价值之辩:1932年文艺自由论辩再解读  

A Reinterpretation of the Value of the 1932 Debate on Liberal Literature and Art

作　　者：姚玳玫[1] YAO Daimei

机构地区：[1]华南师范大学文学院,广州510006

出　　处：《华南师范大学学报（社会科学版）》2021年第1期175-183,208,共10页Journal of South China Normal University：Social Science Edition

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目“中国新文学评价体系建构实践研究(1928—1937)”(12BZW108)。

摘　　要：1931年底,新创刊的《文化评论》拒绝为国民党当局的“民族文艺运动”张目,提出“文学与艺术,至死也是自由的”。这一说法引起左翼阵营的反应,一场“自由是否为文艺之基本价值”的论争在“自由人”与左翼阵营之间展开。之后,“第三种人”介入,自称代表“作者之群”发言,请求论争双方给文学放一条生路。那是1930年代初期新文学发生价值转向之际的一场大辩论。论争几方各有道理,谁也说服不了谁。重读这段历史可发现,“文艺自由论”并非如后来教科书所说的败阵下来,而是略占上风,至少是平局。至此,新文学的多元格局真正形成。At the end of 1931,the new-born journal Culture Review refused to advocate“national literature and art”;instead it proposed that“literature and art are free unto death”.The debate on whether freedom was the basic value of literature arose between the“free man”and the left wing.Soon the so-called“the third type of person”joined the debate,claiming they spoke for“the group of authors”,asking both sides to spare the life of literature.The debate happened at the point of the value transition of the New Literature in 1930s,and neither side,with their respective arguments,could persuade the other.Rereading the process of this debate,it can be seen that the side of“liberal literature and art”was not defeated,as said in some textbooks narrative.In fact,it even had an upper hand for some time,or at least the debate ended in a tie.A careful reexamination of the debate is conducive to understanding the multiple structure of the new literature in the 1930s,the essential basis that each of the parties held for its argument and the later developments of the May 4th new literature tradition.

关 键 词：文艺自由 “第三种人” “作者之群” 

分 类 号：I206.6[文学—中国文学]