How to view the phenomenon of generalization of literary texts

Currently, the study of literature at home and abroad has shown a trend of pan-culturalism, which refers to the ideological and cultural tendency of the study of literature to go beyond the field of traditional literature and to use research resources, research methods, and research perspectives that traditionally seem to belong to non-literature to study the phenomenon of literature. The various phenomena resulting from the study of this development tendency are the pan-cultural phenomenon of literary research. Here it is necessary to make a clear distinction between two types of situations in the generalization of literature: the generalization of literary production and the generalization of literary research. The generalization of literary production has given rise to many new forms and styles that are different from traditional literature, and these new "miscellaneous literature" styles include film literature, television literature, network literature, advertising literature, popular songs, television serials, cell phone text message literature, and so on. But the pan-cultural phenomenon of literary research is not the study of these new literary styles, which is much more distant and broad. Generally speaking, it is widely believed that the pan-cultural phenomenon of literary research basically refers to the phenomenon in the field of theory and criticism, unless the literary production activities in special circumstances have generated problems or propositions that are of concern to the theoretical community. The phenomenon of pan-culture in literary studies tends to refer to such theoretical discourses as popular culture, cultural identity, media, cultural institutions, cultural consumption, discourses of power, gender studies, colonialism and post-colonialism, political hermeneutics, carnival theory and square culture. Instead of discussing the phenomenon of pan-culturalization in literary production, we will limit our topic to "pan-culturalization in literary studies". We collectively call the "pan-cultural phenomenon of literary research" the study of literature in mainland China since the 1990s, placing it in the "periphery" between itself and its periphery. The pan-cultural phenomenon of literary research is similar in meaning to the "cultural criticism" that is currently prevalent both at home and abroad, but very different from the concept of "cultural research". The scope of "cultural criticism" is broader than that of traditional literary criticism, and the center of gravity of the study is still on literature, while the purpose of the criticism goes beyond the aesthetics or literariness of literature and becomes a kind of textual politics. However, in the practice of "cultural studies", it often goes beyond the "pure literature" established by China's modern concept of literature, and the pan-literature (or "miscellaneous literature") that has arisen since the reform and opening up of China. (or "miscellaneous literature", such as movies, TV dramas, pop songs, Internet literature, cell phone text message literature, etc.), and goes to study things other than literature in a broader sense - for example, McDonald's culture, bob shoes (Cantonese, or "sneakers" in Putonghua), automobile fashions, etc. The "Cultural Studies" program is a new approach to the study of literature in the broad sense of the term. Since "cultural studies" is too broad to be analyzed and judged in this project, we will strictly limit our thesis to those who have escaped from the traditional field of literary studies and crossed over to non-literary fields to conduct "transgressive studies". We will strictly limit our thesis to the following: we will summarize and sort out a series of ideologies, research perspectives, and research methods of literary research put forward by scholars who have escaped from the traditional field of literary research and have crossed over to non-literary fields to conduct "transgressive research"; we will also analyze and sort out the "pan-cultural phenomenon of literary research" resulting from their study of literature, and we will strive to make accurate and detailed analysis and sorting out of it, We strive to make accurate and detailed analysis, compilation, judgment and suggestions on the "pan-cultural phenomenon of literary research" caused by "their" literary research. Therefore, the research object of this topic needs to be emphasized in particular - it is the "study" of "the study of pan-cultural literary research", a kind of postulated research, which does not want to, does not want to, and is not necessary in the current "multitude of words" and the "phenomenon of pan-cultural literary research". It is a kind of postulated research, and we don't want to, don't want to, and don't have the need to join a kind of gesture or "speech" that may not belong to the well-considered one in a hurry in the current academic world of "the clamor of all the people", and that kind of "speech" that is forced to be said in order to declare one's own existence may not have much ability to stand the test of time. The "words" that are forced to be said in order to declare one's existence may not have much value that can stand up to scholarly scrutiny.

From the point of view of the research of this topic, the academic history of the pan-cultural phenomenon of literary research is cleaned up and critiqued in a scholastic way, and it is the research that "understands literature as its ontology and purpose". As for cultural studies, it is extended beyond literature, the purpose is to discuss other cultural phenomena outside of literature, literature is only the cause and shell, and the shell is often not wrapped around the soul of culture, culture is often "soul out of the shell".

We need to seriously, accurately, and objectively put down some literature and discourse contextualization work, and with the attitude of "sympathetic understanding" that Mr. Chen Yincheng adhered to, we need to find out what contexts and conditions the debates in the academic circles on the relevant issues are in, and what issues and how to address the specific issues. The following is a summary of the debate on the issue Figure out these seemingly trivial and easily plausible questions, to be able to clarify what scholars or schools of thought in what degree, in what sense correct to what point. Only then can we make it clear to whom we are to speak, to whom we are to speak, and to what extent we are to speak. This must be clarified, otherwise, our academic critique may degenerate into a dispute of opinion without much academic value. In that case, rigorous academic research and personalized writing in those essays, miscellaneous feelings there is not much difference.

Chen Yinke's credo is "to approach the truth with a sympathetic mindset" -- that is, the researcher first gives up his own preferences, and first goes to the object of study to find its own reasonable basis for a complete understanding of the object of study, and only then with contemporary vision to make a rational and reasonable judgment again. The researchers need to make every effort to avoid two types of tendencies in their research. Two tendencies need to be avoided in research: one is to collect, sort out and recapitulate accurate documentary materials, unable or unwilling to analyze and reflect in depth; the other is to hastily base on one's own subjective understanding and presuppose an a priori "one-pointed view" without having possessed as much reliable materials as possible.

This topic starts from the angle of "the definition of pan-cultural phenomenon of literary research in the academic world", and it sorted out the beginning, development, and domestic and international resources of this topic, and then it started from the generalization of concepts, the migration of attitudes (for example, the adoption of "resistance and surrender" to defend the pure culture), and then it started from the generalization of concepts and the transfer of attitudes. Then we analyze the reasons and background of this phenomenon in terms of generalization of concepts, migration of attitudes (e.g., adopting "resistance and surrender" to defend the noble status and purity of pure literature, jumping out to study culture by crossing the literary barriers, taking scholars' identities as the basis for considering each other's eligibility to participate in the literary debates, and identifying the ideological and scholarly divisions, etc.), and the international resources for the rise, and then we highlight the reasons and backgrounds for this phenomenon based on these aspects. On this basis, he focuses on nine types of academic debates: the displacement of "literariness" and its boundaries, the debate between popular culture and the aestheticization of daily life, the study of deconstructive culture, the anthropology of art, the spirit of humanism and the new rationality, the rewriting of literary history, the transition from cultural poetics to classical literary theory, the theory of visual narrative and consumer culture, and the ecology of art and literature and criticism, and he also provides an analysis of the reasons and backgrounds for this phenomenon. In this paper, we summarize the essence of the academic thinking of various schools and schools of thought in pan-cultural studies in mainland China, and outline the academic ideas and rationale of various schools of thought in pan-cultural studies. Afterwards, we launch our five academic critiques: the dispute over the center of gravity and the divergence of social positions, whether we can answer the new literary phenomenon, whether the visual form has overridden the paper-media literature, whether the ecology of literature and art can provide a third kind of theoretical support other than anthropocentricity and science and technology centrality, whether modernity and post-modernity can become valid discourses in China today - and whether we can establish a new academic framework for pan-cultural studies. and whether modernity and postmodernity can be effective discourses in China today-as well as specific reflections based on the five critiques (the initial stage of development, the discrepancy between transplanting the West and adapting locally, etc.). From these very specific and straightforward reflections, it is logical to deduce four *** literate and fair-minded judgments - the gesture of expanding disciplinary horizons, the effort to dissolve traditional disciplinary boundaries, the major shortcomings faced, and the prospects for overcoming them. Among them, there are at least three ways out to overcome the aforementioned deficiencies: the first is to follow the path of enriching, supplementing, and refining the actions of communication, dialog, and engagement advocated by Habermas. The second is to insist on the diversity of literary studies and cultural criticism. The third is to make up for the deficiencies in each other's knowledge and talent structures, to overcome the habits of "high-mindedness" and "talk without pain", and to advocate "scholars becoming writers and writers becoming scholars". With the above four major judgments as the logical support, and finally pointed out that the researchers of this topic on the exploration of the new expansion of literary research on the two roads and three centers of gravity to turn to the idea.

In terms of the fairness of the judgment, the theory of communication, dialogue, and interactive action advocated by Habermas provides human beings with a new way of thinking, a possibility of new attempts. However, in the practice of research, it is difficult in most cases to achieve what the Catholic theologian Pannica labeled "the absence of superiority, preconceived ideas, hidden motives and beliefs on both sides," and "the elimination of pre-conceived ideas about their purpose and results. When social groups are polarized to the point of extreme antagonism, and each side is bent on its own core interests and refuses to budge, the platform for mutual communication will be lost and "dialogue" will not be possible. If literary or artistic theories are once again pushed towards systematization, how can we avoid the historical absurdity of replacing the old monism or dichotomy with a new monism or dichotomy? Or based on the same old, closed way of thinking into another "change the soup but not the medicine" of the "circle of thinking"?

We can adopt the following strategy to form a new world of expanding literary studies in the middle ground between literary studies and cultural studies - to make a systematic study and Kantian critique of the "pan-cultural phenomenon of literary studies": to discover from China's localities the historical dystopia of literary pan-cultural studies. We will discover cases of pan-cultural studies in literature from China, integrate Western cultural studies theories with the Chinese context, and create Chinese categories and terms of pan-cultural studies to participate in international dialogues through the overlapping of pre-modernity, modernity, and post-modernity in the current Chinese ****temporal state. In this way, we can cultivate a new generation of human experience, promote the breaking down of inter-disciplinary knowledge barriers, strengthen the integration of new knowledge achievements, and catalyze the "phoenix nirvana" of new cultural forms.

Most of our attempts to break out of literary studies into the field of cultural studies are not truly "interdisciplinary", but often "illegal", borrowing from another field of study. Most of the attempts to break out into the field of cultural studies are not "interdisciplinary" in the true sense of the word, but are often "illegally skipping the ticket", borrowing the conceptual terms and methodological perspectives of another discipline to act as a "scalpel" for some of the phenomena in literature, which are rigidly forced to be dissected. This kind of interdisciplinary is just to add some more ways of speech and discourse space, borrowing other disciplines is also to show some more "juggling" in literature. As for "whether the knowledge of the borrowed disciplines is correctly mastered by oneself"? This kind of question has not been strictly considered. Nor is there any time to consider whether the "orthodox classes" in the borrowed disciplines recognize it. It seems that cultural relativism, absolute laissez-faire liberalism and "whatever you like" nihilism are more destructive than constructive, more deconstructive than constructive. A more feasible approach seems to be to gather experts with specialized skills in the relevant disciplines involved in the research topic into a ****same team. Strictly speaking, "interdisciplinary" construction is not easy, but at least it is better than those who come from the literature from other disciplines to "borrow", "bring" and then quickly be able to "Handy" to operate the scalpel practice, the disciplinary significance of the normative, rigorous to be much higher. Unilaterally, the scalpel "brought to us" by a quick raid and "learning from the masters" can confidently "slaughter" those originally organic and natural or already distorted and emasculated literatures, without having to pay the price for this kind of literature that has not yet achieved the "quality" of "mastery". There is no need to worry about this kind of "grand narrative" surgery without obtaining the qualification of "combined Chinese and Western medicine clinic", and there is no need to worry about the possibility of adding a new wound to an old one. This practice is not only contrary to the original intention of "interdisciplinary", even for the enhancement of the standard of literary research, optimization of the ecological environment of literary criticism and enhancement of the art of mental cultivation of progressive, may be very harmful.

Literary studies must go deeper into the context in which it survives and develops. In order to make literary theory a real possibility

discipline, it is necessary to penetrate the context of classical literature, to go deep into the living performing arts that have a live nature and a folk flow, and to discover the source of life that nurtures literature. We need to realize the transition from the traditional classical poetic theory to the performance poetics of literary folk live activities, and to graft and grow a kind of oral, performance, and activity poetics from the contemporary folk art life forms that are still active. The classical literary theory that is universal, based on the study of classical texts in the individual literati's creations, based on monistic traditional concepts and categories, that excludes popular culture, and that treats folk forms of literature and art as unpopular, will be transformed into an overarching poetics that encompasses a wider range of non-classical literature and art. --A general poetics that is partly regional or adopted by a stratified group of appreciative subjects, based on the study of oral creations perpetuated by similar groups, and supported by the theory of dialogical interaction, which regards the folk scene as the mother-bed of the vastness of art. The utopian aesthetic idealism, universality of the grand unified view of literature dominated by the study of literature, not only with the modern classics may be in conflict with each other, but also with the oral literature is often lack of fairness.

After careful and rigorous examination and sorting out, the author thinks that there are two general

direction expansion and three major changes in the path to solve these dilemmas. The two general directions are as follows: Firstly, a series of propositions which have great value in the field of traditional literary theory and which are less concerned and less y probed by the current academic circles are to be discovered and highlighted. For example, the connotations of such categories or terms as repetition, difference, symbolism, empathy, divinity, and emptiness are very much in need of in-depth and detailed exploration, discernment, and organization. There are still many propositions within the traditional scope of classical literature that have yet to be explored and are no longer of research value. Secondly, the classical poetics in the traditional sense, which is strictly limited to texts (especially written texts, but also focuses on classical texts), turns to the study of the contexts on which the texts exist. This context has a context within the text and a context outside the text. In the contextual study of literary texts, it is especially necessary to strengthen the living literature of oral transmission and live performance, which has been neglected in previous studies, and to shift the focus of our research from classical poetics in the traditional sense to non-classical poetics: folklore, folklore, and the theory of orally transmitted art. Expanding on the above two general directions will realize three major shifts in concepts and paths: first, shifting from ideological literary concepts to limited and localized literary theories; second, shifting from the theoretical direction of grand narratives to the theoretical direction of non-essentialist, subjective art theories; and, third, the collective creativity of folk groups, which is different from that of literati in terms of individual creativity, which is a combination of "inheritance and improvisation" and "oral transmission". Third, the folk group's collective creative path of "inheritance and improvisation" is different from that of the literati's individual original writing.

The realization of the above two directions of expansion, the three major changes, will make the face of literary research has undergone a significant and very meaningful change. After summarizing the above three major shifts, we can at least summarize the classical literary theory into the following two characteristics: 1. objectivity of the object of study, entity, textual nature; 2. universality, homogeneity (unity), monism of the theoretical purpose. On the contrary, the characteristics of non-classical literary theory will have the following three value directions: 1. the non-objectivity, non-substantiality, and intertextuality of the object of study of non-classical literary theory; 2. the specificity, heterogeneity (non-homogenization), and plurality of theoretical aims; 3. the main form of interactive participation and sharing, exchange and dissemination of communication, to avoid the ideological theory of theories that take the theoretician's self-worth as the (only) criterion to judge things; 4. the main form of theories that take the theoreticians' self-worth as the (only) criterion to judge things. (the only) criterion for judging things. We need to establish a platform for mutual and equal communication. The position of non-classical literary theory is not to overthrow classical literary theory and replace it; it is not "either/or" but "both/and". It is to provide a variety of possibilities for the diversity of literary and artistic theories and even cultural theories.

Adopting the constructive strategy of "pragmatics" + "poetics" + postulated research, it can reveal new research perspectives and fields for literary theory research, and help to dissect in-depth those literary and artistic phenomena with Chinese folklore value, forming a similar research method to Bakhtin's literary theory research. With the help of in-depth dissection of those literary phenomena with Chinese folklore value, it can form a form of literary theory with Chinese characteristics similar to Bakhtin-style literary theory research.