摘要
比较,还是不比较?这是比较文学学科自诞生之日起就一直纠结不清的问题。在中西文学比较中,许多中国特殊论的倡导者,其实是基于西方的标准将中国的特殊性纳入比较的框架。如此一来,“比较”使得“比较本身”失去价值。跨文化阐释作为比较文学的中国范式,不仅是一种“时间性阐释”,更是一种“空间性阐释”。与中西二元论模式“空间的时间化”产生机制不同,跨文化阐释的空间性体现为“时间的空间化”。“空间性”是跨文化阐释学的本体论,“内比法”则是其方法论。跨文化阐释的空间性问题仅仅采用外在的异同比较法(comparative)是无法解决的,还有必要引入潘尼卡所提倡的以“不二论”为主要内容和鲜明特色的“内比法”(imparative),如此可为比较文学比较难题的解决提供一个新思路。运用“内比法”来充实跨文化阐释范式时,我们应该做到“价值中立”“时间中止”以及“空间中介”。
To compare,or not to compare?This is a question that the discipline of comparative literature has been unable to answer since its birth.In the comparison between Chinese and Western literature,many advocates of Chinese particularity are still based on western standards to bring Chinese particularity into the framework of comparison,so that“comparison”renders the very act of“comparison”meaningless.As the Chinese paradigm of comparative literature,cross-cultural interpretation is not only“temporal interpretation”but also“spatial interpretation”.Different from the generating mechanism of“temporalization of space”in the model of Sino-Western dualism,the spatiality of cross-cultural interpretation is embodied in“spatialization of time”.In order to solve the spatial problem of cross-cultural interpretation,it is necessary to introduce the“imparative method”which is advocated by Panikkar and takes“non-dualism”as the main content and distinctive features,instead of just using the external comparative method.Using the imparative method,we are able to enrich the paradigm of cross-cultural interpretation through“value neutrality”,“time suspension”,and“space intermediary”.
出处
《中国比较文学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2024年第4期2-18,共17页
Comparative Literature in China
基金
国家社科基金重大项目“百年欧美汉学家中国美学学术史研究”(编号:23&ZD300)的阶段性成果。
关键词
跨文化阐释
空间性
内比法
中国范式
比较文学
cross-cultural interpretation
spatiality
imparative method
Chinese Paradigm
Comparative Literature
作者简介
李庆本,文学博士,杭州师范大学艺术教育研究院教授。研究方向:文艺美学、比较文学。电子邮箱:liqingben1@sina.com。
