Only by clarifying these seemingly trivial and easily specious questions can we understand which scholars or schools are correct to what extent and in what sense. Only then can we be clear about “who

Only by clarifying these seemingly trivial and easily specious questions can we understand which scholars or schools are correct to what extent and in what sense. Only then can we be clear about “who we will talk to”, “who we will talk about next”, and “to what extent” we will talk about our follow-up research. This must be made clear, otherwise, our academic criticism may degenerate into a debate of opinions without much academic value. In that case, there won't be much difference between rigorous academic research and the essays and mixed feelings in personal writing. Chen Yinke’s creed is “to approach the truth with a sympathetic attitude”—that is, the researcher should first give up his own preferences, first find the reasonable basis for the research object, and only after fully understanding the research object, can he use contemporary methods to Make reasonable judgments again. There are two tendencies that need to be avoided in research: one is to only collect, sort out and retell accurate literature materials, and is unable or unwilling to conduct in-depth analysis and thinking; the other is to rush to rely on one's own subjective understanding before possessing as much reliable materials as possible , presupposes the a priori "one-obtained view".

This topic approaches the topic from the perspective of "the academic community's definition of pan-cultural phenomena in literary studies", sorting out the beginning, development, and domestic and foreign resources of this topic, and then starting from the generalization of concepts and attitudes. Migration (for example, using the method of "resistance and surrender" to defend the lofty status and purity of pure literature, jumping out to study culture by crossing literary barriers, using the identity of scholars as the basis for judging whether each other is qualified to participate in literary debates, identifying ideas This paper analyzes the reasons and background of this phenomenon from aspects such as the differentiation with academics, etc.), the rise of international resources, etc. On this basis, it focuses on sorting out the debate and deconstruction of the displacement and boundaries of "literariness", popular culture and the aestheticization of daily life. Nine categories of academic debates are cultural studies, artistic anthropology, humanistic spirit and new rationality, rewriting literary history, from cultural poetics to classic literary theory, visual narrative and consumer culture theory, literary ecology and criticism, and a general discussion of literature in mainland China. The essence of the academic thoughts of various schools and schools in cultural studies is summarized and summarized, and the academic propositions and rationale of various research schools in pan-cultural studies are listed. Then, we launched our five academic criticisms - the dispute over research focus and the difference in social stance, whether it can answer the new literary phenomenon, whether the visual form transcends paper media literature, and whether the literary ecology can provide a human center and a technological center. Whether modernity and postmodernity can become effective statements in China today based on the third theoretical support outside of China - as well as specific reflections based on the five criticisms (the initial stage of development, the gap between transplanting the West and local adaptation, etc.) . From these very specific and straightforward reflections, four most sensible and commensurable judgments can be logically deduced - the attitude of broadening the horizons of the discipline, the efforts to dissolve the traditional discipline boundaries, the major deficiencies faced, Having the prospect of overcoming lack. Among them, there are at least three ways to overcome the above-mentioned deficiencies: The first is to enrich, supplement and improve the communication, dialogue and exchange actions advocated by Habermas. The second article is to insist on the diversity of literary research and the diversity of cultural criticism. The third article is to make up for the deviations in each other's knowledge structure and talent structure, overcome the old habits of "having high eyes but low hands" and "talking without words", and advocate "scholars become writers, writers become scholars". Based on the above four major judgments as logical support, the author finally points out the two paths and three focuses of the researcher's exploration of new developments in literary research.

As far as the commensurability of judgment is concerned, the theory of communication, dialogue, and communicative action advocated by Habermas provides mankind with a new way of thinking and the possibility of a new attempt. However, in research practice, in most cases it is difficult to achieve what the Catholic theologian Panicka calls "neither party has superiority, prejudice, hidden motivations and beliefs", and "eliminates the possibility of conceiving its purpose and results in advance." When social groups are polarized to the point of extreme opposition, and all parties insist on their own opinions and refuse to give in for their own core interests, they will lose the platform for communication with each other and be unable to achieve "dialogue."

If literary or artistic theories are once again pushed onto the path of systematization, how can we avoid the historical absurdity left by replacing the old univariate dogmatism or binary opposition with a new one? Or will it become another "thinking cycle" of "changing the soup without changing the medicine" based on the same old and closed way of thinking?

We can adopt the following strategies to form a new world for expanding literary research in the middle zone between literary studies and cultural studies - to conduct systematic research and Kantian studies on the "pan-cultural phenomenon of literary studies" Criticism: Exploring cases of literary pan-cultural research from China, integrating Western cultural research theories with the Chinese context, pre-modernity, modernity and post-modernity overlapping in the current tense of China, creating a Chinese style to participate in international dialogue using the scope and terminology of pan-cultural research. This will foster the rebirth of human experience forms, promote the breaking down of interdisciplinary knowledge barriers, strengthen the integration of new knowledge achievements, and stimulate the "Phoenix Nirvana" of new cultural forms.

Most of our current attempts to "break out" from the position of literary studies to the field of cultural studies are not "interdisciplinary" in the true sense, and are often borrowed from another discipline in an "illegal fare evasion" The conceptual terminology, methods and perspectives are used as a "scalpel" to achieve immediate results, to be speculated and sold immediately, and to forcefully dissect some phenomena in literature. This kind of interdisciplinarity only adds more ways of speaking and discourse space, and borrowing other disciplines is also to show off more "juggling" in literature. As for "whether the borrowed subject knowledge is correctly mastered by oneself"? Such questions have not been considered in a strict sense. There is no time to care whether the "orthodox majors" in the borrowed disciplines recognize it. It seems that cultural relativism, absolute laissez-faire liberalism and "anything goes" nihilism are more destructive than constructive, deconstructing rather than constructing. A more feasible approach seems to be to gather experts with expertise in the relevant disciplines involved in the research topic who have received formal and rigorous training into a unique research team. The construction of "interdisciplinary" in the strict sense is not easy, but at least it is better than those people with a literary background who can "borrow" and "take" from other disciplines and quickly operate the scalpel "handily". The standardization and rigor of the discipline's meaning are much higher. A unilateral quick attack and a "brought" scalpel can confidently "slaughter" literature that was originally organic and natural or has been distorted and castrated. With the "outpatient" medical qualifications, I am worried about having a "grand narrative" major surgery, but I don't have to worry about the possibility of new ailments arising from old injuries that have not healed. This approach not only violates the original intention of "interdisciplinary", but may also cause great harm to the improvement of the level of literary research, the optimization of the ecological environment of literary criticism, and the enhancement of artistic spiritual cultivation.

Literature research must go deep into the context in which it exists and develops. In order to make literary theory truly possible as a subject, it is necessary to penetrate the context of classic literature and go deep into the live and flowing folk performing arts to explore and nurture The source of life for literature. We very much need to realize the transformation from traditional classical poetic theory to the performance poetics of literary and artistic folk live activities, and graft and grow a poetics of oral tradition, performance and activity from the artistic life form that is still active in contemporary folk. That kind of classical literature and art theory - a universal theory of literature and art that is based on the study of classic texts in the creations of individual literati, takes unilateral traditional concepts and categories as its criterion, rejects popular culture, and regards folk literary and artistic forms as unpopular. , will be transformed into a comprehensive poetics that includes more non-classical literature and art - with some regions or adopted by stratified appreciation subjects, based on the study of oral creation continued by similar groups, and supported by the theory of communication and dialogue , a comprehensive poetics that regards folk live activities as the vast mother bed of art. Literary research dominated by utopian aesthetic ideals and universal unified literary views may not only conflict with modern classics, but also often lack commensurability with oral literature.

After detailed and rigorous examination and sorting out, the author believes that there are two main ways to solve these difficulties:

There are two general directional expansions and three major changes. The two general directions are as follows: One is to explore and highlight a series of propositions that are of great value in the field of traditional literary theory, but that the current academic circle pays less attention to and less dives into in-depth exploration. For example, the connotations of categories or terms such as repetition, difference, symbolism, synesthesia, verve, and emptiness require in-depth and detailed exploration, examination, and sorting. There are still many propositions within the scope of traditional classical literature and art that have yet to be explored, but the research value is no longer there. Second, classical poetics in the traditional sense, which is strictly limited to texts (especially written texts, and focused on classic texts), is turned to the study of the context on which texts exist. This context includes intra-textual context and extra-textual context. In the contextual study of literary texts, what needs to be strengthened in particular is the oral and live performance of living literature that has been ignored in previous studies. This will shift the focus of our research from classical poetics in the traditional sense to non-classical poetics. : Folk, folklore, orally transmitted art theory. Expanding in the above two general directions will achieve three major changes in concepts and paths: first, changing the ideological literary concept to limited and partial literary theory; second, changing the theoretical direction of grand narrative to non- The essentialist subject-oriented artistic theory direction; third, the collective creation path of "inheritance and improvisation" of folk groups that is different from the original writing methods of individual literati.

The realization of the above two directions of expansion and three major changes will bring about a significant and very meaningful change in the face of literary research. After summarizing the above three major changes, we can at least summarize the classic literary theory into the following two characteristics: 1. The objectivity, substantiveness, and textuality of the research object. 2. The universality, homogeneity (singleness) and monism of the theoretical purpose. On the contrary, the characteristics of non-classical literary theory will have the following three aspects of value orientation: 1. The non-objectivity, non-substantiality and inter-textuality of the research objects of non-classical literary theory. 2. The particularity, heterogeneity (non-homogeneity), and pluralistic openness of its theoretical purpose. 3. Use interactive participation, sharing, communication and dissemination as the main form to avoid ideological literary theory from judging things based on the theorist's self-worth scale as the (only) standard. We need to establish a platform for equal communication with each other. The construction position of non-classical literary theory is not to overthrow the classical literary theory and replace it. Isn't it "either this or that" but advocates "either this or that"? It provides multiple possibilities for the diversity of literary and artistic theories and even cultural theoretical forms.

Adopting the construction strategy of "practical" study and "poetics" meta-research can reveal new research perspectives and fields for the study of literary theory, with the help of in-depth study of those literary and artistic phenomena that have Chinese folklore value. Anatomy, forming a theoretical form of literature and art with Chinese characteristics similar to Bakhtin's literary theory research.