Chinese Semiotics and the Possible Change of Theoretical  

  Semiotics  during Globalization Period            

Youzheng Li

(A Speech delivered at the Nanjing International Symposium for Cultural Semiotics, Nov.16， 2008)

中国符号学和全球化时代理论符号学的变化

 （2008年“南京国际文化符号学研讨会”发言）

    李幼蒸

   本文中文纲要：

1。（狭义）一般理论：符号学，在学术发展史上来源于哲学和自然科学；现代符号学，在理论构成上以现代语言学和现代逻辑学为前提；并不存在符号学内部的“元理论”

2。（广义人文）一般理论：在人类知识范围内，最具普遍性的一般理论即为语言学和逻辑学；其次则为适合于人类社会、文化、历史（本文只涉及人类生存部分）的“心理学、深层心理学和价值学”（此三学指其理型，非指远未完备的现实成果）。此五个知识范畴称为“一般理论”

3。（广义人文、文化）应用理论：哲学，历史，文学，艺术

4。在符号学内部，应区分：a：（跨学科的）一般理论，b：（学科内的）一般理论（或“应用理论”），以及c：（学科内的和跨学科的）理论应用（应用符号学）；所谓“一般符号学”（a）仅只是各种b的整合和概括，而非为一种独立的元理论

5。所谓“理论符号学”包括a和b，而a是更多的与一般理论和其他学科理论相联系；“本然的”符号学理论。目前主要指“b：学科应用理论”：在作为文化符号学主体的“文史哲艺”四域中的理论符号学成就。简言之， b即一般理论和文史哲艺的互动结果

6。迄今为止：一般理论和一般符号学都是西方文化史、学术史和思想史的产物；哲学符号学，历史符号学，文学符号学和艺术符号学，也主要是一般理论和西方文化史互动的结果。也就是：“理论符号学”是以西方学术史和西方思想史的内容为主体的。

7。跨文化符号学，即非西方符号学的发展将使非西方的文史哲艺内容纳入“应用理论”领域，其结果必然引起b的 内容的变化和调整，也就是引起理论符号学的内容变化和调整。其结果相关于一切符号学家，而非仅相关于非西方符号学家。也就是：（西方的）一般理论，（西方 的）符号学理论和非西方的符号学理论（作为西方理论和东方文史哲的混合物）的三方互动结果，将会反过来影响前二者的构成。

8。“一般理论”以及与其关系密切的a属于时空普遍性的人类知识范畴，为一切地域学者之共同研究对象，正如今日自然科学的情况一样。而“应用理论”（“理论符号学”的b类主体）涉及不同文化背景，为各学科专家所专攻，而结果可为不同学科利用。

9。因此，跨文化符号学的意义不仅是将来自西方的理论“应用于”东方材料的问题，而是形成各种符号学的共同“应用理论”的问题，后者即对“学科一般理论”（应用理论）本身的扩充。如果理论符号学a，主要是来自西方传统的部分，理论符号学b则应该包含着非西方部分。

10。符号学二分法：不是“一般理论”和“理论应用”（此一般理论为符号学之理论前提，而非符号学本身）；而是“应用理论”（b）和“理论应用”（c）。“符号学理论”范畴本身就是衍生的，非本原的。理论符号学的真正任务是发展b，此b同时包含人类一切时空记录。因此跨文化符号学是跨学科符号学的逻辑性发展。

11。作为人文科学认识论（主要相关于a）和方法论（主要相关于b）的关键性学术资源，跨学科符号学的发展，也预示着人类人文科学理论的跨文化发展的必然性。所谓文化符号学自然是跨文化符号学或全球化符号学，自然是时空全方位的全球文化学术的研究。其结果不限于c（应用研究），也相关于b（理论研究）。因此迄今为止以西方文化为基体的 b，必将扩大为全球文化史范围内的b。符号学的理论研究本身将朝向“跨学科和跨文化”两方面的“扩展”。这样，西方理论以及西方符号学理论将进一步经受两个层次上的战略性调整：跨学科调整和跨文化调整。国际符号学是全面充分开放的。此符号学全球化的调整，将直接影响到人类人文科学未来的发展。

12。这种东西方符号学对话和合作的观点，逻辑上蕴涵着符号学的理性主义和泛科学主义。这一立场首先与承认人文科学的正当身份相关。瓦解符号学的理性主义必然导致瓦解人文科学实体。此种反科学性和现实性的符号学观点，往往与企图摧毁理性主义概念referent的非理性主义观点相关。而referent就是人类的直接经验的另称，而此直接经验就是人类理性主义思考、科学思考的对象。自然科学有其referent，社会科学有其referent，人文科学也同样有其referent。思想不可能首先消除其理性运作之（外在）对象。实际上，符号学有助于我们完善、丰富话语和referent的多元意指关系。跨文化符号学的b的发展，也将直接有助于referent理性化理论的发展。

13。本文主旨：

a。人文科学一般理论和符号学一般理论的区别；符号学一般理论就是一般理论和具体学科的综合结果。

b。符号学一般理论的发展也取决于具体学科内容，包括非西方学科内容。

c。跨文化符号学因此相关于新的“符号学的一般理论”的形成。

Foreword

Saussure’s revolutionary role in modernizing the humanities lie’s in its getting rid of the two traditional ways of thinking: the philological and the metaphysical. We may call one the material-centrism and the other the philosophy-centrism. It is the theory-directed but no longer metaphysical. In a word, the first revolutionary role of semiotics is expressed in its keeping a clear distance from modern philosophy although it originated in ancient philosophy. Let’m give a brief summary of my paper in the following first:

----Modern semiotic theory consists of various general aspects of different disciplinary theories, including the philosophical. So it is interdisciplinary rather than the philosophy-central by nature.

---Its theoretical contents come from the theoretical practice of various disciplines, including both western and non-western academic experiences.                                   

Abstract

Traditionally we get used to a dichotomy of the theoretical and the applied levels in semiotic studies. Therefore there exist a general-semiotics as the theoretical mode and a discipline-semiotics as the applied one.  Clearly, the existing general semiotics arises from the West and all nonwestern semiotics seem to be reduced to the category of the applied- or discipline-semiotics. However, this scholarly dichotomy tends to be doubtful in the globalization era. This paper intends to point out that general or theoretical semiotics, far from being some original meta-semiotics, is itself a synthetic body of a more general theoretical source outside the semiotic proper and various disciplinary scholarship. Thus, the content of theoretical semiotics as such is also related to various conventional disciplines, including nonwestern ones. That means the cross-cultural semiotics will probably in turn also influence the development of general semiotics in future. This paper states that as one of the major nonwestern semiotics Chinese semiotics will also play a constructing role in forming the global interdisciplinary semiotic practice and make its ‘cross-cultural-directed interdisciplinary semiotic experience’ actively included into the global theoretical semiotics in the New Century. In this sense the global semiotics consisting of the western and nonwestern parts will be further solidified and united in a new global semiotic movement.

1.     General Theories

Semiotic theory is based on and preconditioned by some more general theoretical products in history, such as the most general ones like: the linguistic and the logical, as well as the relatively general ones like: the psychological, deep-psychological and even the sociological. Such general subjects have been intellectual autonomies as the most basic disciplines in human knowledge (in terms of their ideal types rather than of their status quo ); they provide some theoretical fundaments to semiotics in different ways, forming the elementary part of so-called theoretical semiotics. Theoretical semiotics is related to the interaction between the general theories and various disciplinary studies. Accordingly we have another more pertinent dichotomy that exists between the “application theory” and the “theoretical application”. The former is about those more theoretical studies and the latter about those more concrete studies (for example: the distinction between film theory as such and analysis of movie pictures on the basis of theory). So we could have various semiotic disciplines such as: semiotic study in philosophy, semiotic study in history, semiotic study of literature and semiotic study in arts. All fields like these can be divided into the more theoretical and the more applied in relative terms. Usually we call the former theoretical semiotics and the latter applied semiotics. The identity of “theoretical semiotics” is already a synthesis of the general theories originally existing outside the semiotic and various conventional disciplines, including both western and nonwestern parts. In our classification a conventional discipline, including various disciplinary semiotics, consists of the more theoretical and the more applied. Thus, in “literary studies” we could say: literary theory and literary analysis; the former is more about general principles and the latter more about an analysis of fictional works. Similarly we have the theoretical studies at general level and the applied studies at concrete levels in literary semiotics, historical semiotics and artistic semiotics. Without a connection to those general disciplinary semiotics there is no a separate  ‘general semiotics’. What exists logically above them as their common theoretical guidance is the “general theory” outside or independent from the semiotic field. Therefore, semiotics, including the theoretical ones, remains to be at a secondary level in the intellectual hierarchy.

2.     The Semiotic as the Main Organizer of Theoretical Synthesis of Human Knowledge

Semiotics is a user of established specialized knowledge, synthetically and relevantly connecting intellectual and academic elements from various disciplinary sources. That is why we call semiotics as an interdisciplinary practice. As I pointed out at Berkeley 1994, if we attempt to establish a new philosophical or linguistic foundation for a general semiotics we may fall in a logical self-contradiction immediately, for philosophy itself has been one of conventional disciplines ever since the modern era. We are far away yet from the period when the philosophical was the foundation for all other knowledge. Instead, semioticians search for an interdisciplinary-directed theoretical “foundation” which functions as a mere theoretical organizer in an operative term. So-called theoretical semiotics, as we just said, is not another meta-theoretical dogmatism, it is a synthesizer in interdisciplinary and cross-cultural academic practice. The important theoretical semiotics available today all comes from historical efforts made in various main disciplines such as: philosophy, history, literature, arts, media and others. While a theoretical semiotics across disciplines plays a role as only an external link among related elements from various disciplines. Yes, we have linguistics and logic penetrating into all semiotic practices, but they originate from independent fields outside modern semiotics. So we can define the identity of theoretical semiotics as something partly derived from other established disciplinary sources; or exactly, it is a combination or interaction between various ‘general theories’ and the relevant concrete conclusions in different  disciplines. We semiotic theoreticians should promote these synthetic efforts along the same line. On one hand we depend on the existing conventional knowledge and on the other we attempt to readust their inner structure. In general, semioticians are not creators but the creative user of concrete knowledge created by different specialists. We exist dialectically outside as well as within all disciplinary knowledge, especially with respect to the humanities.

3.     Non-western semiotics become part of the practice of theoretical semiotics in the Semiotic Globalization Era

Because above mentioned academic identity of general theory originates in the West, theoretical semiotics tends to be confused in its two different theoretical practices: that from the general theoretical which is outside semiotics and that from Theoretical Semiotics which contains part of the former. The former originates in the west but has become the common subject of the entire mankind yet. Semiotics originates from all interdisciplinary activities including the nonwestern ones. That means theoretical semiotics is not restricted to the western academia only. The cross-cultural semiotics as the new type of interdisciplinary practice with respect to both western and nonwestern academic worlds becomes also a  new academic ground for promoting scholarly dialogues between all kinds of disciplines. On one hand it is especially related to applying some western theories into the nonwestern cultural material, while on the other hand it is also part of the scholarship of theoretical semiotics in general. In other words, theoretical semiotics will become the common job of the western and the nonwestern semiotics in future, because the traditional nonwestern disciplines will naturally join the common synthetic efforts for promoting theoretical semiotics. Concretely, various types of theoretical semiotics in different disciplines will be changed or readjusted due to the creative and critical participation of the non-western traditional disciplines such as philosophy, history, literature and arts. For this purpose, of course, we need to undertake a two-stepped academic dialectic strategy: firstly we need to apply the western analytical tool for reformulating or modernizing the traditional nonwestern discourse, and secondly we are able to apply the reformulated discourse of the nonwestern disciplines to the interaction between the western and the nonwestern semiotics at various theoretical levels. That means the nonwestern semiotics, which itself is the result of the western and nonwestern interaction, involves global semiotics at the two stages: the stage for modernizing the traditional formulation at national level and the stage for joining common theoretical inquiry at global level. The latter will be useful for both the western and nonwestern semiotic theoreticians.  In this sense, semiotic practice is helpful for unifying human knowledge of all kinds.

4.     Semiotic Globalization towards the new unified Humanities of Mankind

One of the common misconceptions about human civilizations is the idea that present human history is approaching its closing stage. The fact is the contrary: Human civilizations at this globalization era remain in their beginning moment in human existence. Besides the remarkable progress of natural and social sciences, the traditionally most divergent and ambiguous humanities have just reached the eve of their global renaissance that is especially symbolized by the emergence of modern semiotics. Why? The traditional flaws of humanities have been firstly caused by a universal semantic disorder that has been the very origin of historical struggles among different faiths. The semiotic practice leads to the advance of semantic clarification of traditional intellectual discourse of various kinds. Without this common semantically operative ground for effective communication, people from different races and histories can hardly reach mutual understanding, sympathy and respect.  The point in the scholarship of the humanities or human sciences is first of all the problem of semantic analysis of different traditional discourse, while semiotics is especially specialized in handling this general semantic task. Naturally, the semiotic is a science rather than an art or quasi-art. Or, exactly we should clearly distinguish between a semiotic science and a semiotic art. The former belongs to rational praxis in human existence, just like natural and social sciences. Therefore the preconditions of cross-cultural semiotics, including Chinese semiotics, are a understanding that semiotics is of rational and scientific nature in a broad term. As we repeat often, semiotics is part of social and human sciences; that means we firmly support the identity and validity of the conception of human sciences. But on the other hand, we also need a pluralist type of rationality and science to replace the dogmatic ones frequenting history. Now it is semiotics that opens a new horizon for the intellectual endeavors through a unprecedented bridging between the western and the eastern humanities. For realizing this great global project we should strengthen the rational direction of semiotic practice. We may declare that: No rational orientation, no semiotic globalization.  

With respect to the cross-cultural semiotics as well as Chinese semiotics, our western colleagues should change a traditional bias about the distinction between the western and the eastern civilizations. Such a cultural distinction has been cherished by both the western-centrism and eastern-nationalism. The conception of semiotic globalization will further expel such traditional bias which could have been valid only in the historical past. Today, the East has already comprehensively absorbed almost all fruits of western civilization and therefore essentially changed its social and cultural conditions. As a matter of fact, the east is only a geographical notion, while culturally speaking it has consists of both the eastern and the western elements yet. It is absolutely true for the natural and social sciences; it will be also true for the human sciences. For example, either for human sciences or for semiotic studies, Chinese academia has been already open to all human intellectual heritages today. In this sense, the knowledge of the humanities originating from the West will become the spiritual wealth of us as well. By comparison, our western colleagues are still lacking such a global consciousness because of their relatively neglecting their knowledge of nonwestern civilizations. So, in this paper I ‘d like to say to my western colleagues that theoretical efforts in the nonwestern and Chinese semiotics would be the organic part of general semiotics or theoretical semiotics someday. In terms of this prediction our semiotic family should pay a more serious attention to the semiotic solidarity at the global level. A developed nonwestern semiotics will strengthen our common semiotic science; it is far from being only a simple application of western theories into eastern materials. It is in fact another creative ground for promoting and modernizing the semiotic theory as well as the human sciences in the world.