Literature·Revolution·Intellectuals

This paper aims at the subjectivation factors of affecting the intellectuals how to look upon themselves and choose discourse practices by discussing discourse about their identity and literature practices including creation, translation, criticism and historical narration in the revolutionary literature debates.The body of this paper contains three chapters.Chapter Ⅰ talks about the meta-discourse about intellectuals’ subject construction and excavates the relationship between intellectuals’identity cognition, imagination and the personal experience of the era.Feng xuefeng’s position of regarding revolutionary intellectuals as revolutionary followers, Guo moruo’s slogan of "as a phonograph" and Lu xun’s argumentation of "revolutionist" are complete each other and make up one aspect for our understanding intellectuals’ self-construction.Chapter Ⅱ focuses on the relationship between the subject construction and literature practice covering criticism, translation and writing by choosing the perspective of Lu xun’s obscurity from drowsy eyes from drink, the criticism from hard translation and the class nature of literature and the self-justification of Mao dun’s from Guling to Tokyo.In terms of criticism, Lu xun criticized the power of Cultural Critique from the Creation Club by restoring its historical and cultural context subjected to the history of political power and the reality of cultural production field domain.Besides this, Lu xun put forward writers must stand on the weak side against power, which is the ethical requirements of criticism by commenting on two sides of criticism from the Creation society.In the aspect of translation, Lu xun defended his hard translation practice and pointed out the criticism nature of translation is meanful for the intellectuals and modern China as a kind of culture/personal cross-border activities.In the matter of creation, Mao dun interpreted his creation intention, criticized intellectuals’new realism attitude to literary creation and revolutionary practice and emphasized the significance of writers’life experience to revolution and revolutionary literary writing.Chapter Ⅲ discusses intellectuals self-shaping and mutual-shaping by the interactive criticism and the Creation Club’s history narration emphasizing on its role in the May4th literary movement and revolutionary literature movement.Relating to self-shaping, the Creation Club’s historical narration, Mao dun’s efforts to reappearing history background, and Lu xun’s sharpness of penetrating the cultural context of history and reality let us see multifarious history.Referring to mutual-shaping, contemporaneity and humanity, sincere feelings and doctrine, and different modality of individualism became major divergence of their image of Lu sun and the Creation Club in the revolutionary literature debate.