近20年来国内学界对于“经典化”存在着以作品的审美艺术性或以作品的社会文化内涵为标准两种不同取向。前者强调布鲁姆式“审美自主性”,认为经典取决于作品自身内在素质,美学尊严、原创性、审美形式等是其清晰标志;后者认为经典并非隔绝于社会、道德、政治、意识形态等,是否经典应由时间和广大读者加以汰选和判定。在新时期以来的特定语境下,前者更受青睐,但仅有百来年历史的华文文学还属于应对大量作家作品加以发掘、梳理、解读、筛选以免任其湮没,而非由少数专家进行经典判定的阶段,因此单德兴等提出的脉络化乃至“双重脉络化”也许更值得借鉴。就文学外部而言,应放在其产生的所在国(地区)和作家祖(籍)国的社会、文化、历史脉络中;就文学内部而言,应放于在地华文文学的发展脉络乃至包含中国大陆在内的整个中文文学的发展脉络中,在其中一个或多个脉络中能够发现其特殊的价值或创新性,乃经典确立的根据。

In the past 20 years, scholars on “classicization” in China have been focusing on two orientations, which are aesthetic and social function. The former emphasizes Harold Bloom's “aesthetic autonomy” and believes that the classic depends on the inherent qualities of the works, of which Aesthetic Dignity, originality and Aesthetic Form are all significant symbols. On the contrary, the latter thinks that the classic is closely related to society, morality, politics and ideology, and should be selected and judged by the time and the numerous readers. During the specific context since the beginning of New Period, the former has become more popular. However, overseas Chinese literature with a history of only more than one hundred years, still belongs to the certain stage at which large quantities of writers and works should be excavated, unscrambled, interpreted, and screened to avoid oblivion, rather than being classically judged by a handful of experts. Therefore, the theory of contextualization and “dual contextualization,” proposed by Shan Dexing et al. might be worthy of reference. As far as the external of literature is concerned, it should be placed in the social, cultural, and historical contexts of the country (region) and writers ancestral(original) country where it was created. In terms of the internal aspects of literature, it should be placed into the developmental context of local Chinese literature, even into the developmental context of the entire Chinese literature, including that of China's mainland, in which researchers can find its special value or creativity. And this is the basis for establishing the classics.