World Literature as a Literary Space

Abstract

Abstract: "World literature" has multiple meanings such as world literature as a discipline, as a pedagogical practice, or as a theoretical problem. As to the last meaning of the concept, scholars worldwide have emphasized the institution of world literature more than world literature works. This emphasis comes as a result of a rethinking of the world after the 1970s, so that the "institution" here is substantially the institution of the world. However, this "world" should not be taken as the real world, but a unique world of literature, and the essence of this institution is the more complex and more subtle literary relationship. Therefore, world literature as a literary space is a new paradigm in literary studies and a new subject in comparative literature studies.

Key words: world literature, literary institution, literary space, literary relationship, comparative literature

Yao Mengze. World Literature as a Literary Space[J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2017, 37(1): 209-214.

References

帕斯卡尔·卡萨诺瓦:“作为一个世界的文学”,《世界文学理论读本》,尹星译,大卫·达姆罗什、刘洪涛、尹星主编。北京:北京大学出版社,2013年。[Casanova,Pascal."Literature as a World."Theories of World Literature:A Reader.Trans.Yin Xing.Eds.David Damrosch,Liu Hongtao and Yin Xing.Beijing:Peking University Press,2013.]
Damrosch,David.What is World Literature?Princeton and Oxford;Princeton University Press,2003.
大卫·丹穆若什:《什么是世界文学?》,查明建、宋明炜等译。北京:北京大学出版社,2005年。[Damrosch,David.What is World Literature?Trans.Zha Mingjian and Song Mingwei.Beijing:Peking University Press,2005.]
西奥·蒂汉:“绘制世界文学地图”,殷国明、刘娇译。《江南大学学报》(人文社会科学版)9(2014):92—97。[D'hean,Theo."Mapping World Literature."Trans.Yin Cuoming and Liu Jiao.Journal of Jiangnan University(Humanities and Sociology Edition)9(2014):92-97]
刘洪涛:“世界文学观念的嬗变及其在中国的意义”,《世界文学理论读本》,大卫·达姆罗什、刘洪涛、尹星主编。北京:北京大学出版社,2013年。[Liu,Hongtao."The Evolution of the Ideas of World Literature."Theories of World Literature:A Reader.Eds.David Damrosch,Liu Hongtao and Yin Xing.Beijing:Peking University Press,2013.]
弗朗哥·莫莱蒂:“世界文学猜想”,《世界文学理论读本》,尹星译,大卫·达姆罗什、刘洪涛、尹星主编。北京:北京大学出版社,2013年。[Moretti,Franco."Conjectures on World Literature."Theories of World Literature;A Reader.Trans.Yin Xing.Eds.David Damrosch,Liu Hongtao and Yin Xing.Beijing:Peking University Press,2013.]
——:“世界文学猜想续篇”,《世界文学理论读本》,尹星译,大卫·达姆罗什、刘洪涛、尹星主编。北京:北京大学出版社,2013年。[——."More Conjectures on World Literature."Theories of World Literature;A Reader.Trans.Yin Xing.Eds.David Damrosch,Liu Hongtao and Yin Xing.Beijing:Peking University Press,2013.]
苏源熙:“世界文学的维度性”,生安锋译。《学习与探索》4(2011):210—14。[Saussy,Haun."The Dimensionality of World Literature."Trans.Sheng Anfeng,Study&Exploration 4(2011):210—14.]
斯皮瓦克:《一门学科之死》,张旭译。北京:北京大学出版社,2014年。[Spivak,Gayatri C.Death of a Discipline.Trans.Zhang Xu.Beijing:Peking University Press,2014.]
王宁:“世界文学与中国”,《中国比较文学》4(2010):10—22。[Wang,Ning."World Literature and China."Comparative Literature in China 4(2010):10-22.]
王宁:“世界文学:从乌托邦想象到审美现实”,《探索与争鸣》7(2010):3—9。[Wang,Ning."World Literature;From Utopian Imagination to Aesthetic Reality.Exploration and Free Views 7(2010):3-9.]
勒内·韦勒克:“比较文学的名称和实质”,《比较文学研究资料》,刘象愚译,北京师范大学中文系比较文学研究组选编。北京:北京师范大学出版社,1986年。[Wellek,Rene."The Name and Nature of Comparative Literature."Materials for Comparative Literature Study.Trans.Liu,Xiangyu.Ed.Research Group of comparative literature(BNU,Department of Chinese).Beijing:Beijing Normal University Press,1986.]
查明建:“论世界文学与比较文学的关系”,《中国比较文学》1(2011):1—9。[Zha,Mingjian."On the Relationship between World Literature and Comparative Literature."Comparative Literature in China 1(2011):1-9.]
张隆溪:“从比较文学到世界文学”,《书屋》8(2012):4—7。[Zhang,Longxi."From Comparative Literature to World Literature."House Book 8(2012):4-7.]
(1)对于查明建的结论(达姆罗什所界定的世界文学即“诗学意义上的世界文学,亦即梵·第根(Paul Van Tieghem)所说的‘总体文学'(general literature)。只有从这个意义上说,世界文学才是比较文学的终极目标。”),本文有四点不同看法:1.达姆罗什及国际学界所讨论的世界文学并非“诗学意义上的世界文学”,而主要是更为复杂的世界文学机制;2.“诗学意义上的世界文学”属于总体文学研究的一部分,但并非总体文学本身;3.总体文学是比较文学的一部分,但并非“比较文学的终极目标”;4.比较文学同其他所有的研究一样,目地都是尽可能全面而准确地认识研究对象,并不需要一个带有理想主义色彩的“终极目标”。
(2)例如,学者王宁在多处都提出自己参照达姆罗什的观点给出的世界文学判断标准:“(1)它是否把握了特定的时代精神;(2)它的影响力是否超越了本民族或本语言的界限;(3)它是否收入后来的研究者编选的文学经典选集;(4)它是否能够进入大学课堂成为教科书;(5)它是否在另一语境下受到批评性的讨论和研究。”显然,这里的观点同达姆罗什的区别在于,王宁的“它”和“世界文学”都是作品,而达姆罗什的观点在于强调使作品成为世界文学的机制。王宁观点见“世界文学与中国”,《中国比较文学》4(2010):16;“‘世界文学':从乌托邦想象到审美现实”,《探索与争鸣》7(2010):5,等。
(3)在2015年5月出版的中译本《什么是世界文学?》(北京:北京大学出版社,2005年)中,查明建对此的翻译是“世界文学是从翻译中获益的文学”(309),而在几页之后的类似一句话中的翻译是“把世界文学理解成在翻译中受益的写作”(319)(Understanding world literature as writing that gains in translation)。这些用词(“文学”“写作”)说明,译者对达姆罗什世界文学的“非作品”性质有着清晰的认识和足够的重视。
(4)黑体字为笔者的标注,斜体字为原书作者的标注。
(5)由于莫莱蒂的论证本身存在问题,因此在世界范围内遭到误解和批驳。例如,查明建对莫莱蒂观点就存在误解,结果强化了他将复杂的世界文学问题引向诗学的单一轨道上的意愿。他在《论世界文学与比较文学的关系》一文中说:“‘世界文学是个问题。'是什么问题?莫莱蒂没有作明确说明。但从他以欧洲之外小说的起源于发展为研究对象,而提出的一套关于现代世界小说形态学的理论假设来看,其所说的问题,就是隐含在世界文学现象中的共同诗学问题”(7)。查明建忽视的是,莫莱蒂在引出所谓的“现代世界小说形态学”之前说过:“让我举一个距离阅读和世界文学相结合的例子,是一个例子,而不是模式”(127)。在《世界文学猜想(续篇)》中,莫莱蒂又强调了这句话(因为国际学界也有一些学者因这一点而对莫莱蒂有所误解),并更明确地解释了自己的意图,即“简要解释文学的世界体系如何运行”(136)。这个体系的运行所涉及的问题,可能包括“共同诗学”,但比诗学要更广阔和复杂,而且更具现世性(worldliness)。
(6)有趣的是,早期东西方学者对世界文学的不同思考,本身就透露出关于世界秩序的某些信息。相比较来说,西方知识分子和学者,如歌德、波斯奈特、勃兰兑斯等,在谈到世界文学时对其中的差异、多元化或不平等多有关注,而东方知识分子,如泰戈尔、郑振铎等,则多对普遍人性抱有更多期许。这或许恰好显露出了东方知识分子在一个并不平等的世界体系中对“平等”“大同”等价值的依赖。以上诸位的观点可见刘洪涛:“世界文学观念的嬗变及其在中国的意义”,《世界文学理论读本》,大卫·达姆罗什、刘洪涛、尹星主编(北京:北京大学出版社,2013年)282—84。

[1]	Li Qingben. The Chinese Paradigm of Comparative Literature [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2023, 43(2): 13-23.
[2]	Wang Ning. Raymond Williams' Significance to Current Literary and Cultural Studies [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2022, 42(6): 20-29.
[3]	Yang Qing, Cao Shunqing. Re-thinking “Eastern Comparative Literature” [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2022, 42(6): 30-39.
[4]	Chen Dandan. From World Literature to World Literary Theory： An Attempt to Approach Cross-cultural Aesthetics [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2022, 42(6): 40-48.
[5]	Yao Mengze. The Myth of the Concept of Parallel Studies in Comparative Literature [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2022, 42(3): 110-119.
[6]	Yuan Yuan. Critical Climate Change: A Theoretical Perspective for the Construction of World Literary History [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2022, 42(3): 68-79.
[7]	Hao Lan. The Paradigm, Features and Limitations of “New World Literature” [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2021, 41(6): 148-157.
[8]	Gao Fang, Lu Siqi. From Texts to the World: A Methodological Exploration-Review of La Géocritique: Réel, Fiction, Espace by Bertrand Westphal [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2020, 40(4): 27-34.
[9]	Yao Dadui. Nobel Prize for Literature and the Making of World Literature [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2020, 40(4): 137-144.
[10]	Frederik Verbeke. Paris and the Worlding of Minor/Small Literatures: The Case of Basque Literature [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2019, 39(1): 6-14.
[11]	Chen Xiaohui. Digital Humanistic Transformation of World Literature, Distance Reading and Literary Criticism: Franco Moretti's Evolution Logic of Literary Theory [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2018, 38(6): 114-124.
[12]	Albert Braz. Federal Literatures: Toward a Theory of Literary Intranationality [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2018, 38(5): 14-25.
[13]	Yu Xiaohong . A Research on One Hundred Years of Cross-cultural Interpretation to A Dream of Red Mansions [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2018, 38(2): 111-119.
[14]	Xu Xinjian . Muses and Dongb Longf: The Literature behind Literatures [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2018, 38(1): 21-28.
[15]	Ji Jianxun, Zhang Jianfeng . The Autonomy of Literature and Literary Standards: A Study of Earl Miner's Methodology of Comparative Poetics [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2018, 38(1): 29-38.