By Michel Hockx
The international workshop "Modern China: The Literary Field", hosted by the IIAS
from 24-26 January 1996, with additional support from the Leiden University Fund and
the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, was meant from the very beginning
to be a concerted attempt to break through the text-context dichotomy. A group of
prominent and promising scholars from China, Europe, and the United States were asked
to present papers related to the topic of the literary field in modern China (i.e. the period
from roughly 1850 to the present). The term "literary field" was borrowed from the work
of the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. It refers to the social practice of literature and
to the relations between people involved in that practice. It views literary production and
reception as expressions of human behaviour, based on constant interaction between the
objective "rules" of literary practice and the subjective "background" of the individuals
involved. It calls for the combined study of text and context within one framework: the
field.
As Professor Erik Zürcher rightly remarked during his word of welcome to the
participants, the focus on practice is common to many contemporary approaches to
history and culture. This theme was elaborated on by Leo Ou-fan Lee in his opening
remarks. Lee, author of a pioneering study on the Chinese literary scene of the 1920s and
1930s, expressed the wish that Western cultural theory be attuned to Chinese historical
reality, but warned that Bourdieu's was perhaps still too much of a "one-culture-model"
to be able to achieve that goal.
The discussions engaged in by the twenty-one participants during the five sessions of the
workshop proved Lee right on both accounts. On the one hand, many of the papers
presented new materials and shed new light on the social element of literary production in
China, but on the other hand, most participants were sceptical of the possibility to study
the Chinese literary field in relative isolation, with no reference to the at times very
dominant presence of the West within that field, or to the position of that field within the
international literary community.
The problem of how China started to deal with the West was illustrated and carefully
analyzed during the first session in a paper by Ted Huters of UCLA, who described turn-
of-the-century Chinese intellectuals' attempts to achieve proficiency in Western languages
and cultures, focusing on the novel Nie hai hua (Flowers in a Sea of Sin) and
its author Zeng Pu. In another paper, Lawrence Wang-chi Wong of Hong Kong Chinese
University highlighted the problems surrounding the translation of Western literature in
late imperial China, and the ways in which the translators, who were the leading
intellectuals of their time, promoted those translations as necessary instruments for the
strengthening of the nation. The lifestyle of these intellectuals and other literati who
flocked together in the cultural melting pot of the foreign concessions of Shanghai was
vividly portrayed by Catherine Yeh from Heidelberg. Zongqi Cai from Illinois discussed
how these intellectuals dealt with "emotion", while Denise Gimpel (Marburg) analyzed
the contemporary social and political background of articles in the influential monthly
Xiaoshuo yuebao (The Short Story Magazine).
May Fourth Period
Although latently present, the theme of "dealing with the West" was less prominent in the
papers pertaining to the so-called "May Fourth Period" (1917-1937), a period during
which the literary field started to become a stable factor within China's civil society.
Beijing University professor Chen Pingyuan's presentation focused on the emergence of
the distinction between "high" and "low" literature in that period, carefully examining the
differences in "cultural character" between its various proponents and drawing parallels
with discussions about popular literature in contemporary China. My own contribution
was an overview of the literary field of the 1920s, highlighting the positions of writer,
editor, and publisher, as well as the concomitant types of behaviour. Raoul Findeisen
(Zürich) surprised the audience with his study of "Intimate Partnership and Literary
Production", accompanied by an analysis of the genre of love letters
(qingshu). Guggenheim Foundation fellow Eva Shan Chou talked about the
most famous writer of the period, Lu Xun, and the problems he encountered during his
life as a result of his fame among his contemporaries.
All the other papers dealt with the literary field of the People's Republic of China. First
of all, Perry Link of Princeton University presented an overview of the various uses that
had been assigned to literature under the state socialist system, and the concomitant norms
and values that were shared by both the bureaucrats and the writers in the literary
establishment. Anne Wedell-Wedellsborg (Aarhus) demonstrated how the introduction of
the works of Franz Kafka into the contemporary field was sometimes used to undermine
that establishment, while Marja Kaikkonen (Stockholm) addressed the nature and function
of popular literature magazines, as well as their relations to the political forces at play in
contemporary Chinese society. Oliver Krämer (Edinburgh) presented a sociology of
Chinese writers in exile, including those who chose not to return to China after
1989.
In a thought-provoking contribution, Claire Huot (Montréal) posited the existence
of four disparate spheres within the contemporary literary field, representing as many
stages in the successful writer's career, as he (since relatively few women operate in the
field) and his works interact with the local literary scene, with the local film and drama
scene, with the overseas Chinese community, and with the Western literary scene. Wendy
Larson of the University of Oregon, talking about To Live (the novel by Yu Hua and the
film by Zhang Yimou) further stressed the enormous differences in working conditions
between those that interact with (and cater to the tastes of) a Western community (in this
case the film world) and those that work within China. These two papers raised the
strongest doubts about the applicability of Bourdieu's theory to multi-culture systems,
especially in cases where the power relations between two cultures or two regions (such
as China and the West) are not in equal balance.
Wang Xiaoming (Shanghai) and Henry Zhao (London) contributed to the discussion
through their papers, even though illness prevented them from attending the workshop in
person. Wang's paper pointed out the importance of collectivity and organized bodies
within modern Chinese literary practice, whereas Zhao analyzed and criticized the current
"new conservatism" in China, which was, paradoxically, inspired by Western avant-garde
cultural theory and its various "post-isms".
Since all participants had submitted their papers well before the workshop was held, and
copies of all papers had been distributed in advance in the form of a reader, the
discussions that took place were characterized by depth and appositeness. This was further
enhanced by the stimulating contributions of six discussants: Professor Bonnie McDougall
from Edinburgh University, Professor Michelle Yeh of the University of California, IIAS
visiting fellow Chen Xiaoming of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Douwe
Fokkema, professor of Comparative Literature at the University of Utrecht University,
Professor Leo Ou-fan Lee from Harvard University, whom I already mentioned, and
Leiden University contemporary Chinese literature expert Maghiel van Crevel.
The workshop "Modern China: The Literary Field" was one of the first international
academic gatherings that focused on modern Chinese literature as a social practice. As
such, it has raised more questions than it provided answers. However, these questions are
exactly those which will be of interest to later scholars and, hopefully, help change the
face of modern Chinese literature studies, both inside and outside China.
One day after the workshop, I unexpectedly received an email message from Professor
Pierre Bourdieu himself, who expressed his satisfaction about the introduction of his ideas
into the realm of modern Chinese literature.