This essay focuses on the salient place given to staging both the modern regime of translation and the institution of literature alongside a dramatization of anthropological difference in Liu Cixin’s acclaimed science fiction trilogy, Remembrance of Earth’s Past (also known as The Three Body Problem). These are concerns that are, I would argue, not only historically central to twentieth-century Chinese literature, but also place twentieth-century Chinese literature squarely at the crux of some of the most fundamental questions about aesthetic modernity. These questions revolve around the way in which the type or the figure plays a crucial role in the construction of the nation-state.
As quintessentially modern social institutions, both the regime of translation and the institution of literature converge around aesthetic ideology, in which the figure and the type play a paramount role. This is not just any figure, but rather the figure of the human, configured through the logical economy of genus, species, and individual. As a kind of abstraction that is intimately woven into the fabric of everyday life (or what Marx calls a “real abstraction”), this “logical economy” is most evident in that experience of identity peculiar to modernity: being an individual who belongs to a national community within that community’s membership in a larger, single species among other species. Together, these two institutions form an inherently comparative biopolitical infrastructure that I call the apparatus of area and anthropological difference.
A brief comparison with Wuhe’s Remains of Life helpfully illustrates the extent to which Liu Cixin’s Trilogy is invested in the apparatus of area and anthropological difference that arises through the operation of translation, while a comparison with Mao Dun’s focus on subjective formation helps to highlight the implications of Liu Cixin’s attack on Chinese socialist realism. Liu’s fiction should not be seen as what happens when a large developing nation with a tradition of literary talent achieves the concentration of capital and technology that might permit an ambitious space program, but as what happens when the international institution of literature develops on the basis of an historical repression of its own aesthetic ideology.
Abstract
This essay focuses on the salient place given to staging both the modern regime of translation and the institution of literature alongside a dramatization of anthropological difference in Liu Cixin’s acclaimed science fiction trilogy, Remembrance of Earth’s Past (also known as The Three Body Problem). These are concerns that are, I would argue, not only historically central to twentieth-century Chinese literature, but also place twentieth-century Chinese literature squarely at the crux of some of the most fundamental questions about aesthetic modernity. These questions revolve around the way in which the type or the figure plays a crucial role in the construction of the nation-state.
As quintessentially modern social institutions, both the regime of translation and the institution of literature converge around aesthetic ideology, in which the figure and the type play a paramount role. This is not just any figure, but rather the figure of the human, configured through the logical economy of genus, species, and individual. As a kind of abstraction that is intimately woven into the fabric of everyday life (or what Marx calls a “real abstraction”), this “logical economy” is most evident in that experience of identity peculiar to modernity: being an individual who belongs to a national community within that community’s membership in a larger, single species among other species. Together, these two institutions form an inherently comparative biopolitical infrastructure that I call the apparatus of area and anthropological difference.
A brief comparison with Wuhe’s Remains of Life helpfully illustrates the extent to which Liu Cixin’s Trilogy is invested in the apparatus of area and anthropological difference that arises through the operation of translation, while a comparison with Mao Dun’s focus on subjective formation helps to highlight the implications of Liu Cixin’s attack on Chinese socialist realism. Liu’s fiction should not be seen as what happens when a large developing nation with a tradition of literary talent achieves the concentration of capital and technology that might permit an ambitious space program, but as what happens when the international institution of literature develops on the basis of an historical repression of its own aesthetic ideology.
关键词
modern regime of translation /
institution of literature /
realist fiction /
aesthetic ideology /
becoming-minor /
species difference
Key words
modern regime of translation /
institution of literature /
realist fiction /
aesthetic ideology /
becoming-minor /
species difference
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
Agamben, Giorgio (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life<, trans. by Daniel Heller-Roazen. Stanford: Stanford University.
— (2009). What is an Apparatus? And Other Essays, trans. by David Kishik, and Stefan Pedatella. Stanford: Stanford University.
Barad, Karen (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham & London: Duke University.
Baucom, Ian (2005). Specters of the Atlantic: Finance Capital, Slavery, and the Philosophy of History. Durham & London. Duke University.
Button, Peter (2009). Configurations of the Real in Chinese Literary and Aesthetic Modernity. Leiden: Brill.
Chen, Chun-yen (2012). “Being-in-Common in Postcolonial Taiwan: Wuhe’sRemains of Life and the Limits of Politics.” Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies 14(3): 443-461.
Chen, Qi 陳頎 (2016). “Wenming chongtu yu wenhua zijue:‘santi’de kehuan yu xianshi” 文明衝突與文化自覺:《三體》的科幻與現實 [The clash of civilizations and cultural self-awareness: the reality and science fiction of the Three Body trilogy].” Wenyi lilun yanjiu 文藝理論研究 1: 94-103.
Cohn, Steven Mark (2017). Competing Economic Paradigms in China: The Co-Evolution of Economic Events, Theory and Economics Education, 1976-2016. London & New York: Routledge.
Combes, Muriel (2013). Gilbert Simondon and the Philosophy of the Transindividual, trans. by Thomas LaMarre. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Cooper, Melinda (2008). Life as Surplus: Biotechnology and Capitalism in the Neoliberal Era. Seattle & London: University of Washington Press.
Davies, William (2014). The Limits of Neoliberalism: Authority, Sovereignty and the Logic of Competition. London: SAGE Publications.
Dean, Jodi (2005). “Communicative Capitalism: The Circulation and the Foreclosure of Politics.”Cultural Politics 1(1): 51-74.
Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari (1986). Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature, trans. by Dana Polan. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Derrida, Jacques (1992). Acts of Literature. New York: Routledge.
Dutton, Michael (2002). “Lead Us Not into Translation: Notes toward a Theoretical Foundation for Asian Studies.”Nepantla: Views from South 3(3): 495-537.
Ferguson, Thomas, Paul Jorgensen,Jie Chen (2018). “Big Money—Not Political Tribalism—Drives US Elections.” https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/big-money-not-political-tribalism-drives-us-elections. Accessed 31 October 2018.
Foucault, Michel (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977, trans. by Colin Gordon, Leo Marshall, John Mepham, and Kate Soper. New York: Pantheon.
— (1996). “What is Critique?”, trans. by Kevin Paul Geiman. In What is Enlightenment? Eighteenth-Century Answers and Twentieth-Century Questions, ed. by James Schmidt, 382-398. Berkeley, Los Angeles & London: University of California Press.
Galloway, Alexander (2011). “Black Box, Black Bloc.” In Communization and its Discontents, ed. by Benjamin Noys, 237-249. Brooklyn: Minor Compositions.
Garciá, J. Neil (2017). “Translation and the Limits of Minority Discourse in the Philippines.”Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 31: 24-32. DOI: 10.1080/10304312.2016.1262093
Gerth, H. H.,C. Wright Mills (eds. and trans.) (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology New York: Oxford University Press Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Harvey, David (2004). “The ‘New’ Imperialism: Accumulation by Dispossession.”Socialist Register 40: 63-87.
Jiang, Xiaolu (2018). “‘Wei rensheng de wenxue’—Mao Dun de zhutixing shijian” “Une Littérature de la vie”: sur la mise en œuvre de la subjectivité dans les écrits de Mao Dun. [“Literature for life”: on the praxis of subjectivity in the writings of Mao Dun]. PhD Dissertation. Université Jean Moulin.
Josephson-Storm, Jason (2017). The Myth of Disenchantment: Magic, Modernity, and the Birth of the Human Sciences Chicago: University of Chicago Press Magic, Modernity, and the Birth of the Human Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kalyvas, Andreas (2008). Democracy and the Politics of the Extraordinary: Max Weber, Carl Schmitt, and Hannah Arendt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, Immanuel (1996). “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” trans. by James Schmidt. In What Is Enlightenment? Eighteenth-Century Answers and Twentieth-Century Questions, ed. by James Schmidt, 58-64. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.
Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe,Jean-Luc Nancy (1990). “The Nazi Myth,” trans. by Brian Holmes.Critical Inquiry 16: 291-312.
Lanza, Fabio (2017). The End of Concern: Maoist China, Activism, and Asian Studies. Durham and London: Duke University.
Lin, Pin 林品 (Meijie zhi bian 媒介之變 ) (2016). “‘Santi’: Dang women tanlun kehuan shi, women zai taolun shenme?”《三體》:當我們談論科幻時,我們在討論什麼? [The Three Body trilogy: what are we talking about when we discuss science fiction?].” http://www.ikanchai.com/article/20160725/91606.shtml. Accessed 20 May 2018.
Liu, Cixin 劉慈欣 (2014). The Three-Body Problem, trans. by Ken Liu. New York: Tor Books.
— (2016). The Dark Forest, trans. by Joel Martinsen. New York: Tor Books.
— (2017). Death’s End, trans. by Ken Liu. New York: Tor Books.
Neyrat, Frédéric (2016). La part inconstructible de la terre: Critique du géo-constructivisme [The unconstructed share of the Earth: A critique of geoconstructivism]. Paris: Seuil.
Parenti, Christian (2016). “Environment-Making in the Capitalocene: Political Ecology of the State.” In Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Nature, History, and the Crisis of Capitalism, ed. by Jason Moore, 166-185. Oakland: PM Press.
Parisi, Luciana (2007). “Biotech: Life by Contagion.”Theory, Culture & Society 24(6): 29-52.
Pasquale, France (2015). The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms that Control Money and Information. Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press.
Quijano, Anibal (2000). “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America.”Nepantla: Views from South 1(3): 533-580.
Rancière, Jacques (2004a). “The Politics of Literature.”SubStance 33(1): 10-24.
— (2004b). The Flesh of Words: The Politics of Writing, trans. by Charlotte Mandell. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Read, Jason (2010). “The Production of Subjectivity: From Transindividuality to the Commons.”New Formations 70: 113-131.
Redfield, Marc (2003). The Politics of Aesthetics: Nationalism, Gender, Romanticism. Stanford: Stanford University.
Richardson, Nick (2018). “Even What Doesn’t Happen Is Epic.”London Review of Books 40(3): 34-36.
Sakai, Naoki (1997). Subjectivity and Translation: On “Japan” and Cultural Nationalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
—— (2000). “Subject and Substratum: On Japanese Imperial Nationalism.”Cultural Studies 14(3-4): 462-530.
—— (2009). “How do We Count a Language? Translation and Discontinuity.”Translation Studies 2(1): 71-88.
—— (2012). “Positions and Positionalities: After Two Decades.” Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique 20(1): 67-94.
—— (2018). “The Modern Regime of Translation and its Politics.” In A History of Modern Translation Knowledge, ed. by Lieven D’hulst and Yves Gambier, 61-74. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
—— (2019). “The Regime of Separation and the Performativity of Area.”Positions 27(1): 241-279.
Sapio, Flora (2015). “Carl Schmitt in China.” The China Story. https://www.thechinastory.org/2015/10/carl-schmitt-in-china/.
Schulte, Christoph (2010). “Was heißt Aufklärung? Zur Aktualität von Moses Mendehlssohns Aufklärungsverständniss” [What is Enlightenment? On the contemporary relevance of Moses Mendehlssohns’s understanding of the Enlightenment]. In Aufklärung in Geschichte und Gegenwart [Enlightenment in history and in the present], ed. by Richard Faber and Brunhilde Wehinger, 217-243. Königshausen & Neumann.
Servais, Christine and Véronique Servais (2009). “Le malentendu comme structure de la communication” [Misunderstanding as the structure of communication].Questions de communication 15: 21-49.
Shannon, Claude (1948). “A Mathematical Theory of Communication.” The Bell System Technical Journal Vol. 27 (Jul, Oct): 379-423, 623-656.
Siegert, Bernhard (1999). Relays: Literature as an Epoch of the Postal System, trans. by Kevin Repp. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Solomon, Jon (2014). “The Postimperial Etiquette and the Affective Structure of Areas.”Translation 4: 171-201.
—— (2019a). “The Affective Multitude: Toward a Transcultural Meaning of Enlightenment.” In Beyond Imperial Aesthetics, ed. by Steve Choe and Mayumo Inoue, 263-292. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Press. Forthcoming.
—— (2019b). “Beyond a Taste for the Dark Side: The Apparatus of Area and the Modern Regime of Translation under Pax Americana.” In The Dark Side of Translation, ed. by Federico Italiano. Forthcoming.
St. André, James (ed.) (2014). Thinking Through Translation with Metaphors. New York: Routledge.
Uno, Kuniichi (2003). Han rekishiron [Against history]. Tōkyō: Serika Shobō.
Walker, Gavin (2014). “The Regime of Translation and the Figure of Politics.”Translation, a Transdisciplinary Journal 4: 30-52.
Weber, Samuel (1987). Institution and Interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Wuhe 舞鶴 (2000/2011). Yusheng 餘生 [Remains of Life]. Taipei: Maitian.
Yu, Xing (2015). Language and State: A Theory of the Progress of Civilization. Lanham: University Press of America.
PDF(422 KB)
