文学研究的“全球区域化”发展策略

Forum:Globalization and Strategies for the Localization of the Chinese Literature and Literary Criticism

杨匡汉坚决主张本土化——但不是保守的而是开放的 ,是将他者包容进来 ,在异与变的碰撞中把本土一些相对稳定的、具有历史连续性的观念重新解读 ,以形成当代表述形式并对全球化产生的“反冲击”。孟繁华认为传统的批评方法、基本概念、关键词语已被渐次废除 ,代之而起的是他者的概念群 ,构成了当代文艺学发展的两难处境 ,但经过整合与重建 ,必有新成果涌现出来。金惠敏认为“回到主体”的对话 ,其意义仅在于使对话在预设的原始主体的前提上成为可能 ,而绝不是说在对话中虽身经百战而毫发未损的自我确认。“如果全球化是一种进攻型的帝国主义 ,那么在狭隘民族主义意识中徘徊的则是防御型的帝国主义”。李王君平认为 ,“本土化”不如“本土性”确切 ,因为前者试图“化”一切而显出霸气而后者只是提醒别忘记本土特点因而显得平和一些。“全球化背景”对中国文学理论本土性问题意味着既要从Universal(世界的、普遍的 )角度 ,也要从Manifold(多样的 )或Varied -dimension(多维的 )角度 ,将中国文论的异质性问题考虑进去。王钦峰尝试从后现代主义角度解构“本土” ,认为“本土化”的号召力是以民族文化的过去为基础的 ,其情感成份多而理性成分少 ,它可能把国家或民族推到固步自封的老路上去。林衡勋认为 。

Yang Kuanghan strongly advocates localization, which should be open rather than conservative, i.e. associating some alien things and then re-interpreting, in the conflict of difference and change, some local concepts which are comparatively stable and of historical continuity, thus formulating the contemporary forms of description and 'counter-attacking' the globalization. Meng Fanhua holds that the dilemma of the development of the contemporary literary theories can be attributed to the gradual abolishment of the traditional-criticism methods, basic concepts, and keywords on the one hand and the replacement of the concept groups on the other hand.However, he believes that some new findings will appear after reforming and restructuring. Jin Huimin takes the view that the significance of the dialogue about 'back to the mainstream' is that the dialogue is made possible on the premise of the presupposed original mainstream, This, however, does not mean whatsoever the self-confirmation after weathering battles in the dialogue while remaining safe and sound. 'If globalization is a sort of aggressive imperialism, the narrow-minded nationalist approach will be the defensive imperialism'. Li Junping distinguishes 'localization' from 'local features'.He assumes that the former is not as exact as the latter, for 'localizing' sounds hegemonic while the other term appears to be gentle since it only reminds us not to forget the local features. The 'globalization background' versus the local-feature problem about the Chinese literary theories means that we should take into consideration the problem of heterogeneity in the Chinese literary theories not only from the universal perspective but also from the manifold or varied-dimensional perspective. Wang Qinfeng attempts to interpret 'local' from the angle of postmodernism, holding that the rallying point of 'localization' is based on the national culture in the past. Here more affective than rational factors are involved, and this might lead our country and people to the old road of complacency and conservativeness. Lin Hengxun views that although the Chinese scholars' works on literary theories are prolific, they follow the pattern of 'the Western literary theories in China' instead of that of 'the Chinese literary theories in the world'. Zhang Xiyang points out, through his case study of Nai Baoer, that the Nobel Prize of Literature as a global event essentially requires diversified local cultures to get involved. Yang Yang advises us to keep watch against the radical nationalism possibly underlining the slogan of 'localization'. Jiang Shuxian emphasizes reconstructing contemporary literary theories from the global and local perspectives while opposing the blind counteraction of the post-modernism. Yin Jian holds that the 'Westernization' of the Chinese literature in the 20th century is essentially a localization.Deng Yuhuan calls for seeking an appropriate 'melting point' between the two extremes, i.e. globalization and localization.