Encounter (in Absence!): The Main Principles of Dialogue among Heterogeneous Literary Theories

After two decades, the challenge of theory-phobia and theory-ism has, for some, entered a discourse that can be called the ‘critical discourse’ of comparative studies of Persian poetics. This discourse challenges comparative studies of the heterogeneous Persian and Western literatures and through the essential and foundational rejection of these studies, attempts to deny their existence and essence. Some Western scholars regard other literatures as a propelling force that can fill in the void of contemporary literary theory. Others from the East consider such studies to be an opportunity to regain a lost literary-theoretical identity and thus return to the global literary discourse. Even though the critical discourse intends to deny comparative theoretical studies in an imbalanced way, it, nonetheless, puts forward some points which are required for such studies to be done, and highlights the explication of a special set of instructions for dialogue among heterogeneous literary theories. Pursuing this aim, the present paper adopts a descriptive-analytical method in order to critically present and develop the main principles of Shunqing’s Variation Theory. What he establishes as the four main principles of dialogue – discursive independence, discursive equality, mutual elucidation, and the search for a common ground while maintaining difference as well as the mutual complements of variability among heterogeneous literary theories – contain a set of practical instructions that can introduce comparative poetics to a new phase of dialogue.

Extended Abstract
 
1. Introduction
The ‘critical discourse’ arising from the discursive conflict between theory-phobia and theory-ism not only disapproves of applying Western literary theories to Persian literary texts but also questions the methodology and results of such research studies. In this approach there seems to be a misunderstanding of both the concept of literary theory and the process of theorization, with a very strict definition of literary theory being stressed, regardless of the historical process of theorization, and synchronic and diachronic dialogues among literary theories and cultures. However, it is clear that different examples of Western and Eastern literary theories reveal different qualities of world literature. Because of the cultural origins of theories from the West and the East such a dialogue cannot be easily established and a framework should be developed to prepare the ground for the realization of such dialogues.
 
2. Theoretical Framework
The present study draws on Shunqing’s research study “The discourse of literary theory and the dialogue between Western and Chinese literary theories” where he discusses the dialogue among heterogeneous literary theories at both micro and macro levels. At the macro level, the relationship among heterogeneous literary theories is the focus of attention, while at the micro level the major ways in which heterogeneous literary theories are related have been examined.
 
3. Methodology
The present article adopts a descriptive-analytical method to introduce, develop and criticize the principles of dialogue among heterogeneous literary theories put forward in Shunqing’s article.
 
4. Findings
In the present paper, the main components of dialogue among heterogeneous theories have been redefined and the concept of literary theory, indigenous theory, the objective and means of dialogue and the equivalents considered for “theory” in different languages have been discussed. Other than languages belonging to the same family as French and English, only a few languages, such as Mandarin Chinese and Indian, have an exact equivalent, rooted in their own language, for ‘theory’. In the equivalents produced for this term in Persian, literary theory is dominated by the Western paradigm of the concept of scientific theory and most lexicographers find these equivalents inadequate and not quite exact. The purpose of dialogue among heterogeneous literary theories is to enable different theories to identify their own philosophical background, theoretical nature, presuppositions and principles and those of other theories as well so that they may develop and even combine with other theories. Shunqing stresses the principle of “discursive independence” as the most important principle of dialogue. However, what seems to be of greater importance is the necessity of developing the main signifier of theoretical identity and the “indigenous self-discourse system” as a participant in the dialogue. Yet, Shunqing disregards the quantity and quality of the independence. The relativity of the principle of independence contributes to the development of dialogues, which can empower contemporary, indigenous literary theories and prevent the marginalization of some theories. Discursive equality in dialogues can create equal opportunities and commitments. It presupposes equal status for heterogeneous literary theories and finds any heterogeneity to be the result of their epistemological and methodological differences. The principle of mutual elucidation pushes aside all one-sided interpretations and presuppositions and emphasizes understanding and explains differences and distinctions among different sides. The principle of “the search for a common ground while maintaining differences” is based on dialogue rather than monologue, and highlights distinctions more than differences. “The mutual complements of variability” provides for displays of global culture with an open, all-inclusive attitude so that the gaps in contemporary literary theory is filled in based on distinctions.
 
5. Conclusion
The literary-cultural interactions indicate that the 21st century is the era of dialogue among different cultures and, thus, in line with the development of the global culture we should formulate our strategies to make dialogue possible and also try to universalize our literary theories while embracing other literary theories. This seems to be the only way to deal with the indigenous ‘aphasia’ and the hegemony of Western literary theory and recreate our own system of literary theory. 
 
Select Bibliography
Fotuhi, M. 1385 [2006]. Naqd-e Adabi dar Sabk-e Hendi. Tehran: Sokhan.
Fotuhi, M. 1395 [2016]. “Motun-e Kohan-e Farsi va Nazarye-ye Adabi-e Modern.” Naqd-e Adabi 33: 7-20.
Makaryk, I. R. 1383 [2004]. Daneshnameh-ye Nazaryeh-ha-ye Adabi-ye Moa’ser. M. Mohajer and M. Nabavi. Tehran: Agah.
McLean, I. 1387 [2008]. Farhang-e Olum-e Siasi-ye Oxford. H. Ahmadi (trans.). Tehran: Mizan.
Mohebbati, M. 1390 [2011]. Az Surat ta Ma’na. Tehran: Sokhan.
Mohebbati, M. 1392 [2013]. Naqd-e Adabi dar Adabyat-e Kelasik-e Farsi. Tehran: Sokhan.
Plato, 1380 [2001]. Dore-ye Asar-e Aflatun. H. Lotfi (trans.). Tehran: Kharazmi.
Shayegan, D. 1381 [2002]. Afsunzadegi-e Jadid: Hoviyat-e Chehel Tekkeh va Sayyar. F. Valiani (trans.). Tehran: Farzan.
Shunqing, C. 2008. “The discourse of literary theory and the dialogue between Western and Chinese literary theories.” Journal of Multicultural Discourses 3: 1-15.
Shunqing, C. 2014. The Variation Theory of Comparative Literature. New York: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.