Cross-cultural dialogue.10

Author: Yue Daiyun et al. (editors)
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2002-10-01
Features: Zhang Hong (hereinafter referred to as Zhang): Indeed, the same problem exists not only in one field. Research is not focused on practical topics but rather circles around names, concepts, and terminology. You propose a theory, and he proposes an anti-theory, or you construct a system, and he constructs an anti-system. Both can stand on their own, but they are far removed from the rich and complex realities, resulting in empty and impractical theories that are grand yet meaningless. First and foremost, there is a need for methodological awareness. I agree with Foucault and his mentor Barthes, opposing the use of broad, universal conclusions to encompass vivid and changing phenomena. I am even more opposed to the habitual approach of "applicable everywhere," which tends to hastily construct a truth system and attempt to explain everything with just a few principles. Instead, I advocate approaching individual disciplines or specific topics through concrete research to address the issues. I concur with Foucault's view, recognizing only "local philosophy" and "local terminology" within academic and disciplinary fields. In other words, when faced with a research subject, the only conclusions you can obtain or draw are those that are specific to that subject. Do not hastily elevate it to a universal concept that also applies to other research subjects, or conversely, use an existing conclusion to fit the specific subject at hand. Only in this way can our research work "be on target," appropriately capturing the individuality of the research subject. Precisely in this sense, I propose that comparative literature, when compared to cultural studies, belongs to the category of case or individual research. The purpose is to provide localized conclusions for cultural studies through the exploration of specific areas in comparative literature. At the same time, it avoids the flaw of comparative literature becoming overly "pan-cultural," losing its inherent literary and artistic characteristics. In practical academic research, such as the exploration of the relationship between American writers and Chinese culture in this book, I also classify it as a case study. I believe that discussions on the relationship between Chinese and foreign literature or culture should not be satisfied with merely proposing a few macro-level, general viewpoints or citing a few examples as proof. That remains very preliminary, to put it bluntly, even quite superficial and reckless. Only through meticulous research on individual countries, individual writers, or even individual works can the various complex aspects of cultural and literary exchanges between China and foreign countries be reflected more comprehensively.