Wang Zuyou, Wang Ning
Abstract: This in-depth interview systematically traces the evolution of Professor Wang Ning’s academic thought and his core theoretical contributions. Beginning with his early reflection on the “aphasia” in Chinese literary theory and his foresight into the “post-theoretical era,” the discussion expands to his theoretical breakthroughs in “world literature” and “world poetics,” delving deeply into the “vitalist” value of translation and its practical challenges in cultural circulation. Drawing from his own international academic experience, Professor Wang explains the guiding role of Marxist literary theory and explores how interdisciplinary collaboration can promote equal theoretical dialogue in the context of globalization and digitalization. The interview concludes with a focus on the competencies required of young scholars and the future of the discipline, offering forward-looking insights for comparative literature, translation studies, and theoretical innovation.
Keywords: Wang Ning; world literature; world poetics; translation studies; post-theoreticalera; internationalization ofChinese literary theory; Marxist literary theory
1. Academic Origins and Intellectual Journey
Wang Zuyou: Professor Wang, thank you very much for your years of academic guidance and encouragement. I have long wished to conduct a comprehensive academic interview with you. In the early stages of your academic career, you focused on the issue of “aphasia” in Chinese literary theory. How did your experience pursuing a doctorate under Professor Yang Zhouhan’s supervision influence your later efforts to construct a distinctive Chinese theoretical discourse? How did Professor Yang’s principle of “rigorous scholarship, indifferent to fame” shape your academic character?
Wang Ning: Thank you, Zuyou. This question holds profound significance for me. My initial attention to the “aphasia” of Chinese literary theory emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Although I was aware of this issue, I did not publicly articulate it in the way Cao Shunqing later did. At that time, after a long period of isolation, the Chinese academic community was suddenly confronted with a massive influx of Western theory, giving rise to two tendencies: one of wholesale acceptance, the other of simple rejection. But the deeper problem was that we had lost our own voice in the dialogue. Professor Yang Zhouhan was a crucial guide on my academic path. Having received rigorous training in Western literature at Oxford, he encountered comparative literature during the era of reform and opening-up and pioneered its introduction to China, yet he always maintained a strong consciousness of Chinese issues. He emphasized “critical absorption.” I recall his frequent remark: “We study the West not to become the West, but to better understand ourselves” (Yang, Mirrors and Tangrams 5). This stance played a significant role in my later academic efforts to construct an autonomous Chinese theoretical discourse.
Specifically, Professor Yang’s influence manifested in three aspects: First, he taught me to value the close reading and verification of primary sources, especially the intertextual interpretation of Chinese and Western classics of literary theory. This made me realize that theoretical construction must be rooted in textual practice. Second, he emphasized the importance of an international perspective in academic research while opposing blind adherence to trends. This prompted me to maintain a critical and discursive attitude in my research on modernity and postmodernism. Third, his principle of “indifference to fame” profoundly impressed upon me that the true value of scholarship lies in the penetrating power and enduring quality of ideas, rather than temporary reputation. This character formation led me, when later proposing concepts such as the “post-theoretical era” and “world poetics,” to consistently focus on the historicity and contextualization of theory, rather than simply chasing trendy terminology. I have always believed that researching comparative literature, world literature, or general theoretical issues in literature cannot be done in isolation, nor should one be satisfied merely with introducing ideas to the domestic academic community. Rather, one should strive to achieve a level of equal dialogue and discussion with international colleagues. I can say that this goal has been largely achieved, but further effort is needed to reach an even higher level in the international academic community.
Wang Zuyou: At the beginning of this century, you were among the first to propose the theoretical direction of the “post-theoretical era,” and even earlier you used “pluralistic symbiosis” to characterize the global cultural features of the late twentieth century. What academic context gave rise to this proposition? Over the past two decades, has your understanding of “post-theory” deepened or adjusted, and where does it connect with the current “post-human context”?
Wang Ning: The proposal of the “post-theoretical era” stemmed from two events. First, it arose from reflections on the explosive introduction of Western theory into Chinese academia in the mid-1990s. At that time, deconstruction, postcolonial theory, feminism, and other intellectual currents flooded in simultaneously, yet much research remained at the level of “terminology transport” or “theoretical application.” I believed that theory is not eternal truth but historical and local knowledge production. The so-called “post-theory” does not signify the end of theory, but rather the end of an era when a single grand narrative (such as structuralism or postmodernism) sought to unify all literary phenomena, replaced by a pluralistic, fluid, and dialogical theoretical ecology (Wang, “Literature and Cultural Studies in the Post-Theoretical Era” 12). The second impetus came from my British friend Terry Eagleton’s 2003 book After Theory, in which he lamented that the golden age of theory had passed. Inspired by this, I termed our era the “post-theoretical era.”
A characteristic of the post-theoretical era is “pluralistic symbiosis,” a term I use to characterize this period, emphasizing equal dialogue and complementarity among different theoretical paradigms. Over the past two decades, my understanding has deepened in two aspects: first, a greater emphasis on the mechanism of theory’s “cross-cultural travel”—how theory undergoes variation and regeneration through translation and interpretation; second, attention to the connection between “post-theory” and processes of globalization and digitization, with theoretical production increasingly exhibiting interdisciplinary and cross-media characteristics.
The connection between post-theory and the “post-human context” lies in their shared challenge to the traditional humanist conception of the subject and narrative modes. Post-human theory concerns itself with technology, materiality, and non-human actors, which resonates internally with post-theory’s dissolution of unitary authority and emphasis on pluralistic heterogeneity. For example, in discussing AI translation, I attempt to introduce a post-human perspective, considering how technology reshapes literary creation, translation, and reception. This not only extends the framework of “post-theory” but also addresses its relative lack of attention to the technological dimension.
Wang Zuyou: From your early research on modernity and postmodernism to your recent focus on world literature and world poetics, your academic center has undergone several shifts. Is there a consistent core concern behind these shifts? What methodological role does Marxist theory play in your academic system?
Wang Ning: Superficially, my research areas may seem to have shifted multiple times, but the core concern has always been: how to construct a critical, dialogical, and practical literary and cultural theory in the context of globalization, one that promotes equal exchange and mutual learning among different civilizations. My early research on modernity and postmodernism was essentially an attempt to clarify the Western-dominated narrative logic and find reference points for the modern transformation of Chinese literary theory. My later turn towards world literature and world poetics represents an attempt to transcend the Western-centric established framework and explore a more inclusive theoretical paradigm.
Throughout, however, Marxism has played a crucial role in my academic discourse. It serves first as a methodology—the theoretical weapon of historical materialism and dialectics. It keeps me consistently attentive to the socio-historical conditions, ideological dimensions, and practical orientations of theory. For example, in analyzing the concept of “world literature,” I emphasize that Marx and Engels expanded Goethe’s concept into the political economy perspective of “global cultural production,” providing a key lens for understanding contemporary cultural globalization (Marx and Engels 476).
2. Core Ideas (I): Theoretical Breakthroughs in World Literature and World Poetics
Wang Zuyou: You point out that Goethe’s concept of “world literature” originated from his reading of Chinese literary translations, while Marx and Engels expanded it into “global cultural production.” What implications does this conceptual evolution have for contemporary research? How do you define the contemporary meaning of “world literature”—as a fixed canonical system, or as a “mode of reading and form of cultural exchange realized through translation”?
Wang Ning: When Goethe proposed “world literature” in 1827, he was indeed inspired by translations of Chinese novels like The Fortunate Union, but he approached it more from an idealistic perspective of human spiritual commonality (Eckermann 213). Marx and Engels, in The Communist Manifesto, historicized and materialized this concept, pointing out that the bourgeoisie, by opening up the world market, made “the intellectual creations of individual nations common property.” This reveals the internal connection between world literature and global capital flow and integrated cultural production (Marx and Engels 477). This evolution teaches us: world literature is both a spiritual phenomenon and a social practice; it concerns both canon selection and power relations.
My contemporary definition of “world literature” prefers the latter—as a “mode of reading and form of cultural exchange realized through translation” (Wang, “World Literature and the Contributions of Chinese Scholars”). I do not believe in a fixed, universally applicable canonical system. World literature should be understood as a dynamic process: works enter cross-cultural circulation through translation, are read, interpreted, and reconstituted in different contexts, thereby acquiring multiple “afterlives.” For example, when Mo Yan’s works are read in the West, they are both Chinese literature and part of world literature, but this status is not given a priori; it is continuously constructed through practices such as translation, criticism, and teaching (Wang,“Cosmopolitanism and the Internationalization of Chinese Literature” 175). Therefore, the study of world literature should focus on translation mechanisms, reception contexts, and the politics of interpretation.
Wang Zuyou: In 2024, the top international journal in philosophy and the humanities, Philosophy and Literature, devoted a special issue to discussing your conception of “world poetics.” What was the core motivation for proposing this theory? In what specific ways does it represent a “theoretical sublimation of world literature and comparative poetics,” and how does it aim to achieve “equal dialogue among different cultural literary theories”?
Wang Ning: The conception of “world poetics” arose from reflection on the predicament of comparative poetics. For a long time, comparative poetics has largely used Western theory as its framework, with non-Western theories often marginalized or serving as illustrative material. I hoped to construct a more inclusive theoretical paradigm that would enable literary theories from different cultural traditions to engage in equal dialogue, mutual learning, and symbiosis (Wang, “From Comparative Poetics to World Poetics” 1–3).
The theoretical sublimation of world poetics compared to comparative poetics is embodied in three specific aspects: First, it transcends the “China-West” binary framework, incorporating poetic systems from the Global South and North, East and West into the dialogical field. Second, it emphasizes the “translatability” and “re-creativity” of poetic concepts—how concepts like the Chinese yijing, the Indian rasa, and Arabic rhetoric acquire new interpretations through cross-cultural travel. Third, it seeks to refine common cross-cultural poetic issues (such as narrative modes, lyrical structures, aesthetic experiences) while respecting local differences (Wang, “The Conception of World Poetics”169–176).
The key to achieving equal dialogue is to establish a mechanism of “two-way interpretation”: on the one hand, using non-Western theories to interpret Western texts, breaking interpretive monopolies; on the other, refining new categories through cross-cultural comparison. For example, in my research, I attempted to use the Chinese concept of “emptiness and fullness” to analyze magical realism, and also to use African oral poetics to reflect Western narrative theory. This requires researchers to possess multilingual abilities, profound textual grounding, and theoretical awareness. Translation plays a central mediating role here, but this translation is by no means merely “literal” transposition; rather, it is an interpretive translation that spans linguistic and cultural boundaries, embodying the translator’s subjective initiative and understanding.
Wang Zuyou: Some scholars argue that world literature research exhibits an inherent tension between “global tendencies and local manifestations.” How does your proposed concept of “localization of world literature” resolve this contradiction? Taking contemporary Chinese fiction as an example, what translational and interpretive obstacles must it overcome to enter the realm of world literature?
Wang Ning: The tension between “global and local” is indeed a core aporia. The “localization” I propose is not simple local adaptation, but emphasizes the dialectical interaction between globality and locality: world literature acquires real life only when it is read, interpreted, and reconstituted in specific places; local literature, in turn, enriches its own connotations by participating in global dialogue. Resolving the contradiction requires two-way effort: at the global level, we should promote the diversification and democratization of canon selection mechanisms, translation and publication networks, and academic evaluation systems; at the local level, we should encourage critical reception and creative transformation to avoid passive catering.
Taking contemporary Chinese fiction as an example, its entry into the realm of world literature faces multiple obstacles: First, translational obstacles, including cultural loss in linguistic conversion (such as classical poetry, dialectal expressions) and the transmission of stylistic features (such as Mo Yan’s carnivalesque language, Wang Anyi’s delicate line drawing) (Lovell 45). Second, interpretive obstacles: Western readers often expect “political allegory” or “exoticism,” easily overlooking the texts’ aesthetic complexity and socio-historical connotation (Kong 22). Third, institutional obstacles, such as publishing market preferences, literary award biases, and inequalities in academic discourse power. In short, Chinese literature’s journey to the world is filled with various obstacles. Only by overcoming these can we ensure that Chinese literature not only “goes out” but also effectively “enters” different countries, realizing the aspiration of having Chinese literature shared with the world. This should also be the shared responsibility of scholars like us engaged in comparative literature and world literature studies.
In discussing the local and global characteristics of Mo Yan’s works, I pointed out that Mo Yan’s Nobel Prize win was aided by efforts in every way: translators, critics, nominators, and other forms of media early on, such as Zhang Yimou’s film adaptations, which helped disseminate his work (Wang, “Cosmopolitanism and the Internationalization of Chinese Literature” 167–181). Indeed, overcoming obstacles in Sino-Western cultural exchange and dialogue requires the concerted effort of translators, scholars, and publishers: translators need both poetic sensitivity and cultural depth; scholars should provide balanced interpretive frameworks, revealing texts’ universal human dimensions while respecting their cultural specificity; publication mechanisms should be more open, supporting experimental and marginal voices. Simultaneously, Chinese academia should actively translate and introduce local theoretical concepts, providing alternative perspectives for international interpretation.
3. Core Ideas (II): Revaluing Translation and Practical Pathways
Wang Zuyou: You regard translation as an “effective pathway for internationalizing Chinese literary theory” while emphasizing that translation grants works “continued life” and “afterlife.” How does this “vitalist” view of translation engage in dialogue with and break from the translation theories of Benjamin and Derrida? How should we understand translation's role in “cross-cultural interpretation in the formation of world poetics”?
Wang Ning: We know that Benjamin, in “The Task of the Translator,” proposed that translation endows the original with “continued life” and “afterlife,” thus extending its historical existence (Benjamin 71); Derrida further emphasized translation’s “différance,” meaning that meaning is constantly deferred and reconstructed through difference (Derrida 120). My “vitalist” view of translation engages in profound dialogue with their thoughts, but places greater emphasis on translation's creativity, sociality, and practicality. That is, in my view, truly distinctive translators capable of entering history must creatively recreate the original, rather than passively “faithful” reproduction. Here, faithfulness is a “dynamic” fidelity, not literal word-for-word faithfulness, but faithfulness that conveys the original’s meaning. Only such faithfulness enables a translation to endure.
The breakthroughs here lie in: First, I situate translation within the overall process of cross-cultural circulation, following not only textual semantic conversion but also social-historical factors such as institutions, networks, and audiences. Second, I emphasize translation’s “two-way empowerment”—translation not only gives the original new life but also enriches the target language culture, stimulating new creative and theoretical possibilities. Third, I highlight the translator's subjectivity and responsibility; the translator is not merely a “ferryman” but a “dialogue constructor.”
From this perspective, translation’s cross-cultural interpretive role is crucial in the construction and formation of world poetics: First, it enables different poetic concepts to “encounter” each other, undergoing meaning negotiation and generation through translation. Second, translation practice itself raises a series of poetic questions (such as untranslatability, stylistic correspondence, handling of cultural metaphors); the exploration of these questions directly drives theoretical development. Finally, translation achievements constitute the empirical basis of world poetics; for example, by comparing multiple translations of the Daodejing, we can extract cross-cultural poetic categories concerning “simplicity,” “metaphor,” and "rhythm.”
Wang Zuyou: In the practice of “translating from Chinese into foreign languages,” how do you balance “cultural fidelity” and “acceptability in the target language”? Taking the “globalization” of Chinese literature as an example, beyond translating literary works, what specific challenges does the translation of theoretical discourse (such as introducing concepts like yijing and fenggu to the world) face, and what strategies should be adopted?
Wang Ning: The balance between “cultural fidelity” and “acceptability” is a perennial challenge in translation studies. I believe there is no absolute balance; rather, it should be a dynamic “creative compromise.” Translators must, based on a full understanding of the source text’s cultural connotations, seek corresponding expressions in the target language, adopting, when necessary, “translation combined with explanation” (such as annotations) or “analogical transformation” (using similar but not completely equivalent concepts from the target culture). It is important to maintain the tension between the text’s “heterogeneity” and “readability”—complete assimilation leads to loss of cultural distinctiveness, while excessive alienation hinders acceptance (Venuti 15).
The translation of theoretical discourse perhaps poses even greater challenges, as concepts are often rooted in specific philosophical, historical, and aesthetic traditions. Taking yijing as an example, direct translation as “artistic conception” or “mood” inevitably simplifies it (Cai 203). I advocate a “gradual translation strategy”: First, retain the pinyin (e.g., “yijing”) in the translation, supplemented by brief explanation. Second, explicate its connotations and evolution through academic papers and comparative analysis. Third, actively apply the concept in cross-cultural critical practice, gradually integrating it into international poetic discourse. Simultaneously, we could compile a multilingual Dictionary of Key Concepts in Chinese Literary Theory to systematically translate and introduce Chinese cultural and literary key concepts.
Wang Zuyou: You once edited a special issue for Babel, the authoritative international journal in translation studies, deeply exploring AI-era translation and its impact on world literature. In an era of accelerating technological iteration, will AI translation dissolve the value of “creative treason” in literary translation? How should academia and translators respond to the new possibilities of “discursive equality” and the risks of cultural alienation brought by technology?
Wang Ning: In response to the evident impact and challenges of AI on translation, in 2021, at the invitation of Professor Sun Yifeng, editor of the authoritative translation studies journal Babel: International Journal of Translation published by the International Federation of Translators, I, together with young scholar Wang Hongtao, edited a special issue for the journal entitled “Literary Translation in the Age of Artificial Intelligence,” published in Vol. 69, No. 4 (2023). This coincided with the advent of ChatGPT, so this special issue had considerable impact. Subsequently, we collaborated with Beijing Institute of Technology to hold a relevant international symposium in Beijing in 2024, where Venuti and I delivered keynote speeches representing Chinese and Western translation studies. Participating scholars recognized that AI translation indeed brings a revolution in efficiency and accessibility, but I do not believe it will dissolve the “creative treason” of literary translation—because creative treason stems from the translator’s aesthetic judgment, cultural sensitivity, and subjective intervention, elements currently hardly fully imitated by AI. AI is more likely to replace standardized, information-type translation, while the nuances of literary translation (such as tone, style, cultural metaphor) still require human translators’ grasp.
Nevertheless, AI undeniably poses two major challenges to translation: first, the risk of cultural misinterpretation masked by “surface fluency”—AI may generate grammatically correct but culturally distorted translations. Second, it may exacerbate “center-periphery” inequalities in translation, with resource-rich languages being translated faster and better (Cronin 88).
Our coping strategies should include: First, translators should actively learn to collaborate with technology, using AI as an aid tool rather than a substitute, focusing on the creative calibration and cultural debugging. Second, academia needs to strengthen “humanities-oriented critique of translation technology,” guarding against biases embedded in the technology. Third, promote the construction of multilingual corpora and the development of open-source tools to reduce the technological divide. AI may also promote “discursive equality,” for example, by making works in smaller languages easier to translate, but only if technological design itself is designed with cultural diversity awareness.
4. Practical Insights: The Interaction and Co-generation of Theory and Reality
Wang Zuyou: As a foreign member of the Academia Europaea, you have long engaged with the international academic community. In cross-cultural communication, how should Chinese scholars avoid “talking to themselves” and achieve effective dissemination and equal dialogue of theoretical viewpoints? What insights does your experience in English academic writing offer to young scholars?
Wang Ning: The key to avoiding “talking to oneself” is to establish a “two-way dialogical consciousness.” First, one must deeply understand international academic debates and problem consciousness, finding connection points between Chinese issues and global concerns—for example, dialoguing Chinese ecological wisdom with global ecocriticism. Second, one must express viewpoints in a language and paradigm that the international academic community can understand; this is not just linguistic conversion but also an adjustment in mode of thinking. Finally, one must actively participate in international academic activities, actively respond to criticism, and refine one’s own theories in debate.
I began to focus on English writing early in my university years. At that time, our curriculum was less intensive, and I had more free time. Following my teachers’ advice, I read some original English literary works, wrote reflections in English, and periodically asked teachers to review them. The teachers at that time placed great emphasis on cultivating students’ writing skills; they used their spare time to review my English compositions, which greatly helped my early English writing. Later, when I pursued my doctorate at Peking University, although I had published papers in top domestic journals like Social Sciences in China, Literary Review, and Literature & Art Studies, my supervisor Professor Yang Zhouhan still occasionally reminded me not to be satisfied with publishing Chinese papers in top domestic journals, but also to strive to improve my English writing skills and publish in leading international journals, so that international academia could hear Chinese scholars’ voices. This guidance and instruction greatly helped my later focus on English writing. My experience in English academic writing can be summarized as: First, clear problem awareness and logical structure are more important than ornate rhetoric. Second, skillfully use comparison and case studies to make abstract theory concrete and perceptible. Third, emphasize dialoguing with existing literature, appropriately citing international achievements, reflecting academic inheritance and critique. Fourth, revise repeatedly and seek feedback from international peers. For young scholars, I suggest they start English writing early, beginning with paper abstracts and book reviews, gradually expanding to full-length papers. At the same time, it is unnecessary to overly pursue “native speaker level”; rather, emphasize the originality and critical power of ideas.
Wang Zuyou: You have also focused on introducing and transforming ecocritical theory. How can this “postmodern ecological perspective” be integrated with world literature studies?
Wang Ning: It is no exaggeration to say that, until now, I am the only scholar in international ecocritical literary studies who has edited three special issues and published in leading international journals: “Beyond Thoreau: Literary Response to Nature,” in Neohelicon, 36.2 (2009); “Global in the Local: Ecocriticism in China,” in ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment (Autumn 2014) 21 (4); and “Ecocriticism in East Asia,” in Comparative Literature Studies, 55.4 (2018). These three special issues helped establish the position and influence of Chinese ecocriticism in international academia and also helped me ascend to the Stanford-Elsevier global top 2% of scientists (in literary studies), ranking ahead of almost all Euro-American ecocriticism researchers, effectively placing me in the global top 1% (Dong Jianxin, “Professor Wang Ning of Shanghai Jiao Tong University Again Selected Among World’s Top 2% Scientists”). The postmodern ecological perspective I propose not only critiques anthropocentrism, emphasizing the ecosystem’s wholeness, diversity, and interconnectedness, but also advances a theoretical construction of postmodern environmental ethics, which internally resonates with world literature’s pursuit of pluralistic symbiosis and cross-cultural connection (Heise 55). The integration points lie in: First, ecological themes are an important dimension of world literature, as seen in works by Thoreau, Atwood, and Mo Yan dealing with human-nature relationships. Second, ecological crisis is a global issue requiring cross-cultural literary responses. Third, ecological wisdom from different cultures (such as China’s “heaven-human unity,” Indigenous “land ethics”) can be shared through literary translation and comparison.
5. Future Prospects and Academic Legacy
Wang Zuyou: You propose that “world literature should be pluralistic symbiosis in plural form.” At present, constructing a “Chinese version of world literature” requires interdisciplinary collaboration from which fields? How should comparative literature, translation studies, and literary theory form a research closed loop?
Wang Ning: Constructing a “Chinese version of world literature” requires comparative literature to provide cross-cultural perspectives and methodologies, translation studies to address text circulation and reception issues, literary theory to provide interpretive frameworks and value judgments, and also digital humanities to support textual analysis and database construction, and area studies to provide local knowledge. These disciplines should form a “problem-oriented” collaborative closed loop: for example, studying the global reach of Chinese science fiction, comparative literature analyzes its relationship with global science fiction traditions, translation studies explores multilingual translation strategies, literary theory interprets its future imaginings and cultural critique, digital humanities tracks its international dissemination, and area studies analyzes reception differences in various countries.
The key to the closed loop is establishing normalized interdisciplinary dialogue mechanisms,
such as joint workshops, collaborative projects, shared databases, and encouraging scholars to possess “one specialty, multiple competencies” knowledge structures.
Wang Zuyou: For young scholars, you have emphasized the importance of a “solid foreign language foundation” and “extensive literary reading.” In today’s diversified academic evaluation systems, what core competencies do you believe young scholars engaged in literary theory and translation studies should possess? How should they handle the relationship between “theoretical construction” and “textual practice”?
Wang Ning: Core competencies here include: First, multilingual ability, proficient in at least one foreign language, able to read primary literature. Second, cross-cultural sensitivity, understanding the logic and values of different cultures. Third, theoretical critical thinking ability, able to critically absorb, integrate, and innovate theory. Fourth, close reading skills; theory must be rooted in specific texts. Fifth, academic writing and communication skills, able to express effectively on international platforms.
Regarding handling the “theory” and “text” relationship, I advocate a “circular interaction”: to seek out problems from texts, deepen analysis using theory, and then feed back analysis results to refine theory. Young scholars should avoid “theory spinning” or “empiricism.” They can try a “small theory plus large text” strategy—using a moderate theoretical framework to deeply interpret a set of texts, to extract concepts through concrete research. For example, by comparing multiple writers’ ecological writings, one could induce “three modes of contemporary Chinese ecological narrative,” which is both a theoretical construction and closely tied to textual practice.
Wang Zuyou: Your academic thoughts have been translated into over ten languages and have exerted widespread influence in international academia. In which areas do you most hope to promote deeper academic dialogue in the future? What unresolved issues will the theoretical construction of “world poetics” next focus on?
Wang Ning: I most hope to promote dialogue in three areas: First, systematic comparison of Global South poetics, such as the interaction between Chinese, Indian, Arabic, Latin American, and African poetic traditions. This requires transnational team collaboration. Second, methodological innovation in digital humanities and world literature studies—how to use big data, network analysis to study the transnational circulation of literature. Third, the challenges posed by new issues such as climate change and artificial intelligence to literary theory, requiring deep collaboration between humanities and technological disciplines.“World poetics” will next focus on: First, operationalizing conceptual tools—how to establish a set of categories applicable to cross-cultural analysis. Second, integrating non-literary poetics (such as oral traditions, visual narrative). Third, the relationship between poetics and ethics, politics, especially in an era of heightened cultural conflict, how to promote mutual understanding through poetic dialogue (Wang, “From Comparative Poetics to World Poetics” 1–15). These questions have no ultimate answers, but the questioning itself is valuable.
Wang Zuyou: Thank you very much for such a profound and systematic sharing. Your reflections provide rich intellectual resources for our understanding of world literature, translation, and theoretical construction, and inspire later scholars to continue exploring.
Wang Ning: Thank you, Zuyou, for your insightful questions. Scholarship is a communal endeavor, and I look forward to more young scholars joining this unfinished dialogue.
Works Cited
Benjamin, Walter. “The Task of the Translator.” Illuminations, translated by Harry Zohn, Schocken Books, 1969, pp. 69–82.
Cai, Zong-qi. “Yi-jing: The ‘World’ of the Chinese Poetic Symbol.” Chinese Literature: Essays, Articles, Reviews (CLEAR), vol. 12, 1990, pp. 201–217.
Cronin, Michael. Eco-Translation: Translation and Ecology in the Age of the Anthropocene. Routledge, 2017.
Derrida, Jacques. “Des Tours de Babel.” Difference in Translation, edited by Joseph F. Graham, Cornell UP, 1985, pp. 109–136.
Dong, Jianxin. “Shanghai Jiaoda Wang Ning jiaoshou zai du ru xuan quanqiu qian 2% dingjian kexuejia bangdan” [Professor Wang Ning of Shanghai Jiao Tong University Again Selected Among World’s Top 2% Scientists]. Sina News, 21 Sept. 2024, news.sina.cn/2024-09-21/detail-incpwvfr0188373.d.html.
Eckermann, Johann Peter. Conversations with Goethe. Translated by John Oxenford, Da Capo Press, 1998.
Heise, Ursula K. Sense of Place and Sense of Planet: The Environmental Imagination of the Global. Oxford UP, 2008.
Kong, Shuyu. “The Image of China in World Literature: The Case of Mo Yan.” Journal of World Literature, vol. 3, no. 1, 2018, pp. 20–35.
Lovell, Julia. “The Politics of Translation in Contemporary Chinese Literature.” The Translation and Transmission of Chinese Literature, edited by Bonnie S. McDougall and Kam Louie, Chinese UP, 2011, pp. 45–62.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Translated by Samuel Moore, Penguin Books, 2002.
Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. 2nd ed., Routledge, 2008.
Wang, Ning. “Cosmopolitanism and the Internationalization of Chinese Literature.” Mo Yan in Context: Nobel Laureate and Global Storyteller, edited by Angelica Duran and Yuhan Huang, Purdue UP, 2014, pp. 167–181.
———.“From Comparative Poetics to World Poetics: A Proposed Theoretical Construction.” Philosophy and Literature, vol. 48, no. 1, 2024, pp. 1–15.
———. Hou lilun shidai de wenxue yu wenhua yanjiu [Literature and Cultural Studies in the Post-Theoretical Era]. Peking UP, 2009.
———.“Shijie shixue de gouxiang” [The Conception of World Poetics]. Zhongguo shehui kexue [Social Sciences in China], no. 4, 2015, pp. 169–176.
———. “Shijie wenxue yiji Zhongguo xuezhe de gongxian” [World Literature and the Contributions of Chinese Scholars]. Guangming ribao [Guangming Daily], Theory ed., 8 Jan. 2025.
Yang, Zhouhan. Jingzi he qiqiaoban [Mirrors and Tangrams]. China Social SciencesPress, 1990.
The Authors
Wang Zuyou,Ph.D., Professor, his main research areas are English literature and literary translation. He has published 18 works, and has published nearly 100 papers in academic journals such as Foreign Literature. He has completed 7 scientific research projects. His work Wang Zuyou’s Poetry Collection (2025) is collected by the Harvard University Library.
Email: wangzuyou2012@163.com
Wang Ning, Distinguished University Professor of Humanities and Social Sciences at Shanghai Jiao Tong University and Changjiang Distinguished Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Tsinghua University.
Email: wangning@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn