On “Imposed Interpretation” in Literary Criticism: The Issue of “French Theory”

This paper is a response to what Professor Zhang Jiang of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) terms as “imposed interpretation.” In his article “On Imposed Interpretation,” Professor Zhang sees imposed interpretation as a fundamental feature and basic defect of contemporary Western literary criticism. The author analyzes some of the interpretations, as criticized by Professor Zhang, imposed on some literary classics by feminist, eco-critical, psychoanalytical, structuralist and deconstructivist methods. She reviews the sources and the limitations of the so-called “French theory” in cultural studies courses in American universities before raising the critical practice she endorses: a synthesizing critical methodology that is based on the specificity of the text, uses multiple applicable theories in relation to the socio-temporal context in which the work was produced, while bearing in mind the author’s intentions and the reader’s active participation. Through rigorous textual analysis, literary criticism can identify some new perspectives offered by the text which enable construction of the meaning of the text and of life. This can highlight the functions of literary reading in enriching people’s lives and enhancing the role of reality and man’s spiritual realm.     

A Brief Discussion of the Generation of Meaning in Literary Works: A Hermeneutic Examination

The sources of meanings of literary works can be reviewed from various angles, one of which should be hermeneutics. Since the mid-20^th century, Western hermeneutics developed two important types of theories: one was the ontological hermeneutics from Martin Heidegger to Hans-Georg Gadamer, orientated towards the reader-centered theory in terms of the view of meanings; the other was the “hermeneutics as the general methodology of the Geisteswissenschaften” represented by Italian philosopher Emilio Betti, which affirmed that the author (subject) was one of the important sources of meanings of works. Due to intricate reasons, the latter exerted less influence, and Gadamer’s ontological hermeneutics firmly stuck to a mainstay position in European and American academia. Since the 1990s, the circle of literature in China has also been greatly influenced by the hermeneutic theories from Heidegger and Gadamer to reception aesthetics, and Betti’s impact almost can be neglected. Consequently, the view of meanings of literary works from the perspective of the reader-centered theory has been widely accepted, and the role of the author to endow initial meanings to his works was belittled and even denied. Since Zhang Jiang advanced the theory of “imposed interpretation” in 2014, academia has begun to reflect upon the one-sidedness of the reader-centered theory (relativism and subjectivism), and pick up the significance, which cannot be denied, of the author’s meaning in the generation of meanings of literary works. In reference to Betti’s hermeneutic train of thought and methodology, this essay, based on the practice of literary creation, concludes that the meaning of a literary work is created by the author and readers together in their interaction, and constantly generated in the dynamic process of the three factors of author, literary texts and readers, rather than by the author alone, or by readers solely.     

Literature,Literary Criticism and the Historical Index of the Readability of Literary Texts

The German scholar Sigrid Weigel takes issue with Professor Zhang Jiang’s view on the “correct understanding of a text,” which holds that literary interpretation should be objective and should reflect authorial intention. She raises four points to rebut Zhang’s criteria for determining whether an interpretation of literature is correct. Firstly, the central concern of literary interpretation is not authorial intention, but rather the dissection of the creative ideas in the text. Secondly, it is impossible to identify a single objective “authorial intention” when readers’ backgrounds, perspectives, methods and purposes vary dramatically. Thirdly, with the concept of the “historical index of readability,” Weigel attempts to establish an optimal meeting point between history and modern interpretive perspectives. Finally, Weigel makes it clear that literature and literary criticism in China today cannot eliminate the influence of Western theories and that the key to the development of Chinese literary theory lies in the combination of tradition and modernity.     

A qualitative case study of a Korean former addict’s existential self‐interpretation and identity transformation

This study explored the case of a former addict, focusing on his existential self‐interpretation and identity transformation process. This study began from the question of whether philosophical processes related to existential self‐interpretation could lead to the formation of the concept of bottoming out and of identity transformation. To answer this question, the study analyzed the case of a male in his mid‐forties who was addicted to drugs for approximately 30 years and has only recently maintained abstinence. The study used the phenomenological approach to determine the meaning drugs held for him in each stage, and what drug‐related identity he had in each stage. Further, this study identified the integrative implications of these meanings in terms of existential self‐interpretation and identity transformation. The four different identities the man identified for the four stages of his life were juvenile delinquent, gang member, half‐gangster, and breadwinner, and the associated meanings drugs had for him during each period were “glue,” “filthy,” “leeches,” and “abstinence,” respectively. Finally, this study elucidated the integration of these meanings through the hermeneutic circle, identified the social welfare implications of the findings, and developed educational recommendations.     

试论费孝通的“乡寰视野”

本文根据费孝通的有关理论、观点提出“乡寰视野”、“劦业乡”两个概念，尝试以此来诠释费孝通关于中国城乡社会发展与世界经济之“休戚与共”的理论和实践活动。文章阐述了费孝通“乡寰视野”观的渊源、演进；从概念结构上解明“乡寰视野”中的“乡”和“寰”，以及“劦业乡”各自的内涵构成；通过对映衬费孝通“乡寰视野”历史意识的理论梳理，以及对费孝通晚年就“乡”“寰”关系问题所作阐述的把握，试图以更具综合性的视域对费孝通的这一重要思想作出较为系统的学理解释。文章最后指出，费孝通倡导“文化自觉”体现出了更为宽广、更为仁至的人文关怀的情愫。“乡寰视野”中的纯真的愿景，是“‘美好社会’的意念”。     

On the Development of a Chinese Discourse in Literary Studies Based on Current Practice

There are two mistaken tendencies in the development of a Chinese literary discourse in academia. One is the “red dancing shoes” phenomenon, where scholars run helter- skelter after the latest developments in Western literary theory; the other is the “bound feet” phenomenon, where tradition-bound scholars believe that tradition must be kept unchanged and that Chinese literary theory should be cleansed of all alien elements. Neither approach is desirable. Contemporary Chinese literary theory should be grounded in present realities and should distinguish between substance and function. “Substance” has to consist of China’s present literary creation and critical practice; only thus can we appropriate Western and traditional Chinese literary theories in the service of today’s needs, and make the ancient serve the modern and the foreign the Chinese. This will enable us to develop a literary discourse that is both contemporary and Chinese.     

跨越“文野之别”的实践——再论费孝通的江村研究

江村是著名社会学家、人类学家费孝通成名的起点，又是他近70年持续研究中国农村发展道路的研究基地。他踏出的江村研究之路，表达了西方人类学大师“梦寐以求的愿望”，开拓了人类学从研究野蛮人转向研究文明人的新时代。文章指出，费孝通的江村研究是由环环相扣的偶然因素促成的，同时又是有计划、动机明确、志向高远的一项研究。他进行的中国乡村“文明社区”——江村研究的实践， 跨越了“文野之别”，开拓了人类学研究的新领域，西方学者给予了高度评价。时代造就了《江村经济》，《江村经济》把费孝通推向了世界学术前沿。费孝通“志在富民”，江村研究以探索农民怎样发展生产力，摆脱贫困走向富裕道路为主旨，揭示了“江村人”的思想观念、人际关系和生活方式等的变化。文章认为费孝通的“江村”研究在理论和实践上做出了重大的贡献，为后继学者的研究奠定了基础。他未竟的事业，将由“江村学”研究肩负。     

The Academic History of Literature and Art as a “ Disease of Interpretation”: On the Paradoxical Nature of Interdisciplinary Boundaries

This article represents an academic response to Professor Zhang Jiang’s article “On Imposed Interpretation” published in Russian in the journal October (no. 1, 2015). It argues that the problems observed by Zhang arise from the reality of Western literary criticism over the past decades, and are associated with the contention between philosophy and philology that had its orgins in the West’s Platonic heritage. In outlining the complex symbiotic relationship between the two disciplines in Western literary history, this article finds that two theoretical motive forces catalyzed the process: the “philologization of philosophy” and the “philosophization of philology.” The writer argues that based on a full understanding of the paradoxical relationship between philosophy and philology, which are distinct from and yet attracted to each other, contemporary literary criticism can adopt the principles of “practical conservatism” and “cutting back of methodologies” as a means of healing the ever worsening “disease of intepreretation” in literary history.     

On the Innovation of Literary Theory in China

Abstract

China’s rise has increased concerns about innovation in China’s indigenous literary theory. How to create theories with a “China style” and global influence has become a serious challenge for the development of contemporary Chinese literary theory. Three strategies are noteworthy in meeting this challenge. First, “amateurism in professionalism” can be used to offset the constraints of increasing disciplinization and professionalization in literary theory. Second, critical rationality needs to be cultivated among researchers and in institutional forms in order to alter the present lack of rational and vigorous debate, criticism and dialogue. Third, we need to reconstruct “grand narratives,” so as to make a unique contribution to the world in terms of universal values, meanings and ethics through transforming and advancing traditional Chinese thought.     

古典学的人类学相关性:还原并反思地引申一种主张

近代人类学的奠基者曾高度重视借鉴古典学的研究成果。20世纪初，学科理念发生巨变。此后数十年间，古典学者继续借鉴人类学思想，而现代新人类学中重视古典学的学者却越来越少。20世纪60年代初，克拉克洪在其所著《论人类学与古典学的关系》一书中对这一变化表示喜忧参半。他乐见人类学思想渗入古典学，担忧人类学因减少汲取古典学的养分而丢失其本来的品质。克拉克洪指出，人类学的根基是人文与科学，此二者均为古希腊人的发明，现代新人类学要保持其品格，便有必要重返古希腊。鉴于克氏主张的重要性，本文力图对之加以还原，并在此基础上进行反思。本文认为，克拉克洪有规避西学人类学的神学关联及过度渲染古希腊特殊性的倾向，更存在以“文化”概念“消化”文野关联的问题。要扭转这类倾向，克服这类问题，应有选择地丰富古典旧人类学有关“中间环节”的看法。     

在现代社会学与后现代社会理论之间米尔斯的《社会学的想像力》再解读

在《社会学的想像力》一书中,米尔斯对美国传统社会学理论和研究方法上的抽象和僵化进行了全面的批判,在批判的过程中,提出了许多带有后现代色彩的新的理论取向和方法论取向。在对人类历史和当代的看法上,在对宏大理论的批判上,在对实证主义的态度上,在对学科分化的理解上,以及对价值倾向的偏好上,米尔斯都表现出很强的后现代转向。然而他对现代社会学的批判是立足于古典社会学传统之上的,并没有完全放弃现代性,这使他的思想有别于纯粹的后现代主义,处于现代社会学与后现代社会理论之间。这样,通过对《社会学的想像力》进行再解读,似乎可以把后现代社会理论和现代社会学在逻辑上连接起来,表明两者之间没有不可逾越的鸿沟。     

“桑梓情谊”的现代转化：费孝通社会理论的情感维度

费孝通的社会理论在社会结构方面更受学界重视，而其中的情感维度尚未得到足够关注。本文试图在费孝通早年有关中国现代化的理论视域中，梳理他有关“桑梓情谊”与“亲属情谊”“乡土工业”“村镇地方团体”之间关系的探索和讨论，进而呈现费孝通社会理论中对于情感的重视。 在费孝通看来，中国的现代化应该以中国传统社会组织为基础来嫁接西方现代技术， 从而推动整个社会从传统向现代的有效过渡。 在此过程中，他尝试将既旧且新的“桑梓情谊”阐释为现代中国社会的情感基础。 文章认为，“桑梓情谊”表征并构造了本地的根源与大社会的流动以及地方与国家的人际关联， 是理解费孝通社会理论之情感维度的关键，对我们思考当代中国现代化建设也有一定的启示。     

Radical Interactionism: Going Beyond Mead*

George Herbert Mead argues that human society is comprised of six basic institutions—language, family, economics, religion, polity, and science. I do not believe that he can be criticized for making institutions the cornerstones of a society, but he can definitely be criticized for his explanation of how our basic institutions originate, how these institutions operate in society after their inception, and how they later change, modifying society in the process. The problem with Mead's explanation of these three critical matters is that he based them on his principle of “sociality” rather than on the principle of “domination.” If Mead's principle of sociality is replaced by the principle of domination and his notion of the “generalized other” is replaced by the notion of the “phantom community,” then most of these problems can be largely solved. Thus, in this paper, I will not only point out the key problems in Mead's theory of society, but I will also offer solutions to them based on the notions of domination and the “phantom community.” The end product is a “radical interactionism” that surpasses Mead's original interactionism in identifying the part that both domination and the composite “other” play in every known human society—big and small, and past and present.     

生命与伦理:齐美尔生命哲学基础上的个体法则

以其早年对货币经济下的个体处境及两种个体主义的思考为背景，晚年的齐美尔在生命哲学的基础上集中阐述了有关伦理准则的个体法则。西方的主导伦理思想视伦理为普遍法则对个体行动的约束，普遍法则的合法性建立在一种二元对立的、机械的、理性的、目的论的视角之上。个体法则却以作为应该的个体生命为源泉，打破了以康德为代表的西方伦理思想中的各种视角局限，同时回应了齐美尔早年有关货币经济、文化悲剧和个体主义的思考，提供了一种与功利主义、利己主义等不同的个体主义话语。     

The Positive and the Negative Method and the Spheres of Living: Some Thoughts on Feng Youlan’s Philosophical Method

冯友兰是中国当代最具方法论自觉的一位哲学家。他早年特别强调形上学概念命 题之不涉及内容的形式性意义, 对负的方法范围的界定亦嫌过狭, 这对理解正负方法 的统一内涵造成了一些理论困扰。晚年他据“具体共相”的观念反思其哲学系统, 在 肯定哲学概念范畴形式性的同时, 揭示了它作为把握实在的方式及其思想运动的“特 殊内容”, 实现了理智概念与直觉神秘间的相互包涵与融通。从冯友兰晚年的理论反 思反观其整个哲学系统, 可见其思想的前后一贯。其据具体共相思想对自己的哲学系 统及哲学本性所作新解, 亦是其整个哲学体系的题中应有之义。本此识度, 才能更好 地理解冯友兰哲学方法及其哲学的真精神, 从中获得对中国哲学和文化现代重建的智 慧启迪。

关键词: 冯友兰 正的方法 负的方法 人生境界

Among contemporary Chinese philosophers, Feng Youlan had the greatest degree of methodological self-awareness. In his earlier years, he especially emphasized the formalist meaning (not touching on content) of metaphysical concepts and propositions and defined the negative method too narrowly, leading to some theoretical confusion over the inherent unity of the two methods. In his later years, he employed the concept of the “concrete universal” to reflect on his philosophical system; while affirming the formalism of philosophical conceptual category, he revealed the “peculiar content” of the category as a means of grasping actuality and its intellectual movements, thus realizing the mutual accommodation of rationality and intuition (mystery). A review of Feng’s philosophical system in accordance with the theoretical reflections of his later years will indicate the consistency of his thought throughout his life. His new understanding of his own philosophical system and the nature of philosophy on the basis of the “concrete universal” was the logical outcome of his previous ideas. Only with this in mind will we be able to attain a better understanding of the methodology and true spirit of Feng’s philosophy and draw inspiration for the contemporary reconstruction of Chinese philosophy and culture.     

MAFALDA: An Argentina Comic Strip

Mafalda, the acutely sensitive little girl well-known to both Argentinian and other Latin American readers, has been used by Quino, her creator, as the vehicle to comment on national foibles and pretentions. David Foster analyzes several strips to show how Mafalda's cleverness is based on literary strategems of what he calls “judicious inuerosimilitude.” While he asserts that Quino's work is a remarkably accurate representation of the details of Argentine bourgeois daily life, the dominant Buenos Aires sociodialect, and patterns of behavior that underlie social and ethic values, the strip is also singularly inverosimilar in its handling of sociological types. The object o f the strip thus is artful verbal and visual representation. Readers familiar with literary criticism will be interested in Foster's employment o f some general semiological principles to highlight the complex ironies which pervade Quino's work and to show how much of the strip's worth derives from contrasting Mafalda's unique perceptions and the stereotypic behavior of those around her.     

“Snow’s Proposition” and Interdisciplinary Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences

“斯诺命题”提出了“科学文化”和“文学文化”的矛盾和冲突, 以及“两种文 化”发展中的困境问题。“斯诺命题”在积极意义上涉及提出了人文科学、社会科学 和自然科学之间存在的对象的整体性与既定学科的局部性的矛盾问题, 提出了人文社 会科学“次文化”分裂和分离化倾向的问题。走跨学科之路是破解“斯诺命题”关键 所在, 其中特别要注重解决好学科研究和问题研究的结合、个体研究和团队研究的结 合、学者的个人禀赋发挥、研究的社会导向和环境导向、研究的评价体制和机制优化 等问题。

关键词: 斯诺命题 科学文化 文学文化 人文社会科学 跨学科研究

“Snow’s proposition” points out the contradictions and conflicts between “scientific culture” and “literary culture” and the dilemma of the development of the “two cultures.” In the positive sense, Snow’s proposition concerns the contradictions between the integrity of the research subject and the particularity of established disciplines, as well as the trend toward division and isolation in subdivisions of the humanities and social sciences. The key to solving Snow’s proposition is to take an inter-disciplinary path that pays particular attention to combining discipline-centered with issue-centered research and individual work with teamwork, giving full play to individual endowment, social orientation and environmental orientation and to the optimization of evaluation systems and mechanisms.     

The Writing on the Walls: Graffiti as Government Propaganda in Mexico

As pointed out in another article (Flora) contained in this volume, Latin American governments use mass media and popular culture forms to inform the masses and to provide messages which serve as alternatives to those communicated by the “controlled” media. While print and electronic means are effective in reaching large segments of Latin America's urban and rural populations, walls, both public and private, have been utilized as well. As Kenneth Crrieb points out in his article, painting announcements on walls is a common practice in these societies as well as in other nan- Western countries such as the People's Republic of China. Grieb focuses on the phenomenon in Mexico City during the latter protion of Luis Echeverria's presidenc (mid-1970s) when, under his orders, painters decorated walls all over the city with messages proclaiming both political slogans and popular wisdom. Perhaps inspired by his visit to China, Echeverria saw the potential of wall announcements to mobilize the populace to a greater awareness of their social responsibility as Mexican citizens. Grieb lists and comments on several categories of wall announcements which he sees as a mirror of the thoughts of the political leadership as well as an indication of the values it sought to promote.     

Kurt Lewin's Leadership Studies and His Legacy to Social Psychology: Is There Nothing as Practical as a Good Theory?

This paper re‐examines Kurt Lewin's classic leadership studies, using them as a concrete example to explore his wider legacy to social psychology. Lewin distinguished between advanced “Galileian” science, which was based on analysing particular examples, and backward “Aristotelian” science, which used statistical analyses. Close examination of the way Lewin wrote about the leadership studies reveals that he used the sort of binary, value‐laden concepts that he criticised as “Aristotelian”. Such concepts, especially those of “democracy” and “autocracy”, affected the way that he analysed the results and the ways that later social scientists have understood, and misunderstood, the studies. It is argued that Lewin's famous motto—“there is nothing as practical as a good theory”—is too simple to fit the tensions between the leadership studies and his own views of what counts as good theory.