In their article "The End of the Nobel Era and the Reconstruction of the World Republic of Letters" Guohua Zhu and Yonghua Tang critically examine mechanisms of cultural hegemony associated with the Nobel Prize in Literature from a neocolonial lens. Borrowing from Casanova's idea of the "World Republic of Letters" and its attentiveness to geopolitics, the essay proceeds to reconstruct the dialectical relations between the nation and the world. It does so, in the first place, by documenting and analyzing the process of negotiation and bargaining entailed in the construction of global cultural hegemony and thereby examine the functions and boundaries of hegemony. Further, it reveals how colonial apparatuses of understanding continue to limit the ways in which we imagine the world and sustain the power relations that ought to be questioned, challenged, and broken. Ultimately, the essay aims to provide a multi-dimensional and multi-layered vision of the World Republic of Letters that is genuinely multi-polar. Guohua Zhu and Yonghua Tang, "The End of the Nobel Era and the Reconstruction of the World Republic of Letters" page 2 of 12 CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 20.7 (2018): Special Issue A Critical Response to Neocolonialism. Ed. Guoqiang Qiao Guohua ZHU and Yonghua TANG The End of the Nobel Era and the Reconstruction of the World Republic of Letters Every October since 1901, literature circles, cultural agencies, journalism, and social media all over the world hold their breath as they wait for news of the Nobel Prize in Literature. The 2017 Noble Prize in Literature was awarded to Japanese British writer Kazuo Ishiguro, sending the Japanese author Haruki Murakami (a perennial favorite of gambling companies) to yet another disappointment. Suddenly, media reports overflew; storage of books by Ishiguro sold out; literary commentaries from academia mushroomed; Ishiguro's "loyal fans" skyrocketed overnight. Compared to the Oscars, the carnival of Hollywood, the Nobel Prize ceremony foregoes the spectacle of having all nominees for awards, and indeed all representatives of the film industry, gather in one place. It makes writers out to be lone sages capable of changing the course of world literary history through solitary labor and who are inscribed in collective memory by sheer genius and devotion to most subtle literary expressions. It is for these very reasons endowed with utmost sacredness and can be regarded as the most solemn and hallowed ritual of the "World Republic of Letters." This essay critically examines the Nobel Prize in Literature from the perspective of neocolonial critique. Neocolonialism, in scholarly discussions, seems to be more intimately linked to economic, political, and social arenas. By contrast, postcolonialism tends to be associated with the realm of culture rather than socioeconomic processes. But the differences between the two terms are more than a matter of focus. They have more to do with methods and perspectives of research. In this paper, we adopt a neocolonial framework out of two primary concerns. First, we believe neocolonial analysis offers a useful methodological standpoint for dissecting the operating logic of Nobel Prize. Indeed, we choose not to focus on the close interpretation of literary and textual meanings, without bypassing them all together of course. What we seek to uncover, instead, are the ways in which cultural hegemony manifests itself in the Nobel Prize in Literature. Specifically, we shed lights on the operating logic of hegemony bodied forth in such conceptual binary constructs as "center/periphery," "humanity/nation," and "aesthetics/politics." The second rationale for adopting a neocolonial stance is that we concur with most neocolonial criticists in believing that we have not entirely entered the post-colonial era. In other words, the most urgent issues facing third world countries are neither how the West as the ex-colonizer views us, nor how the West views itself through the act of gazing at the Third World. The more crucial issue is how the West attempts to maintain its dominant position in the world through various political, economic, and cultural strategies. Without creating artificial boundaries between postcolonial and neocolonial critiques, we acknowledge the fact that new formations of colonialism are still in the works. What we need to do is not only uncover, but also resist. French scholar Pascale Casanova's idea of the "World Republic of Letters," which we mentioned above, is particularly useful to our discussion. The original meaning of the "World Republic of Letters" refers to the community of European intellectuals from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment era. European literati' formed a closely-knit network through writing and reading, which enabled them to transcend national boundaries and the control of religious and secular centers of authority. Casanova proceeds from this history to discuss the worldliness of literature, which also constitutes this essay's Guohua Zhu and Yonghua Tang, "The End of the Nobel Era and the Reconstruction of the World Republic of Letters" page 3 of 12 CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 20.7 (2018): Special Issue A Critical Response to Neocolonialism. Ed. Guoqiang Qiao entry point to a discussion of Nobel Prize in Literature. In selecting winners, the Noble Literature Prize committee places particular emphasis on works with transnational and cross-cultural appeal, reinforcing such old-fashioned philosophical and aesthetic theories as "universal human nature," and "common humanity," namely the idea that, despite our increasing investment in linguistic and cultural diversity, good literary works that reveal the core of humanity can still gain recognition worldwide; "aesthetic transcendence," namely, literature could provoke compassion via its supra-utilitarian aesthetic power, even between the peoples of two belligerent countries; and "organic integration" — the integration of form and substance in a literary work constituting an inherently stable system of meaning that will remain intact while circulating through different cultural contexts and different modes of reception and interpretation. Undergirding all these beliefs is a dualistic understanding of literature, which separates its secular dimensions from its transcendent dimensions. Although this dualism is still pervasive in everyday cultural commentaries, it is increasingly problematized in poststructuralist theories that argue against all forms of essentialism and fundamentalism. Casanova's "World Republic of Letters" is quite representative of criticisms of conventional beliefs about literature and offers us a way of examining the dualism of the Noble Prize in Literature. To a large extent, Casanova's approach resembles Bourdieu's reflexive sociology in that she bases her argument on the relationship between "field" and habitus (Casanova, xii). According to her, the idea that "pure literature" could only achieve interior depth and be free from attachment to capital and nationalism is in itself a habitus formed in a certain social field (Casanova, 352). To overcome this habitus, Casanova offers a counter idea, one that is based on the dialectics between partiality and entirety. Every written book that claims to be literature is an integral part of the grand configuration of the world literary space. Only "the totality of...world literary space...alone is capable of giving meaning and coherence to the very form of individual texts" (Casanova 3). More importantly, this space consists not of "an abstract theoretical configuration, but an actual — albeit unseen — world" (Casanova 3), a totality consisting of endless conflicts: In this broader perspective, then, literary frontiers come into view that are independent of political boundaries, dividing up a world that is secret and yet perceptible by all (especially its most dispossessed members); territories whose sole value and sole resource is literature, ordered by power relations that nonetheless govern the form of the texts that are written in and that circulate throughout these lands; a world that has its own capital, its own provinces and borders, in which languages become instruments of power. Each member of this republic struggles to achieve recognition as a writer. Specific laws have been passed freeing literature from arbitrary political and national powers, at least in the most independent regions. (Casanova 4) Casanova shifts the conceptualization of "literature-world" (Casanova xii), one that exists above and beyond the political world, to world literature, one that breaks national and political boundaries. On the one hand, the secular world is comprised of not only existent nation-states but also literature. On the other, literature not only belongs to the insular intellectual territory but also is organized and constructed Guohua Zhu and Yonghua Tang, "The End of the Nobel Era and the Reconstruction of the World Republic of Letters" page 4 of 12 CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 20.7 (2018): Special Issue A Critical Response to Neocolonialism. Ed. Guoqiang Qiao as a republic following the rules of the secular world. The world republic of letters, thus, is neither an insular world nor an idealized heaven for literature. It's far from being anti-political or apolitical; rather, it is an overlapping yet free-standing secular/political world. The world of literature is similar to the world of capital: it ostensibly follows the boundaries of national state but keeps challenging them. The order of literature world, like the circulation of capital, is imbricated over the order of nation-state, the existence of which is undeniable, although not always tangible enough for us to see. As Jonathan Culler has pointed out, Casanova's

中文翻译：

---

诺贝尔时代的终结与世界书信共和国的重建

朱国华和唐永华在他们的文章《诺贝尔时代的终结与世界文字共和国的重建》中，从新殖民主义的角度批判性地研究了与诺贝尔文学奖有关的文化霸权机制。从卡萨诺瓦的“世界书信共和国”概念及其对地缘政治的关注中汲取了灵感，这篇论文着手重建了国家与世界之间的辩证关系。首先，它是通过记录和分析构建全球文化霸权所涉及的谈判和讨价还价过程来进行的，从而检验霸权的功能和边界。进一步，它揭示了殖民的理解工具如何继续限制我们想象世界的方式并维持应该受到质疑，挑战和破坏的权力关系。最终，本文旨在提供一个真正的多极化的多维世界观。朱国华和唐永华，``诺贝尔时代的终结与世界文字共和国的重建''，第12页，共12页CLCWeb：比较文学与文化20.7（2018）：专刊对新殖民主义的批判性回应。埃德 郭强侨朱国华，唐永华诺贝尔时代的终结与世界文字共和国的重建自1901年以来的每个十月，世界各地的文学界，文化机构，新闻界和社会媒体在等待新闻时屏息诺贝尔文学奖。2017年诺贝尔文学奖获得者是日本英国作家石黑一雄，这使日本作家村上春树（赌博公司长期以来的最爱）再次令人失望。突然，媒体报道飞跃了。石黑郎的书籍的存储空间被抢购一空；学术界的文学评论如雨后春笋般涌现；石黑的“忠实粉丝”一夜之间暴涨。与好莱坞狂欢节的奥斯卡相比，诺贝尔奖颁奖典礼放弃了所有提名获奖者的奇观，实际上电影界的所有代表都聚集在一处。它使作家成为能够通过孤独劳动来改变世界文学史进程的孤独圣人，并且由于纯粹的天才和对大多数微妙的文学表达的热爱而被刻入集体记忆之中。出于这些原因，它被赋予了最高的神圣性，可以被认为是“世界书信共和国”最庄重和神圣的仪式。本文从新殖民主义批评的角度审视了诺贝尔文学奖。在学术讨论中，新殖民主义似乎与经济，政治和社会领域更加紧密地联系在一起。相比之下，后殖民主义倾向于与文化领域联系在一起，而不是与社会经济过程联系在一起。但是，这两个术语之间的差异不仅仅是一个焦点问题。他们与研究方法和观点有更多关系。在本文中，我们从两个主要方面出发采用了新殖民主义的框架。首先，我们认为新殖民主义分析为剖析诺贝尔奖的运作逻辑提供了有用的方法论立场。的确，我们选择不集中精力对文学和文本含义进行仔细的解释，当然也不要绕过它们。相反，我们试图揭示的是文化霸权在诺贝尔文学奖中的表现方式。具体来说，我们阐明了诸如“中心/外围”，“ 我们上面提到的法国学者帕斯卡尔·卡萨诺瓦（Pascale Casanova）的“世界书信共和国”的思想对我们的讨论特别有用。“世界书信共和国”的原始含义是指从文艺复兴时期到启蒙时代的欧洲知识分子社区。欧洲文人通过写作和阅读形成了紧密联系的网络，这使他们能够超越国界以及对宗教和世俗权威的控制。卡萨诺瓦（Casanova）从这段历史出发，探讨文学的世俗性，这也构成了本文的郭国华和唐永华，“诺贝尔时代的终结与世界文字世界的重建”，共12页CLCWeb：比较文学与文化20.7（2018）：对我们的讨论特别有用。“世界书信共和国”的原始含义是指从文艺复兴时期到启蒙时代的欧洲知识分子社区。欧洲文人通过写作和阅读形成了紧密联系的网络，这使他们能够超越国界以及对宗教和世俗权威的控制。卡萨诺瓦（Casanova）从这段历史出发，探讨文学的世俗性，这也构成了本文的郭国华和唐永华，“诺贝尔时代的终结与世界文字世界的重建”，共12页CLCWeb：比较文学与文化20.7（2018）：对我们的讨论特别有用。“世界书信共和国”的原始含义是指从文艺复兴时期到启蒙时代的欧洲知识分子社区。欧洲文人通过写作和阅读形成了紧密联系的网络，这使他们能够超越国界以及对宗教和世俗权威的控制。卡萨诺瓦（Casanova）从这段历史出发，探讨文学的世俗性，这也构成了本文的郭国华和唐永华，“诺贝尔时代的终结与世界文字世界的重建”，共12页CLCWeb：比较文学与文化20.7（2018）：指的是从文艺复兴时期到启蒙时代的欧洲知识分子社区。欧洲文人通过写作和阅读形成了紧密联系的网络，这使他们能够超越国界以及对宗教和世俗权威的控制。卡萨诺瓦（Casanova）从这段历史出发，探讨文学的世俗性，这也构成了本文的郭国华和唐永华，“诺贝尔时代的终结与世界文字世界的重建”，共12页CLCWeb：比较文学与文化20.7（2018）：指从文艺复兴时期到启蒙时代的欧洲知识分子社区。欧洲文人通过写作和阅读形成了紧密联系的网络，这使他们能够超越国界以及对宗教和世俗权威的控制。卡萨诺瓦（Casanova）从这段历史出发，探讨文学的世俗性，这也构成了本文的郭国华和唐永华，“诺贝尔时代的终结与世界文字世界的重建”，共12页CLCWeb：比较文学与文化20.7（2018）：专刊对新殖民主义的批判性回应。埃德 乔国强的切入点是对诺贝尔文学奖的讨论。在选择获奖者时，诺贝尔文学奖委员会特别强调具有跨国和跨文化吸引力的作品，加强了诸如“普遍的人性”和“共同的人性”等老式的哲学和美学理论，即尽管随着我们对语言和文化多样性的投入不断增加，展现人类核心的优秀文学作品仍然可以在全世界获得认可；“审美的超越”，即文学可以通过其超功利主义的审美力量甚至在两个交战国家的人民之间引起同情；和“有机整合” -形式和实质在文学作品中的整合，构成了内在稳定的意义体系，当在不同的文化背景下以及在不同的接受和解释方式中循环时，它们将保持不变。在所有这些信念的基础上，是对文学的二元理解，将其世俗维度与超越维度分开。尽管这种二元论仍然在日常的文化评论中普遍存在，但在反对一切形式的本质主义和原教旨主义的后结构主义理论中，它日益成为问题。卡萨诺瓦（Casanova）的“世界书信共和国”（World Republic of Letters）很好地代表了对文学传统观念的批评，并为我们提供了一种研究诺贝尔文学奖二重性的方式。卡萨诺瓦在很大程度上 这种方法类似于布迪厄的反身社会学，因为她的论据基于“田野”与习性之间的关系（Casanova，xii）。她认为，“纯文学”只能达到内在的深度，不受资本和民族主义的束缚，这本身就是在某个社会领域中形成的一种习惯（Casanova，352）。为了克服这种习惯，卡萨诺瓦提出了一种相反的想法，该想法基于偏见和整体之间的辩证法。每本声称是文学的书面书，都是世界文学空间宏伟格局不可或缺的一部分。只有“……世界文学空间的整体……一个单独的能力，才能赋予个别文本以某种形式的意义和连贯性”（Casanova 3）。更重要的是，该空间不包含“ 至少在最独立的地区。（卡萨诺瓦4）卡萨诺瓦将“文学世界”（Casanova xii）的概念（一种存在于政治世界之外的事物）转变为世界文学，打破了国家和政治界限。一方面，世俗世界不仅由存在的民族国家组成，而且由文学组成。另一方面，文学不仅属于知识分子领土，而且是由朱国华和唐永华组织和建构的，“诺贝尔时代的终结与世界文字世界的重建”，共12页第4页CLCWeb：比较文学和文化20.7（2018）：打破世界和政治界限的世界文学。一方面，世俗世界不仅由存在的民族国家组成，而且由文学组成。另一方面，文学不仅属于知识分子领土，而且是由朱国华和唐永华组织和建构的，“诺贝尔时代的终结与世界文字世界的重建”，共12页第4页CLCWeb：比较文学和文化20.7（2018）：打破世界和政治界限的世界文学。一方面，世俗世界不仅由存在的民族国家组成，而且由文学组成。另一方面，文学不仅属于知识分子领土，而且是由朱国华和唐永华组织和建构的，“诺贝尔时代的终结与世界文字世界的重建”，共12页第4页CLCWeb：比较文学和文化20.7（2018）：专刊对新殖民主义的批判性回应。埃德 国强桥是一个遵循世俗世界的共和国。因此，世界字母共和国既不是孤立的世界，也不是文学的理想天堂。它远非反政治或非政治的；而是一个重叠但独立的世俗/政治世界。文学世界与资本世界相似：表面上遵循民族国家的边界​​，但仍在挑战它们。文学世界的秩序，就像资本的流通一样，被束缚在民族国家的秩序上。民族国家的存在是不可否认的，尽管并不总是足以让我们看到。正如乔纳森·卡勒（Jonathan Culler）所指出的，卡萨诺瓦（Casanova）