Foreign literature studies is transforming under the global history paradigm. PHOTO: TUCHONG

Since the beginning of the 21st century, global history has rapidly expanded beyond historiography into literature, philosophy, and the arts. As an emerging research paradigm, its core principle lies in transcending the boundaries of nation-states, focusing on the circulation of material objects, human mobility, and the entangled coexistence of knowledge, with the aim of reimagining an interconnected world. This paradigm offers an illuminating theoretical perspective and methodological approach for contemporary studies of foreign literature.

Perplexities: paradigmatic limitations of traditional foreign literature studies

Traditional paradigms in foreign literature studies can be broadly categorized into three types. The first type is country-specific literary histories and studies of authors and works, which take the nation-state as the basic unit. The second type is the tracking and application of various contemporary literary critical trends, schools, and theories. The third type is comparative literature, which explores the influence, reception, and parallel relationships among literatures of different countries and regions.

In recent years, perspectives and methods in foreign literature studies have become increasingly diversified, interdisciplinary research capacity has steadily strengthened, and the integration of literature with philosophy, history, art, and media studies has grown closer.

However, in the face of the complexities brought about by globalization, the theoretical and methodological limitations of these traditional paradigms have become increasingly evident. First, country-specific literary histories tend toward essentialism, confining literature within a singular nation-state imaginary. Moreover, the influence of “Western centrism” remains deeply entrenched, resulting in insufficient attention to the literatures of so-called “non-mainstream” countries and regions. Second, a large body of research still operates at the level of “introduction” and “review,” lacking subjectivity in critical reflection and the construction of original viewpoints. As a result, such studies often fail to engage with the deeper connections between literature and global politics, capital, and cultural power, and are unable to articulate a distinctive cultural stance or respond meaningfully to contemporary realities. Third, although comparative literature is grounded in cross-boundary inquiry, it often lacks a holistic examination of the historical processes through which literary phenomena become mutually constitutive and interwoven within global networks. Textual interpretations driven purely by theory frequently fall into the trap of detachment from specific historical contexts, leading to the persistent problem of “theory for theory’s sake.” Finally, interdisciplinary collaboration often remains superficial, with research limited to the simple borrowing or analogizing of concepts. Such cursory “interdisciplinarity,” divorced from substantive engagement with the issues under discussion, is unlikely to generate meaningful academic innovation.

Establishing the new: paradigmatic transformation of foreign literature studies under global history perspective

As a transformative intellectual current, global history focuses on interaction, connectivity, integration, and comparison. As a research perspective, it shifts scholars’ attention from static, isolated “texts” to the dynamic, interconnected “global life of texts,” thereby reconstructing, at a theoretical level, the fundamental assumptions of foreign literature studies.

Under the lens of global history, foreign literature studies are undergoing a process of dismantling the old and establishing the new. Previously unidirectional national literary studies are now situated within global networks, where the nature, forms, and influences of literature are reexamined. Western literature is no longer upheld as the sole canon; instead, research increasingly seeks to recover the multiple forms of expression obscured by dominant narratives. The focus of “influence studies” has shifted from how A influences B to how A and B collide synchronically, interact, and generate new cultural forms. Liang Zhan, a distinguished professor at the University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, believes that viewing the national literature from the perspective of global history helps recover lost literary subjectivity, restore it’s rightful place within world literature, and ultimately situate Chinese history, civilization, culture, and literature within a genuinely universal historical framework. The global history paradigm not only broadens the horizon of foreign literature studies but also fundamentally reshapes its research objects, modes of inquiry, and interpretive aims.

Restructuring: new pathways for foreign literature studies through global history

First, the object of study shifts from “canonical texts” to the “global circulation of texts.” The notion of global circulation emphasizes that the meaning of a text is continuously generated through its ongoing “travels” across the world—a process comprising circulation, translation, reception, and reconfiguration. This shift fundamentally redirects the focus of foreign literature studies. The material infrastructure that enables such global “travel”—including printing technologies, publishing industries, maritime transport, and digital networks— thus becomes the key object of inquiry. In translation studies, the focus expands from language itself to encompass the translator’s identity and stance, with translation becoming a crucial site for the reproduction of textual meaning. For example, one might examine how the poems of Hanshan, a monk poet of the Tang Dynasty, were reconstructed in the United States as those of a “Zen poet” through translations by the Beat Generation, thereby exploring the driving mechanisms of literary globalization. In studies of reception and adaptation, greater attention is paid to how foreign works are interpreted, transformed, or even misread within new cultural contexts.

Second, research methods shift from “comparison” to relational, cross-cultural circulation and network analysis. Under the global history paradigm, foreign literature studies are no longer satisfied with identifying similarities and differences among literary traditions; instead, they seek to uncover the dynamic processes through which literary phenomena take shape through mutual interaction and become intertwined within global networks. Cross-cultural circulation studies aim to trace how a particular literary theme, motif, genre, or form moves and transforms across the globe. The case of Kalila and Dimna illustrates how this collection of fables originated in Sanskrit India, traveled through the Sassanid Persian Empire, the Abbasid Caliphate, Europe, and East Asia, and eventually returned to India, forming an interconnected “circuit.” By mapping these routes of literary travel, scholars can analyze how and why the work was absorbed and reshaped in different regions, ultimately producing a “fable” of global historical significance. At the same time, a network-based model offers a new way of understanding the literary world. Writers, translators, publishers, critics, and artists across the globe function as nodes—with their correspondence, collaborations, exhibitions, travels, and influences forming the links—together weaving a global literary network that reveals the inherently transnational character of literary activity.

Third, the orientation of research shifts from “national essence” to “relational dialogue,” deconstructing and reconstructing grand narratives of literary history. In traditional narratives of foreign literary history, the specter of “Western centrism” frequently appears, and studies of literary transmission and influence often conceal the flawed logic of “from the civilized West to the backward East.” In contrast, global history seeks to construct research approaches centered on “reverse influence” and “multi-centered interaction,” thereby correcting and supplementing the shortcomings of traditional narratives. From this perspective, examining the relationship between East Asian aesthetics and Western modernist poetry can not only trace their interconnections but also reveal a complex network of cultural interaction involving multiple centers such as Beijing, Tokyo, Paris, and London. The emergence of modernist poetry, in this view, is the result of interactions among multiple cultural centers rather than the product of a single dominant one. In this way, rewriting literary history from a global history perspective becomes possible. Such a literary history is no longer a patchwork of national literatures but a new form of narrative organized around themes, networks, flows, and interactions, exploring the interconnectedness of global cultures across time and space. Accordingly, foreign literature studies is situated within a broader analytical framework.

Under the global history paradigm, foreign literature studies is undergoing a series of transformations: a spatial shift from nation to network, a material shift from ideas to media and infrastructure, and a reconfiguration of power from center to periphery. These shifts highlight both the interactivity of cultures and the dynamic nature of history. At the same time, this approach faces significant challenges. It requires scholars to possess a high level of cultural literacy, including strong linguistic competence, solid historical training, and the ability to synthesize diverse materials. Moreover, care must be taken to avoid slipping into a “neo-colonial” logic. In short, global history research—with its emphasis on historical depth, interaction, openness, and dialectical thinking—is poised to stimulate new areas of academic growth in contemporary foreign literature studies.

Zhai Jiang is a lecturer from the School of Liberal Arts at Jiangsu University.