那最终方案没有出来,怎么预订??
【 在 P6 (奔流) 的大作中提到: 】
: 原作者都联系不上,怎么更新? :)
现在很多方案都不知道最终的结果
置底的图片都没有更新
【 在 ygeneration (Deutsch lernen) 的大作中提到: 】
: 斑竹和战务们商量一下最终的方案
: 给出具体的图片
: 然后大家再预订
: ...................
同意,小篆根本就看不懂啊
就只喜欢这一款,请战务斟酌
【 在 YesMadam ( ☆☆☆☆☆ ) 的大作中提到: 】
: 大家可以对比着看:
: 繁体大宋
: http://proxy.rlsz.net:8000/tshirt/vote/B12_2.jpg
: ...................
The Forlorn Eve: A Feminist Reading of Zweig’s
Letter From An Unknown Woman
Love is an eternal theme of human life and literature. If we go through the li
terature, from medieval tales of gallant knights fighting for the honor of the
women they loved, to the Shakespearean play depicting Romeo climbing onto Jul
iet’s balcony to declare his manifesto of love, we will more often than not e
ncounter such a stereotype: a man meets a woman, he courts her till at last sh
e is touched and accepts him. Based on this stereotype, people get the impress
ion that man is more active and more devoted in a relationship, while woman is
passive and uninvolved –swooned by man with no effort made while plenty of a
ffection savored. This delusion has always served as a pretext for anti-femini
sts who brandish these texts and shout since men have done so much for women,
why the hell they are still unsatisfied. For ages, women are fed on this unexa
mined man-love-more idea till at last they reach the point of satiety.
The development of feminist criticism has shattered the great silence of lesbi
an experience and brought this “new” sexual orientation other than compulsor
y heterosexuality into limelight. But when we look back to the old realm of he
terosexuality, we find there are still lots of distorted facts requiring clari
fication.
This paper is written to challenge the erasure of woman’s devotion to love fr
om so much of literature, an erasure which I felt to not only slight woman’s
love, but belittle woman in its consequences. I choose one of Stephan Zweig’s
1 influential short novel letter from an unknown woman as my text of analysis.
Zweig was one of the most widely read authors writing in Germany during the 1
920s and 1930s. He was deeply influenced by Freud’s psycoanalysis2 and famous
for his delineation of people’s emotional and dramatic inner world. Yet cont
rary to Freud’s theory centering on the male sex, Zweig always chose women as
his protagonists. Woman was not viewed merely as the lover of a hero, but usu
ally as the gravity center in his works.
The story goes like this. A famous novelist R received a letter from an unknow
n woman. It began by “ to you, the one who has never known me.” Then ran the
woman’s long and emotional soliloquy. Life first revealed its meaning to her
when she was 13, shy and innocent. A young novelist moved into the building s
he and her widowed mother lived. The moment she saw him, she was fascinated by
this handsome, learned and good-mannered young novelist. At the first sight,
the little girl fell in love with R even though she could sense his dual perso
nality: he was as serious about his work as frivolous and adventurous in his l
ife style. The enchanted girl couldn’t help observing him clandestinely. She
observed his visiting guest, most of whom were women. From 13 year old to 16 y
ear old, she said, every hour of hers was spent on him. Then her mother remarr
ied and forced the girl to move to her new home in another city. Severed from
her love, the girl was totally at a loss and grew up melancholy. As soon as sh
e could live on her own, she ran back and tried to get close to R. At last, he noticed
her, now a beautiful young lady, without realizing she was the very girl who h
ad lived next door. They spent three nights together. Then he departed her for
a short voyage. To her dismay, he forgot her after his return. She was pregna
nt. The strong love for him, against all odds, made her give birth to a baby.
To give her boy a better footing on the society, she became a courtesan. Fate
arranged another meet for them. Several years later, in a nightclub, he saw he
r, obvious without recognizing her, now a glamorous mature woman. He invited h
er to go to his place. They spent another night. No matter how hard she hinted
, he still could not recognize her. And to add injure to insult, he gave her m
oney for the night. Their child died of illness at the age of 11. With fatigue
and mental collapse, the woman was also dying. Before her death, she wrote th
e letter, disclosing her love for him for the first time and for the last time
. The irony is that when he finished the letter, he still couldn’t recall such a woman
in his life, as it usually is.
Immersed in the unknown woman’s passionate soliloquy, readers cannot but comm
iserate with her miserable fate. The unknown woman was never recognized, not e
ven when R finished her letter. No matter how fervent her love had been, it le
ft no trace in her lover’s heart. By this image, Zweig endeavored to get acro
ss his protest for women. This woman, though only a fictitious figure, is inte
nded to represent the feminine sex maltreated in the love of two sexes.
The philandering R slept with numerous women, who he never tried to know deep
and for whom he never took the responsibility. All these women, in his philoso
phy, were but several nights’ tenderness, put aside when morning came, and di
scarded when he was no longer interested in. He repellently embodied the kind
of men whose attitude is painfully lacerating to woman: they never bother them
selves to think that woman is not merely a carnal object, but flesh with feeli
ngs and clothed in specific significance for each person; woman is always that
dark continent, dark and mysterious, which is impossible to penetrate and unw
orthy of this effort. According to Simone de Beauvoir, the difference between
genders is in fact the difference between self and other. In the long history
of patriarchal society, man is constituted as the subject, while woman is cons
tituted as the other. Femininity is not innate, but learned as a way of constr
ucting oneself as object and attributing full subjectivity only to the masculi
ne. Studying the formation of the word heterosexuality, we get “a sexuality of otherne
ss (the affix hetero- stands for other literally)”. In masculine discourse, t
he only voice in patriarchal society, heterosexuality is hierarchical: love is
conceived as man’s condescending to support woman – subject’s patronizing
of the other. As de Beauvoir has said “when the boy reaches the genital phase
, his evolution is completed, though he must pass from the autoerotic inclinat
ion, in which pleasure is subjective, to the heteroerotic inclination, in whic
h pleasure is bound up with an object, normally woman.”3 The adolescent male
sex drive which, as both young man and young woman are taught, has every right
to woman’s complaisance, but no obligation to assume any responsibility for
itself, since woman is but the object – the instrument - to gain sexual pleas
ure. This attitude becomes the norm and rationale for adult male sexual behavi
or: woman is, for man, the vassal, the essential, whose body is his colonized
territory, where he frequents but leaves without a soothing word once the desire is sat
isfied. Bearing this in mind, we have no difficulty explaining R’s behavior,
even though he was an educated and refined writer.
We also have no difficulty explaining why man loves actively as some literary
works have suggested. “Since man is in a privileged situation in this world,
he is in a position to show his love actively… His independent economic and
social standing allows him to take the initiative and think up contrivances...
”4 But is it real love? Is it only out of pity, or for sexual purpose, or jus
t to experience the pride of protecting the inferior?
Woman, on the contrary, knows what is love and tends to love sincerely. The un
known woman devoted both her soul and body to love. She has had this ingrained
infatuation and spiritual attachment since she was a girl. As she grew into a
young woman, her eroticism came to consciousness. But she would only dedicate
her chastity to the one she loved. She never asked what her lover would do f
or her, but kept her love in heart and endured life’s bitterness all by herse
lf. Her love never provoked reciprocity - he never gave her the chance to love
him, so she had to turn to their son to get the vicarious love. The nameless,
homeless single mother trying to support her child confronted poverty. To giv
e her boy a better footing on the society, she became a courtesan. Due to her
beauty, many rich men loved her. But she never accepted their proposal of marr
iage just to ensure that when some day R reached out for her, she could run to
him without any obstacle. Physiologically she is decadent – resigning to the
money-sex transaction, yet one cannot deny that spiritually she, as a loving mother an
d loyal lover, was much more elevated than many people. No doubt, she would ha
ve to, in her heart, endure the violent clashing of these two contradictory ro
les she played. From this we can see in what a harrowing way the bond that in
every individual connects the physiological life and the psychic life is prese
nted in woman. Woman sacrifices so many things and bears so much hardship for
love. She deserves to be loved.
The unknown woman, like many other women, may seem irrational in face of love
to today’s readers. This seemingly drawback, or in another word, lack, is ana
logous to woman’s biological lacking – the lacking of phallus. But this is w
oman, whose unreasonable voice, feverish yet subversive, can no longer be supp
ressed by the sound of reason and muffled in the overarching phallogocentrism.
This novel serves as a very representative text reflecting the asymmetry in am
orous relation between man and woman. It attacks the man-love-more myth relent
lessly. But for this kind of texts, people can never imagine the extent to whi
ch woman’s feelings is ignored and trampled by man. In order to cover up thei
r insidious crime committed against women, men have erased women’s suffering
for love and made up shameless lies. These lies are a part of the masculine di
scourse, justifying and embellishing heterosexuality as the most reciprocal re
lationship the world ever has had since Eve was made out of one of Adam’s rib
s and got married to Adam. No matter how placating the lies are, “daughters”
of the unknown woman realize gradually love is not simply devotion and self-a
bnegation. Zweig’s identification of woman with altruism is by no means to gu
arantee man’s absolute right in her devotion and to impose on women another c
ompulsion, but to prove that the virtuous woman deserves esteem and love from
man.
Real love means that the two sides involved in love enjoy the same quantity of
sweetness and shoulder the same quantity of obligation towards each other. Wh
y shouldn’t man give woman the same amount of love that he has gotten from wo
man, if not more, since woman physiologically suffers from menstruation and gi
ving birth for the sake of human race’s reproduction, and since woman has end
ured man’s exploitation and repression for so long?
Notes:
1. Stefan Zweig was born in 1881 in Wien (Austria). He studied philosophy,
and then started writing poetry, dramas and translated many french works into
german. The First World War deeply hurted him and was a turning point in his c
areer. He started writing short stories, which had great success and made him
very famous. But because he was Jew, he had to leave Austria in 1934. Unfortun
ately nowhere could he find peace of mind, and his despair concerning the war
made him commit suicide at Brazil, in 1942.
2. He initiated a correspondence relationship with Freud in 1908. On the ba
sis of his correspondence, Zweig compiled a biography of Freud that was publis
hed in 1931. His novels blatantly show he is deeply influenced by psycoanalysi
s.
3. De Beauvoir, Simone, 1952, The Second Sex, trans. H. M. Parshley (rpt. N
ew York Vintage, 1974), P44.
4. De Beauvoir, Simone, 1952, The Second Sex, class handout, P1411.
References
De Beauvoir, Simone, 1952, The Second Sex, class handout.
Hutcheon, Linda, 2002, The Politics of Postmodernism (2nd edition), Routledge.
Rich Adrienne, 1983, Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence, class h
andout.
Warner, Michael, 1990, Homo-Narcissism; or, Heterosexuality, from Contemporary
Literary Criticism (edited by Robert con Davis and Ronald Schleifer), Longman
.
张玉书, 1987, 《海涅、席勒、茨威格》,北京大学出版社.
张玉书(译), 1982,《斯.茨威格小说选》,外国文学出版社.
谢谢斑竹福柯先
请大家多提修改意见
之所以用英文写是论文要求
写得很浅,不难懂
.
Foucault as a Deconstructuralist in his Madness and Civilization
In western metaphysics, ever since Greek and Roman Antiquity there exists a tr
adition of logocentrism. The logic of western philosophy requires the dismembe
rment and separation of the contradictory force of one unity into two opposing
sides in order that the contradiction be exposed. This led to a tendency of o
pposition. In such a tradition, people tend to establish differences, oppose o
ne to the other and exclude one in favor of the other in the schema of binary
opposition. Therefore in such pairs as speech/writing, life/death, soul/body,
good/evil/, true/false, the former are constantly emphasized, while the latte
r are overlooked. In contrast, deconstruction, the radical development in the
human sciences initiated by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida, attempts t
o subvert this logic that would structure those oppositions hierarchically and
reassert both sides of the opposition within a nonhierarchical relationship o
f “difference”.
Reason and madness is just another pair, in which reason hold sway, while madn
ess is viewed negative. Thus madness slumbers in reality, as well as in the fi
eld of philosophical and historical inquiry until one day it fell within the k
en of Michel Foucault.
Always challenging stale tradition and morality, Foucault took the relationshi
p between reason and madness – reason and unreason – as the first subject of
his “ archeology”, or later “ genealogy”. Slipping away from the recogniz
ed models of historical narration, he set out to write a history of madness. H
is concept of madness is not a psychopathological term, but a result of long-t
erm conflict in human civilization. He didn’t care what madness is; he even d
idn’t give a definition to it. What he did was delineating for us how madness
gains its nowadays status, or more concretely, why madness is called as such,
how the relationship between reason and madness became a received opposition
in which the free subjectivity of madness is excluded and objectified by reaso
n.
Discarding superficial records and popular literature, he delved into various
archives and every shadowy corner of history. The scenes he saw was bizarre.
History was but a magnificent robe, with hideous lice hiding in it.
The history of psychiatry has prided itself in the humanitarian progress when
the Hopital General was founded in 1657 to provide shelter for the poor, the c
riminal and the insane; when madmen were separated from the convicted criminal
s; when Pinel liberated the chained inmates of Bicetre, one of Paris’ confine
ment, in 1794; when modern doctor make efforts to listen to their patient. Fou
cault deconstructed all these myths of philanthropy. He, like Derrida, risked
the accusation that he turns everything upside down, and makes the higher appe
ar to be the lower. The creation of Hopital General - itself not a medical ins
titution - was only to avoid scandal, to separate evil from public eye, and to
suppress brutally the forms of unreason by confining it. The “ great internm
ent” of the mad symbolized the dialogue between reason and madness was broken
off, and the classical age (17c, 18c) was firmly established.
The separation of madmen from criminals was out of the concern that the crimin
als deserved a better fate than one that lumped them with the insane whose cri
es and delirium torments them day and night.
Pinel, founder of modern psychiatry, released madmen from chains, yet set up a
site of moral segregation where, under constant observation, the madman must
feel morally responsible for everything within him that may disturb morality a
nd society, and had to live with the stifling anguish of responsibility.
As for modern doctor, he dubbed different types of madness with various names,
and confined the form of unreason within mental illness. After receiving the
title of an illness, madness totally lost its voice, which is analogous to the
fate of Satan, who lost paradise and was dumped into hell. Modern psychiatry,
including psychoanalysis propounded by Freud has not been able, will not be a
ble to hear the voices of madness and decipher the language from the realm of
dark.
Foucault’s Madness and Civilization is an irony and a parody of the history,
a destructive reading of history. The so-called objective representation of hi
story was assailed by Foucault relentlessly. As Nietzsche has pointed out, eve
ry fact is a kind of explanation, expression of Power’s will. Every presentat
ion of history is not absolute and undoubted. Every cognitive subject of histo
ry is prejudiced. The knowledge he acquires is not pure and neutral, but conta
minated by omnipresent power. In his genealogical system, he renounced the con
venience of terminal truth. He never let himself be guided by received common
sense.
Foucault began his destruction with challenging the decision to establish diff
erence between madness and reason and make one be valued over the other. In th
e preface of Madness and Civilization, he quoted Pascal, “ Men are so necessa
rily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness.” In thi
s sentence if we substitute reason for “ not to be mad”(since the two are id
entical semantically), we get “ reason is another form of madness”. Dostoiev
sky said: “ It is not by confining one’s neighbor that one is convinced of o
ne’s own sanity.” Nobody is entitled to confine his neighbors just because t
hey hold different views from his. Yet historical facts show Reason was once s
o mad as suppressed the madman by violence, and restricted their freedom in th
e confinements. Yes, reason is mad and mad enough.
“ We have yet to write the history of that other form of madness, by which me
n, in an act of sovereign reason, confine their neighbors, and communicate and
recognize each other through the merciless language of non-madness.”(Foucaul
t 1965: ix)
Having succeeded in proving that reason is another form of madness, Foucault c
ontinued to prove madness contains elements of reason. In renaissance when mad
ness remained an undifferentiated experience, it still owned the function of r
evealing truth, and also participated in appraising reason and pursuing truth.
In Shakespeare’s play, Lady Macbeth spoke out the truth after she was mad, a
nd the fool in King Lear displayed a formidable wisdom. In Cervantes’ Don Qix
ote, the insane man’s life was immortalized only by his insanity.
The manifestation of madness – the delirious language uttered by the madman –
embodies the trace of both madness and reason. It has two levels. On the one
hand, it is absurd imagination, expressing meaningless disorder. On the other
hand, it advances by rigorous judgment and reasoning. It is a system of false
propositions in correct syntax.
By above-mentioned facts, the boundary between madness and reason was made fuz
zy. The valorization of the absent and negative was achieved. Whether intended
or not, Foucault deconstructed the difference between madness and reason and
overturned the hierarchical valuation of the two.
However, Derrida, protagonist of deconstructuralism, challenged Foucault as n
ot thorough in the deconstruction of “reasoncentrism”. As we know, for Fouca
ult, the Hopital General later gave rise, by a series of transformations, to “
the birth of the Asylum”, that is to say, to the medicalization of madness a
nd the birth of psychiatry, thereby constituting a radical silencing of the vo
ice of madness.
“ The language of psychiatry, which is a monologue of reason about madness, h
as been established only on the basis of such a silence. I have not tried to w
rite the history of that language, but rather the archaeology of that silence.
” (Foucault 1965: x)
In order to let the sound of madness be head, Foucault considered it as necess
ary in his writing to dispense with the language of psychiatry- incarnation of
reason and delegate of order. But this reason and this order have delegated m
ore than psychiatrist’s language.
“ All our European languages, the language of everything that has participate
d, from near or far, in the adventure of Western reason – all this is the imm
ense delegation of the project defined by Foucault under the rubric of the cap
ture or objectification of madness.” (Derrida 1978:35)
Derrida argued that all those who speak this language, including Foucault, par
ticipate in this objectification of madness. He thereby implied that Foucault
committed the very “crime” he denounced. Roland Bartes, when commenting Madn
ess and Civilization, also said Madness has no meta-language to speak out its
own rationality. Thus, Foucault couldn’t make madness defense itself on the b
asis of its own experience and prestige. He must know that he could never shak
e off the shackle of reason in studying unreason. Nevertheless, he devoted him
self into this mission impossible. The act itself is a kind of madness. In doi
ng so, Foucault showed his own preference for madness over reason. His work, l
ike those of Von Gogh, Nietzsche, Artaud, and Holderlin, shrieks in the night
of reason. It bound to be heard by some people.