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 terms, concepts, and terminology. You propose a theory, and he proposes an antithesis; or you construct a system, and he constructs an antisystem. 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 unsound. First and foremost, there needs to be methodological awareness. I agree with Foucault and his mentor Barthes that broad, universal conclusions should not be used to encompass vivid and changing phenomena. I am even more opposed to the habitual practice of seeking a universal truth system, relying on just a few principles to explain everything, and instead advocate approaching individual disciplines or specific topics through concrete research to address the issues. I concur with Foucault's view that only "local philosophy" and "local terminology" exist within academic and disciplinary fields. In other words, when faced with a research subject, the only conclusions you can obtain or derive should be localized to that specific subject. Do not hastily elevate it to something universally applicable to other research subjects, or conversely, use a preexisting conclusion to fit the current specific subject. 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, is a form of case or individual study. 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, and is even quite superficial and reckless. Only through meticulous studies of 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.