| Abstract: | 孤寡之獨與被遺忘的現代主義女作家梅.辛克萊: 論<三姐妹>、 <瑪麗.奧麗維亞的一生>與 <哈莉葉.弗琳的生與死>三書中的性道德意識及其對日常情感的叛離二十世紀英國女作家梅.辛克萊 (May Sinclair; 1862-1946) 是第一位使用「意識流」一詞的人，與其它許多現代作家一樣，她的作品也交織了現代主義、女性主義、與精神分析。然而，另一方面來說，辛克萊是此「理論結合」中相當特殊的個案，以致於相較作品中出現較多性愛與慾求主題的現代作家來說，她的作品一直未受到應有的注意。在本研究計劃案中，我將嘗試處理她現代主義時期的三本小說─<三姐妹>(Three Sisters)、<瑪麗.奧麗維亞的一生>(Mary Olivier: A Life) 與 <哈莉葉.弗琳的生與死> (Life and Death of Harriett Frean)─中反覆出現的性道德與性壓抑的主題, 以及她個人獨身終老的獨特生命經歷。「孤寡」是個令人退避三舍的問題，然而， 對梅. 辛克萊的研究者來說， 也是不可逃避的問題，因為它直接關係著辛克萊的所謂「失敗的現代主義」。 相較於其它同時期或稍晚的女作家來說， 辛克萊既沒有維吉尼亞. 吳爾芙 (Virginia Woolf) 有著開出版社的丈夫，也沒有像歌楚.史坦 (Gertrude Stein)、 H.D.、迪瓊婎. 芭恩斯 (Djuna Barnes) 或其它「河左岸女人」 那樣引人注目的前衛性傾向和作風， 她的孤寡於是造成了她作品的獨， 也是使它墮入歷史遺忘深淵的毒。在本研究中，我將試著跳脫某些現代或後現代女義主義批評的窠臼，雖然辛克萊隱晦的晚年給人她或有同性戀傾向的猜測 (辛克萊晚年與她的女侍終老一生)，但我刻意避開某些「替作者再製性生活」的討論方式，轉而探討她三部小說中的「情感極簡主義」。 本研究中主張辛克萊所謂的「死魚般缺乏情感脈動的現代主義」與她孤寡一生的「抉擇」密不可分。在這三部作品中，辛克萊表現出寫作風格重大的轉變，從傳統的言情浪漫到現代主義的抽離，正好與她自 1913 年以後對精神分析的涉入同步 (辛克萊是倫敦醫學心理中心的成立者之一， 也是當時在精神分析還備受質疑時，大力提倡佛洛依德理論的少數知名人士)。從現代主義的研究以降，到後結構主義的性別理論，大多數研究分析常偏好挑戰傳統、性道德與倡議「性操演」(sexual performativity) 的作品、作家或理念，由研究辛克萊的「孤寡之獨」與她的「情感極簡主義」之中，我們也可以提出對目前性別與情慾的現結構或後人本主義的理論的反思。誠如茱蒂. 巴特勒 (Judith Butler) 的 <性別解體> (Undoing Gender)、羅倫.巴瓏 (Lauren Berlant) 的<親暱>(Intimacy)、 丹尼斯. 萊禮 (Denise Riley) 的<非人之情> (Impersonal Passion) 與羅拉.奇普尼斯 (Laura Kipnis) 的<非愛>(Against Love) 等書所倡議，我們當下的課題仍是對性別、 情慾、倫理的規範的挑戰與反思。然而，辛克萊的作品與一生也提醒我們，當前的性別與女性主義亦極需一個更為開放的空間與視野，以期能從更異質的情慾生活與看似異化的情感結構中、從女性的孤寡與日常生活的情感中， 重新闡述孤獨、 渴求、與「另類親暱」的可能。 ; Queer Celibacy and May Sinclair’s Forgotten Modernism: Sexual Morality and the Detachment from the Ordinary in Three Sisters (1914), Mary Olivier: A Olivier: A Life (1919) and Life and Death of Harriett Frean (1922) May Sinclair (1862-1946), the forgotten modernist who is credited to have coined the term “stream of consciousness,” is such a unique case of the extremely fruitful liaison of modernism, feminism and psychoanalysis that her life and work often escape their much deserved theoretical and critical attention that usually goes into juicier topics celebrating desire and sexuality. In this project, I propose to reexamine her rather depressing obsession for repressive sexual morality in her major works of “modernist phase”— The Three Sisters (1914), Mary Olivier (1919) and Life and Death of Harriett Frean (1922)—along with the equally depressing issue of Sinclair’s “queer celibacy.” Celibacy is hardly a sexy topic; it is nevertheless an important factor if one is to talk about Sinclair’s “failed modernist project” in contrast to those of other modernist women writers such as Virginia Woolf, H.D., Djuna Barnes, Gertrude Stein, or other “women of the left bank,” who all had a significant partnership that either facilitates the circulation of their works or contributes to the marriage between modernism and “sexual performativity.” To explore and further theorize the issue of celibacy and women, I want to resist the biographical interpretation to “eroticize” Sinclair again—to make her queer as some critics have suggested (Sinclair lived with her maid for the rest of her life). Instead, by tracing the evolution of “emotive minimalism” in the three novels and in their internal revisions, I want to show that Sinclair’s alleged ‘deadpan affectless modernism’ is not divorced from her life as a celibate women writer and her repeated apologias for such a “choice.” The turn in her stylistic trajectory from romances to modernism also coincides with her interest in psychoanalysis since 1913 (Sinclair was one of the founding figures of the Medico-Psychological Clinic of London and was promoting Freud’s theory when it was still under attack). While discussions on psychoanalysis-influenced modernism often privilege writers exploring the limits of sexuality, I argue that the case of Sinclair’s “queer celibacy” on the one hand, and her intriguing “emotive minimalism” on the other, demand a more nuanced feminist discourse of sexuality and affects beyond the challenge or radicalization of gender, sexual or familial norms in poststructuralist or posthumanist theories, such as Judith Butler’s Undoing Gender, Lauren Berlant’s Intimacy, Denise Riley’s Impersonal Passion, Laura Kipnis’s Against Love and many others—a discourse of women, celibacy, and the everyday that are open to heterogeneous sexuality and dormant affects such as longing, loneliness and “alternative” intimacy. ; 研究期間 9808 ~ 9907 |
