論戰、現實與馬華革命文學：金枝芒的「此時此地」實踐

Abstract

1947－1948年的「馬華文藝獨特性」論戰經常被視為本土意識確立的濫觴，在不同歷史時空一再被召喚。它揭示並定調了往後馬華文學的兩道大命題：（一）本土意識與中國性之間的關係，即馬華文學歸屬與認同的問題；（二）現實主義（相對於現代主義）之於馬華文學書寫的意義，即文藝美學與政治倫理的問題。由於馬華文學論者一般將上述命題以相當二元對立的詮釋框架理解，本文認為重新梳理論戰中「馬華派」主將周容（金枝芒）的文學實踐，有助於我們克服冷戰形塑的對立框架，並試圖理解「馬華革命文學」形成的脈絡和其意義。金枝芒是馬共黨員，在緊急狀態時期加入武裝鬥爭成了軍中作家；其文學除了是革命證言，更是「文學作為革命」的實踐寫作。然而，他一方面忠於作為革命的文學寫作，一方面卻又試圖超越革命敘事本身的封閉性，呈現反差的張力。通過分析金枝芒的中篇小說《督央央和他的部落》（1954）和長篇小說《飢餓》（1960），本文指出馬華革命文學的內在反叛與執拗說明了其功能不僅是反映客觀現實和此時此地的一種文學模式，也呈現對當下現實的認知和干預，甚至是文學對未來的預示和介入。

The 1947-1948 literary polemic on the ＂uniqueness of Mahua (Chinese Malayan) literature＂ is often seen as a watershed to the establishment of local consciousness among Mahua writers, and the contents are repeatedly called upon by critics in different historical times. The debates have since set the tone for two major propositions in Mahua literature: firstly, the relationship between localism and Chineseness, namely the problems of identity and belongings of Mahua writers and their works; secondly, the significance of literary realism (as opposed to modernism), which concerns the role of aesthetics and politics in literature. Critics often regard the above issues in rather binary frameworks, and this article argues that revisiting the literary practice of Jin Zhimang, the key proponent of the ＂Mahua＂ camp during the debate, would help overcome the binary caused by the Cold War. The article seeks to understand the contextual formation and meaning of Mahua revolutionary literature. As a partisan writer from the Malayan Communist Party, Jin Zhimang's works are not only a testimony to revolution but also a practice of ＂literature as revolution＂. Nevertheless, while he was loyal to the writing techniques required by revolutionary literature, he also made efforts to transcend the boundaries and functions of revolutionary narratives. This article addresses the inherent rebellious and pertinacious nature of Jin's revolutionary literature through the analysis of his novella Tok Yang Yang and His tribe (1954) and novel Hunger (1960). It argues that the function of Mahua revolutionary literature is not merely about reflecting objectively the ＂here and now＂, but goes further to recognize that as prefiguring the ＂future＂.