本稿は，『女学雑誌』の文学を，キリスト教改良主義による女性と文学の新しい関係性という観点から捉え，その新しい関係性が，後の『文学界』における文学の自律性を求める動きにおいて，どのような意義をもっていたのか，を検討するものである．
『女学雑誌』の文学志向は，当時の英米の女性雑誌に影響されたものであり，同時にそれは，明治20年代における「社会のための文学」という潮流において好意的に捉えられ，女性に向けて新しい小説を書く女性作家の登場を促した．彼女たちは，あるいは口語自叙体の小説によって女性の内面を語り，あるいは平易な言文一致体によって海外小説を翻訳するなど，独自の成果を生み出した．しかし，キリスト教改良主義の社会運動や道徳に縛られた文学は，やがて文学の自律性を求める『文学界』の離反を招き，「社会のための文学」ではなく，文学の自律性，ひいては社会における文学の独自の意義が追求されることになった．しかし，こうしたブルデューの定義するような「文学場」の構築を求める動きは，『女学雑誌』との断絶よりも，むしろ共通する「社会にとって文学とは何か」の問いを前提にしたものであり，しかも，樋口一葉という女性作家の，女性の問題のまなざしにおいて成立したという意味で，『女学雑誌』は日本の近代文学の成立において，従来論じられてきた以上に不可欠な役割を担っていた，といえるのである．

抄録全体を表示

  This article attempts to explore Jacques Ellul's view of violence and shed some light on its political implications. In Contre les violents, Ellul examined Christian involvement in the violent world of politics. In this article, I try to explicate the crux of his argument and evaluate its validity in contrast with political ethics of Machiavelli (interpreted by I. Berlin) and Weber. The main purpose of this contrast is to prove that Ellul's standpoint which he calls “Christian realism” is in diametrical opposition to Machiavellian/Weberian political ethics while sharing its basic political sensitivity.

  I begin by examining Ellul's sociological diagnosis of violence. Ellul views violence as a sociologically autonomous dynamics. In parallel with Weber, Ellul depicts politics as being essentially based on the dynamism of violence. It is this viewpoint that makes him contend that Christian must be realistic through and through in the Weberian sense and that they must have a keen awareness of the tension between the sphere of politics and the sphere of Christian faith.

  I then tum to consideration of some implications of his Christian realism. Introducing Berlin's interpretative framework, I argue that Ellul is in accord with Machiavelli in that he puts much emphasis on the unbending distinction between those two spheres and the fundamental irreconcilability that arises therein. By reversing Machiavelli's republican perspective and Weber's sober Realpolitik, one can clearly see that Ellul is looking at the reverse side of the medal and that his stance is that of an “Unarmed Prophet”.

  In the next section, I will go on to examine some political implications of the prescription Ellul writes out for Christian. Ellul posits a kind of nonviolence which he calls “violence of love” as the only position concordant with Christian vocation. It is a mode of being which is, in his understanding, as agonistic as political action. Ellul's stance leads to a certain formulation of “anti-politics”, but, as I shall contend, this “anti-politics” is to be best understood as a peculiar form of inner-worldly agonism.

  I conclude with brief reflection on Ellulian agonism. I suggest that his agonism might be interpreted as a form of citizenship, if not “political” in the ordinary sense of the word : it is rather a form of citizenship as “foreign object”, an alienated and abstentionist variant.

抄録全体を表示