Dual Variations of Globalization and Localization: The Discursive Paradigm Shift of “Wenqi Theory” and Its Aesthetic Integration

Abstract

This article focuses on the origin of “Wenqi Theory”—a core domain of ancient Chinese literary theory—specifically Cao Pi’s proposition that “literature is governed by qi”. It situates this concept within the 21st-century context of cultural globalization to engage in dialogue with Western aesthetics, aiming to revitalize the theory through mutual learning between Chinese and Western civilizations and integrate it into the system of modern transformation for classical literary theory. From the perspective of contemporary theoretical reconstruction, the paper analyzes the modern discourse paradigm of “Wenqi Theory”, traces its philosophical roots, and points out that the “clearness” or “murkiness” of “Wenqi” directly influences the aesthetic value of writing and the evaluation of objects. The study reveals that “Wenqi Theory” possesses rich connotations and unifies multiple dialectical relationships such as author and text, macrocosm and microcosm, personal temperament and acquired cultivation, content and form, fully embodying the distinctive integration of Chinese cultural tradition. Furthermore, the paper studies the lineage of life aesthetics from “Qi-Theory” in philosophy and science to “Wenqi Theory” in literary criticism, and its importance in constructing modern discourse paradigms. Meanwhile, by utilizing the categories of “the sublime” and “the beautiful” in Western aesthetics, it reactivates the contemporary aesthetic implications of “Wenqi Theory” within the context of globalization and cross-cultural exchange. The article endeavours to place this seemingly esoteric concept of classical Chinese literary theory within a cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary philosophical horizon for systematic and theoretical interpretation, revealing its universal aesthetic value that transcends specific cultural backgrounds, thereby providing a possible paradigm for the modernization of traditional Chinese literary theory and its participation in international academic dialogue.

1. Introduction

In the context of today’s deepening globalization and cross-cultural exchange, maintaining cultural subjectivity is an expression of a nation’s independence and autonomy within the world’s cultural spectrum. It implies both a clear identification and self-awareness of one’s own culture, as well as an open and inclusive stance toward the cultures of others, thereby enabling mutual learning and coexistence within the principle of “和而不同” (He er bu tong)—harmony in diversity. In other words, globalization does not exclude nationalization and localization; it is precisely through the inheritance, dissemination, and promotion of their respective excellent cultural traditions that nations are able to showcase their unique charm in the dialogue of world civilizations. Such mutual learning is not only possible but also carries significant value—it broadens horizons, deepens the understanding of one’s own literature and culture, and facilitates cross-cultural intellectual exchange.

Chinese and foreign scholars have provided the theoretical basis for cross-cultural dialogue in common, seeking commonalities within differences and achieving integration through collision. As Zhang Longxi has pointed out, “In bringing together historically unrelated texts and ideas, I attempt to find a common ground on which Chinese and Western literatures can be understood as commensurable, even though their cultural and historical contexts are different” [1]. As Gadamer reminds us: “It is the task of philosophy to discover what is common even in what is different. According to Plato, the task of the philosophical dialectician is ‘to learn to see things together in respect of the one’, in which the unfamiliar becomes familiar, adding to the repertory of our knowledge, and the alien is absorbed till it becomes part of ourselves” [1].

In the history of Chinese literary theory, “Wenqi Theory” serves as one of the consistent core categories. It can be re-examined through such a cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary philosophical horizon. It manifests a new theoretical state and practical significance where metaphysics, aesthetics, and literature intertwine. This not only reveals how classical Chinese literary theory and Western thought encounter and complement each other on profound issues, but also provides a significant exemplar for the modern transformation of traditional theories and their engagement in international dialogue. Dianlun (A Discourse on Literature) is a significant political and academic work written by Cao Pi (187–226), the first emperor of the state of Cao Wei in the Three Kingdoms period of China, during his time as Crown Prince [2].

Cao Pi’s famous theory that “literature is governed by qi” holds significant importance in the history of Chinese literary criticism. From then on, qi became an important category in traditional Chinese literary theory, and “Wenqi Theory” also became an important and uniquely national literary theory [3]. The book was compiled approximately between 217 and 220 AD. While most chapters of the original work have been lost, the chapter “Lunwen” (“On Literature”) is the only one that has survived relatively intact [2]. By comparing and analyzing the creation features of the “Seven Scholars of Jian’an”, “Lunwen” systematically expounds insights into several key issues of literary criticism, which possess distinct temporal characteristics and theoretical values. Xu Fuguan, a representative figure of 20th-century Traditional Chinese Studies, argues that “although the relationship between ci and qi was proposed quite early, it was Cao Pi who first used qi to reflect upon the individuality and artistic nature of literature after all” [4]. Cao Pi’s proposition in Dianlun: Lunwen that “literature is governed by qi” marks the position of “Wenqi” as a key category in Chinese literary criticism [5]. After that, there exists a multitude of expressions, all of which reflect the ancient Chinese literary tradition of valuing vital energy. “Literature” and “vital energy” must coexist in a state of mutual permeation and within a unique tension, neither dominating nor diminishing the other. For instance, Liu Xie’s “qi gives substance to our ideas”, Zhong Rong’s “the qi of the universe influences objects in nature, and the objects affect man”, Han Yu’s “if vital energy is plentiful, words will flow appropriately”, and Ye Xie’s “however, it is the qi that encompasses all three terms, holds them together in a totality, and organizes them in a unified order” in his Origins of Poetry. “Wenqi Theory” has thus developed into a literary theory with profound national characteristics. In the context of globalization, relevant research has gradually transcended the boundaries of traditional literary criticism, continuously expanding into cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary fields, which highlights its enduring and ever-renewing intellectual vitality.

2. Qi—The Life-Philosophical Origin of “Wenqi Theory”

To better understand “Wenqi”, it is necessary to begin with the ancient Chinese meta-category of “qi”. “Qi” represents the essence of Chinese literature and aesthetics. Through the interpretations of “qi” by generations of thinkers, their value positions, political-educational ideologies, and contemporary thoughts are clearly revealed. Originally a meta-category in Chinese philosophy, “qi” possesses rich connotations and can be categorized into “qi” as a cosmological concept and “qi” as a physiological concept. The life philosophy of “qi” in China has a long history. Based on the understanding of thinkers from the pre-Qin period to the Han Dynasty, “qi” can be divided into “material state” and “spiritual state”. The former is primarily used to interpret the composition and evolution of the universe and nature, falling under the category of ontology; the latter mainly concerns the formation of human temperament and spiritual realms, belonging to the category of subjectivism [5]. The profound philosophical connotations and the ethically neutral natural disposition of “qi” refer not only to the ontological functions of life but also to individual personality and comprehensive cultivation. Furthermore, “qi” encompasses both the capacity for life resonance between the individual and all beings, as well as the spiritual state that permeates the author’s soul.

The philosophical lineage of “qi” can be traced back to “Xici I” of The Book of Changes, which states that “essence and vital energy form things”. Zuo’s Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals introduces the concept of the “Six Qi” in the “Twenty-Fifth Year of Duke Zhao’s time”: “To follow the rules of heaven and rely on the nature of Earth, it will produce six meteorological phenomena: yin and yang, wind and rain, gloomy and bright. To use five elements of earth: metal, wood, water, fire, and earth”. The transformations of the “Six Qi” bring about seasonal changes and give rise to the “Five Elements”. In Zhuangzi, it is stated that “the yin and yang are the greatest of all elemental forces”, while Guanzi regards qi as the “essence of objects”. This philosophical current continues and reflects in the works such as Lü’s Spring and Autumn Annals and Huainanzi: quintessential spirit, which assert that “the turbid vital energy became creatures; the refined vital energy became humans”, and Wang Chong’s Lun Heng (Discourses Weighted in the Balance), which interprets qi as a meta-category. As a pivotal category within the discourse of qi, the qi of yin and yang comes to be understood as two attributes of the qi, representing the two opposite aspects of a thing. “In Chinese cosmology, the principles yin and yang are two component parts of the Dao; one is not privileged over the other” [6]. The statement, “Life is due to the collection of qi. When that is collected, there is life; when it is dispersed, there is death”, elucidates the Daoist understanding of qi as the “ontological vital energy” or “spiritual energy”. “Dao is the Sun when it is in the sky, and Dao is the heart when it is within a person. Hence, life appears when there is qi; death occurs when qi is gone”. The Guanzi school holds that qi constitutes the primordial origin of human life, and that its states and modes of existence belong to the same category as the Dao (interaction) of heaven and earth. Wang Chong, in Lunheng, expounds on human nature and innate talent: “The origin of all things is due to their having received qi from Heaven”; “Man is born by receiving vital energy, grows by nurturing it; and becomes wealthy or poor depending on whether noble or ignoble energy they receive” [7]. According to Wang Chong, the thickness or abundance of qi determines the length of one’s lifespan, and human destiny is formed by qi, which is predetermined before his or her birth, and can be truly understood as “determining character by qi”. This represents a shift in the concept of qi: from the Daoist ontological function of all things in the macrocosm to individual vital energy and personal formation in the microcosm. Through this transformation, the notion of qi evolves from a universal ontological existence to a spiritual vital energy as a particular and concrete existence, thereby establishing a theoretical framework to construct concrete, ontological, and spiritual vital energy.

Wang Fuzhi (Chuanshan, 1618–1692) was the consolidator of traditional Chinese Qi Studies. Addressing the shortcomings caused by the excessive emphasis on “Principle as Ontology” (liben) and “Mind as Ontology” (xinben) within Neo-Confucianism, he resolutely grounded traditional humanistic faith in the philosophical foundation of qi as the cosmic ontology. In doing so, he perfected the “Qi as Ontology” that had been developing since the early Northern Song Dynasty. In his Comprehensive Commentary on the Four Books, Master Wang Chuanshan further expounds: “All discourse concerning the mind, nature, heaven, and principle must be discussed in terms of the vital energy. Where qi is absent, all these concepts cease to exist” [8], which effectively establishes qi as the fundamental law and ultimate principle. When discussing the concept of qi, the ancients invariably associate it with a series of interrelated philosophical pairs: form versus content, existence versus non-existence, motion versus stillness, imagination versus reality, clearness versus murkiness, collection versus dispersion, and primary versus secondary. In other words, it would be more accurate to say that “qi”, as the thing-in-itself, is embedded within multiple sets of unity of opposites. “Qi” is thus conceived as the unified foundation that integrates heaven and earth, yin and yang, two and one, metaphysics and physics, as well as form and content, yet retains gradational distinctions. The complexity of “qi” renders it exceedingly difficult to determine whether the classical philosophical concept of “qi” belongs to materialism or idealism, whether it constitutes a material entity or a spiritual one.

Since modern times in China, “qi” (vital energy) has possessed remarkable theoretical value as a category of ontological significance within the construction of philosophical knowledge systems. In fact, qi’s yin and yang, hardness (gang) and softness (rou), clearness (qing) and murkiness (zhuo) are complementary elements of a single and unified entity. Qi serves as a comprehensive conceptual framework for interpreting the origins and interrelationships of heaven, earth, humanity, and in particular the meaning of human life. It thus establishes a coherent progression from the philosophical and scientific discourses on Qi-Theory to the literary criticism discourse of “Wenqi Theory”, thereby formulating a life aesthetics grounded in qi. As Bergson asserts in his representative work Creative Evolution, the entire world is continuously engaged in a creative evolutionary movement driven by the “élan vital” (vital impetus) [9]. From the perspective of modern knowledge frameworks, the world envisioned by the ancient Chinese is objectively “particular” and partial; however, the inner horizon and intellectual vision of ancient Chinese civilization extend toward a universal world.

Given that “qi” originates from the body, it bears a close correlation with Western body philosophy. In the tradition of Western studies, transcendental philosophy typically elevates the mind while suppressing the body. The so-called view of the body as a subject of humanistic research stems from the philosophical trend of corporealization from Nietzsche to Foucault. In classical philosophy, a state of opposition always exists between the subject of pure consciousness as “being-for-itself” and the object of pure matter as “being-in-itself”; this opposition inevitably deduces a mind–body dualism, leading to the separation of the body from the soul or spirit. As a physical existence in a subordinate position, the body only possesses sensory functions and holds no philosophical significance. From Socrates, Plato, and Descartes to Kant, the thinking subject has always been conceived as a disembodied one. In modern and postmodern philosophical discourse since the 20th century, the body has become a vital means of human self-recognition, and the study of the body has suddenly become a prominent field, ranging from Nietzsche’s promotion of Dionysus as a representative of disorder, Bergson’s philosophy of life, and Freud’s psychoanalysis, to existentialism and phenomenology. While revealing the alienation of the body, these theories also aim to rediscover its meaning and value, each granting the body a place within their macro-level inquiries.

Although the study of the body has never become a hot area in the mainstream Chinese academic discourse, the eternal tension between soul and flesh makes it an unavoidable aspect of ancient scholarship. The space of the body in traditional culture is not merely an objective existence, but a complex entity that integrates form (xing), qi, mind (xin), and will (zhi), encompassing both the metaphysical and the physical. The temporality and spatiality of the body constitute a spiritual world full of meaning, profoundly permeating the fabric of social politics, history, and culture. In the study of ancient Chinese somatics, the study of Qi-Theory is a vital aspect. Specifically, in the research of literary and artistic thought, introducing the theoretical perspective of the body and placing the generation and development of the “Wenqi” category within the comprehensive field of the ancient view of the body can break the traditional research approach of explaining qi through the mind. Instead, an approach of “mutual infiltration of body and mind” can be adopted to integrate various theories such as Form and Qi, Body and Mind, Cultivating Qi, Perfecting the Outer, Heart-Mind Knowing, Nature and Disposition. This approach possesses two dimensions: natural qi transformation (qihua) and social morality. The former connects the holistic harmony and dynamic integration of heaven, earth, and humanity, merging the macrocosm and microcosm into one, thereby establishing a cosmology, ontology, and methodology with distinct Chinese characteristics.

3. The Ontological Paradigm of “Wenqi Theory”

In Chinese philosophical ontology, “Wenqi Theory” stands as one of the core aesthetic categories in Chinese literary and artistic theory, and exerts a profound interpretive force in contemporary aesthetic and literary research till now. However, the concept of “Wenqi” has yet to be clearly defined, and its theoretical system has never been fully explored at a conceptualized or systematic level. How to reinterpret this traditional theory as a modern literary resource with a philosophical foundation and universal aesthetic significance is a subject worthy of in-depth exploration. As the source energy connecting the universe and life, “qi” possesses a foundation of cross-cultural common experience. Therefore, “Wenqi Theory” both carries the unique spirit of classical Chinese aesthetics and contains theoretical potential that leads toward universal aesthetic discussions. Its core has never deviated from the philosophical foundation of “qi” as ontology, and emphasizes the internal unity of natural life and individual talent. Within the modern context where literary autonomy and aesthetic ontology have been established, we can still rely on the life aesthetics and subjective consciousness inherent in “Wenqi Theory”, combined with contemporary aesthetic experiences, to critically reconstruct its theoretical framework, allowing it to radiate new interpretive vitality in contemporary literary and artistic criticism.

In terms of genetics, exploration of the philosophical origins of “Wenqi Theory” and the cultural context of its discourse in which it was generated could lead to a deeper understanding of the way qi undergoes a transformative process. “Wenqi” is deeply rooted in Chinese philosophical thought and has never been able to escape the influence of traditional Chinese cosmology throughout history. As Heh-Hsiang Yuan said, “Chinese Literature, like the symphonic composition, presents a unity of pattern, significance, and spirit. Fundamentally, the spirit of Chinese philosophy is also the underlying spirit of Chinese literature. Chinese philosophy exercises its influence over Chinese literature sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly through the total cultural milieu” [10].

“Wenqi Theory”, represented by Cao Pi’s proposition that “literature is governed by qi”, is a literary theory with distinctive Chinese national characteristics, and Cao Pi can be regarded as the first figure who consciously proposes “Wenqi” as an aesthetic category and employs qi in literary criticism. Then let us review the famous statement:

文以气为主, 气之清浊有体, 不可力强而致。譬诸音乐, 曲度虽均, 节奏同检, 至于引气不齐, 巧拙有素, 虽在父兄, 不能以遗子弟。 [11].

In literature qi is the dominant factor, which has its normative forms (体)—clear and murky. It is not be brought by force. Compare it to music: though melodies be equal and though the rhythms follow the rules, when it comes to an inequality in drawing on a reserve of qi, we have grounds to distinguish skill and clumsiness. Although it may reside in a father, he cannot transfer it to his son; nor can an elder brother transfer it to the younger [11].

Ti (体) refers to innate nature or essence. In the sentence “Qi has its normative forms (体)—clear and murky”, which suggests that the qi endowed to a person who possesses two distinct forms: clearness and murkiness. The nature of qi is innate and cannot be altered by a person’s acquired efforts; thus, it is said that “It is not be brought by force” and “Although it may reside in a father, he cannot transfer it to his son; nor can an elder brother transfer it to the younger”. Clearness and murkiness are essentially synonyms for hardness and softness (gang/rou), or yin and yang. As Wang Fu of the Han Dynasty stated: “Clearness and murkiness are differentiated; they transform into yin and yang; yin and yang possess their own forms” (Chapter “Benxun” of Qianfulun). The commentary on the phrase “Hardness and softness push against each other” notes: “Hardness and softness are indeed yin and yang” (The Book of Changes: Xici I). Yin and yang represent the generalization by ancient Chinese thinkers of the law of the unity of opposites in the universe. During the Han Dynasty, thinkers of various schools utilized the mutual promotion and restraint, growth and decline of the qi of yin and yang to explain the ultimate source of existence and movement for all things in the universe, human society, and the individual self. A famous scholar of ancient Chinese literary theory, Kou Xiaoxin, believes that “Cao Pi’s use of clearness and murkiness to characterize human qi is grounded in this theory” [3]. Cao Pi asserts that “It is not be brought by force”, thereby establishing the decisive significance of qi in literary creation, which originates from natural predispositions such as the nature and inherent temperament. Following the dematerialization of “Wenqi Theory” in the Han dynasty, the focus shifted to the poet’s physiological qi—that is, physical strength, physiological function, and psychological aspects—human emotion, will, sensibility, personality, and other mental processes and characteristics. The statement “Qi has its normative forms (体)—clear and murky” reflects the belief that the varying abundance and uneven distribution of yin and yan result in the inherent nature of qi: clearness or murkiness are differentiated. Clear qi represents yang energy, while murky qi represents yin energy. “One yin and one yang constitute the Dao”. This statement actually pioneers the classification of Chinese literature in terms of masculine beauty and feminine beauty. This not only inherits “Qi Theory” since the pre-Qin period in China, but also deepens and develops the category of qi. In this way, “literature” and “qi” are organically integrated, such that the clearness and murkiness of “Wenqi” determine the aesthetic value of a text and the beauty or evil of objects, highlighting the outstanding feature of ancient Chinese culture: cohesive unity. As Chinese scholar Mr. Gao Nan observes, “A prominent feature of the cohesive culture is the holistic affirmation of the subject within the integration of subject and object. That is to say, the subject of the integration of subject and object merges into the object through the wholeness of its life” [12]. Qi functions precisely as an opposite cohesive integration of yin and yang, hardness and softness, clearness and murkiness. In literary creation, qi manifests as the literary pneuma (Wenqi) of the poet (author), originating from the poet’s innate talent and creativity, both of which are qualities of nature, rather than ideological connotations. Wenqi fully integrates the author’s personality, style (subject), and creativity into the literary work (object), hence effectively affirming the author’s subjectivity. Meanwhile, as he stated that “Qi has its normative forms (体)—clear and murky. It is not be brought by force”, Cao Pi, recognizing the inherent and unalterable differences in the qi of an individual’s talent and disposition, pioneered an aesthetic consciousness that values individual differences and centres on stylistic diversity. The purpose of literary creation thus shifted to the expression of one’s inner self, and the aesthetic criterion evolved from the monism of moral virtue to the appreciation of diverse styles. This marked the “awakening” of aesthetic consciousness from the utilitarian teleology of Confucian classics and the aesthetics of the two Han Dynasties. “Wenqi Theory” contains plenty of relationships of dialectical unity: between author and text, macrocosm and microcosm, innate temperament and acquired cultivation, content and form, etc. Words fail to express the complexity of “Wenqi Theory”, which, to some extent, accords with the “alienation” in the ancient Chinese language and the ineffable cosmological view of the unity of heaven and man.

Overall, the aesthetic significance of Cao Pi’s “Wenqi Theory” lies in its dual shift: “upward” and “inward”. The upward shift ascends to the ontological level, elevating literature to the same ontological status as the cosmic Dao, human nature, and destiny. This brings about a self-awareness of the intrinsic value of “beauty”, where beauty is an end in itself and possesses immortal value, thus providing a metaphysical ultimate foundation and source for literary activity. The inward shift focuses on the subject. The proposition that “literature is governed by qi” shifts the core of literary aesthetics from external socio-political concerns—namely, “expressing one’s aspiration”—to the writer’s talent, disposition, emotion, and other life sentiments. This profound focus on the subjectivity of talent gives rise to the awakening of human aesthetic consciousness, and the respect for individuality and aesthetic diversity. The combination of these “upward” and “inward” shifts collectively constitutes a “comprehensive aesthetic age of self-awareness”. At this point, Cao Pi’s proposition that “literature is governed by qi” completes the theoretical transformation from life philosophy to life aesthetics.

4. The Revaluation of “Wenqi Theory”

Since its emergence during the Wei-Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties—an era often regarded as the moment of awakening for Chinese pure literature, “Wenqi Theory” has repeatedly undergone innovation, achieved breakthroughs, and generated new theoretical points. Over time, it has developed from a life philosophy emphasizing the vital energy of existence into a life aesthetics possessing aesthetic characteristics. In terms of epistemology, “Wenqi Theory” stands as one of the most fundamental categories and important critical discourse systems in Chinese literary theories and aesthetics. Cao Pi extracts this category from the “qi” category in classical philosophy, and applies it to elucidate the issues of literary creation. Reviewing its historical development, as previously examined, beginning with Cao Pi’s proposition that “literature is governed by qi”, following by the elaborations of Liu Xie, Zhong Rong, Han Yu, Wang Fuzhi, Ye Xie, Yao Nai, and others, “Wenqi Theory” has gradually come into being and turned into a relatively complete and well-developed discourse system. This discourse system particularly illuminates an objective and spiritual ontology of the cosmos, an aesthetic state of perceptual experience, and even a spiritual realm of pure energy and perfect mind—all bearing deep resonances with profound classical Chinese philosophy.

“Literature is governed by qi” serves as both the general outline of the aesthetic theory of the “Wenqi Theory” and a pivotal turning point in the history of Chinese aesthetics. This proposition is not merely applicable to the historical context of China’s Jian’an literature but possesses trans-temporal and cross-cultural interpretive potential, helping to account for creative practices rich in life meaning in both Chinese and foreign literature and art. As a meta-category in Chinese literary theory, “Wenqi” reveals the generative mechanism of a literary work’s aesthetic characteristics and the internal source of its vitality. When we shift from the dimension of life philosophy to the construction of life aesthetics—transforming the ancient “Wenqi Theory” into a theoretical resource with a modern discursive form—its inherent theoretical framework, textual evidence, and aesthetic system become clearly presented, which brings it more directly into dialogue with contemporary literary experiences and newly emerging aesthetic paradigms.

Both Western and ancient Chinese literary theories constitute vital and indispensable intellectual sources for the construction of contemporary Chinese literary theories. Abandoning mechanical and rigid patterns of thinking will prove beneficial to advancing the construction of contemporary literary criticism in both practice and theory. With respect to “Wenqi Theory”, its modern research paradigm that keeps pace with the times determines its vigorous vitality, which is specifically manifested in theoretical advancement and value reconfiguration. Firstly, taking into account the specific context of current literary criticism, we must avoid becoming excessively restricted to the microscopic interpretations of “Wenqi Theory”. Instead, we are supposed to adopt a macro-perspective to synthesize the various propositions and criticism discourses that have emerged over different historical periods into a coherent and organic ideological system. Thus, we may grasp the modern interpretation and reconstruction of “Wenqi Theory” as an integrated conceptual field—one capable of breaking down barriers between ancient and modern contexts as well as between Chinese and Western contexts. By doing so, we can extract and generalize valuable theoretical connotations and academic ideas to properly and effectively combine the Western life aesthetics and concepts, such as Edward Said’s “beginning intention”, and A. N. Whitehead’s “symbolic reference” with the Chinese concept of “Wenqi”. Ultimately, it would allow “Wenqi Theory” to become one of the significant domains in the field of world literary theory and criticism.

Secondly, the relationship between the author and the text. The essence of the author’s qi and that of the text share a structural identity; in other words, the qi of the author governs and shapes the style of the literary work. The author’s qi contains what is most essential—that is, the author’s personality and feelings. Stephen Owen, a preeminent American sinologist, argues that “This problem of knowledge is predicated on multiple levels of concealment, and it leads to a hermeneutics that promises to reveal the complex conditions that inform human actions and utterances. Chinese literary thought is grounded in this hermeneutics, just as Western literary thought is grounded in a poetics (what a poem ‘is’ with regard to its being made). Ultimately, a traditional poetics grew out of the Chinese concern for hermeneutics, just as Western literary hermeneutics grew out of its poetics; but in both cases the original concern shaped the later transformation” [13]. This kind of “knowledge” is grounded in two types of truths. “There are inner and outer truths: there is the possibility of misunderstanding the inner by observing the outer (the possibility of hiddenness), but there is also the assumption that some particular quality of attention to the outer will allow perfect access to the inner. This presumes that there is a necessary correlation between a particular inner condition and its external manifestation. The relation between inner and outer is one of manifestation, what is inside making its way outward (a notion of process leading to a presence implicit in ‘from what it comes’)” [13].

Cao Pi speaks highly of the value of literary creation, stating: “Literature is a great task (that concerns) the governing of the State, a splendid enterprise that will never perish” (盖文章, 经国之大业, 不朽之盛事。). This statement embodies two core and mutually complementary dimensions: the sociopolitical function of writing and the individual’s life value. The author’s thoughts, including emotions (xin), personality (xing), aspiration (zhi), spirit (shen), and feelings (qing)—all of these mental and affective elements unconsciously flow into and permeate the text. They are reflected in the literary qualities of talent (caili), emotional mood (qingzhi), style of diction (ciqi), strength of character (fenggu), and ideology/anecdote (shiyi). “Jingguo” (经国) means governing the State, and “daye” (大业) means a great task. By declaring writing to be “a great task for governing the State”, Cao Pi gives literature the lofty mission of participating directly in social construction and political enlightenment. This is no empty claim. In Dian Lun: On Literature, he puts forward concrete stylistic principles for genres including memorials to the emperor (zouyi), letters and essays (shulun), inscriptions and elegies (minglei), poems and prose (shifu): they should be accordingly elegant, rational, truthful, and magnificent. These standards reveal writing’s practical roles in administrative communication, intellectual exposition, historical recording, and aesthetic cultivation. Later, during the Tang Dynasty, Han Yu led the Classical Prose Movement, advocating that “literature carries the Dao” (Wen yi zai dao). His use of literary reform to combat superficial writing styles and rectify social thoughts serves as a profound practice and further development of literature’s social function.

Western scholar Howard L. Goodman notes that Cao Pi’s “Wenqi Theory” did not function as an independent literary theory, but was integrated into and served his grand project of constructing political legitimacy and personal authority at the critical historical juncture of the Han-Wei dynastic transition. In Chapter Seven “Collecting and Alluding: Literature as Political Jousting”, he focuses on Cao Pi’s literary activities during the critical period of the abdication and succession of imperial power (November 25–29, 220 AD) and argues explicitly that Cao Pi’s literary composition and compilation, including the editing of Dian Lun, formed part of a larger struggle of political contestation and cultural display. Within the political and cultural networks surrounding the abdication and succession, Cao Pi’s literary cultivation and ideas—including his concept of “Wenqi”—served as a medium for political interaction and cultural negotiation between himself, his literary attendants, and the scholar-officials. By projecting exceptional cultural taste and creative vitality, Cao Pi sought to get scholars’ support, establish the cultural orthodoxy and advancement of the newly founded Wei dynasty over the Han dynasty and rival regimes (Shu and Wu), and showcase his personal talent alongside the cultural elevation of a new era. All of this functioned as political capital in shaping an image of a “transcendent” ruler, thereby serving the construction of his political legitimacy [14].

Compared with its social functions, what is striking about the view of literature as “a splendid enterprise that will never perish” lies in its ultimate concern for the meaning of individual life. The physical life and worldly glory are transient; only writing can make the author’s spirit, thought, and reputation break through the limits of time. This reveals the essence of the act of writing: to externalize fleeting mental activities into words, to find for them a place of rest beyond physical death, and to achieve some kind of “immortality” thereby. During the Wei-Jin period, the value of literary composition changed drastically in comparison with the Confucian emphasis on establishing virtue and merit. It became far more conducive to the high development of literary self-consciousness. Moreover, as an object functioning as a political instrument, it subverted the Confucian literary values to a considerable extent.

Finally, the beauty of neutralization in “literature is governed by qi”. Although the principle requires the authors to possess a distinctive “Wenqi”, Cao Pi still maintains the ideal of balanced harmony or the beauty of neutralization between “wen” (literature) and “qi” (vital energy), which represents a dialectical, dynamic, and transformative beauty rooted in Daoist philosophy. In Chinese critical writings, the same term, even when used by the same writer, often denotes different concepts, while different terms may in fact denote the same concept. The character “qi” literally means “water vapor”, “air” or “breath”. James J. Y. Liu, a professor of Chinese and chairman of the Department of Asian Languages at Stanford University, believes that “the word ch’i, which literally means ‘vapor,’ ‘air,’ or ‘breath,’ is used by Ts’ao P’i to signify three interrelated concepts—individual genius based on temperament, personal style as an expression of this genius, and regional style or manifestation of genius loci, as well as in the literal sense of ‘breath’” [15]. In the framework of “Wenqi Theory”, the proportion of “literature” and “vital energy” depends on the natural emergence of one’s innate endowment. If one artificially stresses “literature” over “vital energy”—literary ornamentation or stylistic refinement is excessively emphasized at the expense of qi, then words will acquire surface elegance but lack living spirit, resulting in immoderate “wen” overwhelming “qi”, that is, style taking precedence over meaning, where one focuses extremely on words themselves and thus misunderstands the meaning of the entire sentence. On the contrary, if “vital energy” is abundant but insufficiently articulated through “literature”, the work will possess vitality without aesthetic refinement, resulting in having intrinsic meaning but no external manifestation, where “vital energy” prevails while “literature” remains inadequate. For modern literary theorists, the transformation of the primary-secondary relationship between “literature” and “vital energy” is effectively achieved, which deconstructs the binary opposites in the category of literary theory.

The revaluation of the “Wenqi Theory” carries profound contemporary significance. Modern Chinese literary theory finds itself in the awkward predicament of “aphasia”, as identified by Mr. Cao Shunqing. It is therefore particularly important to explore how China’s outstanding traditional system of literary discourse can be effectively revitalized in contemporary literary criticism, so as to achieve the “reconstruction of discourse”. Over the course of China’s successive social transformations, the discourse of contemporary literary criticism has been mainly shaped by Western paradigms since the New Culture Movement of the May Fourth, followed by the influence of Soviet Russian discourse during the 1950s to the 1970s, and later by postmodern Western theoretical trends from the 1980s onward, leaving critics overwhelmed by a constant stream of imported theories. In regard to “Wenqi Theory”, it should not be merely relegated to a historical object for scholarly inquiry or aesthetic curiosity and appreciation, nor should it be admired from afar or set aside and ignored. However, it must be reinterpreted within contemporary theoretical contexts so that it may effectively adapt to current literary criticism. Only by doing so can it become an organically integral component of theoretical construction—absorbed, transformed, and reactivated in new interpretive environments. Such an approach does more than simply inherit the legacy of ancient Chinese literary theories; it simultaneously innovates modern literary theories and contributes insights of unique cultural depth to the broader field of world literary criticism. Undoubtedly, these tasks require scholars to engage in a more thorough re-examination and reconstruction of ancient literary theories and aesthetic systems. With the ongoing development of various forms of social transformation and cultural renewal, it is essential to update and create conceptual vocabulary, modes of discourse, and theoretical forms of “Wenqi Theory”. Only through such renewal can we ensure the “modern transformation of ancient Chinese literary theory”, achieving a genuine dialogue and synthesis between antiquity and modernity.

5. The Mutualistic Symbiosis of “Wenqi Theory” and Western Aesthetics

In Western aesthetics, there exists no concept fully equivalent to the Chinese notion of “qi”. Nevertheless, it can be interpreted analogically through related philosophical, aesthetic, or artistic theories. Several possible approaches are offered below (and will be further explored by the authors in future research). First, “breath” and “soul” in ancient Greek philosophy, such as “Pneuma” (πνεῦμα) and “Aether” (αἰθήρ). Ancient Greek philosophy (e.g., the Stoic school) regards “Pneuma” as an ancient Greek word for “breath” that signifies “spirit” or “soul” in religious and philosophical contexts. It serves as the dynamic principle of the cosmos and life. In this respect, “Pneuma” approximates the meaning of the Chinese “qi” as vital energy, originating in human breath. Yet “Pneuma” places greater emphasis on rational order, rather than dynamic fluidity. In Aristotle’s cosmology, “Aether” is the pure element that constitutes the celestial bodies and symbolizes eternal motion, which partially overlaps with the cosmological dimension of “qi”. This concept can be applied to the notions of “vital energy” and “expressiveness” in Western aesthetics. Second, “Expressive Form” with “Intuition and Expression”. For instance, Hegelian aesthetics emphasizes that art is “the sensuous manifestation of ideas”; artistic forms carry spiritual contents. In this regard, “qi” in Chinese art may be analogized to the vital force or spiritual tension inherent in form. The renowned Italian literary critic Benedetto Croce holds that art is the expression of intuition, in which inner feeling is externalized through form. This is analogous to “qi” as the external manifestation of inner energy. The “qi” in the Chinese painting theory of “rhythmic vitality” (Qi yun sheng dong) lends itself to cross-cultural interpretation: it foregrounds dynamic vital energy. Western art theories, such as Heinrich Wölfflin’s analysis of Baroque art, also attend to the sense of movement and rhythm in a picture, yet Western theories tend to prioritize formal analysis over cosmological connections. Third, phenomenology and somatic aesthetics. For example, Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy of “Flesh” (La Chair): he stresses the intertwining between body and world, and perception as a flow of “breath” between body and environment. Such embodiment approximates the role of “qi” in Chinese aesthetics as a medium integrating mind, body, and world. Another example is “Atmosphere” (Ästhetik der Atmosphäre): the German aesthetician Gernot Böhme has proposed “the aesthetics of atmosphere”, arguing that art creates a diffuse affective atmosphere through light, sound, space, and other media, which resembles the diffuseness and sensory permeation of “qi”. Admittedly, there are methodological differences between Chinese and Western aesthetics. Western aesthetics tends toward conceptual analysis and systematization, whereas the Chinese “Qi Theory” emphasizes experience, intuition, metaphor, and contextual expression. At the same time, the boundaries of cross-cultural interpretation should be noted, because direct correspondence risks oversimplification. Western interpretations of “qi” are largely enlightening analogies rather than essential definitions, after all.

According to scholar Gu Mingdong, “Grounded in the Chinese theory of cosmology, this ontology and epistemology were endowed from the outset with the phenomenological, psychological, and hermeneutical potential of yin-yang dynamism in Chinese cosmology” [6]. Take the concepts of “sublime” and “beauty” in Western aesthetics as an example. They are similar to the binary opposition between “yin-rou” and “yang-gang” in Chinese culture. In Western thought, the sublime and the beautiful are also a pair of significant aesthetic concepts. In the conception of “the sublime” as discussed by Kant and Burke, the immense and chaotic power of nature causes a sense of shock to the subject. Such cosmic power might be compared to the grand, intangible dimension of “qi”. In 1756, the British scholar Edmund Burke published his treatise A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. His work serves as a pivotal intellectual bridge between past and future, marking a decisive moment of transition in the historical development and innovation of the two aesthetic categories in the West. Subsequently, in Kant’s Critique of Judgment, the beautiful and the sublime evolved into the core concepts of binary opposition within the discussion of Western aesthetics. Since then, discussions of artistic creation and aesthetic experience in the West have largely unfolded within the framework of this binary. Although Western theorists arrive at these theories and have discussions on them through aesthetic inquiry, these aesthetic categories bear a close connection to understanding Chinese concepts of yanggang (masculine) and yinrou (feminine). In On the Sublime, Longinus seeks to identify the constitutive elements of the sublime style from the standpoint of aesthetic meaning, not merely confined to rhetoric. For Longinus, the sublime is not linked to rhetorical forms but to contents, although he does not explicitly differentiate between the sublime and the beautiful. As he writes, “Great accents we expect to fall from the lips of those whose thoughts are deep and grave. Thus it is that stately speech comes naturally to the proudest spirits” [16]. Burke strictly delineates the concepts of the sublime and the beautiful and elucidates their respective characteristics: “For sublime objects are vast in their dimensions, beautiful ones comparatively small; beauty should be smooth, and polished; the great, rugged, and negligent… beauty should be light and delicate; the great ought to be solid, and even massive. They are indeed ideas of a very different nature, one being founded on pain, the other on pleasure” [17]. Similarly, Kant, in his Critique of Judgment, also maintains that the distinction between the sublime and the beautiful is prominent and conspicuous. In his view, the sublime signifies boundlessness (unbegrenztheit), characterized by the “infinite” and the “totality”, and is therefore formless (formlos); beauty denotes an object’s form (form) and its determinate boundaries. The former is the presentation of an indeterminate concept of reason, while the latter is the presentation of an orderly concept of “the understanding”. The sublime is the mind’s employment of the intuition of nature, which contributes to the formation of a certain inner purposiveness of human feeling. Kant states, “We call that sublime which is absolutely great...the sublime is that in comparison with which everything else is small... the sublime is that, the mere ability to think which shows a faculty of the mind surpassing every standard of sense” [18]. Within the traditional Western thoughts of the sublime and the beautiful, the aesthetic qualities of beauty encompass the power of judgment, enabling a “transcendental sensuous” judgment of “beautiful things” according to their essence—such as the charming, the lovely, the pleasurable, the agreeable, the enchanting, the enjoyable, the finite, and the lovable. By contrast, the qualities of the sublime involve the mathematically sublime and the dynamically sublime, encompassing those experiences of greatness that break upon us unexpectedly, such as the grand, the rugged, the solemn, respect (Achtung), fear (Furcht), danger, the infinite, and truth. It follows that the Western concepts of the sublime and the beautiful share a remarkable affinity with the binary opposition of yin and yang as expounded in Chinese metaphysics and aesthetics.

Meanwhile, the Chinese concepts of yang and yin differ in essential ways from the Western notions of the sublime and the beautiful. Largely influenced by phonocentrism and logocentrism, Western aesthetics has fundamentally affirmed that the sublime and the beautiful are two mutually exclusive concepts. In this sense, the meaning of absence is substituted by the sign of presence, which leads metaphysical Western culture to drift ever further from nature, even towards anti-nature. However, in China, the concepts of yang and yin originate from Daoist thought, which emphasizes “the Dao of Heaven is to be spontaneous and inactive” and “Heaven, Earth, and I were produced together, and all things and I are one”. “Qi” is “the concrete embodiment of the Dao, the unity in which the creative Dao of nature interacts with the subject’s inner mind. The vital spirit of the cosmos is conveyed by the artist into the work, endowing it with life and vitality” [19]. This philosophical outlook manifests in literary aesthetics that venerates nature and opposes artificial aesthetic realms and artistic creation ideals. The literary and aesthetic views of Laozi and Zhuangzi, transformed and developed through metaphysics, shifted focus towards the study of internal literary principles, which could be reflected in Cao Pi’s “Wenqi Theory” from his treatise Dianlun: On Literature. The metaphysical principles of Laozi and Zhuangzi emphasize the interaction between yin and yang, which, under certain circumstances, may permeate and transform into each other. Dao De Jing states: “Who can find repose in a muddy world? By lying still, it becomes clear. Who can maintain his calm for long? By activity, it comes back to life”. It embodies the transformative generation of clearness and murkiness, stillness and motion, yin and yang—the infinite vitality that may be described as “He who is conscious of brightness, but keeps to darkness, becomes the model for the world”.

From the perspective of Chinese cultural tradition, “Wenqi Theory” based on the doctrine of yin-yang interaction helps deepen our understanding of modern western thoughts, which includes Heidegger’s advocacy of “Aesthetics of Existence” as a means to overcome Western traditional metaphysics, his unremitting interrogation of the question of being, the return to pre-Socratic Greek philosophy, and the subsequent relentless deconstruction and transcendence of rationalism by thinkers like Derrida. When describing the everyday state of Dasein (that is, the concrete living human being) in the world, Heidegger proposes that, in practical life, there exists an absolutely inescapable and most dynamic state of being, namely “being-in-the-world” (In-der-Welt-sein). Here, “being” signifies “dwelling and inhabiting” and “becoming familiar with”. This interpretation of existence resonates more profoundly with our actual lived experience than the detached abstractions of traditional metaphysics. Heidegger’s Being and Time radiates a fervent passion for life from every line and emphasizes a return to life’s authentic state. Death is inevitable. Confronted by this unavoidable certainty, one must act swiftly, make one’s own choices, and decide one’s future; only then does one achieve a truly meaningful “existence”. This emotional tone indeed recalls the sentiment expressed by the three Caos in their verse: “Before wine, sing a song! How can life last long?”—both lamenting life’s brevity and its inherent uncertainty. As for Laozi’s “He who is conscious of brightness, but keeps to darkness”, Heidegger offers his own interpretation: “Mortal thinking must let itself down into the dark depths of the well if it is to see the stars by day” [20]. The transformation of dualities in “see the stars by day” truly showcases the cohesive unity of Chinese culture with remarkable clarity.

“Qi” provides the philosophical foundation and aesthetic criterion for Cao Pi’s “Wenqi Theory”, turning it not merely into a theory of writerly temperament, but also an early form of eco-life aesthetics. Compared with Western aesthetics, “Wenqi Theory” weakens the opposition between the individual and nature. It emphasizes that creative vitality arises from the interaction between heaven and human beings, the perpetual flow and transformation of qi, which opens up the possibility of dialogue with contemporary Western eco-aesthetics and posthumanist theories. Although Western aesthetics does not have a complete corresponding theory of “qi”, it can still engage in dialogue through such concepts as vital energy, expressive form, body perception, and atmosphere experience. Such cross-cultural interpretation helps enrich our understanding of the essence of art, but attention must be paid to the differences in their philosophical foundations: Chinese “qi” is rooted in an organic cosmology, while Western thoughts rely more on the subject-object dichotomy and rational tradition. The relationship between “Wenqi Theory” and Western somatic aesthetics, the sublime, and other concepts is not one of simple equivalence or opposition, but of philosophical concepts entering into dialogue amid differences. It is thus necessary to cultivate a comprehensive cultural vision grounded in both Chinese traditional learning and Sino-Western comparative perspectives, to regard the emergence and development of “Wenqi” as part of the ancient metaphysical thinking, and to seek the intellectual consensus and spiritual sharing among them so as to restore and reconstruct the humanistic discourse system.

6. Conclusions

“Wenqi Theory”, as a distinctive concept within Chinese aesthetic theories, has broadened our understanding of “Wenqi” while engaging in the dialogues with Western aesthetic theories. Its historical significance in Chinese literary criticism cannot be underestimated. As Mr. Qian Mu observes: “The Jian’an era stands as an exceedingly crucial period in Chinese literary history, for it was during this time that the independent value of pure literature first came to be recognized” [21]. The Jian’an era represents an era of literary self-consciousness, where literary concepts are transformed into literary values, life values, and social values. These values possess both diachronic and synchronic dimensions, which embody concrete, developing connotations alongside abstract, ontological sensibilities.

The main discussions on the “Wenqi Theory” in Chinese thought are associated with the relevant theories in modern philosophy, aesthetics, and literary criticism, which aim to clarify its theoretical evolution, explore its conceptual roots, and then reconstruct it into an aesthetic theoretical system that can adapt to the contemporary context. The “potential dialogue” between “Wenqi Theory” and Western aesthetics can be regarded as different responses to the common issue of “creative vitality” by the two kinds of civilizations. Western theories are good at analytical and critical systematic construction, while “Wenqi Theory” contains the classical wisdom of overall care, inner experience, and spiritual cultivation. This dialogue is not a simple conceptual analogy, but seeks complementarity in differences, enabling “Wenqi Theory” to develop into an academic concept with modern interpretive vitality within global literary and artistic theories. At the same time, through the reference to Western aesthetics, it further highlights the uniqueness of its own tradition as well as its potentially universal significance.

The fundamental purpose of mutual learning between Chinese and Western civilizations lies not in pursuing a uniform or universal theoretical framework, but in enabling their respective outstanding traditional cultures to gain new interpretive dimensions and vitality through reflective dialogues. Methodologically guided by dialectical thinking, this research employs the “fusion of horizons” to transcend temporal and spatial boundaries between East and West, striving to establish a research paradigm characterized by two-way interpretation and dynamic generation. In doing so, it promotes, at a theoretical level, the mutual interpretation and reconstruction of cross-cultural aesthetic categories. In addition, by revealing the profound resonances between Chinese and Western cultures in aesthetic and philosophical dimensions while respecting their distinctive particularities, this research hopes to offers certain insights for contemporary comparative philosophy, cross-cultural hermeneutics, and related fields.