Comparative Literature and Comparative Cultural Studies: An Interview with Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek[1]

　　Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek

　　Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek’s research, teaching, and publications are in comparative literature, comparative cultural studies, and media and communication studies including postcolonial studies, (im)migration & ethnic minority studies, feminist & gender studies, film & literature, digital humanities & data science, education & cultural policy, readership & audience studies, Holocaust studies, online course design in the humanities, editing & publishing in print & digital, conflict management & diversity training, history (genealogy and heraldry). Education: Ph.D. 1989 Comparative Literature University of Alberta; B.Ed. 1984 History and English as a Second Language University of Ottawa; M.A. 1983 Comparative Literature Carleton University; B.A. 1980 History and German Studies University of Western Ontario. Languages: English, French, German, Hungarian & reading Latin, Italian, Spanish, Russian. Publications: 6 single-authored books; 226 articles, bibliographies, book reviews, research resources; 34 edited volumes & guest-edited issues of learned journals. Tötösy de Zepetnek’s work is also published in Chinese, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Macedonian, Mahrati, Polish, Portuguese, and Spanish translation.

　　张 叉

　　Zhang Cha is professor of English at Sichuan Normal University and a PhD candidate in comparative and world literature at Sichuan University. He is Editor-in-Chief of Wai Guo Yu Wen Lun Cong（Collected Essays of Foreign Languages and Literatures）.

　　Abstract

　　In this interview, Professor Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek discusses his personal and scholarly background and what he believes a comparative literature scholar ought to have training in. Further, Tötösy de Zepetnek comments on comparative literature and his theoretical framework “comparative cultural studies”. Tötösy de Zepetnek closes the interview with his thoughts about the notions of the “American Dream” and the “Chinese Dream” and his suggestion about how to improve comparative literature scholarship in China.

　　Key words:

　　comparative literature, digital humanities, literary canon, comparative cultural studies, the Chinese School of Comparative Literature.

　　Zhang (henceforth “Z”): Professor Tötösy de Zepetnek, I conduct this interview with you because you have been invited several times to teach at Sichuan University. Please allow me to start with regard to your background as a person and as a scholar.

　　Tötösy de Zepetnek (henceforth “T”): Indeed, I have been invited to Sichuan University three times: in 2013 as a guest professor and in 2014 and 2015 for the university’s summer program. I was born in Hungary in 1950 and left the country in 1964 because at that time (during the Soviet colonization of Hungary) “bourgeois” (i.e., “class alien”) people’s children were not allowed to attend high school. I attended high school in Germany and Austria and graduated in Switzerland. Following high school I worked in a fiber glass factory in Switzerland and then decided to leave Europe and immigrated to Canada where I completed my undergraduate and graduate education with a PhD in comparative literature at the University of Alberta in 1989. I taught at the University of Alberta until 2000 when we moved to the U.S. because my spouse Joanne, who has a PhD in neuroscience and pharmacology, received an offer in the pharmaceutical industry. Although I had a faculty appointment at Purdue University until my retirement in December 2016, I was also professor of media and communication studies at the University of Halle-Wittenberg (Germany) from 2002 to 2011, as well as had guest professorships in the U.S., Europe, India, Mainland China and Taiwan, etc. With regard to scholarship—and this has to do with my “cosmopolitan” and “migrant” upbringing and life—it is based on the use of several languages and an awareness of the benefits of “migration” resulting in familiarity with differences of culture, hence my natural affiliation with the “comparative.”

　　Z: You are an accomplished scholar in comparative literature and cultural studies and your list of publications[2] include more than two dozen single-authored and edited books and over 200 peer-reviewed articles in a variety of disciplines and fields of study in the humanities and social sciences. What would in your opinion be required to be a good scholar in general and in comparative literature in particular?

　　T: One matter I would insist on is that scholars of literature and culture in comparative literature (but also in the study of any literature) ought to be able to speak and read several languages. For example, in the U.S. most humanities scholars know at best one other language and this, in my opinion, is detrimental to scholarship. And the situation is similar in China where in the humanities including literary studies focus is more often than not on English only.

　　Z: It is interesting that one of your books appeared in Chinese. In 1997 Peking University Press published your wenxue yanjiu de hefahua: yizhong xin shiyong zhuyi, zhengtihua he jingyan zhuyi wenxue he wenhua yanjiu (Legitimizing the Study of Literature: A New Pragmatism and the Systemic Approach to Literature and Culture，Trans. Jui-ch’i Ma). How did the book come about?

　　T: The book was the result of having been invited to Peking University as a guest professor in 1995 and 1996 (three months each) and I put the book together based on lectures I delivered there to graduate students. Some of the material in the book is available in English in my 1998 book, Comparative Literature: Theory, Method, Application[3].

　　Z: In addition to comparative literature and cultural studies, you taught and published in diverse fields including comparative media and communication studies, postcolonial studies, (im)migration and ethnic minority studies, digital humanities, film and literature, audience studies, European, US-American, and Canadian cultures and literatures, history, and bibliography. I am particularly interested in canon formation because you often discuss the concept of the literary canon. What are the criteria for a literary canon?

　　T: There is no single canon, but several canons and my take on this is that, in principle, canon formation is “cumulative.” The theory of cumulative canon formation consists of theoretical, as well as methodologically operational and functional aspects which prescribe the necessity of studying multiple and combined factors of the literary system in order to arrive at an understanding of canon formation. In other words, the “cumulative” factor consists of the combination of systemic categories, an innovative definition of the canon and canonicity and catacaustics (my term), while the operational and functional postulate must be satisfied by elements of observation (empirical data) and application. Among other factors such as critics’ and scholars’ work when “bringing” a text to attention, one of the most important components of cumulative canon formation consists of the situation, mechanisms, status and altogether systemic impact of readership.

　　Z: You propose in your framework of “comparative cultural studies” — a field of study you have been developing since the early 1990s—that the methodology of the systemic and empirical approach understood as “contextual” ought to include ethics. Would you please give us a brief explanation of your idea?

　　T: Indeed, ethics in its widest definition is a concern of mine when doing work in literary and cultural scholarship. Perhaps the quickest way to explain is to quote from my 1999 article “From Comparative Literature Today toward Comparative Cultural Studies”:

　　The second principle of comparative cultural studies is the theoretical as well as methodological postulate to move and to dialogue between cultures, languages, literatures, and disciplines. This is a crucial aspect of the framework, the approach as a whole, and its methodology. In other words, attention to other cultures—that is, the comparative perspective—is a basic and founding element and factor of the framework. The claim of emotional and intellectual primacy and subsequent institutional power of national cultures is untenable in this perspective. In turn, the built-in notions of exclusion and self-referentiality of single culture study and their result of rigidly defined disciplinary boundaries are notions against which comparative cultural studies offers an alternative as well as a parallel field of study. This inclusion extends to all Other, all marginal, minority, border, and peripheral and it encompasses both form and substance. However, attention must be paid of the “how” of any inclusionary approach, attestation, methodology, and ideology so as not to repeat the mistakes of Eurocentrism and “universalization” from a “superior” Eurocentric point of view. Dialogue is the only solution (Tötösy de Zepetnek 1999: 12).

　　The notion and application of ethics based on “dialogue” has also practical reasons, and the current migration crisis in Europe and the historical lack of policies and practices of and for the integration of immigrants in European countries is a good example. One can neither physically shut down all borders nor is it possible to wish away the impact of (im)migration. Hence, my argument that apart from a “universal” ethics of humanism, it makes no sense to insist on the maintenance of cultural homogeneity and its hegemony in any society. Positive cultural diversity means recognition and consequently inclusion and cultural homogeneity and hegemony means marginalization and consequently exclusion. Importantly, it makes no sense to do such in terms of the basic force of existence of the industrialized and technologically advanced world, that of business capitalism and market orientation: (im)migrant populations constitute a presence (and they are a significant market, as well as a significant job creation force). Therefore, it is preferable and a demonstration of business acumen to create an environment where positive cultural diversity is officially sanctioned and promoted by the various levels of government, the business community, the educational system, etc., in other words, in the whole of social discourse and practices.

　　Z: Since its birth in the early nineteenth century, the discipline of comparative literature has been criticized for having no theoretical framework. What is your understanding of this?

　　T: We should note that the “comparative” in comparative literature is, in principle, already a theoretical (and applied) approach. However, indeed, comparative literature is a discipline that borrows theories, approaches, and ideas from other disciplines and fields of scholarship. I do not see this as a problem, but as an advantage, although comparative literature could do better when developing specific, that is, “home-grown” theoretical frameworks. And this is precisely what I am doing in comparative cultural studies, a combination of tenets of comparative literature and cultural studies: “I believe that to make the study of literature and culture a socially relevant activity of scholarship we ought to do contextual work parallel with regard to professional concerns such as the job market, the matter of academic publishing, and digital humanities and, put more broadly, with regard to the role of social, political, and economic aspects of humanities scholarship. Hence my proposal that with the comparative and contextual approach—practiced in interdisciplinarity and employing new media technology—comparative cultural studies could achieve in-depth scholarship and the social relevance of the humanities” (Tötösy de Zepetnek 2017: 191).

　　Z: What is in your opinion the biggest problem in comparative literature studies today?

　　T: Your question is difficult to reply to in a brief manner because it depends on “where.” In the so-called centers of the discipline (Europe and the U.S.) I think one of the problems is that the knowledge of foreign languages is diminishing. In the U.S. comparative literature is mostly done in translation, i.e., texts are read and analyzed not in their original, but in English translation. While it is better to read and study literatures of the world in translation than not at all, when it comes to scholarship, in my opinion, it would be necessary to be able to read texts in the original, and of course it is also necessary to be able to read scholarship in foreign languages and not only in English. Another problem is what you asked about—namely the question of theory: because since the 1970s theoretical frameworks have been developed not in comparative literature, but (mostly) in departments of English and this—despite my contention that “borrowing” should not be a problem—not only devaluates comparative literature, but most importantly diminishes the number of graduate students who then would further the discipline in faculty positions. Yet a further problem is that in the U.S. comparative literature is undergoing a constriction meaning that faculty positions are less and less available. At the same time, said constriction is much less occurring in China, Latin America, and in several European countries including Spain (but there is constriction in other European countries including France and Germany).

　　Z: For years scholars in China have been talking about the formation of the Chinese School of Comparative Literature. As to whether or not there exists such a school, there are different views from both at home and abroad. Cao Shunqing, Professor at Sichuan University, China, concludes: “The development of comparative literature has experienced three stages, that is, the first stage (European stage) with the French School as its representative, the second stage (American stage) with the American School as its representative, and the third stage after the rise of comparative literature in Asia (Asian stage). One of the discipline theory systems of the third stage is the formation of the Chinese School.” (Cao Shunqing 128) While Gayatri Hakravorty Spivak, Professor at Columbia University, the U. S., asserts: “I don’t know yet anything about the French School or the American School, not to say the Chinese School.”（Zhang Cha, Huang Weiliang 60）What do you think about it?

　　T: My reply would have to be tentative, as I do not read Chinese. What I can say is that in the last several years scholars in China published work with the objective to develop theoretical frameworks which are not based on Western thought only, but also on Chinese thought. In the open-access (and Thomson Reuters indexed) quarterly I founded and edited 1999-2016—CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture[4]—we are paying attention to these developments and there are a good number of studies available on this topic in the journal.

　　Z: In literature as well as comparative literature studies, we usually need to probe into politics, economy, society, history, religion, etc. The “American Dream”, for instance, is an important theme in American literature. It may be traced back to the early North American colonists. It is rooted inthe Declaration of Independence, issued on July 4, 1776, and it is a national ethos and a set of ideals of the United States. In in a visit to the National Museum of China on November 29, 2012, Xi Jinping, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, put forward the concept of “Chinese Dream”, and likewise it is a national ethos and a set of ideals of China. What from your viewpoint would be basic points concerning the “American Dream” and the “Chinese Dream”?

　　T: In general, the “American Dream” refers to the possibility of finding freedom and opportunities in the U.S. However, while this was and still is true in many instances, the “American Dream” is also a construct of mythology because it does not always offer a new start away from poverty and persecution. We cannot forget the situation of African Americans and immigrants from Latin America for whom the “American Dream” often did not and does not materialize. As for the “Chinese Dream,” I am not sure what to think about this although it remains a fact that China today is an economic world power. It is another question whether the “West” (I mean not only the U.S., but also Europe and Latin America, India, Africa, the Middle East, etc., thus the metaphorical all Other outside of China) would become interested in the richness Chinese culture offers. In other words, if the “Chinese Dream” refers to matters material only, it will not achieve excellence; but if it is a construct based on matters material (financial, industrial, technological) AND cultural including education in a global context, it will advance China and the Chinese. If the “Chinese Dream” means that the humanities are relegated to a second-class status and science and technology receive exclusive preference, while it may achieve much in the short term, it will fail in the long term (and this is the case also with regard to the U.S. and the discussion about the advancing of STEM subjects in education to the detriment of the humanities).

　　Z: Such a productive scholar as you deserves popularity and respect. However, “there are still some differences between this kind of pursuit of the intellectual elite and the stars in the entertainment circles, such as music, television, film, etc. It can be said that the popularity of stars in academia is dwarfed by that of the stars in the entertainment circles.” (Zhang Cha, Yue Daiyun 178-179) What do you make of this phenomenon?

　　T: I think your question is directed at the U.S. where scholars do not figure as “public intellectuals” similar to European cultures. Although there have been and are attempts to engage scholars in U.S. public discourse, I think the responsibility and function of scholars is first and foremost scholarship and if in the U.S. the function of “public intellectuals” does not develop, as I assume, so be it. I should like to add that while as said there is limited recognition of scholars in public discourse or in the media in the U.S. or Canada, in European countries this is different. It is in this context that I am an elected member of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts / Academia Scientiarum et Artium Europaea.

　　Z: In closing, I have a specific question: would you be able to offer suggestions to young Chinese scholars in comparative literature with regard to how to conduct research in our discipline?

　　T: One important matter in my opinion would be that Chinese scholars of literature in general and of comparative literature in particular should have knowledge of several foreign languages and not English only. While English would have to be one of the languages, another one or two (whether another Western language or Hindi or any other foreign language) would raise the quality and impact of Chinese scholarship. In my opinion, the current focus in the humanities on English (thus meaning the U.S. in most instances) is restricting knowledge. Another important matter would be that when Chinese scholars analyze Western or other texts, they ought to refer to not only Western sources, but analyze texts based on Chinese theoretical thought. This implies that Chinese students and scholars ought to have substantial knowledge of Chinese literature and literary history no matter what discipline or field they are working in or studying.

　　Notes

　　[1] This article is a part of the Social Science Research Project of Sichuan Province “Interviews with World Celebrities of Comparative Literature”, funded by Sichuan Provincial Key Research Base of Comparative Literature (Project No. SC16E036).

　　[2] http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/clcweblibrary/totosycv.

　　[3] Rodopi; the book is available online in the Library Series of CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture at http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/clcweblibrary/totosycomparativeliterature1998.

　　[4]http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/clcweb

　　Work Cited

　　Cao, Shunqing. “The Chinese School: the Construction of Disciplinary Theory of Comparative Literature at the Third Stage”, Foreign Literature Studies, 2007 (3). Print.

　　Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. “From Comparative Literature Today toward Comparative Cultural Studies.” CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture, 1999 (3) Print. (http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.1041)

　　Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. “About the Situation of the Discipline of Comparative Literature and Neighboring Fields in the Humanities Today.” Comparative Literature: East & West, 2017 (2). Print.（https://doi.org/10.1080/25723618.2017.1387398）

　　Zhang, Cha， and Wong Waileung. “Strengthening ‘Interpretation of Western Literature with Chinese Literary Theory’ to Construct A Discourse System of Chinese Comparative Literature — An Interview with Professor Wong Waileung.” Journal of Yanshan University (Philosophy and Social Science Edition), 2018 (1). Print.

　　Zhang, Cha and Yue Daiyun. “An Interview with Professor Yue Daiyun.” Cultural Studies and Literary Theory, Issue 35, Chengdu: Sichuan University Press, 2017, Print.

　　Author Profile

　　Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek’s research, teaching, and publications are in comparative literature, comparative cultural studies, and media and communication studies including postcolonial studies, (im)migration & ethnic minority studies, feminist & gender studies, film & literature, digital humanities & data science, education & cultural policy, readership & audience studies, Holocaust studies, online course design in the humanities, editing & publishing in print & digital, conflict management & diversity training, history (genealogy and heraldry). Education: Ph.D. 1989 Comparative Literature University of Alberta; B.Ed. 1984 History and English as a Second Language University of Ottawa; M.A. 1983 Comparative Literature Carleton University; B.A. 1980 History and German Studies University of Western Ontario. Languages: English, French, German, Hungarian & reading Latin, Italian, Spanish, Russian. Publications: 6 single-authored books; 226 articles, bibliographies, book reviews, research resources; 34 edited volumes & guest-edited issues of learned journals. Tötösy de Zepetnek’s work is also published in Chinese, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Macedonian, Mahrati, Polish, Portuguese, and Spanish translation.

　　Zhang Cha is professor of English at Sichuan Normal University and a PhD candidate in comparative and world literature at Sichuan University. He is Editor-in-Chief of Wai Guo Yu Wen Lun Cong（Collected Essays of Foreign Languages and Literatures）.

　　摘要

　　一个设计，首先要从设计任务书入手。那什么是设计任务书呢？简单来说，就是把一个含糊的真实世界中的复杂问题简化成几个项。

　　关键词

　　一个设计，首先要从设计任务书入手。那什么是设计任务书呢？简单来说，就是把一个含糊的真实世界中的复杂问题简化成几个项。

　　张 叉：托托西•德•让普泰内克教授，您已经多次应邀来四川大学讲学了，这也正是我今天对您进行采访的一个原因。首先，我想请您谈谈您在生活与学术方面的经历。

　　斯蒂文•托托西•德•让普泰内克：确实，我已经三次应邀来四川大学了：2013年作客座教授，2014年和2015年参加“实践及国际课程周”活动。我1950年出生于匈牙利。由于在那个时候（苏联殖民匈牙利期间），出身于“资产阶级”（也就是“表面是社会的一份子但实际不是的人”<“class alien”>）家庭的子女是不允许上高中的，所以我就在1964年离开了匈牙利。我在德国和奥地利上了高中，在瑞士完成了学业。高中毕业以后，我到了瑞士的一家玻璃纤维厂工作，然后决定离开欧洲移民到加拿大，在加拿大读完了本科，并于1989年在阿尔伯塔大学（the University of Alberta）获得比较文学博士学位。直到2000年为止，我都在阿尔伯塔大学任教，因为我配偶乔安妮（Joanne）是神经科学和药理学博士，她收到了美国知名制药行业的邀请，于是，我们搬到了美国。尽管我在普渡大学（Purdue University）任职直到2016年12月才退休，但是在2002—2011年期间，我也是哈雷-维滕贝格大学（the University of Halle-Wittenberg）（德国）媒体和传播学研究的教授，此外，我还在美国、欧洲、印度、中国大陆和台湾等地担任客座教授。对于学术研究——这是同我“四海为家”（“cosmopolitan”）和“移民”（“migrant”）的成长和生活背景相关的——它是建立在对几门语言的使用和对“移民”好处的意识之基础上的，这促使我熟悉文化的差异，从而自然地同“比较”联系在了一起。

　　张 叉：您是比较文学和文化研究领域成绩卓著的学者。在您的论著清单[1]上，有24多部独立完成的专著与编著，还有200多篇同行评阅论文，这些论著涉及到了人文和社会科学研究的各个领域。在您看来，优秀的学者尤其是比较文学学者应该具备哪些条件？

　　斯蒂文•托托西•德•让普泰内克：我要坚持的一点是，在比较文学领域从事文学和文化研究（也包括从事任何一种文学研究）的学者应该能够使用几门语言进行口头交流与书面阅读。例如，在美国，大多数的人文学者除了母语之外最多只掌握了一门别的语言，而在我看来，这对于学术研究是不利的。中国的情况也与此类似，包括文学研究在内的人文学科在更多的时候仅仅只关注英语。

　　张 叉：1997年，北京大学出版社出版了一本马瑞琪翻译的您的汉语版书籍《文学研究的合法化：一种新实用主义、整体化和经验主义文学与文化研究方法》（Legitimizing the Study of Literature: A New Pragmatism and the Systemic Approach to Literature and Culture），这是引人关注的。这本书是在什么情况下出版的？

　　斯蒂文•托托西•德•让普泰内克：1995与1996年（每年三个月）期间，我应邀到北京大学做客座教授，在当时给那里的研究生作的讲座的基础上汇编成了这本书。这本书中的有一些材料可以在我1998年的书《比较文学：理论、方法、应用》（Comparative Literature: Theory, Method, Application）中查阅到[2]。

　　张 叉：除比较文学和文化研究之外，您还在其它各种不同的领域从事教学工作和出版著述，包括：比较媒体和传播研究，后殖民研究，移民和少数民族研究，数字人文、电影和文学、读者研究，欧洲、美国和加拿大文化与文学研究，历史研究、文献研究等。您经常论述文学经典的概念问题，我对此特别感兴趣。您认为文学经典的标准是什么？

　　斯蒂文•托托西•德•让普泰内克：文学经典的标准不是单一的，而是有几种。我对此的看法是，原则上，经典的形成是“累积的”。累积经典形成理论包括理论的层面，也包括方法论操作的和功能的层面，这些层面规定了研究文学系统的多种因素和组合因素的必要性，以便对经典的形成达到一个认识。换一句话来说，“累积”的因素包括系统分类的组合，它是一个创新的、经典的、正规的和回光线（catacaustics）（我的术语）的概念，而操作和功能的基本原理必须通过观察（经验数据）的和应用的要素来满足。在“让”文本受到关注的时候，在诸如评论家的和学者的工作这样的其它因素中，累积经典形成的最重要的一个要素是由读者的状况、机制、地位连同系统影响一起构成的。

　　张 叉：您在“比较文化研究”的框架中提出了一个研究领域——这也是您1980年代末以来一直都在拓展的研究领域——那就是，可以理解为“语境”的系统性和实证性途径的方法论应该把伦理学包含在内。您能就这一观点给我们作一个简要的说明吗?

　　斯蒂文•托托西•德•让普泰内克：的确，最广泛定义的伦理学是我在文学和文化研究领域工作时所关心的。或许，用我1999年的一篇文章《从现今比较文学到比较文化研究》（“From Comparative Literature Today toward Comparative Cultural Studies”）中的话来对此进行解释是最快捷的方式：

　　比较文化研究的第二个原则是用以在文化、语言、文学和学科之间移动和对话的理论的和方法的假设。这是本框架的一个重要方面，是作为整体的手段及其方法论。换句话说，就是对其它文化的关注——也就是比较的角度——是本框架的一个基本的元素与创始的因素。从这个角度看，宣称民族文化在情感和智力上是至关重要的并随之宣称民族文化在由来已久的观念上是力大无比的都是站不住脚的。反过来，内置的排斥性观念和单个文化研究的自我指涉性及其严格定义的学科界限所导致的结果是同比较文化研究所主张的替代和平行的研究领域背道而驰的。这一范围延伸到了所有的他者、所有的边缘者、少数族群、边界和周边，它包含着形式和物质两个方面的东西。然而，必须要注意任何包容性的方法、认证、方法论和意识形态的“怎样”的情况，以免重犯“高人一等的”欧洲中心论观点导致的欧洲中心主义和“普遍化”的错误。对话是唯一的解决方法[3]。

　　基于“对话”的伦理学的概念与应用也有其现实的原因，而欧洲当前的移民危机、移民同欧洲国家融合的策略和实践的历史缺失，就是一个好的例子。一个国家既不能够从实际上关闭所有的边境，也不可能从心理上远离移民的影响。因此，我的论点是，除了“普遍的”人文伦理学以外，要在任何社会中坚持维护文化的同质性与霸权都是没有意义的。积极的文化多样性意味着认同与包容，而文化的同质性和霸权则意味着边缘化与排斥。重要的是，就工业化了的和技术发达的世界的基本依存力量即商业资本主义和市场取向而言，这样做是没有意义的：移民人口构成了一个现实的存在（他们是重要的市场，也是重要的创造就业的力量）。因此，更为可取的、同时也是展示商业智慧的是，要创造出一种环境，在这种环境中，积极的文化多元化是由官方认可而由各级政府、商界、教育系统等，换一句话来说，是由整个社会话语和实践来促进的。

　　张 叉：比较文学这门学科自19世纪早期诞生以来，一直受到批评，说它没有自己的理论框架。您是如何看待这个问题的?

　　斯蒂文•托托西•德•让普泰内克：我们应该指出，从原则上来看，比较文学中的“比较”已经是一种理论的（和应用的）方法。然而，比较文学的确是一门从其他学科和学术领域借鉴了理论、方法和观念的学科。尽管在具体发展，也就是说，在形成“土生土长”理论框架的时候，比较文学能够作得更好，但是我看这不是问题，反倒是一个优势。这恰好是我在比较文化研究中所作的，就是把比较文学和文化研究的原则结合起来：“我相信，要让文学与文化研究成为一种同社会相关的学术活动，我们应该做一些与专业问题相关的语境工作，比如就业市场、学术出版、数字人文学科等，更广泛地说，与社会、政治、经济等方面的人文学科的作用相关的语境工作。因此，我建议，通过跨学科和新媒体技术实践的比较和语境方法——比较文化研究可以获得深入的学术研究和人文学科的社会相关性。”[4]

　　张 叉：在您看来，比较文学研究现在所面临的最大问题是什么?

　　斯蒂文•托托西•德•让普泰内克：由于您提的这个问题取决于“在什么地方”（“where”）这一前提，所以我很难用简短的方式来进行回答。我想，在所谓的学科中心（欧洲和美国），其中一个问题是外语水平正在降低。在美国，比较文学大部分是通过翻译来进行研究的，也就是说，阅读与分析的文本不是原文，而是英文翻译。虽然在阅读和研究世界文学中依靠译文要比什么都不依靠要好一些，但是在我看来，对于学术研究，必须要能够阅读原始文本，当然也必须要能够阅读多种外语学术文献而不仅仅只局限于英语。另一个问题是您已经提到了的——换一句话说，就是理论的问题：因为自从1970年以来，不仅在比较文学领域，而且还（主要）在英语部门，理论框架都已经得以发展——尽管我认为“借鉴”应该不是个问题——但是这依然不仅贬低了比较文学的价值，而且最重要的是，还是减少了愿意在这一学科领域作为教师进一步从事研究的研究生的人数。然而，一个深层次的问题是，在美国，比较文学正在受到限制，这意味着，能够获取的教师职位越来越少。与此同时，出现在中国、拉丁美洲以及包括西班牙在内的几个欧洲国家（但是，在其他欧洲国家，包括法国和德国，也存在限制）的上述限制就更不用说了。

　　张 叉：中国学者多年以来一直都在探讨中国比较文学学派的建立问题。对于是否存在着这样的学派，还存在诸多不同的看法。中国四川大学曹顺庆教授认为：“比较文学的发展经历了三个阶段,即以法国学派为代表的第一阶段(欧洲阶段),以美国学派为代表的第二阶段(美洲阶段),以及比较文学在亚洲崛起后的第三阶段(亚洲阶段),这第三阶段的学科理论体系之一就是已经成形的中国学派。”[5]美国哥伦比亚大学（Columbia University）佳亚特里·哈克拉维尔褆·斯皮瓦克（Gayatri Hakravorty Spivak）教授则表示：“我不知道什么法国学派、美国学派，更不知道什么中国学派”[6]请问您在这个问题上的看法是什么？

　　斯蒂文•托托西•德•让普泰内克：因为我认不了中文，所以只能尝试着回答您这个问题。我所能够说的是，在过去几年时间里，中国的学者出版了著作，目标是同时要在西方思想和中国思想的基础上创建理论框架。在共享（汤森路透索引）季刊中，我创建、编辑了1999-2016年——《比较文学与文化》（CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture [7]——我们正在关注这些进展，这本期刊中有相当多这一主题的研究成果可资查阅。

　　张 叉： 在文学以及比较文学研究中，我们常常需要考察政治、经济、社会、历史、宗教等问题。例如，“美国梦”（“American Dream”）就是美国文学的一个重要的主题。“美国梦”可以追溯至早期北美移民，也植根于1776年7月4日发表的《独立宣言》（The Declaration of Independence），是美国的民族精神与理想。2012年11月29日，中共中央总书记习近平在参观中国国家博物馆的时候提出了“中国梦”的构想，它也成了中国的民族精神和理想。在您看来，“美国梦”与“中国梦”的基本点是什么?

　　斯蒂文•托托西•德•让普泰内克：一般来说，“美国梦”指的是在美国寻求自由与机会的可能性。然而，尽管这在以前和现在的很多情况下都是事实，但是“美国梦”也是一种神话构想，因为它并不总是为摆脱贫困和迫害提供新的起点。我们不能忘记非裔美国人和拉丁美洲移民的处境，对他们来说，“美国梦”是常常没有实现的，也是实现不了的。至于“中国梦”，虽然目前的中国成为世界经济强国已经是一个事实，但是我却不确定应该怎么来对此进行思考。“西方”（我的意思是不仅仅美国，而且欧洲和拉丁美洲、印度、非洲、中东等，因此，中国以外的其他所有地方都是隐喻性的）是否会对中国文化所提供的丰富多彩的内涵产生兴趣，这就是另外一个问题了。换一句来说，若果“中国梦”仅仅指的是物质上的东西，那么它就不会取得杰出的成就；如果它是建立在物质的（金融的、工业的、技术的）和包括全球语境下的教育在内的文化的基础上的一种构想，那么它就会推动中国和中国人民进步。如果“中国梦”意味着人文学科贬低到次等的地位而自然科学与技术却得到专门的喜爱，那么虽然从短期来看，它可以取得很多成绩，但是从长期来看，它就会失败（对于美国，对于关于在教育中损害人文学科以优先发展科学、技术、工程与数学科目的讨论来说，情况也是如此）。

　　张 叉：像你这样富有成效的学者应该受到欢迎和尊敬。不过，“对知识界的这种精英的这种追捧，同那个音乐、电视、电影等娱乐界的明星比较起来还存在着一些差异，可以说，学术界的明星所受到的追捧是相形见绌的”[8]。您怎样理解这一现象?

　　斯蒂文•托托西•德•让普泰内克：我想，您的问题是针对美国吧，在美国，学者并未认同于欧洲文化中的“公共知识分子”（“public intellectuals”）。虽然在过去和现在都有一些让学者参与美国公共话语的尝试，但是我认为，学者首要的责任和作用还在于学术，如果在美国“公共知识分子”的作用没有发展的话，那么我想也就只好如此了。我要补充一点，就像过去所说的那样，美国或者加拿大的公共话语或者媒体中对学者的认同是有限的，在欧洲国家，情况还有所不同。正是在这种语境之下，我才当选为欧洲科学与艺术院（the European Academy of Sciences and Arts / Academia Scientiarum et Artium Europaea）院士[9]。

　　张 叉：最后，我还特别想问一问：您能够就如何从事比较文学研究给中国比较文学界的年轻学者提一些建议吗？

　　斯蒂文•托托西•德•让普泰内克：在我看来，一个重要的事情是，中国从事普通文学研究特别是比较文学研究的学者应该具备几门外语的知识而非仅局限于英语。英语应该是这些语言中的一门，而另一或两门（要么是另一种西方语言，要么是印地语或者其它任何一门外语）则可以提升中国学术的质量和影响力。在我看来，当前英语人文学科的关注点（因而大多数时候指的是美国）是知识限制。另一个重要的事情是，当中国学者分析西方或其它文本的时候，他们不仅应该参考西方的资料，而且还应该立足于中国的理论思想来进行文本分析。这就意味着，中国的学生和学者不管在哪个学科或领域作研究或者学习，都应该具备丰富的中国文学与文学史的知识。

　　注释

　　[1]http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/clcweblibrary/totosycv

　　[2]Rodopi; the book is available online in the Library Series of CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture at http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/clcweblibrary/totosycomparativeliterature1998

　　[3]Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek, “From Comparative Literature Today toward Comparative Cultural Studies.” CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture,1999 (3), p.12.(http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.1041)

　　[4]Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek, “About the Situation of the Discipline of Comparative Literature and Neighboring Fields in the Humanities Today.”Comparative Literature: East & West, 2017 (2), p.191.（https://doi.org/10.1080/25723618.2017.1387398）

　　[5]曹顺庆，《中国学派:比较文学第三阶段学科理论的建构》，《外国文学研究》2007年第3期，第128页。

　　[6]张叉、黄维樑，《加强“以中释西”文学批评，构建中国比较文学的话语体系——黄维樑教授访谈录》，《燕山大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2018年第1期，第60页。

　　[7]http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/clcweb

　　[8]张叉、乐黛云，《乐黛云教授访谈录》，《中外文化与文论》第35辑，成都：四川大学出版社，2017，第178-179页。

　　[9]http://www.euro-acad.eu

　　作者简介

　　张 叉（1965—），男，四川盐亭人，四川师范大学外国语学院教授、硕士研究生导师，四川大学文学与新闻学院比较文学与世界文学博士研究生，四川师范大学外国语言文学一级学科硕士点建设专家委员会第一任主任，四川师范大学第八届学位委员会外国语学院分学位委员会主席，四川师范大学外国语文研究所第二任所长，四川省教育厅四川师范大学基础教育课程研究中心外语课程研究中心第一任主任，成都翻译协会乡土文学翻译专委会主任，四川省比较文学研究基地兼职研究员，四川省高等学校外语教学指导委员会委员，四川省大学英语二三级考试委员会委员，四川省高中英语课程改革核心组成员，中国西部地区外语教育研究会副秘书长,国际学术期刊《美中外语》（US-China Foreign Language）与《中美英语教学》（Sino-US English Teaching）审稿专家，国内学术集刊《外国语文论丛》主编，主要从事英美文学、比较文学与比较文化研究。

　　斯蒂文•托托西•德•让普泰内克（Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek，1950—），男，匈牙利裔加拿大人，加拿大阿尔伯塔大学（University of Alberta）比较文学博士，美国普渡大学（Purdue University）比较文学教授，比利时根特大学(Ghent University)文化研究与教育学教授，欧洲科学艺术院（the European Academy of Sciences and Arts）院士，《比较文学与文化》（Comparative Literature and Culture）编辑，独著《比较文学：理论、方法、应用》与《小说的社会维度》等若干部，编著《数字人文和比较文化研究中的中间性研究》、《比较文学、世界文学和比较文化研究之友》、《比较匈牙利文化研究》与《比较文化研究和迈克尔·翁达杰的写作》等若干部，发表学术论文200多篇，主要从事比较文化、比较文学、比较传媒、后殖民、移民和少数民族、数字人文、数据科学、教育、在线教学和课程设计、编辑出版印刷和在线、电影和文学、观众研究，欧洲美国加拿大文化与文学、历史、文献学、冲突管理和多元化培训研究。