In traditional Chinese academic understanding, literature, history, and philosophy are at once an inseparable whole and three independent, indispensable pillars—a relationship often captured by the phrase “literature, history, and philosophy cannot be divided.” In the modern era, however, the growing emphasis on disciplinary specialization has led to a “separation” among these three fields. Yet their intersections and boundary crossings have never disappeared; indeed, the more valuable a piece of research is, the more pronounced such crossings tend to be.

‘Literarization’ of history, philosophy

In modern times, literature, history, and philosophy frequently cross disciplinary boundaries, with literature being the field most heavily “invaded.” As historical narratives inherently contain elements of literariness, the incorporation of personal experience and sentiment into historical writing is not only possible but necessary. London: The Biography, a nonfiction work that has attracted attention in China’s literary circles in recent years, was authored by Peter Ackroyd, a writer with a particular focus on history. Although the book is not recognized as a canonical work by historians, it nonetheless offers a valuable example of personalized historical writing. One may question the author’s occasionally affective tone, yet it undeniably provides a more pluralistic understanding of London’s history.

The “literarization” of philosophy finds a typical example in renowned German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. In Chinese academia, works produced within the Nietzschean tradition are often referred to as “poetic philosophy,” a label that highlights the literary qualities of their philosophical writing. Tracing the origins of this philosophical lineage reveals that such “poetic” expression is not mere embellishment, but rather a necessary path for philosophical reflection and articulation.

Ultimately, just as literary studies has undergone a process of “historicization,” history and philosophy have also experienced forms of “literarization.” Yet these two fields appear largely untroubled by this tendency. Discussion of “literariness” and “historicity” in literary history, therefore, should begin by examining the origins of the problem itself.

Origins of debate over ‘literariness’ vs. ‘historicity’

Within literary studies, modern and contemporary Chinese literature is among the fields in which debates over “literariness” versus “historicity” are most intense. If literary studies has shown a tendency toward “historicization,” then studies of ancient Chinese literature represents the area in which this tendency is most deeply entrenched. Concepts such as “using literature to verify history” and “mutual verification between literature and history” first emerged in the study of ancient Chinese texts, and similar approaches are common in foreign literary studies as well. Shakespeare studies and Renaissance studies, for example, bear some resemblance to Chinese “Redology” (academic study of the Dream of the Red Chamber) and Dunhuang studies. Because literary texts contain abundant cultural information, interdisciplinary research arises almost naturally.

The tension between “literariness” and “historicity” in modern and contemporary Chinese literary studies is, however, more complex. To begin with, the tendency toward historicization in this field is not a recent phenomenon. At its inception, the compilation of literary history was a foundational task, making some degree of historicization unavoidable. Moreover, compared with ancient Chinese literature and foreign literature, modern and contemporary Chinese literature is in fact less historicized. Why, then, have scholars expressed particular concern over historicization tendencies in a field that might otherwise benefit from them?

The crux of the issue does not lie in any scholarly rejection of historicization as such, but rather in a renewed inquiry into the question of what literature is for. Because modern and contemporary Chinese literature engages directly with the present, it displays a heightened sensitivity to this question when compared with ancient Chinese literature and foreign literary studies. From the “rewriting of literary history” in the 1980s, to the “great debate on the humanistic spirit” in the 1990s, and onward to the “aestheticization of everyday life” in the early 21st century, the recurring concern has been precisely this question of purpose—now taking the form of a confrontation between “literariness” and “historicity.”

Call for social consensus, theoretical self-awareness

Among the disciplines of literature, history, and philosophy, literary studies suffers most acutely from a lack of social consensus and theoretical self-awareness. The fact that tendencies toward “literarization” in historical and philosophical research have not provoked comparable anxiety suggests that scholars in these disciplines possess a keener sense of their mission and value, as well as stronger social recognition.

When people think of history, they think of facts and tradition; when they think of philosophy, they think of truth and order. But what do people associate with literature? Literary scholars may respond by invoking aesthetics, yet the academic community has not fully grasped the significance of this “ultra-utilitarian utility,” let alone its indispensable role.

A renewed understanding of “literariness” is therefore not merely an internal task for literary scholars. If the discussion and construction of “literariness” remain confined within the field, the concept will ultimately become vacuous. “Literariness” cannot be realized by erecting a high wall around researchers; rather, it requires society as a whole to recognize its existence—as a space, and as the ultimate home of the humanities.

Zhou Weidong is a professor from the College of Literature and Journalism at Sichuan University.