再現曖昧性：塞爾曼•魯西迪《魔鬼詩篇》中的遷徙與混雜

Abstract

塞爾曼•魯西迪對於諸如遷移與混雜等等當代文化概念的概括性實踐，尤其是在《魔鬼詩篇》裡，常常被批評為理想化和欠缺檢驗。根據他本身文學、社會、政治觀點而來的小說寫法，在很大的程度上符合艾拉•修哈特的「後殖民」思維；不過，魯西迪曖昧不清的文學處理手法，尤其是用以描述吉百列與薩拉丁，點出在重現這兩個概括性主題時，為何同時也需要對於它們內在的曖昧加以闡釋。這種自身曖昧性，提供我們另一種視野來觀看該小說中移民們。

此文的介紹章節呈現我對於遷徙與混雜的後現代式再現的研究工作，這樣的詮釋幾近於魯式觀點，並提出書中實例來證明這種對於概括性觀點的傾向。藉由簡述整篇論文，這起始章節也間接指出，在移民(混雜者)心理習性與文化融合過程中所內存的曖昧。第二章的論點重心在於，移民角色那永恆失根的心理狀態與身分，展現了對於固定性(昔日家園或新環境)和純然超越且居於中介的雙重抗拒。隨後，在第三章中，混雜性不僅被描述成世俗的融合，也是對於曖昧的文化實踐之呈現形式。任何混雜的主體都以雙重模式出現，必須遵循辯證過程中兩造的共存。最終，此文的結論顯示，矛盾性確實正面地顛覆了魯式的「後殖民」敘述，使其不只是「超越的姿態」，並創造出魯西迪最珍視的「矛盾新意」。

Salman Rushdie’s generalized utilization of the contemporary cultural concepts like migration and hybridity, especially in The Satanic Verses, is frequently criticized as idealistic and loosely-examined. The novelistic praxis based on his literary, social, and political perspectives is to a large degree post-colonial in Ella Shohat’s sense. However, Rushdie’s equivocal literary operation, particularly on the descriptions of Gibreel and Saladin, portrays why the representations of the two generalized themes simultaneously entail more elaboration of the ambivalence within themselves, which provides an alternative horizon of viewing the immigrants in this novel. My Introduction exhibits my research on the postmodern explanations of migration and hybridity, which are close to Rushdie’s perspectives, and provides some textual instances to demonstrate this propensity toward generalized visions. By summarizing the whole thesis, this initial chapter also alludes to the ambivalence inherent in migrant’s (also hybrid’s) psychological inclination and the process of cultural merging. My chapter Ⅱ focuses on the migrant characters’ perpetually rootless mentality and identity that reveal their reluctance to embrace neither fixity (old homeland or new environment) nor purely going beyond and stay in-between. Subsequently, in Chapter Ⅲ hybridity will be depicted not only as the secular fusion but as a representative form of ambivalent cultural practices. Any hybrid subject is doubled and must succumb to the co-existence in the dialectical process. My Coda eventually unveils that ambivalence indeed positively destabilizes Rushdie’s “postcolonial” narrations, making them not merely “gestures of transcendence” and bringing forth the dynamics of “ambivalent newness” that Rushdie cherishes the most.