As promised, I report your fables here, reflecting either LuMing Mao's "Rhetorical Borderlands" or Xiasui Xiao's "China Encounters Darwinism."
The Eagle and the Dragon
Eagle and Dragon were flying in the Heavens, looking for food. Eagle, always looking for something new to eat, was searching Sky and Earth for a new prey. Dragon was hunting Panda, because he has hunted Panda for all of Eternity. Eagle sees Panda and has never had Panda before, so he tries to swoop down and carry Panda away, but is unsuccessful. So, Eagle flies up to the Heavens.
Having seen Eagle’s attempt, Dragon chooses to deviate from his normal prey, and attempts pursuing Rabbit, but Rabbit escapes to his hiding spot. So, Dragon flies up to the Heavens. Eagle and Dragon flew up and up and eventually collided with each other. Dragon says to Eagle, “Look what you have done! You have disrupted the Natural Order of things.” Eagle says, “What do you mean?! My Natural Order is to seek out new prey. I have never had Panda before, so I tried to catch him.”
Dragon asks, “If you eat my prey, what am I supposed to eat?” Eagle explains, “Whatever you like—there are no limits.” Dragon explains, “But my energy is based off of tradition, and I must fulfill my tradition to survive the cold of the Heavens.” Eagle says, “My curiosity rules that I search out new prey, and I must fulfill my curiosity to keep the strength to fly throughout the Heavens.”
Eagle and Dragon face each other with confused looks. Eagle asks, “What if you were to find a new tradition?” Dragon replies, “How would I find a new tradition?” Eagle says, “I will teach you how to catch Rabbit, and you can catch him over and over, because I have already caught him and cannot gain strength from him.” Dragon agrees, and they take to Earth to catch Rabbit, and Dragon is successful. Dragon, in turn, teaches Eagle how to catch Panda, and Eagle is successful.
After each Heavenly Flier found success in catching new preys, Eagle realized that he could not see anymore prey to go after and was upset. Dragon asks, “What is wrong?” Eagle says, “I have no new prey to catch.” Dragon says, “What if I teach you a new way to catch Panda? For an Eternity, I have learned many different ways to catch Panda. Each way is unique, so it would satisfy your curiosity for the new.” Eagle agrees, and they take to Earth to catch Panda in a new way, and Eagle is successful.
Having tried a new way to catch Panda, Eagle realised he could try catching the other animals in different ways as well. Both Eagle and Dragon found something useful in each other. Although neither Heavenly Flier had the same Natural Order, they were able to utilize each other’s ideals to prosper for the rest of Eternity.
The Old Man and the Horse
An older man, tired and weary from war, is walking down a country road in search of the city of Tian. He encounters another man on a horse, and after introducing himself, asks for directions to the city. The rider, a man named Huxley, informs him that the best way is to follow the established town roads rather than the country paths, and that if he is strong enough, he can reach the city alone. The old man nods and begins his journey, which he finds very difficult. He encounters flood, drought, hunger, and cold, before finally turning back and returning to Huxley and his horse. “Didn’t you find your way?” asks Huxley. “I could not succeed in the way you directed me,” replies the old man. At that moment, the horse turns to the old man and says, “Actually, I can show you an easier way to reach Tian. Here, let us go together.”
What did the fables reveal?
I was most pleased with how your fables led us to a multilayered discussion: a discussion accounting for de-colonizing attitudes in both the theorists (Xiao and Mao) and their subjects (Yan Fu and yi/"togetherness-in-difference"/borderlands).
For example, Xiao positions Yan Fu as a translator, not a colonizer, and yet Xiao himself conducts a non-colonizing study of Chinese paraphrastic translation. In highlighting Yan Fu's role as a rhetorical translator/critic, Xiao may be arguing that "Darwin" was already a published concept affirming what Chinese readers had already been experiencing. In turn, by closely considering all of the ways that Yan Fu (purportedly) recast and reshaped Huxley's dichotomies to make them more "Chinese," we were also considering the ways that Xiao gave us access to Yan Fu and Chinese translation work.
As another example, Mao employs metaphor and myth to argue for the critical and practical necessity of letting two traditions coexist without denying one or the other its existence. While we might say that Mao is arguing for a more culturally tolerant stance towards teaching and learning identification (even if we're not sure what that teaching or learning would necessarily consist of), we can just as easily say that Mao relies on hybridity, fluidity, and "hyphenated desires" in making his case for the writing class as a "rhetorical borderland" where "yi moments" can be understood and discussed (Mao 443). Some of us were a bit lost in time throughout his essay as he did not make clear distinctions between history and present, individual and community, or inside and outside the learning space.
Ultimately, you led us to the conclusion that the way to do cross-cultural translation isn't necessarily through pluralism but in creatively adapting texts so that they are more culture bound, not less so: to "recreate[] Darwinian ideals in the Chinese culture" (Xiao 84), so to speak. You also noted that "culture bound" describes any intellectual transaction occurring between cultures that is motivated by pragmatic social needs (Xiao 94) and initiated by the "taker/host" culture (Xiao 94). What a very different idea from merely importing Darwin's theories through Chinese rhetoric!
Where we are going next week ...
More of the same! Xiaoye You's historical study of English composition textbooks in China might factor into our discussion next week, as we continue to ask whether/how these comparative scholars might be understood as "anti-colonialist" or "de-colonialist," or, simply resisting colonization in the work that they perform.
While none of yesterday's theorists claimed decolonization as a specific goal for their work, next week's theorists will make that claim. I'll show clips from Kayo Hatta's Picture Bride (1994) to help us consider some of Nordstrom's critical context, some of Young's interests in indigeneity, and the role that language plays across all three projects.
And, I will invite us to ponder the following questions next week:
- How do they define, position, or re-position their own methodologies?
- What use value to they imply (or explicitly argue for) in comparative work?
- In what ways do they propose to rebuild rhetorical theory?
- What are some viewpoints or activities you see being discussed that could be understand as anti- or de-colonization?
- What struck you or surprised you in what you read about their work?
- Most importantly: what are the implications for us and for the field? What's in it for us?
(We may tackle that final question fairly aggressively.)
Looking forward to it!
-Dr. Graban
