A visitor browses titles at a book fair in a historic block in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, organized to promote China–France literary exchange and dialogue. Photo: IC PHOTO

As a form of discursive practice within the field of cultural production, literature is an intellectual product of civilization, shaped by the material conditions and institutional arrangements of its historical context. Literature is not only a component of civilization, but also one of its key media. Viewed from a literary perspective, the concept of “mutual learning among civilizations” thus takes on a more concrete form. Such mutual learning operates across multiple dimensions and levels, involves different actors, and proceeds along diverse pathways. Literature oriented toward civilizational mutual learning unfolds through dialogue—both the dialogue of comparative literature and the dialogue of world literature.

Contemporary comparative literature has long moved beyond Eurocentric paradigms, while globalization has further expanded the scope of world literature. American scholar David Damrosch dissolves the binary distinction between “mainstream” and “non-mainstream” writers in world literature, proposing instead a tripartite structure of “hypercanon,” “countercanon,” and “shadow canon.” At its core, this framework aims to construct a world literary landscape that transcends geopolitical boundaries.

In this sense, comparative literary dialogue has progressed from an “era of cultural pluralism,” through an “era of globalization,” and into an “era of civilizational mutual learning.” Literary dialogue oriented toward such mutual learning seeks to trace connections across different levels of literary discourse and practice, to discern their influences and effects, and, to a certain extent, to guide the construction of positive literary relationships.

According to Damrosch, national literatures undergo refraction and transformation upon entering the field of world literature, and the same work may be interpreted quite differently across cultural contexts. Individual works thus become points of reference, or coordinates, through which distinct local cultural psychologies can be understood by way of interpretive difference—an effect comparable to that pursued in traditional imagological research. In other words, it is the differentiated cultural identities of interpreters that confer on world literature multiple new meanings, which is a process of creative transformation.

The fluidity of world literature—or the generative potential of comparative literature networks—derives from the diversity of interpreters’ cultural identities. This insight echoes a core concern of imagology: The value of exotic images constructed in literary works lies not in their factual accuracy, but in what they reveal about the author’s own cultural psychology. By the same token, the interpretive value of world literature does not reside solely in the work itself, but in the ways it is differently constructed.

Literary dialogue oriented toward civilizational mutual learning does not occur only within comparative and world literary studies. It also emerges through intertextuality and allusion in literary creation, and is integrated into the cultivation of intercultural thinking in literary education. Literary dialogue thus unfolds across three interrelated levels—literary scholarship, literary creation, and literary education—which reinforce one another.

Moreover, the translation and reception of foreign literature constitute a process of creative transformation through which works are incorporated into local literary culture. Translation is therefore a key mechanism in the realization of world literature, emphasizing the generative and constructive nature of literature’s cross-cultural journey. Ge Baoquan, a pioneer of Chinese comparative literature, illustrated this process in his article “Shakespeare’s Works in China,” which documents when and how Shakespeare entered China and traces the influence of his works on Chinese writers and readers from the late 19th century through the first half of the 20th century.

Positive literary dialogue can improve quality of thought, enhance intellectual depth, foster linguistic comprehension, and illuminate culture and civilization. Equitable literary dialogue can convey the Chinese voice, facilitate cultural exchange, and contribute to mutual learning among civilizations. Dialogue is not always gentle or harmonious; it may also involve debate and confrontation. Yet as long as it aims to expand knowledge, deepen understanding, and promote mutual learning, literary dialogue can transcend differences and move toward consensus on the principle of “harmony without uniformity.”

Wang Xin is a professor from the School of English Studies at Shanghai International Studies University.