The intellectual agency of building “meta-theory” facilitates the building of an independent knowledge system. Photo: TUCHONG

Since the turn of the century, literary theory research in China has made considerable advances, yet many problems remain unresolved. If localization and originality are regarded as essential criteria for building an independent knowledge system, current scholarship still falls well short of these standards. Contemporary literary theory must therefore take stock of its present condition, confront its underlying problems, and actively seek practical ways forward—tasks it both ought to undertake and is capable of undertaking.

The so-called “independence” of a knowledge system does not mean pursuing novelty for its own sake or making sensational claims. Rather, it denotes scholarly originality and constitutes one of the defining qualities of genuine academic research.

The legitimacy of literary theory

In recent years, the legitimacy of the humanities as an academic field has come under growing pressure worldwide. Funding for humanities departments at many universities and research institutions has reportedly been reduced, programs have been downsized, and some disciplines have even been eliminated altogether. As one of the most representative branches of the humanities, literary theory has been particularly exposed to this crisis. However difficult the circumstances may be, the humanities must articulate a basis for their own existence; otherwise, they will struggle to justify their continued institutional presence.

Consciousness is the capacity to comprehend the world through the various relationships people form with it. When consciousness takes human beings themselves as the objects of cognition, understanding, and reflection, this capacity is generally referred to as “self-consciousness.”

Self-consciousness provides the subjective foundation for the emergence and continued existence of the humanities. Because self-consciousness, like consciousness itself, is a fundamental human attribute, it also constitutes the ultimate basis for the legitimacy of humanistic inquiry. How, then, do the humanities give expression to this distinctly human form of self-consciousness?

A broad survey of humanistic scholarship across different historical periods and cultures suggests that the humanities are principally concerned with two activities: “recording” and “reasoning.” Memory is an innate human capacity, while recording extends and preserves it. Recording and reasoning constitute the primary discursive forms through which human self-consciousness is expressed. Because both are rooted in human nature, together they form the fundamental value of the humanities—a value that may be described as “humanistic value.”

These activities are regarded as valuable not primarily because they perform specific practical functions, but because they represent natural expressions of humanity and forms of human self-realization. Every field of humanistic scholarship necessarily embodies this value, which may therefore also be understood as a “meta-value.” The legitimacy of every humanistic discipline ultimately rests on this humanistic value, or meta-value.

Literary theory is no exception. The humanities may, of course, also produce more immediate effects. Historical writing may influence how political leaders govern, while literary theory may shape literary creation or readers’ appreciation of literature. These, however, are derivative values grounded in the more fundamental or meta-value. Because such effects are contingent rather than intrinsic, they cannot provide the ultimate basis for the legitimacy of the humanities.

When originality and the construction of an independent knowledge system in contemporary Chinese literary studies are examined through the twin lenses of “recording” and “reasoning,” the resulting picture is a sobering one.

Within the disciplinary structure, the various branches of literary history centered on “recording” are classified as secondary disciplines under the broader field of “Chinese language and literature.” Collectively, they examine and narrate the processes through which literary phenomena emerge and develop. From its formation during the late Qing (1644–1911) and early Republican (1912–49) periods, modern literary history retained certain elements of traditional Chinese historiography. At the same time, it developed into a modern academic discipline amid a rapidly changing intellectual environment in which Western learning was becoming increasingly influential. Its methods, disciplinary structure, and core concepts were consequently drawn largely from abroad.

Literary theory, which is primarily concerned with “reasoning,” seeks to articulate the various principles underlying literary phenomena. Its corresponding secondary discipline is generally known as the “theory of literature and art.” Neither literary theory nor the modern science of literature and art originated in China; both were introduced from abroad. They differ fundamentally from the traditional Chinese practices of poetry and prose criticism and should not be treated as equivalent.

Ancient Chinese poetry, prose, fiction, and drama all have exceptionally long histories and have produced innumerable works of enduring significance. Literary studies as an academic discipline, however, emerged only in relatively recent times as the product of modern scholarship. Compared with literary history, which at least centers on individual writers and literary works, the external origins of literary theory are still more pronounced. Viewed in terms of its historical formation as a field of knowledge and an academic discipline, literary theory therefore remains far from the goal of establishing an independent knowledge system.

From another perspective, literary theory can also be understood not as a “primary theory,” but as a characteristic form of “secondary theory.” In other words, it draws upon “primary theories” as the basis for summarizing and explaining literary phenomena. The nature and defining characteristics of a particular approach to literary theory are therefore largely determined by the primary theory on which it rests.

If psychology is regarded as a primary theory, for example, psychological aesthetics or the psychology of literature and art would constitute “secondary theories,” since they always seek to interpret literary and artistic phenomena through the framework of psychological theory. This illustrates the decisive role primary theories play in shaping literary theory.

Yet over the past century or more, the absence of primary theories developed on China’s own intellectual foundations has made the construction of an independent knowledge system for literary theory an exceptionally complex and demanding undertaking.

Problems in theoretical research and possible solutions

Since the 1990s, Chinese literary studies, including literary theory, have produced fruitful results and filled numerous gaps in academic research. Particularly noteworthy have been the various attempts to develop a localized system of academic discourse. Nevertheless, the challenges remain formidable, and the field is still far from possessing a mature academic ecosystem. Unless these problems are resolved, the establishment of an independent knowledge system will remain an aspiration rather than a reality.

Broadly considered, the most pressing problems can be grouped into three areas. First, despite the large number of researchers working in the field, active and productive academic exchange remains limited. Second, scholars often fail to give sufficient importance to one another’s academic achievements. Third, in its current state, literary studies still lacks a widespread and conscious commitment to the construction of “meta-theory.”

Building a genuinely independent academic system is a comprehensive undertaking requiring work at multiple levels and across several dimensions. Three priorities stand out. First, as a discipline within the humanities, literary theory’s most important task in constructing an independent knowledge system is to recover and further develop the humanistic spirit. Second, a strong commitment to academic ethics should be treated as one of the most important “entry requirement” of scholarly participation. Third, researchers must cultivate a stronger sense of intellectual subjectivity and agency. Only scholars who recognize themselves as active producers of knowledge can fully appreciate both the necessity and the possibility of constructing an independent knowledge system.

Contemporary scholars should draw upon and carry forward the spirit of the “Hundred Schools of Thought Contending” during the pre-Qin period (prior to 221 BCE). They should pursue originality and innovation with courage, develop distinctive intellectual approaches, and put forward concepts and theories bearing their own scholarly signatures. In this way, the establishment of an independent knowledge system for literary theory need no longer remain a distant goal.

Li Chunqing is a distinguished professor from the School of Chinese Language and Literature at South China Normal University. This article has been edited and excepted from Journal of Beijing Normal University (Social Sciences), Issue 1, 2026.