%0 Journal Article
%T 将文学作为“田野”的可能——以记忆研究为例<br>The Possibility of Taking Literature as a “Field”: The Case of  Memory Study
%A 刘亚秋
%J 社会学评论
%D 2018
%X 摘要：对文学的社会学研究也应构成我们观察社会结构的一个重要视角，尤其是其中彰显的社会-文化问题，不应成为社会学偶尔提及的存在。虚构的文学所反映的社会事实，并不立足于揭示“历史真相”，而在于呈现观念层面的真实。它类似于记忆的建构性特征。以建构性的记忆视角，记忆的真实性是受到质疑的，但这并不妨碍社会学家从中探究人们真实的集体意识和社会认同。在这个意义上，可以提出记忆的“田野”、文学的“田野”等概念，它们在社会表征的意义上是类似的，都是我们探究社会真相的途径。从文学性资料入手的“田野”考察，在情感、认同和想象等方面具有优势，在这一层面，它们提供了历史多样化的另一途径，并在历史的具体化、完整化等方面为我们进入“深层历史”提供了载体。一定程度上，历史多样化与历史碎片化是同义的，碎片化的历史有时会化作文学记忆叙事中展演的记忆幽灵，为人们提供历史观批判的工具，从而促发历史反思。<br>：Abstract The sociology study for the literature shall be another important perspective when we observe the social structure, especially for the society-culture issues. The social facts in the fictional literature is not going to reflect the “historical truth”, but to reveal the truth in the social perception. It is similar as the constructive characteristics of memory. In the constructive memory view, the real of the memory is questionable, but it does not hinder sociologists to figure out the real collective mind and social identity. From this view, we can have the concepts of memory “field” and literature “field”, they are similar in the social representation, and they are also the methods which we can investigate the society. The “field” investigation based on the literature materials will have advantage in the emotion, identity and the imagination, in this level, they provide another method for the historical diversity, and they can also provide the carrier which can help us to go to the “deep history” in the historical embodiment and wholeness. At certain level, historical diversity has the same meaning as the historical fragmentation，fragmental history sometimes is the memory ghost in the literature narration, which provide the tools which can be used to criticize the view of history and then drive the history rethink
%U http://src.ruc.edu.cn/CN/abstract/abstract11.shtml