The current development of
comparative literature and
world literature as a school course has raised many issues of great
concern, on which views are various. The strong problem-consciousness in the academic circles is, however, conducive to the development of this course. In the Chinese Department of Nanchang University, graduates majoring in
comparative literature and
world literature are not only taught basic theories and knowledge but also encouraged to take part in discussions on some of the central issues in the academic circles, where they could express their own views freely. The following comments are all focused on problems which have long vexed scholars in this field, exhibiting at least the young authors' valuable enthusiasm for academic inquiry. “Why Is It that Comparative Literature Stays in Continual Crisis?” agrees that crisis is a reality in China and points out that it also exists in the Euro-American academic circles.Theefore,it is a worldwide disaster. It argues that the root causes of crisis lie in the lack of profound understanding of the doctrinal basis for the subject, as well as in the flood of cultural studies. As to how to survive the present crisis, the author suggests enhancing study of differences. She then puts forward her views on how to develop the course of comparative literature. “Cultural Globalization, a Paradox” based upon a discussion of the essence of culture argues that “cultural globalization” is nothing but a virtual reality and warns of the consequences of cultural permeation and the change in values. The author advocates that with regard to mutual understanding, we should stop cultural permeation by developing respective national cultural characteristics and strengthening communication with different cultures. By analyzing a specific case of diasporic writing, the article “Brief Study on the Cultural Identity in Diasporic Writing” probes the change-resisting nature of cultural tradition and the difficulty in accepting different cultures. The factors conditioning the relationship between “the subject identity” and “the other” are exactly cultural differences, and cultural identity will not be recognized unless differences are valued. “Return from Textual Criticism to Historicism” macroscopically outlines the course of western criticism in the 20th century. The self-sufficient literariness isn't the sole feature of literature and textual analysis is not to disregard social and historical facts. The “literariness” emphasized by textual criticism can only hope to arrive at the true nature of literature when combined with the “historicalness” revealed by cultural criticism. “Discussion Focus of Postcolonialist Criticism in China and Its Analysis” points out the duality of postcolonialist criticism. It is, in essence, a critical strategy for the right to be the dominant discourse within the First World, and is far from being real postcolonialist criticism: It is in fact a new colonialist theory.