56 chapter one
of Chinese literature as conducted in China and elsewhere, and to its
translation.^64
Can Western studies of Chinese literature steer clear of Occidento-
centrism (㽓ᮍЁᖗЏН), if we were to accept the static homogeniza-
tion of the West that this question presupposes? A few basics, none
of them terribly original, may serve to outline my position. Most if
not all literary theory and methodology that claim any universal va-
lidity originate in a particular (literary, linguistic, social, ideological)
framework Fx. There are many such frameworks, and they are rarely
“pure” at any point in time. Their interaction contributes to cultural
development and entails the encounter of perspectives that are expe-
rienced as relatively “native” and “foreign”—even if neither the na-
tive nor the foreign view themselves as such prior to the encounter,
neither are pure or fixed and both will change as a consequence of the
encounter. In the contemporary world this interaction is inevitable.
Theory and methodology from Fx shouldn’t be mechanically applied
to literature from Fy, nor should their applicability to literature from
Fy be mechanically rejected. What scholars who come from Fx bring
to the study of literature from Fy includes a perspective Px, without ex-
cluding others. Px, in its turn, sometimes includes explicit theory and
methodology and always includes a general intellectual-cultural make-
up, which is usually less explicit. It reflects communal orientations but
also has room for individual aesthetics. Scholars from Fx who study
literature from Fy cannot block out Px, which has a bearing on the
questions they ask of this literature, and hence on their representations
of it. This need not be a problem, as long as they are aware of this situ-
ation and know that Px is but one possible perspective and not a truth
claim.
In the present context, a controversial perspective is that of foreign,
usually Western sinologists (∝ᄺᆊ) who study and translate Chinese
literature and function as its brokers vis-à-vis foreign publishers, media
and university curricula. Their role is often considered in the context
of a general discontent with modern Chinese literature’s low interna-
tional impact. Assessment of their achievements ranges from the wel-
(^64) Owen 1990 and 2003; Jenner 1990; Yeh 1991b, 1998, 2000a and 2007b;
Chow 1993: ch 1-2 and 2000; Link 1993; Zhang Longxi 1993; Zhang Yingjin 1993;
Jones 1994; Lee (Gregory) 1996: ch 4; Huang Yunte 2002: ch 2; McDougall 2003:
12 et passim in ch 1-2. With the exception of Yeh 1991b, an early rejoinder to Owen
1990, these references are limited to English-language scholarship.