Abstract: Contemporary world literature studies face a paradox of expansion: the more they strive to incorporate Southern and marginalized literatures, the more they consolidate the very system that requires expansion—for expansion presupposes a territory to be enlarged, and territory presupposes a center that draws the boundaries. Damrosch’s “circulation” model presupposes “the world” as a spatial container; its key concepts—“refraction,” “gaining in translation,” and “detached engagement”—all implicitly take the Northern academy as their frame of reference. While the “Global South” carries critical potential, Santos’s “epistemological pluralism” still requires a position of “recognizer,” and Mignolo’s “ecologies of knowledges” remains tethered to the center-periphery binary. Glissant’s Poetics of Relation in his Tout-Monde framework displaces the question itself through three interrelated propositions—“relation prior to essence,” “the right to opacity,” and “trembling”—shifting the inquiry from “what is world literature” to “how does world literature happen.” Central to this displacement is Glissant’s concept of créolisation, whose radical unpredictability overturns the linear logic of “circulation”; his distinction between a “totality of quantity” and a “totalizing totality,” which exposes the essence of Damrosch’s expansionist logic; and his claim to “write in the presence of all the world’s languages,” which grounds opacity as a concrete linguistic practice. This theoretical turn offers new paths for the construction of an autonomous knowledge system in Chinese comparative literature: drawing on the dialectic of “seeking common ground while reserving differences” from the Bandung Spirit, it opens methodological paths including South-South circulation studies, cross-linguistic opacity criticism, and archipelagic comparative horizons, thereby redefining “mutual learning among civilizations” (wenming hujian) as an intrinsic method and goal of world literature studies—one that pursues not the force by which literature circulates more widely, but the puissance generated in relation and shared by all participants.

Key words: world literature, Global South, poetics of relation, Glissant, Independent Knowledge System, mutual learning among civilizations

摘要： 世界文学研究面临一个扩容悖论：它越是努力纳入更多的南方文学、边缘文学,就越是巩固了一套需要被扩容的体制：扩容预设了有待扩大的版图,版图预设了划定边界的中心。达姆罗什的“流通”模式将“世界”预设为文学旅行的既定疆域,“折射”“翻译获益”“疏离式介入”等核心概念均以北方学院为隐含的参照系。“全球南方”虽具批判潜力,但桑托斯的“知识生态”仍需“承认者”的位置,米尼奥罗的“认识论脱钩”仍依附于中心—边缘的二元框架。格利桑的“全-世界”关系诗学以“关系优先于本质”“不透明性的权利”“颤动”三重命题置换了问题本身,从“什么是世界文学”转向“世界文学如何发生”。其中,“克里奥尔化”概念以其不可预测性颠覆了“流通”的线性逻辑;“量的总体性”与“系统化的总体性”之辨揭示了“扩容”逻辑的实质;“在世界所有语言的在场中写作”将“不透明性”从伦理原则落实为语言实践。这一理论转向为中国比较文学构建自主知识体系提供了新的路径：从万隆精神“求同存异”的辩证法出发,可以探索南南流通研究、跨语际不透明性批评、群岛式比较视域等方法论路径,重新理解“文明互鉴”作为世界文学研究的方法与目标——追求的不是谁的文学流通更广的“力”（force）,而是在关系中属于所有参与者的“能”（puissance）。

关键词: 世界文学, 全球南方, 关系诗学, 格利桑, 自主知识体系, 文明互鉴