1979年前后，伴随“文革”结束，针对如何看待“十七年文艺”等问题，文艺界一度产生的共识开始破裂，出现了不同的意见和派别，以林默涵、刘白羽等为代表的一方坚持维护“十七年”开展文艺运动与批判的合法性被视作“保守派”或“偏左派”，而以周扬、陈荒煤、冯牧等为代表的一方则将“十七年文艺”所存在的问题定义为“左”的错误并试图推动正在进行中的“新时期文学”超越“十七年文艺”的主导框架则被视作“思想解放派”或“惜春派”。这场分歧表明：文学史书写的内容和对象并不是一个“客观存在”之物，同一段历史可以因为不同的评价标准和阐释框架而变得迥然相异。%In the literary and artistic circles, views and schools were divided on the ＂seventeen-year literature and art＂ along with the end of the ＂Cultural Revolution＂ around 1979. On one hand, scholars of one school represented by Lin Mohan and Liu Baiyu were considered ＂conservatives＂ or ＂pro-leftists＂ because of their persistence in vindicating the legitimacy of literary and artistic movements and criticism implemented during the ＂seventeen years＂ ; on the other hand, scholars of another school commissared by Zhou Yang, Chen Huangmei, Feng Mu, etc. were regarded as ＂liberal-minded scholars＂ or ＂progressives＂ because of their view on the ＂seventeen-year literature and art＂ as well as their attempt to promote the ongoing ＂literature of the new period＂ beyond the dominant framework of the ＂seventeen-year literature and art＂. As is shown by this ramification, the contents and objectives in the writing of literary history are not matters of ＂objective reality＂, for the history of one section can be rather disparate due to different evaluation criteria and elaboration frameworks.
展开▼
