| Summary: | 博士 === 國立清華大學 === 中國文學系 === 95 === 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?
|
|---|
