Journals of art and literature theory Photo: Yang Lanlan/CSST

---

ZHUHAI—Beijing Normal University (BNU) held a seminar titled “Discourse Analysis of Chinese Literary Theory,” in Zhuhai, Guangdong Province, between June 30 and July 2.

Discourse features

“China’s literary theory system has its own development orientations,” said Gao Jianping, a professor from the Institute of Aesthetics and Literary Criticism at Shenzhen University. Modern and contemporary Chinese literary theory boasts abundant ancient resources waiting to be explored. This is because it is closely intertwined with texts and criticism practices, and its disciplinary identity has been established in modern times. As a well-established system concerns current theoretical practices, scholars are increasingly required to absorb from multiple resources and establish theoretical modernity. 

In this context, it is of utmost importance to illuminate key concepts and clarify the indigenization process of foreign theoretical discourse in China. Fang Weigui, a professor from the School of Chinese Language and Literature at BNU, traced the historical connotation of the term “Poesie.” For early German romanticists, Poesie did not refer to “poem,” as has long been commonly understood in academia. Instead, it referred to “literature,” and even extended to the “poetic realm” and “poetic quality.” Restoring conceptual origins enables a clearer understanding of key terminologies and more focused discussions, spawning more incisive literary theories.

Literary criticism is both historical as generative activities and functional with explicit practice orientations, said Wang Desheng, a professor from the Research Institute for Arts and Aesthetic Education at Capital Normal University. From an ontological perspective, literary criticism needs to form “critical rationality” through subjective criticism practices, which embed constructive intentions into situational expansions. “Critical rationality” determines the intentionality of literary criticism when reconstructing the value of literary works.

Realistic writing

Since the New Culture Movement, China’s realistic literature theory has always been a non-negligible force. In the context of building new liberal arts, evolving realistic creations in contemporary China demand more fitting theoretical guidance.

In comparison with ancient theory, modern and contemporary literature has yet to establish a satisfactory and distinctive theoretical discourse. Jiang Shuzhuo, a professor from the College of Liberal Arts at Jinan University in Guangdong Province, reviewed the development course of Chinese realistic literature and made a distinction between different schools of the contemporary era. Exemplified by Mo Yan’s new drama Crocodile, the concepts of “real” and “unreal” in Chinese culture exert a far-reaching impact on its contemporary realistic literature. As such, a local realistic factor must be taken into account when clarifying the localized development of realism in China.

As reform and opening up accelerates socio-economic development, realistic writing is taking on a new look, said Wang Kun, a professor from the Department of Chinese Language and Literature at Sun Yat-sen University. The “mental review” through “going over scenarios in the past” is no longer the dominant trend in realistic works. Accordingly, theorists should adapt to this changing landscape and focus their research on new contemplations concerning the present and the future.

In a highly globalized world, ecology is undoubtedly a common concern facing all humanity. According to Cheng Xiangzhan, a professor from the School of Literature at Shandong University, from the origin of terminologies, ecological aesthetics and eco-criticism both emerged earlier in the West. In terms of mutual connection and pertinent research, however, China has made remarkable achievements. The formation of Chinese eco-criticism discourse benefits from benign local interaction between the two fields, contributing its own force to international academia.

Cultural research constitutes an integral part of the discourse system of Chinese literature theory. In the view of Duan Jifang, a professor from the School of Chinese Language and Literature at South China Normal University, despite the considerable theoretical wave formed by the convergence of cultural and literary studies, the paradigms of contemporary Chinese cultural research have not yet materialized. As mass culture in Chinese contexts possesses unique emotional resources and theoretical tensions, corresponding cultural research is very likely to develop a new theoretical paradigm distinct from the West.

Value of ancient theory

Classical theory has played a critical role in establishing the disciplinary system of Chinese literary theory, said Li Jianzhong, a professor from the College of Chinese Language and Literature at Wuhan University. Even frequently used modern terms such as “keywords” and “paradigms” can also find their sources in classical theory. The knowledge genealogy of jing [classics], shi [history], zi [philosophy], and ji [literature] represents an academic mindset of ancient Chinese. Even without the translation and introduction of Keywords, written by Welsh cultural critic Raymond Williams, traditional Chinese exegetics is also a research method on keywords.

It is essential to trace the historical trajectory of key concepts in a manner akin to knowledge history, suggested Yao Aibin, a professor from the School of Chinese Language and Literature at BNU. Wenti [literally literary forms] was initially associated with the general genres of literary works. It later acquired the linguistic connotation similar to the Western term “style.” Moving forward, after the initial developments of vernacular Chinese in writings, the phrase took on additional connotations related to individual writing styles. The evolution of such modern concepts epitomizes the historical changes of modern Chinese literature.

Edited by YANG LANLAN