Harold? Bloom's Theoretical Identity ―― Harold? Which school of theory does Bloom belong to: deconstruction criticism, reception response criticism, psychoanalysis criticism, or humanism? His works have existed since they were translated and introduced, and with the further development of translation and research, the debate on this issue has become more intense. This gradually formed Harold? An important problem domain in bloom's research. However, at present, no scholars have made a special and systematic study on this issue, let alone found the problems and solutions. Based on this, this paper intends to analyze Harold? This paper systematically combs and inspects the history of the identity problem of Bloom's theory, finds and analyzes the existing problems, and tries to put forward the solutions on this basis.

two

Harold? Is Bloom a Deconstructor? For this question, there is a strange phenomenon, that is, some scholars' answers are contradictory. For example, Mr. Yang Lu's viewpoint in Classics and Misreading (Literature Review, No.2, 2009) can be regarded as a typical representative. In this article, Mr. Lu is interested in Harold? There are different opinions about whether Bloom is a deconstructionist or not. On the one hand, he clearly and definitely thinks that Bloom is a deconstructionist: "Will abrams and Harold? Compared with Bloom, the latter is a rather radical classic and misunderstood theory. One of the radical reasons may be that he used to be the spokesman of deconstruction, defending the classics and advocating misunderstanding. In this respect, he is very different from abrams "; But on the other hand, he denied his assertion: "Of the four Yale professors, Paul? Derman and hillis? Miller later became the spokesman of American deconstruction, Jeffrey? Hartman is also in harmony with Derrida, but Harold? Bloom must be a different kind. " One minute he said he was the spokesman of deconstruction, the next minute he was not. What happened? In fact, the academic disagreement about Bloom's theoretical identity has a long history (which has evolved into a "Bloom's mystery"-Bloom's theoretical identity mystery): it is only that this disagreement is manifested in the form of self-contradiction in Mr. Lu, but in the contradiction and conflict with others. In order to solve this "difficult problem" in a broader sense, and increase the universal effectiveness and scientificity of solving the problem, we might as well extend our eyes from Mr. Yang Lu to more scholars, examine the differences of domestic scholars on this issue in more detail, and analyze and solve the problem on this basis.

At first, Harold? As a deconstructionist, Bloom was introduced into the context of China or accepted by domestic academic circles. Xu Wenbo, the translator of Bloom's earliest Chinese translation (Anxiety of Influence, translated at 1989), said in The Translator's Preface: "Although Bloom put forward a unique' rebellious' criticism and claimed to be' practical criticism', in fact, he still remained in the category of' deconstructive literary criticism' ... so people usually. (1) and when the translation was reprinted in 2006, the translator Xu Wenbo still insisted that Harold? Bloom belongs to the school of deconstruction, but his expression is relatively secret: he pointed out in the "explanation" page of his translation: "This is the bibliography listed on the English copyright page of Bloom's book, which explains the source of the poems quoted in this paper. This is also a feature of Bloom as a deconstructionist, and its implied meaning is' deconstructing the authority of the author'. ②"

Misreading illustrations (domestic Harold? Zhu Liyuan, the translator of the second Chinese version of Bloom, not only clearly pointed out that Bloom was a deconstructionist, but his Illustrated Anxiety and Misreading of Influence "systematically put forward the theory that influence is misreading, which enriched the literary theory of deconstruction". Moreover, in the preface of The Translator who Misread Illustrations, Zhu Liyuan also demonstrated the reasons for Bloom and his theory in detail. Bloom "thinks that reading is always a' delayed' behavior (a typical deconstruction term), so reading is almost impossible", which corresponds to deconstruction's misreading, delayed text reading, language view and meaning view; Secondly, Bloom reiterates the view that "influence is misreading", which corresponds to the intertextual text view of deconstruction; Thirdly, Bloom "studies the misreading behavior in the influence relationship from a psychological perspective", thus providing a psychological basis for intertextuality. Accordingly, Mr. Zhu Liyuan thinks that Bloom and his theory coincide with deconstruction.

Where's Harold Wu Qiong, the translator of the third Chinese translation of Bloom's works (criticism, canonical structure and prediction), also expressed a similar view in the preface to the translation: "Because of his relationship with Yale School, people generally call Bloom the representative of American deconstruction criticism and think that these comments are related to Derrida's deconstruction movement." (4) In addition, among the college literary theory textbooks with large circulation, wide use and far-reaching influence in China, Harold? Bloom was also introduced as a deconstructionist, and his poetic theory was interpreted according to the characteristics, modes and framework of deconstruction: these textbooks include Contemporary Western Literary Theory edited by Zhu Liyuan, Aesthetic Methodology of Literary Theory edited by Hu Jingzhi and Wang Yuechuan, and History of Western Literary Theory edited by Zhang Shouying.

But there are also domestic recipients interested in Harold? Bloom's identity as a deconstructionist is obviously questioned, and he believes that he should belong to the reader response criticism school. For example, Jin pointed out: "Although Bloom is also an important theorist of the Yale Quartet, he occupies an important position in Deconstruction and Criticism, and the collection of four people (it should be five people-author's note) is considered as a declaration of deconstruction criticism, but strictly speaking, he is not an authentic deconstructionist. According to Hartman, he "opposed deconstruction on some occasions", so he was different from Derrida, Derman and Miller. Abrams clearly classified him as a reader response criticism camp because of his' misreading theory' and influence research. " Moreover, he clearly pointed out that Bloom is "famous for studying the literary influence and misreading in readers' response criticism" and his misreading theory is "a theory centered on readers and reading interpretation" in readers' response criticism.

However, Zhang Longhai did not think that Bloom should belong to the camp of reader response criticism, and he also made a theoretical comparative analysis. He pointed out that the critical method of reader response theory emphasizes that literature only exists when it is read, and the text has no fixed and ultimate meaning and value. The meaning and value of the text are produced by the interaction between the reader and the text, that is, the reader's interpretation of the text; However, Bloom's "reading" does not mean reading in a general sense, nor does it mean the reader's interpretation of the text (because reading in a general sense is almost impossible: the relationship between the reader and the text is dominated by delayed metaphor). It is the reader of poets, or more precisely, the misreading and tampering of the works of their parents' poets by powerful poets in order to create their own new poems.

In addition to deconstruction and reader response criticism, Bloom and his poetics are classified as psychoanalytic criticism by domestic scholars. For example, in the book Interpretation of Literary Theory Criticism Terminology ⑦, Wang Xianpei put Harold? Bloom and his poetic theory have been brought into psychoanalytic criticism school. The key words of his critical theory, such as influence anxiety, lateness, psychological defense, comparative criticism, correction and misreading, are all explained one by one in the theoretical framework and mode of psychoanalytic criticism, although post-structuralist criticism, reception aesthetics and reader's response criticism are also included and discussed elsewhere in the book. The identity of psychoanalysis in bloom's critical theory.

Besides, in Harold? There are also great differences and disputes among domestic scholars about whether Bloom belongs to humanism. For example, Mr. Wang Ning thinks that Bloom is a staunch advocate and supporter of humanism. The reason he gives is the opposition between Bloom's critical theory and deconstruction on the issue of human subjectivity, that is, the latter denies the existence and subjectivity of "human" in literature and literary activities, and attributes human value judgment to nothingness, while Bloom, on the contrary, fully affirms human subjectivity, theme and composition in literature (behavior). At the same time, All these show that he attaches importance to the subject position and value of man in literature, and his concern and care for the external and internal "man", which is also the full embodiment of humanistic thought in his critical theory. However, contrary to Mr. Wang Ning, Mr. Wang Fengzhen does not think that Bloom is a humanist. He said: "Bloom is sometimes called a humanist and sometimes a deconstructionist. In fact, neither of them is realistic ... He opposes traditional humanism ... He has a good relationship with other members of the Yale School and has a common language in opposing traditional humanism. " In Mr. Wang Fengzhen's view, Bloom and Derrida, Paul? Derman, hillis? Miller and Jeffrey? Hartman questioned the humanistic basis of British and American traditions together, "thus changing the way people understand literary relations, changing their views on so-called traditions and changing the concept of criticism itself." Moreover, judging from the attitude, content and characteristics of critical theory, Bloom's theory does not have the elegant posture and color of humanism. He emphasized power, violence and occupation. So Mr. Wang Fengzhen thinks that from these characteristics, Harold? Bloom is not a humanist.

three

Through the above investigation and analysis, we can see that the domestic academic circles about Harold? There are two problems in the identification of Bloom's theoretical identity: First, many scholars' identification of Bloom's theoretical identity has been influenced by foreign scholars (either explicitly or implicitly, more or less), resulting in the phenomenon of conformity, without independent analysis, demonstration and judgment, and the researcher's subjective consciousness, subjectivity, independence and locality have not been fully reflected in the research process, resulting in the answer to this question not belonging to himself, China, but to others. In this sense, China scholars need to reopen the exploration and research on this important issue. Second, there are mistakes in the thinking mode and way of solving problems. Judging from the previous scholars' answers to this question, whether it is the contradiction in theoretical identity (such as Mr.) or the conflict with other people's views (such as Zhu Liyuan, Jin, Zhang Longhai, Wang Xianpei, Wang Ning, Wang Fengzhen, etc.), the selected candidates are all unconscious "ism" or why?

It should be said that this is mainly due to Harold? The diversity, polyphony, tension and uniqueness of Bloom's theory itself, the non-self-harmony of the text, and the dynamic development and evolution of his theory have led to the failure of the unified overall induction and positioning method (that is, an essentialist thinking method) of the theoretical subjects. The reaction of the above theoretical subjects shows to some extent that Harold? Bloom's theory can be integrated into it, and there is no single "ism" or school. For example, as we all know, "misreading" and "intertextuality" are two important keywords in Bloom's critical theory and two important concepts and categories in deconstruction theory. From this, we seem to conclude that Bloom is a deconstructionist; However, in the book Western Canon, we can clearly see his emphasis on literariness and his persistent admiration for the aesthetic characteristics and categories of "sublime". From these, we seem to judge that he is a deconstructionist. Another example is Raman? Seldon's Guide to Contemporary Literature Theory classifies Bloom as an American deconstructionist in post-structuralism theory (that is, he is considered as a deconstructionist), but after some analysis, he thinks that Bloom does not particularly highlight the role of rhetoric, so it may be more accurate to call his method "psychological criticism". From the non-uniqueness and uncertainty of this conclusion, we can see that Bloom's theory itself is multifaceted and complicated. However, on the other hand, more importantly, when faced with the pluralism, polyphony, uniqueness and dynamics of Bloom's theory, under the guidance of a wrong and rigid essentialist way of thinking, theoretical beginners try to find a unique, universal, constant and absolute truth essence in Bloom's theory and label it as symbolic, but it is counterproductive. Further excavation can also be found that these essentialists often make the mistake of generalizing when looking for the only essence, that is, grasping a little evidence or a few words in the text, they draw a conclusion, subjectively believe that things have a certain essence, and think that it represents the whole picture of things, and strongly reject other conclusions and essence in their thinking and conclusion, which is manifested in expressing their opinions, saying each other, not giving way to each other, and blaming each other. In fact, what essentialists unconsciously ignore is that the essence of literature is pluralistic, and the essence of literary theory is pluralistic. From a diachronic point of view, there is no literary essence that transcends time and space, is permanent and has absolute truth, but is only temporary and relatively correct. From the perspective of * * *, there is no unique and universal essence, only multiple and special essence. Facing the multiplicity of things, the effective and correct way is to recognize and respect the diversity and relativity of this nature. In my opinion, the mistake of thinking mode is the fundamental crux of the above researchers' problems in theoretical induction.

In addition, the problems in the identification of Bloom's theory (not limited to the above examples) cannot be said to be caused by the misunderstanding of his theory in academic circles: from the perspective of domestic recipients, due to the research style, the translation and introduction of original documents, and the ability/degree of the recipients' interpretation of the original foreign language, the academic understanding and research on Bloom is far from comprehensive and in-depth, and in many cases it is still half-baked or even misunderstood; Besides, we still have some reasons for insufficient research, incomplete understanding and misreading of "ism" and genre itself (that is, the theoretical premise and basis of classification), such as the difference between "deconstruction" and "deconstruction", humanism and humanism. , which is bound to make Harold? The identification of Bloom's theoretical identity is controversial, inconsistent and even contradictory.

Perhaps the mystery of Bloom's theoretical identity or identity will be gradually revealed with the deepening of research and the improvement of people's understanding level, but it is more likely that Bloom's theory itself is unique and rich in connotation, which kind of "ism" or genre it cannot simply be classified into. Perhaps his theory has integrated all the theoretical factors of the above-mentioned "ism" or schools (perhaps more) (but it is not completely equivalent to these "ism" or schools). In this case, it is of little significance to identify Bloom and his theory, which will also damage the integrity, richness and uniqueness of his theory. Therefore, perhaps the best way is to give full play to the subjectivity of researchers on the basis of carefully reading his critical texts. We should try our best to discover, restore and respect the authenticity, original ecology and pluralism of its theoretical connotation, instead of manipulating a simple, rigid, either-or essentialist way of thinking, forcing it into a theoretical framework or interpretation model and labeling it as a theoretical symbol. The conclusions of foreign scholars, without independent thinking and independent analysis and judgment, cannot be regarded as authoritative and conclusive, and should be blindly accepted (in fact, most foreign scholars also adopt an essentialist attitude towards the problem) and critically accepted, especially in the context of the prevalence of western culture in China and the serious loss and aphasia of China culture-perhaps this is a way to solve the "Bloom problem"