Narrative Discourse in the Dialogue Era (On the Beijing School Literature)

Author: Zha Zhenke
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-11-21
Features: How do the Beijing School writers present a complex cultural mindset in their choices and rejections between classical and modern, traditional culture and Western discourse? Amidst nostalgia for the past, admiration for ancient styles, and attachment to their homeland, they have not fallen into conservative self-imposed confinement, still maintaining a cautious openness, acceptance, and engagement with modernity and Western culture. Is this merely a sign of cultural awkwardness, or a manifestation of a modern cultural spirit that has undergone integration—or is in the process of integrating? In the consciousness of Beijing School writers, they are experiencers of the countryside, and the countryside needs understanding rather than sympathy—the relationship between the individual and the whole is not one of sympathy and being pitied. If an individual is indifferent to history, what is needed is understanding—understanding of oneself. The Beijing School writers present the countryside to the city—in other words, they present history to the modern world—implying how modernity should understand history, because this is most important. History and modernity share only one common future. The Beijing School strives to find a narrative thread in the balance between "constancy" and "change," and in doing so, they must adopt a clear dialogue stance and recognize the narrative effects their narrative direction will produce. This makes the Beijing School ultimately neither fully inclined toward conservative tradition nor completely negating tradition, nor blindly adhering to Western discourse. In an era and cultural context where transformation is urgently needed, defending tradition and resisting tradition are both necessary—and naturally the historical mission of intellectuals.