红色叙事是当代文学中一种特殊类型的小说，以标志性的“红色”作为其鲜明的意识形态特征。这些小说在当代文学史上曾经占据着重要的位置，尤其是1950、1960年代出版的一批长篇小说，甚至能够跻身“经典”的行列，吸引人们阅读与批评。进入1980年代，尤其是“重写文学史”事件之后，红色叙事在整个文学格局中沦落为一种极度边缘化的文学类型。90年代以来，在新的历史条件之下，红色叙事又经历了一次“再经典化”过程。本文试图对红色叙事再经典化过程的背后的“故事”进行探寻，并希望通过这种探寻，不仅能够理解红色叙事何以又成了“经典”，而且也借此钩沉一段学术变迁，更深刻地理解当代文化与意识形态。全文分四章进行研究：第一章对于红色叙事再经典化的“前史”进行研究。红色叙事经典地位的初步确立包括红色叙事的写作、出版、传播、批评与阐释等阶段。作为一种特殊的经典，它们的经典性还体现在对于同代及后代作家潜移默化的影响上。进入80年代之后，随着新的文学成规的确立，“人性”和“审美”成了文学批评的新标准，以这样的标准来衡量红色叙事，它们的边缘化命运无可逃避。第二章是对于红色叙事再经典化过程的概括。“再解读”作为红色叙事再经典化的一个重要阶段，它的作用在于研究者借用西方的文化理论、结构主义、解构主义、叙事理论等理论介入当代文学批评，使已经被证明缺乏文学价值因而被忽视的红色叙事重新进入研究的视野，寓建构于解构之中。红色叙事再经典化过程中的一个关键的环节是“新左派”的出现。“新左派”既是中国现实环境的产物，同时还与西方理论在中国的“旅行”有关。“新左派”中的许多文学研究者对于红色叙事表现出特殊的兴趣，试图从特殊现代性的角度理解它们，为它们正名。红色叙事的再经典化过程中还有一个值得注意的渊源就是当代学术领域中所谓的“本土经验”派出现。持此论者积极倡导学术研究的“中国立场”，而这一研究的角度无疑会赋予红色叙事新的历史合法性。第三章对红色叙事再经典化的研究类型进行梳理归纳。海外的红色叙事研究虽然处于汉学研究中的边缘位置，但依然以其新颖独到的视角启悟了红色叙事研究的后来者。国内“新左派”的红色叙事研究就具体方法来说各不相同，但都信奉社会主义具有“反现代性的现代性”的性质，在这样的理论前提下自然地就把一个政治的问题转化为文学审美的问题。在“新左派”之外，还有其他的多样化研究思路，大都试图在历史与审美之间寻找新的可能性空间。 第四章作为本文的最后一章，对红色叙事的再经典化从发生学的角度进行了研究。借用布尔迪厄的文化场理论，本章首先探讨了权力场与文化场之间的关系：进入90年代之后，政治权力对文化场的支配相对弱化，而市场的力量日益崛起，红色叙事成了大众文化语境中多元的表意符号；其次，在文化场内部，由于时代的变化而导致了人文知识分子的边缘化，它们不得不调整自己的活动方式，具体来说就是由“思想”转向“学术”，从空疏的批判转向学理化研究。红色叙事研究在这一时期的兴盛还与学术体制的成熟、完善有关，学术生产与学科体制决定了知识分子的活动方式。从文本的角度来看，红色叙事的再经典化过程还与它们对文学“传统”的继承相关，当然，对“传统”的发现也需要历史的契机。正是在这里，本文表明了对于红色叙事的一种态度：与其说它们永恒的圣物，不如说是一种历史的建构，是既定历史条件下特殊的文化产品。

Revolutionary narration is a special type of novels in contemporary literature and “revolutionary” is the distinctive ideology of the novels. The novels once occupied an important position in the History of Chinese Contemporary Literature. Especially the 1950s and 1960s witnessed the publication of a batch of such novels, and they even ascended into the rank of “classics” and so attracted many readers and criticism. Revolutionary narration descended to a marginal genre in the whole literary literature in 1980s, especially after the event of “reinterpretation of the literary history ”. Revolutionary narration experienced a process of “recanonization” under the new historical conditions since 1990s. This thesis attempts to explore the “story” behind the process of “recanonization” to better and further understand why does revolutionary narration become “classics” again and meanwhile aims to outline the cultural changes by reference to the process to more deeply and thoroughly understand contemporary culture and ideology. The thesis consists of four chapters:Chapter one studies the “prehistory” of revolutionary narration’s recanonization. The initial establishment of revolutionary narration’s status as classics includes the stages of writing, publishing, diffusion, criticism and interpretation. As a special type of classics, their canonicity lies in the subtle influence on the writers of the same generation and the future generations. With the establishment of new literary criteria since 1980s, “human nature” and “aesthetics” became the new standards for literary criticism. It is inevitable for revolutionary narration to become marginal judged by these new literary criteria. Chapter two is the summary of the process of revolutionary narration’s recanonization. Interpretation as an important phrase in the process, makes the researchers apply western cultural theory, structuralism, deconstruction, narrative theory and other theories to contemporary literary criticism and makes the revolutionary narration which is neglected for has been proved lack of literary value. The researchers integrates construct into deconstruction. The appearance of “New Left” is a key link in the process. “New Left” is the product of China’s particular surroundings and related to the diffusion of western theories in China. Many literary leftists greatly interest in revolutionary narration and try to interpret and highly repute them from the perspective of special modernity. Native empiricism, the origin of revolutionary narration’s recanonization, deserves to be mentioned in the process. Empiricists actively advocate academic researches’ “China Position”. This perspective undoubtedly legitimizes revolutionary narration.Chapter three sorts out and induces the research branches of revolutionary narration’s recanonization. Although overseas ’ study of revolutionary narration lies in a marginal position in the sinology field, their unique and innovative perspective enlightens the latecomers. Domestic “new leftists” adopt different methods to study revolutionary narration, but all of them embrace “anti-modern modernity”. A political problem is naturally changed to a literary aesthetic one according to this theoretical . There are other diverse research ideas besides “new left” and most of them try to find new possibilities between history and aesthetics.Chapter four, as the final chapter, studies revolutionary narration’s recanonization from the perspective of occurrence. This chapter uses Bourdieu’s theory to investigates the relationship between the field of power and the field of cultural production: By the 1990s, political power has relatively weakened its dominance over cultural field while the power of market increasingly sprang up. In consequence, revolutionary narration became diverse significant symbols in the context of popular culture; secondly, within the field of cultural production, humanistic intellectuals were marginalized by the changing times, hence, they had to adjust their model of action, shifting from “thought” to “academy” and from a theoretical criticism to academic research. The prosperity of research on revolutionary narration was also related to the maturity and perfection of academic system for intellectual’s model of action is determined by academic production and discipline system. In terms of text, the process of revolutionary narration’s recanonization is also connected with their inheritance of literary “tradition” which of course needs a turning point. Hence, the thesis indicates an attitude to revolutionary narration: not so much they are eternal sacred objects, as historical buildings, specific cultural products under some historical conditions.