本文由主體、病體、國體三個面向剖析閻連科身體書寫的精神結構和人文內涵，試圖綰合身體和精神，而非身心二元對立分化的思想進路，以彰顯閻連科鄉土小說的精神系譜。由主體、病體與國體所交織出的核心議題是：鄉土空間中個體的存在意義、價值和方式，進而探究個體與鄉土、國家的互動中所萌發的心靈狀態，及其中所糾葛的歷史、政治、文化、慾望等複雜體系，包括鄉土空間中呈現的身分認同、鄉／城空間中流動的家／國意識、病理空間所展演的生／死意識和歷史創傷。因此，本文探究閻連科鄉土小說的精神系譜旨在：勾勒出閻連科自一九七八年迄今所展現的創作精神史之外，也為了凸顯主體、病體、國體的身體論述視角，呈顯閻連科由身體、權力思索歷史與鄉土的本質內涵，透過身體書寫鬆綁單一、禁忌、極權的國家體制和意識形態，從而交織出富含辯證性的精神系譜。換言之，由精神系譜檢視閻連科的鄉土小說，旨在強化攸關複雜、幽微、細膩的心靈／精神領域，能與主體、病體和國體形構的身體書寫產生密切的對話關係，不僅顯示精神系譜與生命的本能慾望、權力的意志運作、身體的整飭規範密不可分，更能深刻地彰顯形塑身體隱喻的複雜體系。由此可知，閻連科透過身體寫作不斷地追問、思考和表述生存意義的問題，並探索一代人或國家體制的文化精神。 閻連科早期的鄉土小說侷限於農村鄉土的寫實刻畫，到了後期則以國家寓言的書寫策略，將關注鄉土政治的目光擴展為鄉土中國的創作視域，不再僅止於河南鄉土的寫實敘事，而是轉型為富有河南地域色彩的中國寓言。從河南黃土地的鄉土空間開拓為鄉土中國的人文地理空間的全景視野，讓閻連科不得不擺脫以寫實敘事為主的書寫策略，轉而運用充滿想像和前衛的敘事修辭和敘事策略，創作出一部部具有現代或後現代主義特質的奇體小說，閻連科因而在九○年代以降的鄉土小說群中具有獨特的價值和意義。

本論文共一冊，計約十萬字，分六章十九節。 本論文基本上以「發展理論」、「台灣近代史」及「台灣鄉土小說」三者為立幹。申 言之，乃先論述「發展理論」中的依附議題，及有關台灣的研究；說艮鄉土小說對台 灣發展過程的有力反映；配合史實，引證有關的鄉土小說作品；最後，綜述作品表達 的現實，予以詮釋。 本論文研討範圍起自一八九五年日本治台時，終至目前；包括政治、經濟、社會文化 三層面。以期看出小說內容的演變、發展理論和小說的異同．．．等，尤其要在理論 研究、歷史記載之外，從鄉土小說這一媒介中來看台灣的發展課題。

鄉土文學作為一種文學類別，源出於作家們對前現代、傳統文化與土地關係的關懷。隨著時代變遷，鄉土文學被賦予更多的功能。不再只是再現吾人現代性精神危機的烏托邦救贖，也不單純只是對逝去的純美人情的哀悼，更不僅被當作現代性的對立面。從五四時期以來的鄉土文學至今，已然發展出全然不同的面貌，唯一不變的是，鄉土文學的核心價值依舊是以「人與土地」為主軸，從人與土地的關係出發，思考不同階段的社會轉型與文化衝擊。在持續的現代化與全球化的當下，鄉土文學必然受到衝擊，在現代化與高度資本主義的社會環境中，都市文學與大眾娛樂文化的雙重夾擊下，鄉土文學成為一種艱難的文類，在世代差異之下，鄉土文學必然喪失其影響力與活力。 此外，中國特殊的政治體制與其制度，使得鄉土文學產生不同的變化，轉型成為一種彈性的文類，將鄉土視為全球化的在地資本，再者，因中國快速的全面轉型，使得新舊文化被雜揉於同一時期。新與舊、現代與傳統、都市與鄉村就這樣被濃縮在同一時期裡。因此鄉土文學在中國，除了因疆域廣大，現代化程度的普及性仍有一定限度外，最重要的是，當今中國的中堅世代，都是歷經高度文化衝擊下的一員，在他們身上仍舊保留傳統文化的親歷性，也同樣對現代化的利弊具有深刻理解，作家們依循自己的生命經驗試圖理解當代中國與世界。 本研究先以中國當代文化語境與鄉土文學之發展脈絡為背景，再以三位50後作家韓少功、莫言、阿來之專章，討論其鄉土小說中的身分認同。此三位作家皆完整經歷中國當代劇烈的社會變遷，並循著自身的「鄉土經驗」，重新審視中國現代性如何擺盪在現代性與民族性之間，並展現其中的文化能動性，以多元的鄉土文體形式來界定主流政治。 自新時期以來，中國作家與主流政治共同自「鄉土」汲取文化動能，建構屬於自身獨特的話語形式（discourse）回應中國新時期的後革命論述。 / As a literary category, the native-soil literature was originated from the care that the writers had on the relationship between pre-modern, traditional culture and the land. With the changing times, the native-soil literature has been given more functions. It is no longer just to re represent the utopian salvation of our modern spiritual crisis, or just the mourning for the passed-by beautiful interpersonal affection, or only be viewed as the opposite of modernity. Since the May Fourth period, the native-soil literature has now developed a completely different appearance. The only constant is that the core value of the native-soil literature remains to be centered around the “people and the land”, rooting from the relationship between people and the land to think about the different stages of social transformation and cultural impact. Under the ongoing modernization and globalization, the native-soil literature is bound to be impacted. In the modern and highly capitalist social environment and under the double attacks of urban literature and mass entertainment culture, the native-soil literature has become a difficult genre. Due to the generation differences, the native-soil literature will inevitably lose its influence and vitality. In addition, the special political framework and system of China cause the native-soil literature to have different changes, transforming into a flexible genre and viewing the “native soil” as the globalized local capital. Moreover, due to rapid and comprehensive transformation of China, the old and new cultures were rubbed into the same period. The concepts of new and old, modern and traditional, and urban and rural were all condensed into the same period as well. Therefore, while the native-soil literature of China has been somewhat limited in terms of degree of modernization and popularity due to the vast territory, the most important thing is that the backbone generation in China today all went through high cultural impact, and they still retain the traditional cultural experiences while having deep understandings about the pros and cons of modernization. The writers try to understand the contemporary China and the world through their own life experiences. This study uses the development processes of Chinese contemporary cultural context and native-soil literature as background, and then discuss the identity identification within the native-soil novels through dedicated chapters of three writers who were born after 1950 – Han Shao-gong, Mo Yan and Alai. All three writers went through dramatic social changes of contemporary China, and with their “native-soil experiences”, they re-examined how China's modernity swung between the modernity and nationality, displayed the cultural motility therein, and defined the mainstream politics in the form of multivariate native-soil literature. Ever since the new era, writers and mainstream politics in China have all been drawing cultural energies from the “native-soil” to construct their own unique discourse forms, so as to respond to the post-Revolution discourse of China’s new era.

摘 要 根據鍾理和寫給文友廖清秀的信函中，指出他約在一九三○年左右，接觸了大量的中國新文學作家的作品，引起他強烈的閱讀興趣，甚至到了廢寢忘食的地步，而其中影響最大且最深的要算是魯迅，因為不論在他的日記或與文友的通信中，最常提及的中國作家就是魯迅。 魯迅是中國新文學運動中最重要的作家，他在文學上的成就，不僅在中國，甚至對鄰近的日本、韓國、新加坡等都產生了深遠的影響，他不僅是中國文學上的巨人，也是躋身世界文學之林的大文豪，日據時期的台灣文壇就是站在世界文學的角度上，開始閱讀並接受魯迅，鍾理和也就是在這樣的文學背景下接觸魯迅。因此，我們在看待魯迅對鍾理和的影響之時，並不把他當作是個獨特現象，而是把他放置在「台灣魯迅學」的範疇中，視為魯迅在台灣傳播的眾多面向之一。所以，本論文首先簡單探討魯迅文學在台灣的傳播情形，再透過對兩人文本的細讀與比較，尋繹魯迅對鍾理和文學的影響。 要進行不同作家文學的傳承或影響的研究，並不能只強調兩者的接觸關係，還必須在諸如主題、表現方式、文字技巧、創作風格等等的層面上進行考察，才能得到較為完整、正確的結果。因此，我們嘗試在鍾理和的作品中，尋找若干對魯迅文學的繼承或轉化的情形，尤其在顯而易見的國民性批判議題與寫實精神的發揚上，除了探討文字上所具體呈現的影響外，也注意在精神或思想上的可能關連。透過這些全面而深入的討論，我們看到鍾理和之所以接受魯迅文學，無疑地主要是著眼在「現代性」這部分上。同樣源自對傳統封建思想的不滿，企求對所處社會進行改革，在國民性的議題上，在對鄉土的寫實與批判上，無一不是站在「現代性」的立場，吸收、學習魯迅相關的文學與思想，但鍾理和的文學並不完全等於魯迅，他一直有著自我獨特的風格，始終立足於台灣的觀點，恰如其份地展現他的主體性。 此外，我們也明確的看到鍾理和是在文學上認識、接受並詮釋魯迅的，有別於被中共神化或國民黨貶抑的扭曲形象，在這裡我們重新看到魯迅作為文學家的真實形象。而鍾理和借鑑魯迅文學的事實，也說明魯迅或中國文學確曾對台灣文學的發展產生作用，並客觀證成台灣文學開放性的特色。 / Abstract Zhong Li-he pointed out in his correspondence with his literary friend Liao Qing-xiu that sometime around 1930 he began to be in touch with a lot of literary works written by Chinese new-vernacular literary writers, which aroused his intense reading interest to the extent that he couldn’t eat and sleep without finishing reading them. Lu Xun was the Chinese writer who had the greatest influence on Zhong Li-he because his name was most often mentioned in either his diaries or his correspondence with his literary friends. Lu Xun, whose achievement in literature exerted profound influence not only in China but also on neighboring countries such as Japan, South Korea, and Singapore, was the most important writer in the Chinese new-vernacular literature movement. Not only was he a literary giant in Chinese literature, but he was also an eminent writer in world literature. In fact, the literary arena of Taiwan under Japanese colonial rule started to read and accept the works of Lu Xun from the perspective of World literature, and it was against this literary background that Zhong Li-he began his contact with the literary works of Lu Xun. Therefore, we do not treat Lu Xun’s influence on Zhong Li-he as a unique phenomenon; in contrast, we place it in the field of “Lu Xun Studies in Taiwan,” and regard it as one of the many facets of how the literary works of Lu Xun were disseminated in Taiwan. Therefore, this dissertation first discusses how Lu Xun literature was disseminated in Taiwan. It then inquires into the influence Lu Xun exerted on Zhong Li-he literature by comparing their literary texts. When carrying out a research into the inheritance or influence of the literary works of different writers, we cannot emphasize simply on the way they contact with one another; on the contrary, we must also examine other facets such as the literary subjects, the ways they are expressed, the writing skills, the creative writing styles etc. so as to arrive at a more complete and correct conclusion. Therefore, we attempt to find out how Lu Xun literature was inherited or transformed through the reading of Zhong Li-he’s literary works. For instance, when dealing with the issues of national characteristic criticism and the promotion of realistic writing, we not only discuss the influence they embodied in written language, but also take notice of the possible correlation between them in terms of spirits or thoughts. By means of comprehensive and thorough discussion, we find out that Zhong Li-he’s acceptance of Lu Xun literature was undoubtedly because of his focus on the aspect of “modernity”. Similarly, on the issue of national characteristic and on the realism and criticism of “hometown”, Zhong Li-he’s position was anchored in “modernity”, expressing his discontentment with traditional feudalistic thinking and his great eagerness for social reforms. Even though Zhong Li-he learned and soaked up Lu Xun-related literature and thoughts, Zhong Li-he literature is not equivalent to Lu Xun literature because Zhong always had his own unique style. He grounded his position from the perspective of Taiwan, which reflected his subjectivity. Finally, we clearly find out that Zhong Li-he came to know, accept and interpret Lu Xun literarily, which is different from the distorted image conjured up by the Chinese Communist Party’s deification or Kuomintang’s disparagement of him. It is in this context that we see the real image of Lu Xun as a literary man. On the other hand, the fact that Zhong Li-he drew lessons from Lu Xun literature explained that Lu Xun or the Chinese literature did exercise influence on the development of the literature of Taiwan, which objectively testified to the fact that openness was a characteristic of the literature of Taiwan.