2009年11期

8 楊衛(wèi)民;文化解釋的魅力——評(píng)克利福德·格爾茲《文化的解釋》[J];民俗研究;2000年03期

9 徐榕;;解釋人類學(xué)述評(píng)——關(guān)于格爾茲的深描觀點(diǎn)[J];百色學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年04期

10 彭兆榮;;我者的他者性——人類學(xué)“寫文化”的方法問題[J];百色學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年05期

，

本文編號(hào)：1961482