MING DONG GU

                            LITERARY OPENNESS:  A BRIDGE ACROSS THE DIVIDE

                            BETWEEN CHINESE AND WESTERN  LITERARY THOUGHT

THIS ESSAY ARGUES that in the comparative study of Chinese and Western literary theories, the Chinese system of literary thought and its Western counterpart are perceived to be so different that the general tendency to dichotomize Chinese and Western literary theories has effectively given rise to a great divide between the two. As a result, what scholars in the field have been undertaking is not so much "comparative poetics" as "contrastive poetics," and most of the so-called "dialogues" between the two traditions might in fact be more accurately called pseudo-dialogues, or even disguised Western monologues. I propose  to carve out a common area of inquiry that may serve as a viable bridge across this divide and so offer a perspective from which Chinese and Western literary thought can be examined in terms of their similarities rather than their differences. This common area is the idea of literary openness.

I first examines the rise of literary openness in each tradition, tracing its origins to two sources: metaphysical inquiry and interpretive practices involving canonical texts.  By briefly comparing Chinese interpretations of Shijing [the Book of Songs] and the Christian exegesis of the Song of Songs, I demonstrate that the notion of openness in both traditions grew out of a disjunction between the dominant hermeneutic theory and exegetical practice. I then survey ideas related to literary openness in both traditions, reconceptualizing the key idea of suggestiveness in Chinese tradition in relation to contemporary theories of openness in Western thought. I also examine the ambivalent attitudes towards literary openness in each tradition. In Chinese literary thought this ambivalence emanates from two conflicting hermeneutic impulses: the need to view a text as a self-contained space that encloses the author’s intention (zhi), and the desire to regard a text as a potentially open space for unlimited interpretations (bujin zhiyi). A similarly ambivalent attitude exists in the West. 

In conclusion, I suggest that a cross-cultural inquiry into literary openness is important for studies of literature and art, for  theoretical considerations of hermeneutics, and for the practical uses of literary criticism and creative writing, because literary openness is a pivotal point on which different issues of literary theory and criticism in contemporary discourse turn.