RSS

#3 Terry Eagleton, After Theory - Spring 2010 - 筆譯研究方法專論

張貼者： NTNU GITI BLOG on 2010年2月22日 星期一
標籤：
#3 Terry Eagleton, After Theory

2 意見:

Unknown 提到...

這個禮拜閱讀Terry Eagleton所撰寫的《After Theory》之後，收到了李所長發給我們的郵件建議我們把這個禮拜的探討集中於第五和第六章，我發現在這兩章中Eagleton先生剛好提出了幾個我完全不能接受的論點。知道李所長要我們把此次探討集中於這兩章之後我就開始懷疑，是所長也不能接受這兩章的論點，還是她與Eagleton先生之心有戚戚焉。但無論如何，都一樣要請老師、同學們多多指教。接下來我要先講一下我從其它章節所得來的印象，再來回到第五章、第六章探討的主題。
在《After Theory》的前三個章節中，Eagleton先生解釋了在西方學術界「理論」的發展過程與興衰史。雖然他解釋得相當完整清楚，但這三章也很明顯充斥著Eagleton先生個人的一些偏見與隱秘意圖。也就是說，由於Eagleton先生自己的政治信仰、學術背景等等，他自然不太會為後殖民主義、後現代主義以及資本主義描繪出美麗的圖畫。實際上在《After Theory》的前三個章節中Eagleton先生不斷地聲稱大多數主張後殖民主義與後現代主義之學者都將事實看得過度主觀。況且，Eagleton先生也相當諷刺地指出，雖然支持後殖民主義與後現代主義之學者，都以反駁他們視之為「前代所支持的過度主觀的理論」作為創立這兩種當代理論的主要原則，但實際上他們在這方面的努力有些矯枉過正，反而偷雞不著蝕把米，之所以如此，乃在於這個原則把當代學者的眼光囿限於一個既狹窄又主觀的範疇之下。就我的觀點而言，Eagleton先生之所以對當代理論抱著質疑的態度，是因為他個人有馬克斯主義傾向。除此之外，雖然在第四章中Eagleton先生探討了當代理論的幾個優點，但在他談論當代理論的優點的內容當中，就出現了一些用以攻擊理論的隱秘意圖在。
Eagleton先生在《After Theory》之第五、第六章節中仔細地探究上述的難題，即是「objectivity」與「morality」。遺憾的是在這兩章中Eagleton先生所提出的主要討論方向並不客觀，是屬於「稻草人謬誤」型的論點。根據我個人的看法，最能削弱他的理論的是，他提出的例子都過於極端。因此最後總結出來的東西沒有用。對我來講，Eagleton先生想要反駁「相對主義」與支持「objectivity的可能性」這兩個例子的辯論方向是相當不合情理的。不過，雖然在這兩章中他提出了許多我不能接受的論點，但他也確實提出了很有趣的觀點。換而言之，這兩個禮拜閱讀Terry Eagleton所撰寫的《Literary Theory》與《After Theory》這兩本書之後，因為作者的幽默感相當挖苦人，以及兩本書的資料過於豐富，所以到目前為止我自己也搞不清楚，我是同意他的看法，還是不同意！應該說，這兩本書很值得再看幾遍吧。

2010年3月9日 上午10:14
charlotte wu 提到...

In this book, Terry Eagleton spent pages on discussing and discriminating modernism and postmodernism. It is interesting that he uses the dichotomy of ‘stable versus instable’ to distinguish the two paradigms. Following a similar stance with the previous book we have read last week, I think the core concept underpinning his argument is ‘value’. From the discussion of the rise and fall as well as loss and gains of theory to the elaboration of objectivity and morality, what Eagleton constantly points out in this book is that every belief, assertion, explanation or even culture is value-charged. One of his examples in the book is particularly intriguing. He said that we cannot and we don’t need to jump out of our skin to observe ourselves. As an individual as well as an observer within a certain culture, we are at the same time inside and outside of our culture/society. Therefore, our explanation of our lives is bound to be some kind of ‘judgments’ rather than the value-free, pure objective ‘descriptions’. I am very interested in this position of being inside and outside of a culture simultaneously. As translators, or researchers in translation studies, we are dealing with the ‘in-between’ position, not only in one culture, but also in two or several cultures, all the time. In this case, if our position between the cultures results from the values embedded in our culture, then what is important in translation studies is not to pinpoint the exact location of our stance, but to understand how and what forges a certain phenomenon/stance to take place in this very position.

Secondly, another issue that also interests me a lot is the slippery definition of culture mentioned in this book. Usually, when we are discussing issues related to a certain culture, we would talk about it as an unquestionable notion. However, what Eagleton manages to reveal in this book is that the term ‘culture’ as well as ‘truth’ are in fact something that varies across different communities and usages. I think this phenomenon is very close to Benveniste’s discussion on the pronoun ‘I’. For Benveniste, the pronoun ‘I’ is like an empty notion. It can only be fulfilled/meaningful when someone used it to distinguish the I/thou relationship in a particular discourse/situation of enunciation. For me this is very similar to our use of the term ‘culture’. Everyone can talk about culture, but the content of what they are talking about is never completely the same. The ‘culture’ of one’s own is meaningful only when compared with ‘other culture’. In this sense, I think culture is, to some degree, the extension of the I/thou relationship from the level of individual to the level of community. And what functions as the cohesive device within the community is the ‘intersubjectivity’, which provides the space for shared or similar viewpoints to exist and evolve within a certain community.

To sum, I think what Eagleton points out in the two books is the indecidable nature of literary theory (or all theories?). And as readers/observers, we need to be wary of this phenomenon. All in all, though I dare not say that I can fully understand what Eagleton is trying to convey in these two books, with his cold sarcasm, it is still an interesting journey in reading his books.

2010年3月9日 下午2:16

張貼留言