被壓抑的相聲現代性: 重探1949年後的相聲變革

Abstract

本研究以批判性眼光重新審視相聲的發展史與變革史，旨在挖掘「被壓抑的相聲現代性」。全文緊扣兩大問題意識。其一，相聲是否具有「不假外求」／「與生俱來」的現代性？其二，1949年後的幾次重大相聲變革究竟是讓相聲越變越現代，抑或是越變越傳統？ 全文之分析結果揭示，相聲發展史與變革史背後潛藏著一部「現代性壓抑史」。質言之，相聲誕生及成長於清末民初，當時的社會脈動賦予了相聲種種原生現代性特質，如：「眾聲喧嘩」的狂歡精神、「以變為美」的求新意識和「沖毀歷史網羅、自外於成規典律」的前衛氣質等。然而，中共建國後卻致力為「根基尚淺」的相聲建構／虛構出一套利於統治的宏大敘事，並一舉將這門僅有一百餘年歷史的藝術「升格」為源遠流長的「傳統藝術」。此舉壓抑了相聲藝術「求新求變、打破傳承」的原生現代性特質，並使其步上一條泥古守常、以舊為美的守舊之路。 中共政權不只為相聲建構／虛構了歷史，還在1950年代初期成立「相聲改進小組」試圖革新相聲。弔詭的是，該組織雖以創新與進步為目標，卻強硬地將「文以載道」、「經世濟民」、「文藝服務當權」等封建價值，植入這門本無政教使命的狂歡藝術中。若以「後見之明」反思，「相聲改進小組」推出之「新相聲」所展現的開創性與前衛性，反倒不如清末民初那些「眾聲喧嘩」的相聲作品。要言之，該組織僅是以「改進」之名行「壓抑」之實，並使得相聲逐漸遺落其與生俱來的狂歡性與現代性。 1980年代中期，相聲現代性似乎迎來了「還魂」的契機。中國大陸的電視媒體興起，使得相聲工作者重新開始重視這門藝術的娛樂性。有論者認為，「娛樂性的復位」帶來了「狂歡性的回歸」。然而，這種觀點實為過度樂觀。畢竟，電視相聲依舊深受中共文藝政策之綑綁與規訓，這使得其現代程度、狂歡程度依舊遠遠落後於清末民初的相聲作品。在臺灣方面，相聲劇於1985年代橫空出世，一度突破了當時行業中敬畏傳統、迷戀經典、缺乏求新意識的守舊氛圍。在表演工作坊、相聲瓦舍等「相聲劇先鋒」的實驗與新詮中，不少凝固僵化的相聲手法及經典文本，皆變得再次能動甚至重獲新生。然而，這些「相聲劇先鋒」的創新姿態，隨時間推移出現顯著的改變──他們從當初的「反典範」、「反教條」代表，成為了「新典範」與「新教條」的樹立者。這使得相聲藝術「求新求變、打破傳承」的原生現代性精神，再次陷入「被壓抑」狀態。 最後，本研究總結：相聲藝術「最前衛的現代性能量」潛藏於它「最原始（即清末民初）的實踐過程」中，而1949年後發生的種種相聲變革都並未讓這門藝術越變越現代，反倒使其越變越傳統。因此，筆者主張「回身反視」不失為一種當代相聲困境之解方。要言之，唯有喚回相聲於清末民初所展現的種種原生現代性精神，並將其落實於認知、審美與實務層面中，這門藝術方能在當代困境中自我更新並重獲新生，進而開闢出一條「不假外求」的現代化出路。

This thesis critically re-examines the development and reform history of Xiangsheng (also known as Crosstalk) in order to uncover the “repressed modernities of Xiangsheng.” The analysis centers on two key questions: first, does Xiangsheng possess “innate” or “self-generated” modernities that arise organically rather than being externally imposed? Second, have the major “reforms” of Xiangsheng after 1949 truly made the art more “modern”—or, paradoxically, more “traditional”? The analysis reveals that behind the development and reform of Xiangsheng lies a “hidden history of repressed modernities.” Born in the late Qing and early Republican eras, Xiangsheng absorbed various “modern qualities” from the vibrant social dynamics of that time. These modern qualities include a heteroglossic and carnivalesque spirit, an aesthetic consciousness that celebrates change and innovation, as well as an avant-garde attitude that resists the snares of codification, History, and other linear narratives. However, after the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the Communist regime sought to construct—or even “fabricate”—a grand historical narrative for Xiangsheng, which in turn transformed this relatively young art into a so-called “time-honored traditional art.” This transformation repressed Xiangsheng’s intrinsic modernities and forced the once-innovative art to follow an increasingly conservative path. The PRC not only fabricated a history for Xiangsheng but also sought to “reform” the art. To that end, the regime established the Xiangsheng Improvement Group in the early 1950s. Although the group claimed to pursue “improvement,” what it actually did was impose a number of “outdated values”—such as “literature as moral instruction,” “art in service of governance,” and “didacticism over aesthetic autonomy”—upon Xiangsheng, an art form that had once prided itself on being free from moral and political constraints. Consequently, the “New Xiangsheng” created by the Xiangsheng Improvement Group displayed far less creativity and avant-garde energy than the Xiangsheng works of the late Qing and early Republican periods. In short, the Xiangsheng Improvement Group enacted “repression” in the name of “reform,” causing Xiangsheng to lose much of its carnivalesque and modern spirit. By the mid-1980s, Xiangsheng seemed to glimpse a chance for the revival of its long-repressed modernities. In mainland China, the rise of television compelled Xiangsheng practitioners to re-emphasize the art form’s entertainment function rather than its political function. Some critics regarded this “restoration of entertainment” as a “return of carnival.” However, this optimism proved misplaced: television Xiangsheng remained constrained by the ideological and cultural apparatus of the PRC, and its modern and carnivalesque energies remained far weaker than those of its late Qing and early Republican predecessors. Meanwhile, in Taiwan, the emergence of Xiangsheng Drama around 1985 broke through the industry’s conservative climate. Through the bold experiments of the Performance Workshop and the Comedians Workshop, many outdated Xiangsheng techniques and scripts became dynamic and vital again. Yet, as years passed, the above-mentioned “Xiangsheng Drama pioneers” gradually underwent a transformation: they shifted from being icons of “anti-canon” and “anti-dogma” to becoming the founders of new canons and new dogmas. This caused the modernities of Xiangsheng—its drive to innovate, transform, and transgress inherited forms—to once again fall into repression. This thesis concludes that the most “modern” energies of Xiangsheng lie in its earliest practices during the late Qing and early Republican periods. The post-1949 reforms did not make Xiangsheng increasingly “modern,” but rather increasingly “traditional.” Therefore, the author suggests that a critical re-examination of Xiangsheng’s origins may offer a way out of its current impasse. Only by reactivating the repressed modernities of Xiangsheng and realizing them across cognitive, aesthetic, and practical dimensions can the art form renew itself and discover a path toward modernization.