Cross-cultural dialogue 10

Author: Yue Daiyun et al
Publisher:
Publishing Time: Not available
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 only circles around terms, concepts, and terminology. You propose a theory, and he proposes an antitheory, or you construct a system, and he constructs an antisystem—all of which can stand on their own but are far removed from the rich and complex realities, resulting in empty and impractical theories that are grand yet unsound. First and foremost, there is a need for methodological awareness. I agree with Foucault and his mentor Barthes that broad, universal conclusions should not be used to encompass vibrant and changing phenomena. I even oppose the habit of thinking that there is a universal truth system that can explain everything with just a few principles, and I advocate approaching research from individual disciplines or specific topics through concrete studies 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 draw are those that are specific to that subject. Do not hastily elevate it to something 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 for this reason, 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 the practice of 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 general viewpoints from a macro perspective or citing a few examples as proof. That is still very preliminary, to be frank, and 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.