论文部分内容阅读
Abstract： Paul Patton is the Hongyi Chair Professor of Philosophy at Wuhan University， a member of the Australian Academy of Humanities， and an expert with an international reputation in the studies of Derrida， Deleuze， and post-structuralism. In recent years， Professor Patton has applied post-structuralism to the study of ethnic literature by writers such as J. M. Coetzee and Kazuo Ishiguro， providing new inspiration for the interpretation of ethnic literature. In this interview， he shares with readers his teaching and research experiences in China， his encounter with poststructuralist theories， and his thought on the limitations of post-structuralism as well as the reception of deconstructionism in China. Meanwhile， he presents possible perspectives of Deleuzian philosophy on the study of ethnic literature and shows examples of how to study Radical Hope from the perspective of Derrida’s “à-venir”. Finally， Professor Patton elaborates on his understanding of the theme of “loss” in ethnic literature.
Key words： Paul Patton; Derrida; Deleuze; post-structuralism; ethnic literature
Authors： Jiang Ying is Ph. D. candidate in School of Foreign Languages， Central China Normal University （Wuhan 430079， China） and also lecturer in School of Language and Literature， Guilin University （Guilin 541000， China）. Paul Patton is Hongyi Chair Professor of Philosophy at Wuhan University （Wuhan 430079， China） and Scientia Professor of Philosophy， University of New South Wales， Australia. He is also a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities. He is the author of Deleuze and the Political （Routledge， 2000） and Deleuzian Concepts： Philosophy， Colonization， Politics （Stanford， 2010）. He is editor of Nietzsche， Feminism and Political Theory （Routledge 1993）， co-editor of several volumes on Deleuze and Derrida， including Deleuze and the Postcolonial （with Simone Bignall， Edinburgh 2010） and author of a number of articles and book chapters on Nietzsche.
標题：后结构主义与族裔文学研究：保罗·帕顿教授访谈录
内容摘要：保罗·帕顿教授现为武汉大学哲学学院弘毅讲席教授，澳大利亚人文科学院院士，德里达、德勒兹及后结构主义研究国际知名学者。近年来，帕顿教授将后结构主义应用到库切、石黑一雄等族裔作家的文学作品解读中，其精彩的哲学解读为族裔文学研究提供了新的灵感。在访谈中，帕顿教授首先分享了他在中国教学和做研究的经历及感受，接着对后结构主义理论的兴起、后结构主义的局限性及解构主义在中国的接受进行了评价。之后帕顿教授指出德勒兹哲学与族裔文学研究结合可能的切入点，并从德里达“将临性”的视角对小说《极端希望》做了精彩的后结构主义解读，最后结合具体的文学文本阐述了自己关于族裔文学“丧失”特点的见解。
关键词：保罗·帕顿;德里达;德勒兹;后结构主义;族裔文学
基金项目：本文为广西高校中青年教师科研基础能力提升项目“加拿大华裔英语文学中的身份问题研究”（项目编号：2019KY0984）阶段性成果。
作者简介：蒋瑛，华中师范大学外国语学院博士研究生，桂林学院语言文学学院讲师。保罗·帕顿，现为武汉大学哲学学院弘毅讲席教授，澳大利亚新南威尔士大学哲学杰出教授，澳大利亚人文科学学院院士。主要论著包括《德勒兹与政治》和《德勒兹概念：哲学、殖民、政治》，编著有《尼采、女性主义和政治理论》，联合编著《德勒兹与后殖民》等多部德勒兹与德里达研究的著作，发表尼采研究的论文和专章若干篇。 Jiang Ying （Jiang hereafter）： Among all the titles in your resume， one is very special—Hongyi Chair Professor of Philosophy in Wuhan University. With the increase of academic exchanges between different countries， more and more international scholars teach and do research in China， although this is not very common in China yet， it could be predicted that an increasing number of international scholars tend to come and work in China in the future. As an Australian scholar of world renown working in China， how do you view this phenomenon？
Paul Patton （Patton hereafter）： I think that it is highly likely that more and more international scholars will come to teach and research in China， for a number of reasons. The fundamental reason has to do with China’s economic growth and irresistible progress towards becoming the world’s largest economy. One consequence of this is that China will become a cultural hub of global importance， a locus of new developments in the arts， sciences and the humanities. As such it will be increasingly attractive for scholars from all over the world. Another more practical reason has to do with the funding of higher education and opportunities for academic teaching and research. China has been investing in universities and expanding higher education while many Western countries have been reducing their funding. Along with slowed economic growth in the West this has led to a serious oversupply of people looking for academic careers. So long as Chinese universities continue to grow and to internationalize their academic as well as their student cohort， they will attract recent graduates from Ph. D. programs in Europe， North America and elsewhere. My own situation is different， having retired from my position at The University of New South Wales in Sydney. I came here out of interest in China and the phenomenal economic， social and political development underway. I am happy to have the opportunity to learn more about contemporary China and pleased to be able to contribute to the growing intellectual engagement in the humanities between Chinese and Western scholars.
Jiang： It has been almost two years since your acceptance of the position of professorship in Wuhan University in July 2019. Before coming to Wuhan， you have been teaching and doing research in Australia， London， Paris， and Berlin， which allows you the opportunity to communicate with students from different countries. Are there any differences between the students in China and those in Western countries？ Patton： I have only taught a couple of courses since coming to Wuhan and， as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic， much of my teaching has been online. I was trapped in Australia for all of 2020 and only returned to Wuhan in April 2021， so I have only had limited experience of classroom teaching since my return to Wuhan. Online teaching greatly reduces the interaction with students so it is not easy to make comparisons. That said， I have been impressed by my students in a number of ways. Their English is very good， especially in written form. The essays that I have assessed are clearly the work of students for whom English is not their first language， but they are not difficult to read. The attitude of Chinese students to the work expected of them is extremely diligent. They do the recommended reading and their submitted work is thoughtful and well-informed. The same is true of many students in Western countries， but overall my impression is that more Chinese students are more serious and committed to their studies.
Jiang： Being in China offers you more opportunities to have a high-frequency communication with Chinese scholars， would you like to share with us your impression of the Chinese academia？
Patton： Actually my opportunities for engagement with the wider academic community in China have been more restricted since coming to Wuhan， partly because of commitments at Wuhan University but also because of the pandemic. I had more engagement with academic circles elsewhere in China in 2018 when I made multiple trips and spoke at conferences and workshops in Beijing， Shanghai and Hangzhou as well as Wuhan. However， the limited number of experiences I have had have only increased my desire for more such communication and engagement. I am constantly surprised by the range and depth of knowledge among Chinese scholars about topics that I would have thought were relatively obscure or specialized. I am also aware that the Chinese academic community is huge compared to that in many countries so I have the feeling that I have only just begun to explore this intellectual continent.
Jiang： You are going to teach in Wuhan University for a stretch of time. As we all know the pandemic hit the whole world in 2020， could you talk about what the pandemic meant for 2020 together with your own experience？ It will be the 100th anniversary of the Philosophy Dept at Wuhan University in 2022， and what’s your expectation on philosophy study in the post-pandemic era？ Patton： For me the pandemic was a strange experience. I returned to Australia for what I thought would be the winter vacation in January 2020， a couple of weeks before Wuhan was locked down. Because of restrictions on international travel， I stayed in Australia for the rest of 2020 and the first three months of 2021. Since we did not know when it would be possible to return to China， my family and I moved frequently from one short-term furnished accommodation to the next. Needless to say， the romance of spending a year on the road， living out of two suitcases， soon faded. So far as moving to China was concerned， 2020 was a lost year. It is only now that we have returned and re-settled in Wuhan that I feel my experience of living and working here has resumed. I did teach online and take part in some departmental activities online while in Australia， but that was a remote and somewhat disjointed experience. I have enjoyed being back here and teaching face to face. I will be engaged in a range of activities this year such as the annual Summer School in Political Philosophy that I have been helping to organize， and a new Journal of Social and Political Philosophy that we hope to begin publishing early in the new year. There will also be activities in 2022 associated with the 100th anniversary of the School of Philosophy at Wuhan University that I look forward to， such as inviting guest speakers from leading philosophy departments around the world. The pandemic has put a brake on activities involving international academics coming to China， but with increased rates of vaccination here and in many other countries I hope that international travel will soon be possible again， and that I will be free to move about in China.
Jiang： You are an expert with an international reputation in Derrida， Deleuze and post-structuralism， could you share with us why you would initially choose them as your research field？ And what are their influences on your academic career？ With the development of mass media and internet， the emergence of a new theory and the update frequency of new knowledge is much faster than before， what’s the significance of doing research on them in this social background？
Patton： My research in this field developed out of my experience as a student in Paris during the late 1970s. I went there in 1975 because of an interest in the structuralist Marxism of Louis Althusser and his collaborators. I completed a doctorate at the University of Paris 8 Vincennes in 1979. At that time the term ‘post-structuralist’ was not widely used， but the Vincennes philosophy department included many of those who would later become international figures in post-structuralist and postmodernist theory， including Deleuze， Lyotard， Rancière and Badiou. I spent much of my time during the four years I stayed in Paris attending lectures by others at different institutions in central Paris： Foucault at the Collège de France， Derrida at the ?cole Normale Supérieure， and so on. After returning to Australia in 1979， I began to work more on some of these philosophers， especially Deleuze and Foucault. I was involved in some of the earliest English translations of their work and later became part of the international networks that disseminated and commented upon what became known as post-structuralist thought throughout the English-speaking world. The mechanics of such dissemination were primitive compared to contemporary electronic media： we produced small journals and distributed them by hand or by mail through booksellers and mail-order sites. Photocopies of articles from these journals circulated widely. We travelled to conferences on these new theoretical currents in Europe， North America， Australia and elsewhere. This was an exciting time and I learnt a lot from encounters with others who shared the interest in these thinkers. The fortunes of post-structuralist theory have waxed and waned over the years， differently for different figures： the interest in Deleuze is still strong， but others such as Derrida， Foucault and Irigaray are no longer the objects of excitement they once were. By contrast， I was a speaker at a “Deleuze and Guattari in Asia” event last week （June 4-6， 2021）， which was a fully online conference organized by the Center for Cross-Cultural Studies at Kyung Hee University in Seoul. This was a global event with speakers and participants presenting and discussing papers from all around the world and， for them， at all hours of the day and night. There are at least a couple of these conferences every year， one in Europe and one in Asia. They show how Deleuze studies has become a global phenomenon and one that seems especially well-adapted to the rhizomatic character of the dissemination， application and transformation of theory under the conditions of contemporary communication. Conferences such as this are very interesting occasions for thinking about contemporary issues such as the global pandemic with the aid of post-structuralist approaches and concepts， but the context is different， especially here in East Asia. The Eurocentric limitations of the post-structuralist thinkers are more readily apparent. There is much greater interest in attempting to think across different cultures， and of course the issues that preoccupy us now are very different from what they were in the closing decades of the twentieth century.
Jiang： Post-structuralism is a general term for the ideological trends after the declining of structuralism， how do you look at its characteristic of mixture？ There is an interesting phenomenon that some famous post-structuralists including Roland Barthes， Derrida and Lacan used to be determined supporters of structuralism， and earlier Barthes even a supporter of existentialism： how do you view their post-structural turn？ And do you regard such turn as unique for the post-structuralists on account of their advocation of denying fixed structure and mode？
Patton： I am generally skeptical of terms like “post-structuralism” or “postmodernism” that attempt to encapsulate disparate bodies of work in different fields. There is little consensus on what they mean and there are almost as many definitions of such terms as there are authors who have attempted to define them （I say this as someone who has written an entry on “Postmodernism” for the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences）. I think these terms serve marketing and pedagogical purposes rather than intellectual ones. They are a way to package and “sell” a certain family of authors and approaches but they don’t stand up to close analysis or serious intellectual history. “Post-structuralism” began as an attempt to classify a range of French projects that emerged towards the end of the 1960s and during the 1970s， some of them produced by authors who had previously been considered structuralist. I don’t believe that Derrida was ever “a determined supporter of structuralism，” even though he was associated with some of the key sites of structuralist scholarship such as the journal Tel Quel and the ?cole Normale Supérieure where he worked alongside Althusser and attended Lacan’s seminar. His own accounts of his intellectual formation emphasize the role of phenomenology and Heidegger. His “Structure， sign and play in the discourse of the human sciences” （1966） and Of Grammatology （1967） are widely regarded as among the first post-structuralist texts. The latter does engage with the structural linguistics of Saussure and the structural anthropology of Levi-Strauss， just as Derrida had earlier engaged with Lacan’s structural psychoanalysis. However， I don’t believe this makes him a structuralist thinker so much as one who thinks critically about certain presuppositions and concepts of structuralism. Foucault on the other hand was considered part of the structuralist canon， largely for his The Order of Things （first published in 1966 as Les mots et les choses）， even though he vociferously denied that he ever employed the methods of structural analysis. Deleuze was never a structuralist， although he engaged with structuralist work and wrote an intriguing essay about structuralism in the 1960s that was later published in Ch?telet’s History of Philosophy in 1973②. I have never seen a definitive list of post-structuralist works or indeed of authors considered to be post-structuralist， but the term has certainly taken on a life of its own and is now applied to a wide range of work that builds on or is otherwise influenced by one or other of the first generation of post-structuralists. Different commentators define post-structuralism in the terms of one or another of those first-generation thinkers. For some， Derrida is the primary reference and post-structuralism is defined in terms of the impossibility of closure in linguistic or cultural systems of signification and the open-ended play of différance. For others， it is Foucault’s turn to genealogical analysis and the interplay of power， knowledge and subjectivity that is emblematic of post-structuralism， and so on with reference to Barthe’s punctum， Kristeva’s realm of the semiotic， Lyotard’s figural or Deleuze and Guattari’s desiring-machines. This conceptual plurality is one reason why I think that no agreed definition of post-structuralism is possible. That said， however， there are undoubtedly points in common between some of these thinkers， although not the same ones in each case. For this reason we can agree that there are certain “family resemblances” in Wittgenstein’s sense of the term between them. This is what allows Derrida to say in his obituary for Deleuze that， despite the obvious differences between their work， he felt an almost total affinity with regard to particular theses such as their shared opposition to Hegel or their commitment to “a difference more profound than contradiction”; or Deleuze to say in one of his interviews that he had a sense of “being on the same side” as Foucault， Guattari and some of his colleagues at Vincennes such as Ch?telet， Lyotard and Schérer.③
In many ways what was shared differently among many of those labelled post-structuralists was a cultural and political sensibility. In France it had much to do with the aftershock of May ’68， but similar experiences in other parts of the world produced variants of the same sensibility. This period saw the emergence of a “counter-culture” and the beginnings of a number of social movements the impact of which continues to be felt： “women’s liberation，”“gay liberation，” anti-colonial and anti-racist movements. It is hard to separate these kinds of cultural and political movements from the theoretical attitudes expressed in post-structuralism， even if they were by no means unique to this peculiarly French phenomenon.
Jiang： Deconstructionism was first introduced into China in the 1980s， mainly through some secondary resources. When American deconstructionism became known in Chinese academia in the 1990s， it was usually understood as the latest theoretical developments in the field of narratology. Generally speaking， deconstructionism doesn’t take a mainstream position in China， how would you view this issue towards its reception in China？ Patton： I have only limited knowledge of the fate of deconstruction in China. I spoke at an International Symposium at Shanghai Jiao Tong University in July 2017 entitled “Derrida and China： Towards the Construction of Global Humanities”， but apart from that one occasion I have not encountered much Derrida scholarship in China. I know that it never became as popular here as it did for a time in North America during the 1980s and 1990s. I can only speculate about the reasons for that. These might include the difficulty of translating texts such as Derrida’s that are so deeply engaged in the etymology and idioms of the European languages in which he works， including French， German and English but also ancient Greek. They might also include the fact that deconstruction came to China via its reception in literature and comparative literature studies in the US. This reception had a distorting effect on the perception of Derrida’s work in the English-speaking world. Even though he was a philosopher and trained in the history of philosophy in France， he has long been a completely marginalized figure in philosophy departments throughout the English-speaking world. This has only recently begun to change and then only incrementally. I wonder whether there might not be an opportunity to rediscover Derrida in China as the philosophical roots of his thinking in phenomenology become more widely understood. In turn this might lead to a better-informed appreciation of his relevance to literature and literary studies.
Jiang： Post-structuralism has experienced some changes in recent years， for example interdisciplinary developments， including feminine post-structuralism， cognitive deconstructionism， etc. Would you share with us your thoughts about those changes and phenomena？
Patton： I think post-structuralism always had a relationship to other disciplines and other problems outside its immediate philosophical concerns. In the early years of the dissemination of post-structuralist thought， the so-called “French feminism” associated with the work of women such as Luce Irigaray， Julia Kristeva， Hélène Cixous， Michèle le Doeuff and others was very important. Foucault’s The History of Sexuality， Volume 1， published in 1976 and translated into English in 1978， played a significant role in the development of Gay and later Queer Theory. Derrida’s work， via some of the French feminists mentioned above and then the work of American women such as Judith Butler， was also important for the development of Queer Theory. Part of the reason for this no doubt had to do with the social and political impulses that drove much post-structuralist philosophy： the opposition to forms of closure， to the exercise of power especially insofar as it affected the subjectivity of individuals， and to the ways in which established patterns of thought sustained inegalitarian and hierarchical social relations. But in some cases， notably Deleuze， the relation to non-philosophical thought and practice was a constitutive feature of the overtly experimental philosophy that he developed in collaboration with Guattari in Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus. The latter book in particular develops a host of new concepts through its engagement with other disciplines such as anthropology， ethnography， linguistics， history and other forms of intellectual production such as literature， music and painting. This constitutive relation to theory and practice outside of post-structuralism is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to define. It is by its very nature inclined to alliances with other bodies of thought and practice. As such， it is an intellectual movement in constant motion and perpetual transformation. Jiang： You are an expert in philosophy and also teach in the school of philosophy， in Wuhan University. Once you mentioned in Deleuzian Concepts that actually Deleuze has never put forward a systematic literary philosophy， but all his works are closely related to literature. And now yourself also do research in literature， could you talk about your literature turn from philosophy？ How could your literature research benefit from your expertise in philosophy？
Patton： It is true that my interest in writing about literature and literary works has increased in recent years. It may well be true that this is in part a result of the influence of French thinkers such as Deleuze and Derrida for whom philosophical thought includes thinking with literature and writing about literary texts. Deleuze makes a point of the fact that his own philosophy was developed in and through engagement with the literary work of Proust， Sacher-Masoch， Kafka， Melville， Scott Fitzgerald and many others. This implies a different relationship to literary works from the one that long prevailed in English language analytic philosophy， according to which the only place for literature in philosophy was that of an object of study—the philosophy of literature in the same way that there is a philosophy of mathematics， a philosophy of technology or a philosophy of art. This hierarchical conception of the relationship between philosophy and literature went hand in hand with the idea that， in moral philosophy in particular， literature could provide useful examples and so-called “thick descriptions” of moral phenomena and moral dilemmas embodied in the lives of characters， but it could not properly engage with or present genuinely philosophical arguments. Reading post-structuralist philosophers along with their forebears such as Nietzsche helped me to see other possibilities in the relationship between philosophy and literature， but so too did reading philosophically informed writers such as J. M. Coetzee and Kazuo Ishiguro， who are equally capable of making use of philosophical concepts and posing philosophical questions in their novels. My published forays into writing about literary works are mostly limited to the exploration of particular novels in the light of philosophical concepts that may or may not have been in the minds of the authors but that do throw light on the characters and their development： Deleuze’s concept of “becoming-animal” in relation to the central character of Coetzee’s Disgrace; Nietzsche’s problem of the actor in relation to the central character of Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day， Derrida’s concept of the event in relation to Cormac McCarthy’s The Road， and so on. I am interested in pursuing the question of the relationship between philosophy and literature and what it means to think with literary texts as Deleuze claims to have done， but that is a project for future work. Jiang： The study of literature is not the only object or the only thing in the field of literary studies， since the study of literary texts can also be a means by which scholars can discuss issues relating to culture and politics beyond literature. The relationship between different disciplines is connected. And you also stated that you believe the Deleuzian philosophy may exert significant influence on other fields， like history， postcolonial theory and normative political philosophy. The postcolonial theory you mentioned here is one of the major theories many scholars take to analyze ethnic literature. From what you said above， can I conclude that Deleuzian philosophy offers a new perspective of studying ethnic literature？ What’s your view on its relevance in the study of ethnic literature？
Patton： It is true that post-structuralism has had considerable influence on the development of postcolonial theory. No doubt there are a number of reasons for this， all of them related to the ways in which post-structuralist theory translated the forms of cultural and political sensibility that emerged during the 1960s and after. Post-structuralist concerns with the relation to the Other， meaning non-European peoples and cultures， with power and with what Deleuze and Guattari called “minor” peoples and minor literatures have all left a mark on the forms of contemporary postcolonial theory. The role of Foucault in Edward Said’s path-breaking Orientalism is well known， as is the use of elements of Derrida in the work of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak， Homi K. Babha， Dipesh Chakrabarty and others. Deleuze’s work has been more recently taken up by postcolonial theorists and critics， notably since the publication of Deleuze and the Postcolonial and Postcolonial Literatures and Deleuze.④ I think there are concepts in Deleuze’s work， and in his work with Guattari， that may be helpful in studying the literature of minority ethnic cultures： the concept of “minor literature” is an obvious candidate， but so are the concepts of “nomadism”， “smooth space”， “becoming”， “fabulation” and “peoples to come”. All of these and others， such as Deleuze’s conception of literature as “clinical” and his concept of life have been deployed in the analysis of literary texts. A bibliography on Deleuze that Yin Jing and I produced for the online Oxford Bibliographies “Literary and Critical Theory” section details some of the work that applies Deleuzian concepts to literary works. Deleuze-inspired literary analysis is an expanding field and I think there is much more to be done in developing the resources he provides for thinking about literature in colonial and postcolonial settings. Jiang： My academic interest mainly focuses on the Chinese Canadian English literature. According my understanding， one of the aims of ethnic literature is to draw the attention of the public to the survival predicament of minor ethnic groups， so as to break the main-stream-center situation and finally promote the reconstruction of new relation among different ethnic groups. We may say that ethnic literature owns the innate appeal of breaking the original structure and reconstruction， which means post-structuralism should have a prosperous future in studying ethnic literature. I know that you have brilliant reading on the works of Coetzee and Kazuo Ishiguro. What are the possible insights we can gain from the encounter between post-structuralism and ethnic literature？
Patton： I am not very familiar with literature produced by North American first nations people， however their experience of colonization and its aftermath resonates with similar experiences in Australia， New Zealand， South Africa and elsewhere. A remarkable book by the University of Chicago philosopher Jonathan Lear， Radical Hope， shows how the loss of cultural identity that often accompanies colonization engages in interesting ways with questions about the nature of events and the future that are central to Derrida’s later work. Lear describes the cultural devastation experienced by the Crow Indians towards the end of the nineteenth century and the response to this situation by their chief at that time.⑤ In the early 1880s， after decades of warfare， disease and the depletion of the buffalo that had been their primary hunting resource， the Crow moved to a reservation. In the words of their chief， Plenty Coups， after the buffalo went away “nothing happened，”（Lear， Radical Hope 2） by which he meant nothing of value and meaning in the terms of traditional Crow culture. The collapse of a way of life， for reasons that came from without， posed a problem for them： how to find a way to go on as Crow， how to find ways of living in which meaning and the virtues of a life hitherto lived very differently might find a way to continue.
Plenty Coups had a dream that instructed him and his people to follow the model of a particular iconic animal （the chickadee） by listening to and learning from their colonizers. This suggested a way forward， through education and learning. It enabled Plenty Coups to sustain hope in the possibility of a future for the Crow people beyond the collapse of their nomadic warrior way of life. In Lear’s words， Plenty Coups’ dream expressed the hope that “even with the death of the traditional forms of Crow subjectivity， the Crow can nevertheless survive—and flourish again” （Lear， Radical Hope 99）. This hope was radical because it implied a commitment to the possibility of new ways of being a Crow， new conceptions of Crow goodness， even though at the time it was not possible to foresee the details of those possibilities. Lear suggests at one point that Plenty Coups radical hopefulness enabled him to lead his people “forward into an unimaginable future committed to the idea that something good would emerge” （Lear， Radical Hope 100）. The paradoxical future envisaged by Plenty Coups was not and could not have been a future continuous with the past. It could only have been what Derrida describes as the indeterminate， open and paradoxical future that is the condition of there being events at all. In other words， the future that is implied by this experience of radical hope takes the form of what Derrida calls the “to come”，⑥ where this is understood as “the space opened in order for there to be an event， the to-come， so that the coming be that of the other” （Derrida， Negotiations： Interventions and Interviews 1971-2001 182）. Jiang： In your great reading of The Remains of the Day⑦， you point out that the central character， Mr. Stevens， holds strong views about what it means to be not merely a good but a great butler and his life is lived in the service of this ideal for which he pays a high emotional and moral price. From your reading， I conclude a key word： loss. We may find “loss” in his other works， for example Never Let Me Go. The heroin Kathy lost the precious cassette tape and the place running through the whole story is a “lost corner” of Norfolk. It is not difficult to tell Kazuo Ishiguro is fascinated with loss. That reminds me of your favorite writer Coetzee. “Loss” also appears in his works， for example what the main character Lurie and Lucy lose in Disgrace. Actually， “loss” is quite natural for human being and being alive entails losing aspects of that aliveness. According to Bejamin H. Ogden， “art is not a mastery of loss， or even a diversion， but the shape that loss takes when we try to express it， or release it， or hold on to it” （Ogden， Beyond Psychoanalytic Literary Criticism： Between Literature and Mind 58）. The coexistence， assimilation， fusion and even the conflict of different cultures endow the ethnic literature with the characteristic of loss. Can I draw the conclusion that the preoccupation with loss is one of the characteristics of ethnic literature？
Patton： This is an excellent question. One could write a thesis on the question of loss， what it means， the different forms that it takes and how these are presented in literature. To go directly to your question about ethnic literature and the conflict， assimilation or fusion of cultures， I think there is an important set of issues around the loss of cultural identity and what this means for individuals and peoples that is especially relevant to the situation of colonized peoples. Precisely what these issues are varies from case to case. Loss in the novels by Ishiguro that you mention is as much about unrealized possibilities， things that might have been， as it is about the loss of what was. In Coetzee’s Disgrace， the central character David Lurie confronts cultural loss on several levels. He is an aging academic who lives in an imaginary university that no longer corresponds to the ideals and procedures of the institution where he works. He inhabits a social and sexual imaginary increasingly out of touch with the actual relations between men and women， teachers and students. He belongs to the formerly dominant white population that has lost its formerly unquestioned superiority in post-Apartheid South Africa. He is increasingly out of place in the new society emerging from the ruins of the old. On all these levels， Lurie has lost his cultural bearings and is “disgraced” for his actions. However， his loss is incomparable to that of the South African peoples who were colonized， first by the Dutch and then by the British. Coetzee alludes to this in a passing reference to Lucy’s African neighbour but he does not attempt to tell this story. The loss of cultural bearings on the part of a displaced sexual caste or colonial class is one thing. The loss of culture on the part of colonized peoples faced with the threat of assimilation into the prevailing culture of the settler colonial people is another. The literature produced by Indigenous people in North America， Australia and other countries established by colonization presents many versions of the story of loss of culture and identity. The title of a famous New Zealand novel， Once Were Warriors， encapsulates the condition of many colonized peoples.⑧ Stories of such loss can often be devastating accounts of social and familial dysfunction， alcohol and drug abuse， along with the endemic violence that accompanies their condition. In Australia as in Canada the colonial period saw many indigenous children removed from their families and placed in institutions or with white families. Some of them later renewed contact with their Indigenous families but there is little they could do to recover the lost years of a childhood they never had. Their experience resembles the loss involved in unrealized possibilities that Ishiguro writes about， but I think there is a broader and more complex field of loss that defines the situation of colonized ethnic peoples. In this sense， I agree with you that the literature of such peoples is characterized by a preoccupation with loss.
Jiang： Thank you for the interview and I believe this interview will offer some new perspectives for Chinese researchers who are interested in the study of post-structuralism， ethnic literature and literary theory.
Notes
①Special thanks should be given to Prof. He Weihua for his valuable suggestions during the whole process of this interview.
②Deleuze， “A quoi reconnait- on le structuralisme？” Histoire de la philosophie， Vol. 8： Le XX siècle， ed. Fran?ois Ch?telet （Paris： Hachette， 1972）， 299-335. Reprinted and translated in Gilles Deleuze， Desert Islands and Other Texts （1953-1974）， trans. Mike Taormina （New York： Semiotexte， 2003）.
③Derrida， “I’m Going to Have to Wander All Alone，” The Work of Mourning （Chicago： University of Chicago Press， 2017）： 192-193; Deleuze， “Breaking Things Open， Breaking Words Open，” Negotiations （New York： Columbia UP， 1995）： 85.
④Simone Bignal and Paul Patton， eds.， Deleuze and the Postcolonial （Edinburgh： Edinburgh UP， 2010）; Lorna Burns and Birgit M.Kaiser， eds.， Postcolonial Literatures and Deleuze （London： Palgrave Macmillan， 2012）. ⑤Jonathan Lear， Radical Hope （Cambridge： Harvard UP， 2006）.
⑥The English phrase “to come” translates Derrida’s neologism “à-venir”， which plays on the French word for “future”， namely “avenir”. Derrida puts forward the concept of “to come” to distinguish two types of future. According to him， “to come” is neither the future in term of physical time nor the future continuous with the past and present， but a structural future that never arrives. The “to come” is a combination of “coming” and “will come” including not only the sense of promise but also expectation.
⑦See Paul Patton， “Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day and Nietzsche’s ‘Problem of the Actor’，” Foreign Language and Literature Research 23.4 （2018）： 8-23.
⑧Alan Duff， Once Were Warriors （Auckland： Tandem Press， 1990）.
Works Cited
Derrida， Jacques. “Politics and Friendship.” Negotiations： Interventions and Interviews 1971-2001. Ed. and trans. （with an Introduction） Elizabeth Rottenberg. Stanford： Stanford UP， 2002.
Lear， Jonathan. Radical Hope. Cambridge： Harvard UP， 2006.
Ogden， Benjamin H. Beyond Psychoanalytic Literary Criticism： Between Literature and Mind. New York： Routledge， 2018.
責任编辑：谢海燕
Key words： Paul Patton; Derrida; Deleuze; post-structuralism; ethnic literature
Authors： Jiang Ying is Ph. D. candidate in School of Foreign Languages， Central China Normal University （Wuhan 430079， China） and also lecturer in School of Language and Literature， Guilin University （Guilin 541000， China）. Paul Patton is Hongyi Chair Professor of Philosophy at Wuhan University （Wuhan 430079， China） and Scientia Professor of Philosophy， University of New South Wales， Australia. He is also a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities. He is the author of Deleuze and the Political （Routledge， 2000） and Deleuzian Concepts： Philosophy， Colonization， Politics （Stanford， 2010）. He is editor of Nietzsche， Feminism and Political Theory （Routledge 1993）， co-editor of several volumes on Deleuze and Derrida， including Deleuze and the Postcolonial （with Simone Bignall， Edinburgh 2010） and author of a number of articles and book chapters on Nietzsche.
標题：后结构主义与族裔文学研究：保罗·帕顿教授访谈录
内容摘要：保罗·帕顿教授现为武汉大学哲学学院弘毅讲席教授，澳大利亚人文科学院院士，德里达、德勒兹及后结构主义研究国际知名学者。近年来，帕顿教授将后结构主义应用到库切、石黑一雄等族裔作家的文学作品解读中，其精彩的哲学解读为族裔文学研究提供了新的灵感。在访谈中，帕顿教授首先分享了他在中国教学和做研究的经历及感受，接着对后结构主义理论的兴起、后结构主义的局限性及解构主义在中国的接受进行了评价。之后帕顿教授指出德勒兹哲学与族裔文学研究结合可能的切入点，并从德里达“将临性”的视角对小说《极端希望》做了精彩的后结构主义解读，最后结合具体的文学文本阐述了自己关于族裔文学“丧失”特点的见解。
关键词：保罗·帕顿;德里达;德勒兹;后结构主义;族裔文学
基金项目：本文为广西高校中青年教师科研基础能力提升项目“加拿大华裔英语文学中的身份问题研究”（项目编号：2019KY0984）阶段性成果。
作者简介：蒋瑛，华中师范大学外国语学院博士研究生，桂林学院语言文学学院讲师。保罗·帕顿，现为武汉大学哲学学院弘毅讲席教授，澳大利亚新南威尔士大学哲学杰出教授，澳大利亚人文科学学院院士。主要论著包括《德勒兹与政治》和《德勒兹概念：哲学、殖民、政治》，编著有《尼采、女性主义和政治理论》，联合编著《德勒兹与后殖民》等多部德勒兹与德里达研究的著作，发表尼采研究的论文和专章若干篇。 Jiang Ying （Jiang hereafter）： Among all the titles in your resume， one is very special—Hongyi Chair Professor of Philosophy in Wuhan University. With the increase of academic exchanges between different countries， more and more international scholars teach and do research in China， although this is not very common in China yet， it could be predicted that an increasing number of international scholars tend to come and work in China in the future. As an Australian scholar of world renown working in China， how do you view this phenomenon？
Paul Patton （Patton hereafter）： I think that it is highly likely that more and more international scholars will come to teach and research in China， for a number of reasons. The fundamental reason has to do with China’s economic growth and irresistible progress towards becoming the world’s largest economy. One consequence of this is that China will become a cultural hub of global importance， a locus of new developments in the arts， sciences and the humanities. As such it will be increasingly attractive for scholars from all over the world. Another more practical reason has to do with the funding of higher education and opportunities for academic teaching and research. China has been investing in universities and expanding higher education while many Western countries have been reducing their funding. Along with slowed economic growth in the West this has led to a serious oversupply of people looking for academic careers. So long as Chinese universities continue to grow and to internationalize their academic as well as their student cohort， they will attract recent graduates from Ph. D. programs in Europe， North America and elsewhere. My own situation is different， having retired from my position at The University of New South Wales in Sydney. I came here out of interest in China and the phenomenal economic， social and political development underway. I am happy to have the opportunity to learn more about contemporary China and pleased to be able to contribute to the growing intellectual engagement in the humanities between Chinese and Western scholars.
Jiang： It has been almost two years since your acceptance of the position of professorship in Wuhan University in July 2019. Before coming to Wuhan， you have been teaching and doing research in Australia， London， Paris， and Berlin， which allows you the opportunity to communicate with students from different countries. Are there any differences between the students in China and those in Western countries？ Patton： I have only taught a couple of courses since coming to Wuhan and， as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic， much of my teaching has been online. I was trapped in Australia for all of 2020 and only returned to Wuhan in April 2021， so I have only had limited experience of classroom teaching since my return to Wuhan. Online teaching greatly reduces the interaction with students so it is not easy to make comparisons. That said， I have been impressed by my students in a number of ways. Their English is very good， especially in written form. The essays that I have assessed are clearly the work of students for whom English is not their first language， but they are not difficult to read. The attitude of Chinese students to the work expected of them is extremely diligent. They do the recommended reading and their submitted work is thoughtful and well-informed. The same is true of many students in Western countries， but overall my impression is that more Chinese students are more serious and committed to their studies.
Jiang： Being in China offers you more opportunities to have a high-frequency communication with Chinese scholars， would you like to share with us your impression of the Chinese academia？
Patton： Actually my opportunities for engagement with the wider academic community in China have been more restricted since coming to Wuhan， partly because of commitments at Wuhan University but also because of the pandemic. I had more engagement with academic circles elsewhere in China in 2018 when I made multiple trips and spoke at conferences and workshops in Beijing， Shanghai and Hangzhou as well as Wuhan. However， the limited number of experiences I have had have only increased my desire for more such communication and engagement. I am constantly surprised by the range and depth of knowledge among Chinese scholars about topics that I would have thought were relatively obscure or specialized. I am also aware that the Chinese academic community is huge compared to that in many countries so I have the feeling that I have only just begun to explore this intellectual continent.
Jiang： You are going to teach in Wuhan University for a stretch of time. As we all know the pandemic hit the whole world in 2020， could you talk about what the pandemic meant for 2020 together with your own experience？ It will be the 100th anniversary of the Philosophy Dept at Wuhan University in 2022， and what’s your expectation on philosophy study in the post-pandemic era？ Patton： For me the pandemic was a strange experience. I returned to Australia for what I thought would be the winter vacation in January 2020， a couple of weeks before Wuhan was locked down. Because of restrictions on international travel， I stayed in Australia for the rest of 2020 and the first three months of 2021. Since we did not know when it would be possible to return to China， my family and I moved frequently from one short-term furnished accommodation to the next. Needless to say， the romance of spending a year on the road， living out of two suitcases， soon faded. So far as moving to China was concerned， 2020 was a lost year. It is only now that we have returned and re-settled in Wuhan that I feel my experience of living and working here has resumed. I did teach online and take part in some departmental activities online while in Australia， but that was a remote and somewhat disjointed experience. I have enjoyed being back here and teaching face to face. I will be engaged in a range of activities this year such as the annual Summer School in Political Philosophy that I have been helping to organize， and a new Journal of Social and Political Philosophy that we hope to begin publishing early in the new year. There will also be activities in 2022 associated with the 100th anniversary of the School of Philosophy at Wuhan University that I look forward to， such as inviting guest speakers from leading philosophy departments around the world. The pandemic has put a brake on activities involving international academics coming to China， but with increased rates of vaccination here and in many other countries I hope that international travel will soon be possible again， and that I will be free to move about in China.
Jiang： You are an expert with an international reputation in Derrida， Deleuze and post-structuralism， could you share with us why you would initially choose them as your research field？ And what are their influences on your academic career？ With the development of mass media and internet， the emergence of a new theory and the update frequency of new knowledge is much faster than before， what’s the significance of doing research on them in this social background？
Patton： My research in this field developed out of my experience as a student in Paris during the late 1970s. I went there in 1975 because of an interest in the structuralist Marxism of Louis Althusser and his collaborators. I completed a doctorate at the University of Paris 8 Vincennes in 1979. At that time the term ‘post-structuralist’ was not widely used， but the Vincennes philosophy department included many of those who would later become international figures in post-structuralist and postmodernist theory， including Deleuze， Lyotard， Rancière and Badiou. I spent much of my time during the four years I stayed in Paris attending lectures by others at different institutions in central Paris： Foucault at the Collège de France， Derrida at the ?cole Normale Supérieure， and so on. After returning to Australia in 1979， I began to work more on some of these philosophers， especially Deleuze and Foucault. I was involved in some of the earliest English translations of their work and later became part of the international networks that disseminated and commented upon what became known as post-structuralist thought throughout the English-speaking world. The mechanics of such dissemination were primitive compared to contemporary electronic media： we produced small journals and distributed them by hand or by mail through booksellers and mail-order sites. Photocopies of articles from these journals circulated widely. We travelled to conferences on these new theoretical currents in Europe， North America， Australia and elsewhere. This was an exciting time and I learnt a lot from encounters with others who shared the interest in these thinkers. The fortunes of post-structuralist theory have waxed and waned over the years， differently for different figures： the interest in Deleuze is still strong， but others such as Derrida， Foucault and Irigaray are no longer the objects of excitement they once were. By contrast， I was a speaker at a “Deleuze and Guattari in Asia” event last week （June 4-6， 2021）， which was a fully online conference organized by the Center for Cross-Cultural Studies at Kyung Hee University in Seoul. This was a global event with speakers and participants presenting and discussing papers from all around the world and， for them， at all hours of the day and night. There are at least a couple of these conferences every year， one in Europe and one in Asia. They show how Deleuze studies has become a global phenomenon and one that seems especially well-adapted to the rhizomatic character of the dissemination， application and transformation of theory under the conditions of contemporary communication. Conferences such as this are very interesting occasions for thinking about contemporary issues such as the global pandemic with the aid of post-structuralist approaches and concepts， but the context is different， especially here in East Asia. The Eurocentric limitations of the post-structuralist thinkers are more readily apparent. There is much greater interest in attempting to think across different cultures， and of course the issues that preoccupy us now are very different from what they were in the closing decades of the twentieth century.
Jiang： Post-structuralism is a general term for the ideological trends after the declining of structuralism， how do you look at its characteristic of mixture？ There is an interesting phenomenon that some famous post-structuralists including Roland Barthes， Derrida and Lacan used to be determined supporters of structuralism， and earlier Barthes even a supporter of existentialism： how do you view their post-structural turn？ And do you regard such turn as unique for the post-structuralists on account of their advocation of denying fixed structure and mode？
Patton： I am generally skeptical of terms like “post-structuralism” or “postmodernism” that attempt to encapsulate disparate bodies of work in different fields. There is little consensus on what they mean and there are almost as many definitions of such terms as there are authors who have attempted to define them （I say this as someone who has written an entry on “Postmodernism” for the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences）. I think these terms serve marketing and pedagogical purposes rather than intellectual ones. They are a way to package and “sell” a certain family of authors and approaches but they don’t stand up to close analysis or serious intellectual history. “Post-structuralism” began as an attempt to classify a range of French projects that emerged towards the end of the 1960s and during the 1970s， some of them produced by authors who had previously been considered structuralist. I don’t believe that Derrida was ever “a determined supporter of structuralism，” even though he was associated with some of the key sites of structuralist scholarship such as the journal Tel Quel and the ?cole Normale Supérieure where he worked alongside Althusser and attended Lacan’s seminar. His own accounts of his intellectual formation emphasize the role of phenomenology and Heidegger. His “Structure， sign and play in the discourse of the human sciences” （1966） and Of Grammatology （1967） are widely regarded as among the first post-structuralist texts. The latter does engage with the structural linguistics of Saussure and the structural anthropology of Levi-Strauss， just as Derrida had earlier engaged with Lacan’s structural psychoanalysis. However， I don’t believe this makes him a structuralist thinker so much as one who thinks critically about certain presuppositions and concepts of structuralism. Foucault on the other hand was considered part of the structuralist canon， largely for his The Order of Things （first published in 1966 as Les mots et les choses）， even though he vociferously denied that he ever employed the methods of structural analysis. Deleuze was never a structuralist， although he engaged with structuralist work and wrote an intriguing essay about structuralism in the 1960s that was later published in Ch?telet’s History of Philosophy in 1973②. I have never seen a definitive list of post-structuralist works or indeed of authors considered to be post-structuralist， but the term has certainly taken on a life of its own and is now applied to a wide range of work that builds on or is otherwise influenced by one or other of the first generation of post-structuralists. Different commentators define post-structuralism in the terms of one or another of those first-generation thinkers. For some， Derrida is the primary reference and post-structuralism is defined in terms of the impossibility of closure in linguistic or cultural systems of signification and the open-ended play of différance. For others， it is Foucault’s turn to genealogical analysis and the interplay of power， knowledge and subjectivity that is emblematic of post-structuralism， and so on with reference to Barthe’s punctum， Kristeva’s realm of the semiotic， Lyotard’s figural or Deleuze and Guattari’s desiring-machines. This conceptual plurality is one reason why I think that no agreed definition of post-structuralism is possible. That said， however， there are undoubtedly points in common between some of these thinkers， although not the same ones in each case. For this reason we can agree that there are certain “family resemblances” in Wittgenstein’s sense of the term between them. This is what allows Derrida to say in his obituary for Deleuze that， despite the obvious differences between their work， he felt an almost total affinity with regard to particular theses such as their shared opposition to Hegel or their commitment to “a difference more profound than contradiction”; or Deleuze to say in one of his interviews that he had a sense of “being on the same side” as Foucault， Guattari and some of his colleagues at Vincennes such as Ch?telet， Lyotard and Schérer.③
In many ways what was shared differently among many of those labelled post-structuralists was a cultural and political sensibility. In France it had much to do with the aftershock of May ’68， but similar experiences in other parts of the world produced variants of the same sensibility. This period saw the emergence of a “counter-culture” and the beginnings of a number of social movements the impact of which continues to be felt： “women’s liberation，”“gay liberation，” anti-colonial and anti-racist movements. It is hard to separate these kinds of cultural and political movements from the theoretical attitudes expressed in post-structuralism， even if they were by no means unique to this peculiarly French phenomenon.
Jiang： Deconstructionism was first introduced into China in the 1980s， mainly through some secondary resources. When American deconstructionism became known in Chinese academia in the 1990s， it was usually understood as the latest theoretical developments in the field of narratology. Generally speaking， deconstructionism doesn’t take a mainstream position in China， how would you view this issue towards its reception in China？ Patton： I have only limited knowledge of the fate of deconstruction in China. I spoke at an International Symposium at Shanghai Jiao Tong University in July 2017 entitled “Derrida and China： Towards the Construction of Global Humanities”， but apart from that one occasion I have not encountered much Derrida scholarship in China. I know that it never became as popular here as it did for a time in North America during the 1980s and 1990s. I can only speculate about the reasons for that. These might include the difficulty of translating texts such as Derrida’s that are so deeply engaged in the etymology and idioms of the European languages in which he works， including French， German and English but also ancient Greek. They might also include the fact that deconstruction came to China via its reception in literature and comparative literature studies in the US. This reception had a distorting effect on the perception of Derrida’s work in the English-speaking world. Even though he was a philosopher and trained in the history of philosophy in France， he has long been a completely marginalized figure in philosophy departments throughout the English-speaking world. This has only recently begun to change and then only incrementally. I wonder whether there might not be an opportunity to rediscover Derrida in China as the philosophical roots of his thinking in phenomenology become more widely understood. In turn this might lead to a better-informed appreciation of his relevance to literature and literary studies.
Jiang： Post-structuralism has experienced some changes in recent years， for example interdisciplinary developments， including feminine post-structuralism， cognitive deconstructionism， etc. Would you share with us your thoughts about those changes and phenomena？
Patton： I think post-structuralism always had a relationship to other disciplines and other problems outside its immediate philosophical concerns. In the early years of the dissemination of post-structuralist thought， the so-called “French feminism” associated with the work of women such as Luce Irigaray， Julia Kristeva， Hélène Cixous， Michèle le Doeuff and others was very important. Foucault’s The History of Sexuality， Volume 1， published in 1976 and translated into English in 1978， played a significant role in the development of Gay and later Queer Theory. Derrida’s work， via some of the French feminists mentioned above and then the work of American women such as Judith Butler， was also important for the development of Queer Theory. Part of the reason for this no doubt had to do with the social and political impulses that drove much post-structuralist philosophy： the opposition to forms of closure， to the exercise of power especially insofar as it affected the subjectivity of individuals， and to the ways in which established patterns of thought sustained inegalitarian and hierarchical social relations. But in some cases， notably Deleuze， the relation to non-philosophical thought and practice was a constitutive feature of the overtly experimental philosophy that he developed in collaboration with Guattari in Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus. The latter book in particular develops a host of new concepts through its engagement with other disciplines such as anthropology， ethnography， linguistics， history and other forms of intellectual production such as literature， music and painting. This constitutive relation to theory and practice outside of post-structuralism is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to define. It is by its very nature inclined to alliances with other bodies of thought and practice. As such， it is an intellectual movement in constant motion and perpetual transformation. Jiang： You are an expert in philosophy and also teach in the school of philosophy， in Wuhan University. Once you mentioned in Deleuzian Concepts that actually Deleuze has never put forward a systematic literary philosophy， but all his works are closely related to literature. And now yourself also do research in literature， could you talk about your literature turn from philosophy？ How could your literature research benefit from your expertise in philosophy？
Patton： It is true that my interest in writing about literature and literary works has increased in recent years. It may well be true that this is in part a result of the influence of French thinkers such as Deleuze and Derrida for whom philosophical thought includes thinking with literature and writing about literary texts. Deleuze makes a point of the fact that his own philosophy was developed in and through engagement with the literary work of Proust， Sacher-Masoch， Kafka， Melville， Scott Fitzgerald and many others. This implies a different relationship to literary works from the one that long prevailed in English language analytic philosophy， according to which the only place for literature in philosophy was that of an object of study—the philosophy of literature in the same way that there is a philosophy of mathematics， a philosophy of technology or a philosophy of art. This hierarchical conception of the relationship between philosophy and literature went hand in hand with the idea that， in moral philosophy in particular， literature could provide useful examples and so-called “thick descriptions” of moral phenomena and moral dilemmas embodied in the lives of characters， but it could not properly engage with or present genuinely philosophical arguments. Reading post-structuralist philosophers along with their forebears such as Nietzsche helped me to see other possibilities in the relationship between philosophy and literature， but so too did reading philosophically informed writers such as J. M. Coetzee and Kazuo Ishiguro， who are equally capable of making use of philosophical concepts and posing philosophical questions in their novels. My published forays into writing about literary works are mostly limited to the exploration of particular novels in the light of philosophical concepts that may or may not have been in the minds of the authors but that do throw light on the characters and their development： Deleuze’s concept of “becoming-animal” in relation to the central character of Coetzee’s Disgrace; Nietzsche’s problem of the actor in relation to the central character of Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day， Derrida’s concept of the event in relation to Cormac McCarthy’s The Road， and so on. I am interested in pursuing the question of the relationship between philosophy and literature and what it means to think with literary texts as Deleuze claims to have done， but that is a project for future work. Jiang： The study of literature is not the only object or the only thing in the field of literary studies， since the study of literary texts can also be a means by which scholars can discuss issues relating to culture and politics beyond literature. The relationship between different disciplines is connected. And you also stated that you believe the Deleuzian philosophy may exert significant influence on other fields， like history， postcolonial theory and normative political philosophy. The postcolonial theory you mentioned here is one of the major theories many scholars take to analyze ethnic literature. From what you said above， can I conclude that Deleuzian philosophy offers a new perspective of studying ethnic literature？ What’s your view on its relevance in the study of ethnic literature？
Patton： It is true that post-structuralism has had considerable influence on the development of postcolonial theory. No doubt there are a number of reasons for this， all of them related to the ways in which post-structuralist theory translated the forms of cultural and political sensibility that emerged during the 1960s and after. Post-structuralist concerns with the relation to the Other， meaning non-European peoples and cultures， with power and with what Deleuze and Guattari called “minor” peoples and minor literatures have all left a mark on the forms of contemporary postcolonial theory. The role of Foucault in Edward Said’s path-breaking Orientalism is well known， as is the use of elements of Derrida in the work of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak， Homi K. Babha， Dipesh Chakrabarty and others. Deleuze’s work has been more recently taken up by postcolonial theorists and critics， notably since the publication of Deleuze and the Postcolonial and Postcolonial Literatures and Deleuze.④ I think there are concepts in Deleuze’s work， and in his work with Guattari， that may be helpful in studying the literature of minority ethnic cultures： the concept of “minor literature” is an obvious candidate， but so are the concepts of “nomadism”， “smooth space”， “becoming”， “fabulation” and “peoples to come”. All of these and others， such as Deleuze’s conception of literature as “clinical” and his concept of life have been deployed in the analysis of literary texts. A bibliography on Deleuze that Yin Jing and I produced for the online Oxford Bibliographies “Literary and Critical Theory” section details some of the work that applies Deleuzian concepts to literary works. Deleuze-inspired literary analysis is an expanding field and I think there is much more to be done in developing the resources he provides for thinking about literature in colonial and postcolonial settings. Jiang： My academic interest mainly focuses on the Chinese Canadian English literature. According my understanding， one of the aims of ethnic literature is to draw the attention of the public to the survival predicament of minor ethnic groups， so as to break the main-stream-center situation and finally promote the reconstruction of new relation among different ethnic groups. We may say that ethnic literature owns the innate appeal of breaking the original structure and reconstruction， which means post-structuralism should have a prosperous future in studying ethnic literature. I know that you have brilliant reading on the works of Coetzee and Kazuo Ishiguro. What are the possible insights we can gain from the encounter between post-structuralism and ethnic literature？
Patton： I am not very familiar with literature produced by North American first nations people， however their experience of colonization and its aftermath resonates with similar experiences in Australia， New Zealand， South Africa and elsewhere. A remarkable book by the University of Chicago philosopher Jonathan Lear， Radical Hope， shows how the loss of cultural identity that often accompanies colonization engages in interesting ways with questions about the nature of events and the future that are central to Derrida’s later work. Lear describes the cultural devastation experienced by the Crow Indians towards the end of the nineteenth century and the response to this situation by their chief at that time.⑤ In the early 1880s， after decades of warfare， disease and the depletion of the buffalo that had been their primary hunting resource， the Crow moved to a reservation. In the words of their chief， Plenty Coups， after the buffalo went away “nothing happened，”（Lear， Radical Hope 2） by which he meant nothing of value and meaning in the terms of traditional Crow culture. The collapse of a way of life， for reasons that came from without， posed a problem for them： how to find a way to go on as Crow， how to find ways of living in which meaning and the virtues of a life hitherto lived very differently might find a way to continue.
Plenty Coups had a dream that instructed him and his people to follow the model of a particular iconic animal （the chickadee） by listening to and learning from their colonizers. This suggested a way forward， through education and learning. It enabled Plenty Coups to sustain hope in the possibility of a future for the Crow people beyond the collapse of their nomadic warrior way of life. In Lear’s words， Plenty Coups’ dream expressed the hope that “even with the death of the traditional forms of Crow subjectivity， the Crow can nevertheless survive—and flourish again” （Lear， Radical Hope 99）. This hope was radical because it implied a commitment to the possibility of new ways of being a Crow， new conceptions of Crow goodness， even though at the time it was not possible to foresee the details of those possibilities. Lear suggests at one point that Plenty Coups radical hopefulness enabled him to lead his people “forward into an unimaginable future committed to the idea that something good would emerge” （Lear， Radical Hope 100）. The paradoxical future envisaged by Plenty Coups was not and could not have been a future continuous with the past. It could only have been what Derrida describes as the indeterminate， open and paradoxical future that is the condition of there being events at all. In other words， the future that is implied by this experience of radical hope takes the form of what Derrida calls the “to come”，⑥ where this is understood as “the space opened in order for there to be an event， the to-come， so that the coming be that of the other” （Derrida， Negotiations： Interventions and Interviews 1971-2001 182）. Jiang： In your great reading of The Remains of the Day⑦， you point out that the central character， Mr. Stevens， holds strong views about what it means to be not merely a good but a great butler and his life is lived in the service of this ideal for which he pays a high emotional and moral price. From your reading， I conclude a key word： loss. We may find “loss” in his other works， for example Never Let Me Go. The heroin Kathy lost the precious cassette tape and the place running through the whole story is a “lost corner” of Norfolk. It is not difficult to tell Kazuo Ishiguro is fascinated with loss. That reminds me of your favorite writer Coetzee. “Loss” also appears in his works， for example what the main character Lurie and Lucy lose in Disgrace. Actually， “loss” is quite natural for human being and being alive entails losing aspects of that aliveness. According to Bejamin H. Ogden， “art is not a mastery of loss， or even a diversion， but the shape that loss takes when we try to express it， or release it， or hold on to it” （Ogden， Beyond Psychoanalytic Literary Criticism： Between Literature and Mind 58）. The coexistence， assimilation， fusion and even the conflict of different cultures endow the ethnic literature with the characteristic of loss. Can I draw the conclusion that the preoccupation with loss is one of the characteristics of ethnic literature？
Patton： This is an excellent question. One could write a thesis on the question of loss， what it means， the different forms that it takes and how these are presented in literature. To go directly to your question about ethnic literature and the conflict， assimilation or fusion of cultures， I think there is an important set of issues around the loss of cultural identity and what this means for individuals and peoples that is especially relevant to the situation of colonized peoples. Precisely what these issues are varies from case to case. Loss in the novels by Ishiguro that you mention is as much about unrealized possibilities， things that might have been， as it is about the loss of what was. In Coetzee’s Disgrace， the central character David Lurie confronts cultural loss on several levels. He is an aging academic who lives in an imaginary university that no longer corresponds to the ideals and procedures of the institution where he works. He inhabits a social and sexual imaginary increasingly out of touch with the actual relations between men and women， teachers and students. He belongs to the formerly dominant white population that has lost its formerly unquestioned superiority in post-Apartheid South Africa. He is increasingly out of place in the new society emerging from the ruins of the old. On all these levels， Lurie has lost his cultural bearings and is “disgraced” for his actions. However， his loss is incomparable to that of the South African peoples who were colonized， first by the Dutch and then by the British. Coetzee alludes to this in a passing reference to Lucy’s African neighbour but he does not attempt to tell this story. The loss of cultural bearings on the part of a displaced sexual caste or colonial class is one thing. The loss of culture on the part of colonized peoples faced with the threat of assimilation into the prevailing culture of the settler colonial people is another. The literature produced by Indigenous people in North America， Australia and other countries established by colonization presents many versions of the story of loss of culture and identity. The title of a famous New Zealand novel， Once Were Warriors， encapsulates the condition of many colonized peoples.⑧ Stories of such loss can often be devastating accounts of social and familial dysfunction， alcohol and drug abuse， along with the endemic violence that accompanies their condition. In Australia as in Canada the colonial period saw many indigenous children removed from their families and placed in institutions or with white families. Some of them later renewed contact with their Indigenous families but there is little they could do to recover the lost years of a childhood they never had. Their experience resembles the loss involved in unrealized possibilities that Ishiguro writes about， but I think there is a broader and more complex field of loss that defines the situation of colonized ethnic peoples. In this sense， I agree with you that the literature of such peoples is characterized by a preoccupation with loss.
Jiang： Thank you for the interview and I believe this interview will offer some new perspectives for Chinese researchers who are interested in the study of post-structuralism， ethnic literature and literary theory.
Notes
①Special thanks should be given to Prof. He Weihua for his valuable suggestions during the whole process of this interview.
②Deleuze， “A quoi reconnait- on le structuralisme？” Histoire de la philosophie， Vol. 8： Le XX siècle， ed. Fran?ois Ch?telet （Paris： Hachette， 1972）， 299-335. Reprinted and translated in Gilles Deleuze， Desert Islands and Other Texts （1953-1974）， trans. Mike Taormina （New York： Semiotexte， 2003）.
③Derrida， “I’m Going to Have to Wander All Alone，” The Work of Mourning （Chicago： University of Chicago Press， 2017）： 192-193; Deleuze， “Breaking Things Open， Breaking Words Open，” Negotiations （New York： Columbia UP， 1995）： 85.
④Simone Bignal and Paul Patton， eds.， Deleuze and the Postcolonial （Edinburgh： Edinburgh UP， 2010）; Lorna Burns and Birgit M.Kaiser， eds.， Postcolonial Literatures and Deleuze （London： Palgrave Macmillan， 2012）. ⑤Jonathan Lear， Radical Hope （Cambridge： Harvard UP， 2006）.
⑥The English phrase “to come” translates Derrida’s neologism “à-venir”， which plays on the French word for “future”， namely “avenir”. Derrida puts forward the concept of “to come” to distinguish two types of future. According to him， “to come” is neither the future in term of physical time nor the future continuous with the past and present， but a structural future that never arrives. The “to come” is a combination of “coming” and “will come” including not only the sense of promise but also expectation.
⑦See Paul Patton， “Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day and Nietzsche’s ‘Problem of the Actor’，” Foreign Language and Literature Research 23.4 （2018）： 8-23.
⑧Alan Duff， Once Were Warriors （Auckland： Tandem Press， 1990）.
Works Cited
Derrida， Jacques. “Politics and Friendship.” Negotiations： Interventions and Interviews 1971-2001. Ed. and trans. （with an Introduction） Elizabeth Rottenberg. Stanford： Stanford UP， 2002.
Lear， Jonathan. Radical Hope. Cambridge： Harvard UP， 2006.
Ogden， Benjamin H. Beyond Psychoanalytic Literary Criticism： Between Literature and Mind. New York： Routledge， 2018.
責任编辑：谢海燕