Deconstructing Seventeen Years

Author: Lan Guo'ai, Editor-in-Chief
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2003-09-01
Features: "Deconstruction" reading is a type of reading that advocates reading based on specific texts, i.e., "close reading." Through close reading, it seeks to find the best cultural discourse of the text. Second, it advocates reading from multiple perspectives, i.e., "critical reading," through the interpenetration of various texts, revealing the multiple meanings of the text. Third, it advocates "reading is writing," i.e., "rewriting," where the reading activity is essentially a "dual activity" of reading and writing. Here, "writing" refers to rewriting or reinterpreting.
Although we are not "deconstructionists," we believe that the reading strategy of "deconstructionism" holds particular significance and value in the study of "literature of the seventeen years." This significance and value can be seen from the following aspects:
1. "Rewriting" the history of "literature of the seventeen years" is a process of "returning" to the context in which "literature of the seventeen years" occurred. "Rewriting" is "returning." To return to the specific context of "literature of the seventeen years," without the work of close reading of texts, only a shift in ideological stance, the writing of the history of "literature of the seventeen years" may still be constrained by pre-existing ideological stances. For example, if someone uses "the loss of humanity and literature" as a perspective to measure and examine "literature of the seventeen years," although the theory of "humanity" is extremely sharp and powerful, from the actual state of texts existing in the "seventeen years," it is a theoretical perspective with more criticism than sympathetic understanding.
2. Discovering the "internal tension" of the text. "Literature of the seventeen years" is a literature full of internal discourse conflicts, which stem from the coexistence and interaction of factors such as mainstream ideological concepts, the writing stance of intellectuals, and material desires of the masses. Therefore, a single perspective can only simplify the ambiguity and polysemy of "discourse-conflicted texts," causing the text to lose its inherent cultural tension.
3. Acknowledging the existence of "fragmented texts." Most texts of "literature of the seventeen years" are "fragmented texts," and their fragmentation is mainly manifested in the fragmentation of "literariness," the fragmentation of the subject's inner world, the fragmentation of realistic concepts, the fragmentation of linguistic form, and the fragmentation of life content. In other words, if measured by the standards of classic literature, "literature of the seventeen years" are all "quasi-literature," "allegorical texts" of ideology. In the face of such texts, considering their gains and losses only from the perspective of pure "literary perfection" would basically lead to the loss of "literature of the seventeen years."
4. Establishing the concept of "open texts." A prominent feature of "literature of the seventeen years" is its boundless openness toward the public's thoughts. The extreme consequence of this openness is that the public determines writing, and the author is merely a "language form converter." More commonly, texts are treated as tools for communication with the public, with the individuality of writing completely lost.