The name of the field of study of Chinese overseas literature has evolved from “Taiwan and Hong Kong literature” to “Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao, and overseas Chinese literature” to “world Chinese literature”. There is a dilemma, however, as to whether the term “world Chinese literature” should include the Chinese literature of China's mainland. If not, it is potentially inaccurate to describe the field as genuine “world Chinese literature”. If so, the discipline will easily become an all-encompassing giant, and its unique characteristics may disappear. The ambiguity of the concept of world Chinese literature is not conducive to highlighting the independent value and significance of the discipline.
The proposal of “cross-border Chinese literature” not only avoids this confusion, but also highlights the cross-regional, cross-disciplinary, and cross-border nature of the discipline as a “cultural special zone”. It seems to best describe the psychological needs of all parties in the field of world Chinese literature research and has the most potential for encompassing development in the discipline. The term captures the objective reality of the mass migration and cross-border flow of the Chinese diaspora at home and abroad. In today's era of globalization, it is difficult to draw a clear line between “domestic” and “overseas”, “inside” and “outside”. Even “Chinese literature” and “world literature”, Eastern literature and Western literature, local literary circles and cross-border and translational literary circles have developed into an organic whole of “you have me” and “I have you”. At the same time, we strive to break through the constraints of political boundaries and ideological and cultural barriers, consolidate a global cultural and psychological consensus, and maximize the exchange, integration, and mutual benefit of Chinese literature at home and abroad.
The proposal of “cross-border Chinese literature” is not intended to replace existing disciplinary concepts, such as “Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao, and overseas Chinese literature” and “world Chinese literature”. Rather, it aims to supplement and integrate them as necessary. If borders and national boundaries must be firmly built and strictly guarded in the social and political field, we should strive to break them through in the fields of literature, art, and spiritual culture to better promote Chinese culture to the world and contribute to building a community with a shared future for humanity.
Under the existing discipline system in China, it has been the vision and desire of many researchers that the study of world Chinese literature is further upgraded to a national secondary discipline alongside “Chinese modern and contemporary literature” and “Chinese comparative literature”. I believe that only by fully demonstrating the interdisciplinary nature of world Chinese literature, which is different from “Chinese modern and contemporary literature”, “Chinese comparative literature”, and other “mainstream” disciplines, can this be possible. In this sense, “cross-border Chinese literature” has considerable development potential.