Vol 6 “何为文学，如何为业”：美国英文系的前世今生
01:36:31 Share

Hello, everyone. I'm Dan Song. This is a cultural podcast of a program co-founded by Mr. Gao Fengfeng and me. In the sixth episode, we're going to talk about a book by a famous American scholar.

Gerald Graf's masterpiece, The Art of Literature. This book is a classic work of the history of American literary education. It can also be said to be a must-read book that describes the life of the English department. We are honored to have a guest today, Mr. Lee Hui. He is a famous author.

- -

It makes us think that it is a translation of Marx's "Learning as a Class" But in fact, his English "Professing Literature" is a very beautiful double-edged sword Because he said that he was talking about literature At the same time, it means that you are a professional, a professional person, a university professor You come to do this kind of literature education work

In addition, professing also represents a kind of public confession of faith. So it's really a very deep topic. Gerald Graff was born in 1937. He was educated at the Chicago University of Illinois. His doctorate was at Stanford University. His major was American literature. The first book, Professing Literature,

published in 1987. It was his second book. This book immediately aroused a huge reflection in the academic world.

Of course, there was a lot of controversy. Many people criticized him. Then in 1992, he released another book called Overcoming the Cultural War. The sub-title is very long. It probably means how to experience conflict in American literature. If the first book is a book about Paul, then the second book is about Lee. He also explained in detail how he taught some specific ideas of literature in the American English department.

So the book is very profound and humorous. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and deep language. It also has a deep and

Let's start with a chapter title, Humanism. Graf thinks there is such a kind of humanism, that is, in the history of English,

In such a golden age, in such a beautiful era of loss, our teachers, our students and literary books were once in a beautiful relationship of mutual understanding. We once had common love, common belief, but this tradition has been lost. So Graf proposed that in such a humanistic myth,

它其实有一个隐含的前提, 那就是文学可以讲授自身。 Literature teaches itself.

I remember some foreign scholars in Chinese literature also like to talk about this kind of myth. Maybe this origin is from the Chinese version, from the years of the Xinhang Dynasty. In that era, we had the best English teachers and students. In that era, we didn't practice the so-called theoretical words. We believed in the value of literary aesthetics.

We can establish a very good relationship with literature through reading the text. Let's have Mr. Gao talk about how you view the so-called "humanism" that Graf proposed. How do you see the belief that literature can teach itself? I noticed that this topic has appeared in different places. In the beginning, middle and the end of this book.

贯穿有关英国文学,英美文学如何讲授,然后理论如何运用,贯穿这个话题的一个生命力很强的一个持久的关怀。 有很多人会认为文学是不需要理论,文学是可以自己教授自己的。 换句话说,就是学生可以直面文学,也就是我们经常能够听到的,对吧?

我们要直接去读文学文本, 不要去过多依赖其他的一些辅助学科, 也不要去过多依赖一些理论的模型。 我发现这个提法吧,我非常感兴趣, 因为也是跟我们第一期播客讲那个博雅教育, 讲美国的那种 Librar's College, 讲那种...

读经典这种课程 那时候我们已经涉及到了这个话题 就是我们是不是有能力 直接没有任何准备的 直接就扑向这个文本 所以我看到格拉夫讲这个话题 我是非常感兴趣 然后我发现他是在不同的阶段 然后不同的背景下 这个提法总是会被人提到

Many people will come back to this statement in different historical periods. For example, a very obvious example is when people want to respond to the research that is too professional in literature. Especially in the late 19th century, many scholars emphasized the use of this language and literature in a scientific and rigorous way. If we don't listen to it, we use a more academic way, using this investigator method to study literary texts. When this

After the practice is too much, people will come up with counter-arguments. The way you study is not actually about literature. You treat literary texts as historical documents, as other subjects of literature. So they emphasize the importance of literature. Literature does not rely on these methods of literature, historical examinations, which can be presented directly. So in this kind of background, in anti-professionalization,

反这种书呆子学究器学院器的这种研究的浪潮下 人们往往会提到这样的说法 就是我们要所谓直面文学本身 我们不用通过绕那么多的弯路 我们可以直接来进入到文学 只要你足够真诚 只要你足够有情感足够的丰沛 你是可以不需要过多的所谓的学问 你是可以直接从文学作品当中读出人生的道理

So different historical situations will create such a need, and people will respond to such a claim. Another background is that in the late 19th century, when British and American literature became a subject,

Classics.

Only learning Latin and Greek is worth it. The university teaches classical literature and language training. There are also courses in theology, medicine, and law. But most of the time you spend in university is spent learning Greek and Latin. From this boring language training to gradually learning certain length of original texts,

So maybe before 1870, universities didn't teach English and American literature. There is a good example in this book. Because this book has a lot of memories of the 19th century, including some novels written by schools. So the material is very rich. It has a memory of a student in the 70s or 1880s in Yale. He said that in Yale, he didn't mention any English and American writer in class for four years.

We know that they were all classical writers. So at that time, British and American literature was not popular. It was national literature, not worth teaching in classrooms. Students spent a lot of money on it. And the most valuable and difficult subject to learn was Latin and Greek. This is very interesting. National literature was just a practice for people in the late 19th century. It was not a knowledge.

这个我印象非常深,他引了这个耶鲁的所谓的耶鲁 report 里面谈到的,他说希腊文、拉丁文这些古典文学是所谓的 unnecessary acquisition。

英国文学叫做 accomplishment 所以英美文学或者说本国文学是一个 accomplishment 而不是一个 necessary acquisition 大家如果查一下大的字典的话 会发现 acquisition 基本上就是说是 你获得了某种以前不知道的一种硬知识 比较稀有的宝贵的一个知识 然后 accomplishment 在十九世纪后半期的用法

它是一种锦上添花式的,然后给你增加你的社交能力,给你增加一些风采的,说的不好听一点,就像当时练这个击剑啊,跳舞一样的这种社会礼仪的这种,所以你这个英美文学或者说本国文学,在当事人看来是不需要费大力气去学校去学的。

你在家看看莎士比亚,看看米尔顿,读读英诗三百首,然后对吧,你社交场合引用一下,调个书袋呀,文人之间开个小玩笑啊,这就够了。

So this is not something you can learn from a book in class. It is a social communication skill, social skills, and a social grace. I think this is very interesting. I think this is also the reason why literature can interpret itself. People think that we need teachers to teach us. Because it's hard. We have to learn from language. But in our country's literature,

这个就课堂上是不会教的,然后这个你自己作为一个有教养的绅士或者淑女,你没事看一看,这个意思自然就很明白了。

So it's not necessary to use any great efforts to dig up what Shakespeare said. So I think he also mentioned some other examples, in other different historical periods, including the so-called great books that began to be popular in the later generations. In other historical periods, there will be people who refer to this more traditional saying, that is, literature is a kind of self-interpretation, that is, it can explain itself.

The other thing is that students don't need teachers to guide them.

Great literature doesn't require lectures. Students can learn by heart. You don't need any academic equipment. You can just go in and read. There's also a romantic effect. You can understand the soul. If you're sensitive, you can fully understand the great souls of the past.

文学不用教。

文学不是什么复杂的东西,大家都能懂。 所以我觉得这一点是对我们今天很有帮助的, 因为今天我们也会在不同的场合提到这样的理论, 或者我们会有这样的一种梦想, 对吧? 就是好像我们有一种纯真的时代, 我们可以不依靠理论或者不依靠学术吧, 用理论可能太狭窄了, 就我们不依靠学术,可以直接读解文本。

所以这个思想我发现是一个很源源流长的想法,而且在美国的高等教育当中,文学教育当中,不同阶段,

I think what Mr. Gao said just now reminded me of the title of his book. Professor Tan also mentioned the title "Professing". I am a professor of philosophy.

I noticed that Guillory wrote a book called "Professing Criticism" In his speech, he praised Graf and mentioned something that impressed me He said that the two words "studying" and "professing" are different and a very important difference Going back to the question of whether literature can explain itself

It's about how literature can be learned, or to be more in-depth, whether teaching literature can be standardized, or whether teaching literature can become a skillful thing in the professionalization of science. The book "Graph" has several historical stages. As I just said,

liberal arts

It's about becoming a person who is free in all aspects of mind, body, and ability. Education is the most fundamental thing. Later, I think there were changes in different times. Later, when it came to humanism,

这种怎么样去看文本,怎么样从文本中获得一些东西, 实际上在当时的背景是啊,

is a perspective that focuses on common knowledge and knowledge-based, and professionalism. It's a bit of a resistance. What I like about this book is that it gives us a rough idea of the major stages of American university and professor of literature.

From the 1828 Yalu Report to 1876, this is a literature called the Old School Era. Then from 1875 to 1915, around the time of the first war, it was called early professionalization.

Later, scholars and criticizers were divided into several stages. After 1965, the so-called theoretical development began. From the traditional focus on the text and the criticism, to the theoretical stage. He used the "Yilu Report" as the beginning. This is a symbolic example. As I mentioned, in the "Yilu Report",

Francis James Child

uh

The book also mentions that he was an outside offer, a foreign job. He changed the fate of English professors. He started to engage in literature and education. This shows the professionalization of the course itself. I think this is a key turning point.

On the one hand, he mentioned some of the events and time points of the transition. On the other hand, he also talked about English or English literature. From the beginning, it is actually a battle of different forces. He said that English literature as a profession, at the beginning of professionalization,

and actually face conflicts of various powers. These conflicts between different powers often show an old language, including the question of how to read the text. The text speaks for itself, or the text is read in detail. At different stages, it has different explanations.

In the early days, the so-called "no-name" of the text, there was actually a kind of discrimination against English literature. It was considered a bit too simple. Another thing is that it was impossible to take exams. If you put these aesthetic concepts into the classroom, the teacher himself would not have a way to find it.

There are many personal interests and prejudices involved in this. Compared to that, the teaching of Greek and Latin is different.

Then, he learned the language from Hegel and the German faction. He connected the language with education, personal psychology, and the development of self-esteem. He even connected it with the fate of a nation, the fate of a country, and the spirit of the times. Some American scholars were greatly influenced by this.

-

It's not that lively and interesting. But the Americans introduced it as a very advanced teaching method. So this group, they are very particular about methods. This group of people have such a conflict with traditional humanism. They have such a confrontation. Then later, like Arnold, they are saying that humanism, he actually has a

At the same time, it has a comprehensive intention here.

So this and later on, including what we have now, sometimes we want to have a return, a return to that kind of organic, a whole thing that connects the joints between the acupoints. I think there are some similarities, but they are different. So what we are talking about now is the acupoints. So like what Graf said, he experienced...

The need to fail to communicate.

We can't communicate with each other. It becomes a necessity. We have to maintain the stability of our own studies. This is getting worse and worse after professionalization. So we have to talk about the return.

-

He thinks that he has lost such a cultural capital, such a status. When the professor talks about this great book, the great books, he says that the purpose of reading these books is to let us students, through reading these extreme circumstances that reflect human beings,

I was deeply touched by this book.

This is, he did prove once again the tradition of invention that Hobbes Baum talked about. His historical technology, let us see that English is actually very late to appear. Although Niu Jing

已经 800 年,然后哈佛已经 400 多年。 但是英文系实际上是一个非常非常新的东西。 在这样一个很新的学术建制当中, 对于什么是文学,文学应该怎么教, 其实从一开始就有非常尖锐的对立性的分歧。 当我们在这样的一种人文主义的神话当中去探索,

谈论所谓文学可以自我讲授的时候, 其实它的在不同的历史时期, 就像格拉夫所告诉我们的那样, 它其实是不一样的, 在一个刚才高老师也聊过的, 这样一个古典旧式的大学时期, 它其实指的是十九世纪上半叶, 那个时候的大学, 因为那时候上大学的人也非常非常少, 对吧? 他们更看重的是古典的传统, 基本上,

里面讲了很多非常有细节的这样的个人化的讲述, 我觉得是这本书的一个非常好的一个看点。 就说到那个时候读哈佛,读耶鲁, 是吧,然后其实是,哇,那么的枯燥, 然后一半的时间基本上就用来去背诵, 也上河马史诗,但是基本上考核的方式就是背。

大家抓揪,上课的时候你被识行,他被识行,要么就是翻译,要么就是到讲台来默写,而其他的同学要么在听,要么就在睡觉。 为什么在这样的时代,即使是古典文学,也不会放到课堂上来讲? 那是因为他们带有一种非常奇特的一个观念。 这个是我看这本书才发现所谓的一种语言的本质主义。

或者说是一种浪漫主义的语言观。 他就相信说,要想去通往那些

古代圣者那些最高贵的西方文化的源头。 你先不要去奢谈文学, 你先得把语言学好。 那语言是一个非常必要而艰苦的训练, 他用了一个词叫 mental discipline, 这是他里面一个非常重要的一个词, 我应该叫什么呢, 叫智力归训或者是训练, 他就认为说在大学阶段学功,

哭躁刻板的这个拉丁文希腊文的这些语法这些变革是一种必须是一种这个老其心智饿其体肤然后是这样一种对男人的啊这样一种智力的早期的必要的训练你只有 survive 了这个过程你才能够进入到下一个

This is their concept of language. In this concept, the concept of fundamentalism, of course, literary works are classic works. Of course, it's not time to read them. Those modern works, they will feel that they have no value to read. It's just a work of fiction. If you talk to some female students in some lectures about some poets, about their works,

they would think it's like a mess. This is a very feminine thing. So in the 19th century, when we talk about literature being able to talk about itself, it's not that literature is not important, but that you can do some more important priority things, which is to learn those hard classical languages. And in the upper half of the 20th century, when we talk about literature being able to talk about itself,

他并没有说不用在我们的课堂里面去读文学,去讲文学。 他的一个前提是,我们可以发展出一种所谓的

It's called "Practical Criticism". It's a very practical and effective method. Everyone can learn it. After World War I, so many veterans could pass the law and enter the university. The university's admission rate and the number of students increased. These people were learning literature,

American and British literature, they no longer use cultural leaders and elites to make their own decisions.

新批评其实就在这个时候就出现了。 新批评讲到文本,回到文本的时候, 它的意思实际上是说, 我可以给你一种非常科学的, 易于上手的解读和阐释文本意义的一个方法。 不管你是贵族还是平民, 学了我这套比如说理解诗歌, 这样的一个教材, 那么将来文学就可以自我讲授。

你离开这个课堂之后,你就可以在不需要再涉足那些艰深的语文学、语法或者是历史考据的情况下,你就可以直面文学文本,你就可以去通达文学文本。

文学那些美好的这样的一种体验。 文学可以自我讲授, 它确实是在不同的历史阶段, 有着不同的意志, 然后又有着一个非常不一样的实践。 我觉得在看格拉夫的这些描述的时候, 我们也更加的清楚说, 其实没有一个美好的黄金时代的过去, 真正的存在于历史的那个源头。

其实从一开始一切就是 miss making 那这也相当于给我们浇了一盆冷水 因为我们自己在尤其是现在去从事文学教育的时候 尤其是在 21 世纪 我们谈的最多的一个词就是

The death of theory. You see, the theory of literature, especially the structure, the post-structure, and all kinds of ideas, suddenly became out of fashion. Suddenly it's out of fashion. At this time, many teachers will say, let's go back to aesthetic, let's go back to literature.

But in fact, such a process of return, such a process of returning to the original intention of literature, actually requires

仔细地放在历史的棱镜下去审视的,并没有一个真正的原点。 我的感觉也是这样,就是看完这本书以后,首先它引用材料非常非常多,所以我非常强烈的建议大家看英文,因为它里面很多的原始材料,比如说大学十九世纪,

二十世纪初大学的教学大纲,然后在杂志上发表的有关教授英语文学理念的一些文章,个人的回忆录,有些宣言,本身引用的这些历史文献,英文非常讲究,大家可以从里面体会出,

整个学科的发展,我感觉跟大老师一样,这个学科实际上是一个非常新的学科,我们可能认为文学研究好像是古意有之。

但实际上是以现代的方法和态度来看待文学,并且在大学这样一个体制内讲授,这个是一个非常新的事情。 刚才谈到过,好像是哈佛正式建立英文系吧,就是英法德义这些现代语言系,在哈佛也才是 187 几年,所以就非常非常晚了。

This broke some of our, at least my, ideas. I think literature has been continuously speaking in a way that is similar to what we are doing now. In fact, it is not like that. And it includes our understanding of the concept of literature is very different. It mentions that before the 16th century, literature was basically a public language.

It's a kind of practice of vocabulary. It talks about many places, such as the American University's literary club, the Biennial Club, the lecture club. This is actually a great role in the student groups of our country's literature.

英文文学

它的影响力是在课堂之外,就造成了我们对于本国文学,就是所谓的英美文学的理解,是非常有别于现当代吧,就是在哈佛耶鲁这样的学校里面正式教英国文学。 所以这是完全两种不一样的状态。 刚才我们继续,如果我们继续谈那个,就文学可以教自己,文学可以自我解释这个,里面也谈到了,书里面也谈到了,就是很多教授最后有一个妥协,

优美的诗歌。 但是呢,到研究生的课上我就比较严谨了,对吧,我就不能像

本科生那样生情并茂的 那么投入的去教学 那我就要讲一些比较深入的 就是学术啊 学科啊 学术规范啊 学术方法啊 就这种本言的分裂

I feel very strongly about it. If I were to give a book to a student in a certain way, I would automatically avoid this method when I was a student. I would adopt a more academic or research-oriented way of enjoying it. There are some parts of this book that talk about

So I feel that there are many confusions that I have encountered, including how to understand a text, how we study a text, whether the author's intention is important, the relationship between literature and other subjects. Many topics that I am interested in in this book, I find that some people have mentioned me in various places. So I think this book seems to be

-

Yes, the mark is really...

-

He thought that only through reading, reading in a way, could you understand the mode of reading in a way. Later, this slowly became a branch of the school. It became another major of the school. Including Harvard. Harvard set up the literature and writing, reading and writing, they were separated. After being separated, the writing gradually

There are practical things, and then there are creative writing and other things. So, looking at the methods that we tried in the past, and the tools, it will gradually develop into something that is separated from literature. Another question is, just now, you mentioned

We've been talking about how society is changing. In fact, many social needs, I don't think it's in a vacuum. It's always interacting with social needs. Early classical teaching, a lot of it was to train the people of God. So it has a lot of things about the morality of God, some of the relevant materials, some of the training in it.

Although there are some references to ancient fairy tales, such as He Xilai Luo, they are now emphasizing classical literature from the perspective of literature. The development of populism in the field of literature, the promotion of elite education,

The rise of the middle class, the rise of the middle class in the Vidolia era, and the rise of the new and advanced academic fields, from the rise of the new to the fall of the old, all of these things are mentioned in the book. It's about democratization, the process of democratization. The so-called democratization is about adapting and growing up.

然后你这个需要的人多了 那么有人说这是这个精英阶层 对于这个新兴的这个 美国新兴的什么工业阶级的这么一个阴谋 就是说把他们的一些价值观念 通过这种教育 然后让他们让这个劳工阶层好接收 然后怎么怎么样通知化

But Graf also made a counter-argument. He said it's not really like that. Another point is that literature as a subject and reality politics, or let's say reality society, but politics is a little bit broader.

How do you interact with each other in the middle? The so-called sense of participation in literature. I remember that in the previous program, Professor Gao, Martin Amis' "The Battle of the Lame Lair" mentioned the democratization of literature.

The problem of the decrease in reading ability. Or that everyone can make an explanation, and everyone thinks that their explanation is reasonable. This is actually a very troublesome thing. Grafta's narrative of the American University English system history,

-

某种外部因素的影响和它内部的一些观念或者是方法论证明然后互动的这样一个结果, 他也试图去做一些比较均衡的这样的一种论述。 我记得他在这本书当中写过一句非常漂亮的话, 他说美国大学从来都不是按照罗格斯中心主义的原则来建构的,

美国的大学本身就是结构主义者。 然后他又讲说, 文学研究它不是意识形态和社会控制的工具, 如果它是的话, 那它也是一个效率极低的东西。 所以他当然是不主张在真空当中去看文学或者是文学研究, 但是他同时又在另外一方面告诉我, 整个的英文系的发展, 对文学理念, 对文学教育的这样一些不一样,

看法的这样的一些变化,又不完全是由社会来决定的。 就这个议题,这个议程,从这个角度上来讲, 这样的一种学科的分裂,学科的这种各自为战, 或者用它的一个概念叫模式化孤立, 那其实是有利也有弊的。 就这个是一个非常非常辩证的东西, 我们又不得不佩服它,

其实并没有得到真正的清理。

很多的学者也好,教育者也好,他其实是相信这样的一种宿命论。

Every time when a new school has a change or a crossroads, we can easily imagine a sad song of a new school. It's a sad narrative. The country is not a country, the play is not a play. The great literature tradition has fallen. The English play can no longer survive.

In modern narrative and popular literature, there are many descriptions of the "science" and "science" in the text. Some articles talk about the decline of humanities, the end of the English department, and recently there was a hot American drama called "The Director of the English Department". It's very ironic, but it deeply embodies the history of the modern

美国英文系的建制当中这样的一种分裂啊是如何尴尬的存在于这个教学的活动当中啊 你永远都能看到一个戏里面有会有一些白发苍苍的一些老学者啊然后

文艺复兴人

连五千行诗都背不下来,有什么资格去妄谈米尔顿,然后总觉得这样的一些年轻的学者们,他们总有一种自命不凡的这样的一种态度,他们以为他们可以去用理论去暴力的去拆解文学的大厦。

There is another novel that I think you may have heard of. Of course, this book is relatively old, but it is the latest one that has suddenly become popular. It's Stoneman. Stoneman is a novel written by John Williams. In fact, he wrote it in the 1960s, but there has been no market. Recently, this one was reissued. Wow, it feels like he is very close to such an era.

这样的一种 sentiment 大家都觉得斯通纳这样一个老派的英文系教授的一生 就是特别具有一种悲壮性 悲剧性 他从一个农民孩子的苦出生 然后一直认为文学可以给他最好的一种精神的救赎 然后去写论文 然后去写书 然后认认真真地教学

In the 1950s and 1960s, the society changed. The atmosphere changed. In his doctoral thesis, there were students

He could not read the work, but he could discuss the author. And he was very honest. Then he gave him some tests. He found that his literary common sense, his literary childlike skills, were almost unsuitable. In the end, of course, because of this, he offended the director of the department, offended the teacher of the student. In the end, he had a lot of sad things happen. In the end, it was a kind of death, a kind of death.

然后告别了这个世界。 所以我确实想问两位啊, 就是看完这本书之后, 对这样一种学科悲歌的这种叙事, 你们有了些新的想法吗? 要不李辉先来。

I have a lot of ideas. First of all, I saw a material about William Starr. He retired in 1985 and was interviewed. He complained to the reporters that the method of teaching literature and the attitude towards literature had changed.

原话是说好像一部小说或者一首诗是某种要去研习,要去理解而不是去体验的东西。

This is very old-fashioned and quite touching. From my perspective, I think the study and understanding of the practice is very important. Especially for newcomers, if there are no different views, you may not understand the text. But the experience is very important.

In the novel, I think there are some interesting details in the beginning and the end. It also reflects his understanding of literature, how he liked literature. As a farmer, his father let him learn agriculture. After he learned it, he felt that he could not understand what his teacher taught him in the first class.

When he couldn't understand it, he would think that he had never encountered such a situation. But when he was in a situation where he couldn't understand the so-called "sensitivity", he would go to his teacher and have a successful communication with her. Then he would continue to study. This is very similar to the feeling he had when he first met his wife when he was getting married.

两人见面见面好像没什么话说,突然之间大太太就好像自顾自的就说开了,她说有句话说她那个时候她感觉到她是一个斯多纳觉得对面坐的这个女孩是和自己这个完全不一样的人。

He thought he was in love. This is what his teacher asked him when he was learning to improve his grades. Ask him what do you think about literature? What do you want to do in the future? What are you going to do with literature? How do you plan in the future?

He said, "I didn't think of anything." Then the teacher, looking at his understanding of literature, and the speed at which the grades are improved, the teacher said to him, "Then this is love." He actually used the word "love" to explain it. Including when the novel ended, when it was about to end, he looked at the students passing by the campus, and picked up a book that he had read before. He said, "This book

可能没有人看,没有人在乎了,但是他自己曾经留下了这么一个印记的东西,大概是这个意思吧。 我想这就是这个老派学者的这么一个非常非常典型,那么这些东西在现在这个情况下是不是好事? 现在比如说刚才讲到这个问题,就是说这个学生,

Students are actually quite anxious, they are trying to find out whether to be as strict as they are to expose the truth. In fact, for modern schools, to be honest, it is a question of moral testing. I also want to talk about another book, a bit later, a bit closer, it is Philip Ross's Human Stein, a humanistic stain. It also mentions a teacher who teaches literature.

It was directed by Coleman Silk, and later turned into a movie starring Nicole Kidman and Anthony Hopkins. It also involved two students who were late for class. Two students were late, and Silk made a joke about it. He said, "I've been in class for five weeks, but I haven't been here." On the sixth week, he couldn't help asking, "Do you know these two people?"

They said, "Do they exist or not?" Or, "Are they called spooks?" The word "spooks" is a ghost. But it was suddenly broken. This is not correct. Because the word "spooks" used to describe this very insulting word that insults the black people. After he used this word, the students sued him.

This is his way of life. But before that, Silk was a very suitable student in the modern academic system. He promoted teaching reform and recruited some new teachers. He was a very adaptable person. But he still had this accident.

Of course, this novel hides a foreshadowing here. People say he is a racial discrimination. In fact, he is a black man. He says he is a Jew. He uses the identity of a Jew to cover up his identity as a black man. These things we see, racial issues, and these literary issues, social issues, they are actually entangled together.

But whether it's Stoneman or Silk from The Human Heart, I think in the end, the one who really saved them was literature. Both of them showed a very strong spirit of classicalism. The kind of academic training they received

When they are in a dilemma or in a dilemma, they all play a role of salvation. This goes back to the question of literature. What role does it play? For individuals, whether they are entrepreneurs or students,

Yes.

二十世纪初的时候非常有名的文学教授讲到,就是主张这种文学是一种美学体验,个人化体验,以对抗专业化的学术分析的这样一派人经常会说这样的话,就是文学是用来体验的,不是用来分析的。

This is obviously taking literature as a personal experience. But this personal experience is meaningful to individuals. But if it is put in a university system, its meaning will be severely weakened. Because you can't let a thousand students have the experience they want. Or a thousand students may have many kinds of experiences. This cannot be standardized, cannot be tested, and cannot be evaluated.

这种纯粹私人的美学体验 对于这个体制来说呢 是一个把桌不定的 你没法给它数量化 没法给它分数化

So, I feel that when we... Because I think this book, this book by Professor Literature, has brought me a lot of inspiration. Many of what we think is a matter of thought. In fact, its ultimate reason may be related to the system or the establishment. We easily put some...

现象或者观点理解为一种思想观点的互相影响互相生发,但实际上最后可能会归结到制度本身它产生出的一系列的反应。

So studying this system is a very good supplement to the study of "only relying on thought". For example, the book repeatedly mentions and quotes many of the words of the former scholars, which emphasize that literature seems to be a kind of personal salvation. Or that literature is a kind of discourse that has to have a connection with social ethics, and cannot be regarded as a kind of pure technicality,

科学实验的样本来分析,跟现实生活完全切断。 这个是那些所谓的 generalists,或者像白毕德这种新人文主义所反对的, 就他们希望文学必须跟人生,跟社会有很深切的关联, 就文学研究要有一种高远的社会理想。

而不是那种纯科学的那种严谨,那种 disinterestedness, 这是他们新人文主义也好,还有那些 generalists 都是非常反对的。

但同样这样的一些想法呢,实际上是跟高等教育这个体制是相悖的,因为大学教育,我再强调一下,如果我们把文学当作一门课程,当作一个学科在大学里面公开持久的,而且面对越来越大的学术和学生人群来讲授,还有考试,还要算各种成绩,

When we consider cultural education as a systematized phenomenon to be examined, we can't really talk about personal salvation or personal experience. Because it is an industry, and the industry will have its own needs and requirements. For example, it hopes that the industry will always remain in a certain state. So this will create conflicts with some of the thoughts we are willing to accept.

但是回到斯多那小说本身,让我比较感兴趣的就是他跟学生在口诗的时候发生的冲突,刚才戴老师也讲到了。 我觉得他写的那个事件应该是三十年代吧,但是我感觉到这种现象可能就是一个现在也经常能够看到的那种。

夸夸其谈的学生或者说夸夸其谈的老师 你给他一个话题 他可以用他娴熟的这种学术话语 编织成这种修辞的这种理论的景段 和漂亮华丽的景段 但是他 你问他一些最基本的问题 他完全都答不上来 主人公问那个学生 他说我问你一些最基本的问题 最后一个最基本的问题说 你告诉我三部中世纪戏剧的名字

He couldn't answer this question. It's not a teacher who is making a mess of him. It's a PhD student who is a romanticist. He couldn't even mention the names of three important British writers or works. This is too much. This scene is quite impressive. Because I think this is also... There will be such a conflict in every era. It's this kind of...

非常有潮流, 非常会用当时流行话语, 但是功底很不扎实的, 夸夸其谈的这样的人, 和一个所谓的带引号的老派, 注重这种学术的严谨和所谓的 integrity, 这样的冲突,

其实也不是一个很新的东西,就在小说当中写的是三十年代,然后在这个 Professor Literary 当中讲到就是可能 1890 年代不是完全一样的例子,但是大概也会有类似的现象出现,就是这种两种话语或者两种对文学的观念的研究方法的冲撞,一种就是把文学研究当作一种纯粹的科学研究,

强调的是技术性,专业性,以及这种非个人性。 另外一种就是要强调社会关怀,强调个人体验, 强调文学对个人跟社会的作用, 会强调这些思想,文化。 所以这两派,他好像就是从很早以前就在打。 然后这样的一种战争会持续到, 可能每一个阶段都会再现这样的战争,只不过是...

穿上了不同的衣服 就是不同时代的不同的服装 但这个就是一种专业的 所谓专业的研究 和这种带有人情味和社会关怀的研究 好像在每一个时代都会有这样的冲撞 包括他一开始 刚才李辉谈到的 就是他开窍的那个 就是他上课老师给他读

沙士比亚的一首十字行诗,让他说点什么,他就说完全不知道怎么说,然后老师跟他说,他说沙士比亚三百年前,穿过三百年对你说话你都没听见吗? 他也回答不上来,但是我真想替他回答,说我就是没有听见,因为穿越了三百年的声音,我没有任何准备的情况下我是听不见的。

I am deeply impressed by such details. Recently, I attended some meetings of domestic English majors. I felt that everyone was in a general, depressed mood. Many people are worried about the development of such a school. It is very similar to the situation abroad. But the reason is different. For example, those who study languages

The number of students who are enrolled is extremely declining. For the West, it may be because of the financial crisis in 2008, there are fewer and fewer students studying human resources. There is also less and less investment in high school funds. When you study in college, you have to consider the cost of opportunities. Everyone will go to learn the kind of STEM professional.

没有人再会把时间花在英文系去学一些精致的文本的阐释的方法。 中国其实也是一样的,就如果说人才就业市场面临着非常大的这种内卷,然后这种人与人的这种竞争的,很多学生当然也不会考虑去读日文学科了。

又不会去再像以前一样愿意去读英语专业。 我倒觉得看了格拉夫的这本书以后, 这种焦虑的心情其实可以稍微的释怀一下, 就像太阳底下没有新鲜事一样, 英文系从历史的角度上来看也没有什么新鲜事。

老派学者和新的学者这样的一种冲突,社会与校园的这种不同的这种冲突,对于文学到底是应该更加强调社会因素,还是应该更加回归文本,这样的一些讨论其实严绵不绝,那么不管是哪一种主义,

而英文系其实就作为他的这样的一个学科建制, 他又和其他的一些更加硬的学科,

又不一样。 因为很多比如说历史啊,物理啊,哲学啊, 它会有一些非常就是说基本的学科的层面的原语言的共识。 但是呢,文学专业,英语专业, 甚至包括一些其他的现代语言,其他的语言专业, 它从一开始它就是基于一种分歧, 它就没有一个一个一个 consensus, 一种共同的信仰,共同的知识作为出发点,对吧?

从一开始那些语文学家和那些人文学者和那些通才学者,他们对文学是干什么的,什么是文学,文学跟语言,文学跟社会,他们从一开始,

尿不到一壶里,坐不到一桌上吃饭。 那现在来说更是如此。 所以时代在变化,时代的需要在变化。 我们在这本书当中其实特别深刻地看到了两次世界大战, 就是最大的危机,对于整个的英语文学批评方法的巨大的影响。

I was really shocked when he mentioned a detail. He said that in the 1930s, the so-called new critic

美国大学是很受欢迎的。 尤其是那些主张进步的观念, 或者是马克思主义, 用马克思主义的这种进步的史观, 来去评价美国当时的文学作品。 那时候美国会有一些什么叫新群众啊, 这样的一些非常左翼的这样的一些刊物。 那个时候美国英文系里面, 几乎正派一点的学者都是左派。 可是呢,

As Hitler and Stalin signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities in 1939, the relationship between literature and politics was easily replaced by the belief of this relationship.

Many left-wing scholars have turned right. At the same time, in this context, there has long been a new criticism from the south. It has become a kind of show. Especially after the Second World War in the 40s and 50s, the new criticism method, the new criticism claim, the new criticism superlative has become a new kind of orthodoxy. They used to be the most rebellious, the most marginal. Now it has become a new orthodoxy. So I think

to the point where we can have this kind of confidence or belief. The speciality of literature and science, the resilience of English from history, may decide that we will not go to the end. We will only achieve a new compromise in the new era and history. And the differences will still exist.

and different crises will play out. But the thing of teaching literature will continue to exist. I think this is a positive message that I have received. Indeed. As the president of Northwestern University, Roger, mentioned in his book, in 1891,

The old truth and the new environment of modern life are not compatible. He was a reformist. Until now, the academic and professional approach in the humanities is not stable.

or the ancient truths contained in literature, both ancient and new truths, and how to coordinate them with the new environment of modern life. In fact, this is a topic that has been reappearing, an old topic, and a new topic. In this book, Garaff, he has proposed a very clear principle from the beginning to the end. He actually said that

也不是说要骑墙或者是这个

嗯,就是左右逢源的然后摇摆,它有一个很鲜明的立场。 这个鲜明的立场是什么呢? 就是第一,仅仅讲述文学文本是肯定不够的。 我们还必须要讲授文化文本,这是它的原话。 我们要去教授这种叫 cultural text。 第二个也是它最最重要的一个概念,一个策略就是说要在

美国的英语课堂上,文学课堂上, 我们要去讲授冲突,teaching conflicts, 那么这样的一个想法, 当然是基于一种类似巴赫金式的这种对话主义, 或者是哈贝马斯, 他也有这样的一些相关的论述交往对话的理性, 然后我们必须要在一个大学这样的一个公共空间当中, 我们要基于某种各自的,

We are not seeking a complete consensus, but we still need to talk about it. We still need to expose this kind of discrimination, put it in a dialogue, and then discuss it. We can pursue a kind of "different and different"

So in the course design, in his follow-up books, Graf seems to be particularly interested in literary teaching. Many of his books were written from the practice of teaching. He would share how he taught Conrad's Dark Heart. The traditional way of teaching is that in American universities today, because he might have different

模式化的孤立,它肯定有不一样的地方。 你如果在一个所谓黑人文学, 族裔文学的这样的一个 program 里面去选课, 一个旗帜鲜明的文化研究的族裔文学,

然后对他巴拉巴拉进行一个批判,是吧?

If it is in an old-fashioned English professor's class, he will analyze the meaning and rhythm of his literature, and the connection between his work and other important British and American literature, and emphasize internal analysis.

According to Graf's design, we can't let students be in a kind of... It's like you go to a tent and you follow his way of reading literature and understanding literature. Instead, we should break down the system of the academic field that is fighting for one's own self.

Of course, it doesn't mean that there will be no such professionalization in the future. There will be no such so-called discipline. But in the course design, it emphasizes a kind of academic method, academic vision. Such a kind of fusion of old-fashioned scholars and new-fashioned scholars can be put together. Then the analysis in this is placed on the table. Let students...

能够看到他们的老师在一些最根本的关于文学研究的问题上, 其实从来就没有达到共识, 其实从来都是相互抵触的,相互争鸣的,相互商榷的, 让学生在这样一种教育当中, 关于这种冲突的教育当中, 更好地去吸得文学与社会的这样一些意义, 或者是这种关联。 所以他把这种所谓的讲授冲突,

作为一个药方开出来了 认为他可以去超越校园里面 美国大学校园身份政治 或者是政治正确的这种狭隘性 是吧 然后呢 也用他的话说 可以去超越文化战争 因为他这本书出来的时候 其实就是文化战争 芳心慰哀的时候 我的其实一个问题就是说 讲授冲突

Is it possible? If it is possible to talk about conflict, if you want to realize a vision like Garaff, how should you do it? In which places is it possible that it will not have the effect it expected? Because he proposed this earlier, in the 90s and 80s, from the development of American universities now, it obviously did not follow his design. Modern American universities

It's even more divided. A while ago, we were discussing the 8 billion issue in the United States. There were many conflicts between students. You can see that the political status is deepening. Many students and teachers in the university are in a situation

减防当中,然后彼此不对话,彼此将对方妖魔化,他者化,似乎讲授冲突这个方案,很美好的方案,在美国其实并没有落地,并没有很好的去实践下去。 那么我就是觉得说我们作为文学教育,讲授文学的创业者,怎么看待他开出的这样一个美好的教学的策略,这样一个方法。

I haven't read the book you just mentioned. But I understand what you mean. I don't think it's possible, at least not in the US. If you want to talk about conflict, you need someone willing to talk about it. People who are more closed and stubborn don't even have time to say what they want to say.

它没有机会,它也没有这种意愿去讲述跟它的观点根本对立的那些观点。 讲述冲突的是一种美好的愿景,只适用于那些比较宽容的人。 也就是说我愿意听

I read Professor Lewis's book.

感触比较深的问题 很多问题是需要在体制的框架当中去理解 因为在大学当中讲授文学 把文学当作一种产业 这样的一种体制受益者是那些不追求真理 我不以探寻事物的究竟为我的根本的学术目标 这样的体制它鼓励 它纵容的是那些所谓的机会主义者和那种

careerists

自己对手的观点 对于很多人来说 这是一种得不偿失的事情 这是一种非常愚蠢的一个事情

所以这个事情我觉得只是于那些把大学的教育当作一种就是抛出个人的私利和杂念, 或者有一种追求事物真相的勇气和愿望。 对于这样的人来说呢,讲述冲突是他们肯定会主动愿意采用的一种方式, 因为让学生能够读更多东西嘛。

-

Only the decent ones can do it. Most of the people in the small and medium-sized airports know the benefits of this, but they don't do it. Because doing this is not beneficial to themselves. The system will be in charge or willing to promote and promote people who are reasonable in this system. But these people won't

估计不会在乎公平,也不会在乎真理,也不会在意对手观点是否真的是不是有一些道理,这就是我

- -

In fact, even the rules of this system are set by opportunists. So they will inevitably take various tests and develop them in a positive way for them or their kind. This is an instinctive choice and tendency. I remember reading a very early article by Li Lin, which was called "University is not a chicken farm".

Now it's not only a farm, but also a gang of chicken thieves. There's nothing you can do about it. It will always happen. Including the conflict just now. In fact, the conflict of graph design is to show the opinions of all parties. Even if you don't accept it now, at least you see that someone has a different view of you. But now we also see that in the academic world, it may be more obvious in foreign countries.

He took the so-called opportunism and conflict as a chance to show that he was talking about conflict and giving you a question. He didn't tell you that he was actually showing his strong one-sided stance.

uh

and what he actually learned and what he gained from it. I think it's pretty clear. Back to what Gough said, he mentioned a little bit about the concept of a club.

But his club, I think it's a little bit like the 19th century American university's literary clubs. It has some impressions. It has a certain... The public opinion in the 19th century may be stronger. But there is a point that the club emphasizes a debate. Debate is a basis. In addition, Graft pointed out that the club was relatively successful at the time. There was this...

-

So what Mr. Gao just said, whether it is in China or abroad, if we want to show conflict, and then to make some positive thoughts and thoughts from the conflict, and then to gain something, and then to pursue truthfulness, to seek goodness, that is, we are talking about the basic value of human beings,

then it still needs to have a so-called social cohesion. That is, you have to have a group of people who are in harmony with each other to be able to stick together, whether it's a teacher or a student. So what is the so-called common interest in the middle? It may be, it may be abstract. Of course, there will definitely be some real things like this.

So even though Graft's design is a bit idealistic, I think he can still be seen as a good example. Of course, he also mentioned some other things. I think the design line itself is also a bit contradictory. In addition to what we said earlier, will the opportunistic person

One is tolerance, one is good at using this so-called club or such a debate, such a place where different opinions meet. Another point is that this kind of modern university education itself, as Graf said, is that school education is to carry out a positive culture.

然后是要往民主化的教育上去发展的。 那我们回到这个 Club 最早的意思上来说, 它就是说这个志同道合, 它实际上也是有一个选择性的, 从这种自信上,从人类品性上, 那么这种选择性本身到底是哪一种性质的, 这个还真不好说, 过去好像是,

I always feel that this is a kind of elite culture. In today's education system, it's obviously a bit out of order. It's a bit out of order. Although we often say that we are blessed by the world's talents, there is a hidden premise in it. But from our perspective, people may think that this so-called elite education is not in line with the current education system.

But on the other hand, we are talking about this kind of selective, independent selective and this kind of system-based design, including this specific one, which is English or our literary selective, it seems to be not, it still has a threshold.

What is the nature of this threshold? We don't know. But I think there should be a choice. In this respect, I think it's not optimistic, but it's optimistic. Because from the practical experience, there is still a passion for literature. And not only can we get some direct personal income from literature, but also some basic training in literature.

can be applied to other fields. From this point of view, I think there is still an optimistic component in it. From a rational point of view, if we make a conclusion, if the current academic establishment does exist in the problems described by Graf just now, then the solution that best fits the situation is of course the conflict between professors.

Because as he has been proving, every new method of teaching English or theory comes into play. It's actually all about

前一种主导方法的解读剂的姿态出现。 对吧? 你之前太注重历史,机械的历史, 时政主义,那么 OK,我们新批评出来了, 我们去主张文学的自主性。 可是一旦你文学的自主性, 文学的文本的细读做得过于精致的时候, 那么又会有一种新的方法论登场。

告诉你你这个地方是有问题。 我们其实也能够隐约感觉到, 在现在的文学教育, 文学研究的这样一个体制当中, 不同的阵营,然后不同的这些流派方法, 那么他们其实是,

彼此的解读剂。 新批评,你如果对另一种历史主义的方法你是解读剂的话, 那么历史的这样的一些研究, 它其实同样依然还是新批评的解读剂。 每一种文学方法,每一种讲授文学的理念或者是套路, 它一旦在这个体制当中落地生根,

它都会变成一种类似于自动驾驶的一种模式。 它都会倾向于反复的论证自己的正确性。

So, Graf has a very good saying. He said that every production model should have its own braking method. If the text is too much, you have to brake. If history is too much, if society is too much, if technology and language are too much, we all need to rely on different people in our studies to brake for us.

如果不刹车的话,那么我们必然就会走向我们的反面。 新批评也是这样啊,它里面对新批评的批评我觉得是最精彩。 它觉得新批评这帮人,那么他们反复的论证诗歌当中存在着一种所谓的有机的整体, 是吧,所谓存在着一种张力,诗歌当中的这种好处。

Korean is the highest aesthetic quality. Everything that was not explained before can be put into a so-called "backup theory" or "stamina". It can be perfectly explained. But here comes the problem. You analyze all the beautiful poems in this new way of criticism. The conclusion is almost the same.

Right? Okay, so as a interpretive system, there is a kind of post-construction, such a kind of

He would say, like Paul Rudd, he would not say that all the works of the poet have a kind of tension or a kind of organic whole. He said there is no such thing, there is no real stable meaning in this place. All the poems, all the expressions, in the end, they are just a kind of expression of his failure.

This is a major point of view in his reading of the prophecy. But this is on the surface for Xin Piping to interpret. But once you follow this method, it becomes a very formulaic one. If the routine is, then

All literary works can be destroyed by a very dark, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very

也需要刹车。 可是格拉夫最后的几页, 我觉得他其实也感觉到了自己这种 讲授冲突的这个问题所在, 因为有人去批评他。 因为你一旦去讲授这种冲突的话, 你实际上相当于是一种自虐, 就是你不只是刹车了, 是吧? 你把你最认为经典正确的观念的前设,

放到一个麻烦当中,然后去对它进行重新的检视。 没有人从正常的生物的角度上来讲,是吧,愿意去自虐, 愿意去反复地让自己,这个对自己对自己施虐,是吧, 把自己相信的那一套东西,然后将它打破。 所以这个我觉得是它的一个很难去克服的东西。

它最后呢,如果可以实践,很容易就是变成一种虚假的。

冲突的讲述,就是你把各个派别,各个理论,是吧,然后就像一桌自助餐一样,你就全部摆出来,这是女性主义,这是后马克思主义,然后这个是后殖民,然后各取所需,你看我记这一课讲这个,下这一课讲那个,你们自己学生你们自己去决定,但这个其实我觉得不一样。

并不是格拉夫所期待的那种 讲授冲突的方式 真正的讲授冲突的方式 要能够接受自我观念 这种合理性的被瓦解的那种 那这就更难了 我觉得就比我刚才想象的

想象的还要难,因为很多人哪怕能够讲述冲突, 他也是带着就是以讲述冲突的目的是为了重新证明自己是正确的, 对吧,在更高的层面上博导对手,重新说明自己是正确的, 但真正敢于讲述冲突的人得是那种能够承受自己的观点被粉碎的这样的人, 你有这样的勇气才能真实给每一个观点,给他这种,

I think it's not normal for people to bear the consequences of a self-destructive suicide.

It is not the same as writing literature or writing books. In literature, it is emphasized that positive negation is established because it can constantly interpret. It itself is to call the interpreter. And this interpretation itself, if you call your own interpreter, it is a little bit like this.

I think it will be difficult to implement. The other thing is that the most important thing is that the professional and student worlds are hard to match.

The difference between the knowledge of the student and the conflict is that the student is constantly talking about the conflict. But you can't just put all the conflicts in the study. There will be a way to solve them in the middle of the study. If you focus on this, it will also become a problem. When you let the student understand the conflict, the student doesn't have the time or the ability or the will to understand so many things. And some conflicts are also

very, very smooth and orderly. So this system itself, on the one hand, it has absorbed a lot of conflicts, all kinds of conflicts, whether it's theory or practice, and has absorbed them and then called for peace. That's to let everyone be at ease. But on the other hand, this system itself also encourages

you can do some so-called, sometimes it's really a bit of a "battle in the tea house" kind of "final conflict" it's not really a real "final conflict" but rather a conflict for the sake of conflict. There are so many of these, there are so many papers produced every year, including some debates, all kinds of things.

-

这个设计本身实际上是有点内在的矛盾。 我觉得就是跟这个大学体制可能有关系吧, 就是按照现在这个体制呢, 就是它只鼓励多产,但并不强调验真, 也就是说呢,它会鼓励你, 比如说隔三五年抛出一些新的理论, 鼓励你去跟现在流行理论去质疑, 然后交锋,然后...

按照 Graft 的说法,你鼓励提出一些所谓的 interesting 的观点,特别是 provocative 的观点。

But on the other hand, he doesn't emphasize the truth. Whether his view is right or wrong, or whether there is a standard to measure whether this view is right or wrong, he doesn't really care. So for example, if I propose a seemingly new view, which is popular for 4 or 5 years, and then is rejected by others, then it will not affect my academic reputation. If I should get a tenure, I should apply for a grant.

So there is no price. But like other schools, for example, a little bit of practicality, objective, such as science or history, for example, you put forward a point of view and it is soon recognized. This is a failure for you. You may have lost your reputation in the world, but maybe literature research does not have such a kind of

非常明确的标准,所以就是再加上这个体制又鼓励你多产,很宽容,对吧? 所以就造成了一种,就你可以无代价的提出所谓带引号的新理论,来博取到教职,基金等等。 然后你这个理论如果不成立的话呢,跟我没有任何的关系。

So I don't have any price. This is also a problem caused by the system, not by us. After you win, it doesn't affect your personal interests. But if you change your major, if you fake it or get rejected, you may lose your academic reputation.

So it's hard to imagine a classic Western Marxist professor suddenly

That's right.

因为现在的这种文化政治,甚至包括算法推荐这种技术, 它其实就在不断地去强化每个人的这样的一种舒适区, 是吧,大家都习惯于在自己的这样的一个极化的这样的一个空间当中, 然后获得一种自我确认,自我的这种安全感。 所以讲授冲突这件事情确实对老师、学生、

提出了一种近视于圣哲的要求。 那么我认为它不太可能全面地铺开, 但是也许我们可以退而求其次, 就是说在我们每个热爱文学, 研究文学的,

人当中我们在接受一些观点, 接受一种审美的眼光的时候, 我们会多一些自我的提醒, 就是我们旧的观念, 我们习以为常的东西, 有可能是不那么不言自明的正确的。 如果有这样的一种自反性的不断的提醒, 或者是自我的敲打, 那我觉得已经是,

善莫大焉

很多年前,因为我觉得他有一个特别难得的优点, 就是他每次重新总结描述跟他的意见相反的这一派人的时候, 他描述的都特别准确,而且特别的公正, 这让我特别佩服。 他不去丑化他。 他把他那些观点,那些所谓的右派的跟他自由主义相反的观点,

他甚至總結的比那個對手自己說還要清楚。

This is something I admire. I think it requires a lot of intelligence and sympathy. And it also requires kindness. I don't want to go against the opponent. I don't want to win too much. I just want to practice all of his skills. I admire this ability. But this requires your character, sympathy, and intelligence. Most people can't do that. But I really like watching Berlin.

paraphrase the opinions of those who disagree with it. I really appreciate it. Yes, the book "Graph" does make us look forward and backward. It also reminds us to look back.

how literature has developed as a profession. I think this is something that can be brought up in many past lectures. Like the club I mentioned earlier. I think the club in the classroom is hard to achieve. But as Professor Gao said, and Professor Dan also mentioned, the small scope is a bit like

-

选择性的,然后是一批志同道合的人,然后这个辩论是一种,就是作为一个可能是一个自信的训练,不是那种要去争的一个,当然他们是相对比较轻松的一些东西,可能是一些严肃的话题,但在聊起来的时候会比较轻松的这种聊,就是有时候甚至是故意的对方一个立场,我就站在你相反的立场跟你进行一番辩论,就是那种自信的那种。

这种交流啊 交往而已 但如果说要到一个 求真的这个角度来说 我觉得这确实是需要一个

very long-term self-contradiction including self-education self-reflection self-reflection and it's really a kind of recognition of mistakes recognition of failure such a courage I think this kind of thing actually as a as a thing that we pursue as a profession I think it's quite worth it it achieves

实现到什么程度是一回事儿,但是你如果你觉得有至少有那么几个人大家一起来做这个,在这个事情这个方向上这样去做,我觉得这个就是已经是非常有很实在很有价值的了。

Okay, although we can't cure it, our hearts are still on the line. Because of the time we have spent today, we have also talked about this book very quickly, which is about the work of Garaff. We have all expressed our thoughts and suggestions for his book.

带有一种保留的态度。 但是不管怎么样,我们都必须承认这是一本写得非常精彩的书。 它绝对可以在当下长读长新。 那么我们也强烈的建议大家可以把这本书找来读, 特别是读它的英文版,因为它的文字真的是精彩。

非常感谢大家的观看。

以批评为业,包括这个高峰峰老师最后提到的以赛亚柏林。 我想这两个人的书,我们也有机会在我们未来的夜航船上专门找时间来聊,来读。 因为这真的是我觉得在这样的一个时代,我们能够在夜航船上一起来聊文学,然后聊自己对于这些,

艺术人生历史的想法 这真的是一件很美好的事情 让我们继续做下去吧 那感谢大家的收听 我们今天就到这儿 好再见 再见 再见