The Chinese experimental opera adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays have become a unique phenomenon of cross-cultural exchange, which not only demonstrates the deep fusion of Chinese and Western theatre cultures, but also promotes the combination of the traditional art of xiqu with modern aesthetic concepts. By analyzing the experimental Peking opera “King Lear”, the experimental opera “Who is Macbeth?” and the experimental kunqu “I, Hamlet”, this article discusses the unique value and significance of these works in cross-cultural exchange. These works bring audiences a refreshing theater-going experience through unique Chinese-style performances, post-modern presentations of traditional opera elements, and deep linkage between Chinese and Western culture and thinking—firstly, the performance structure, stage design and vocal style employ rich Chinese representations in their adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays; secondly, the metatheatrical devices, such as solo performer and play-within-play structure, express their postmodern reinterpretations of traditional xiqu; thirdly, the Eastern and Western character linkage and similar identity exploration show the cultural connection and common value in different backgrounds. Through the unique Chinese-style performance, the post-modern presentation, and the deep linkage between Chinese and Western theaters, Chinese experimental opera brings the audience a brand new experience and provides a useful path for the innovative practice of xiqu.

The introduction of the discourse of “civilization” in late Qing Dynasty promoted a transformation of literary concepts and practices. As a key figure in the dissemination of “civilization theory” in modern China, Liang Qichao’s changing views on civilization influenced the evolution of his literary values. From the Hundred Days Reform(1898) to the years his exiled in Japan, Liang was deeply influenced by the civilizational theories of Fukuzawa Yukichi, the father of Japanese Enlightenment thought, who advocated for the development of “Western civilization”. Liang applied this framework to guide literary reform, assigning the novel with the mission to create “new citizens”, emphasizing its educational and enlightening functions while downplaying its entertainment or leisure purposes. This shift led to the elevation of the “novel” and “drama” as literary genres. After returning to China in 1912, Liang persistently reflected on and revised his earlier views on civilization, achieving a transformation from a singular to a plural view of civilization, from a hierarchical theory of civilizations to a harmonious one, from an uncritical adherence to evolutionary theory to a more reflective stance on it, and from a focus on scientificism to an emphasis on “individualism” rooted in human nature.In terms of literary cultural values, Liang’s views evolved from an admiration of Western modern civilization to a return to Chinese classical culture.Regarding the social value orientation of literature, his literary focus shifted from “intellectual enlightenment” to “emotional enlightenment”, and from “the mass governance” to “the individual life”. As a result, the genre of “poetry”, which emphasized “emotional education”, was elevated to the highest position in literature. Liang’s later insights into the modern elements within Chinese classical poetry, his emphasis on the ethnic, historical, and literary significance of poetic language, and his predictions regarding the development of vernacular poetry all provided valuable perspectives for the development of modern Chinese poetry, which warrant further study.

The finiteness of language, that is, the problem of “linguistic negation” has always been the focus of research in both Chinese and Western academic circles, which actually involves the understanding and grasping of the way of discourse between Chinese and Western literature and even civilization, but at present, there is still much room for exploring the comparative research on the theoretical contents of the two. In the 1940s and 1950s, Maurice Blanchot systematically discussed his views on literary language in a number of books and articles, and constructed a unique view of literary language. Later, Blanchot's theory of language provided an ideological reference for Roland Barthes' proposal of zero-degree writing, and Barthes had an important influence on the creation and criticism of Western post-structuralist and post-modernist literature in the 20th century. And all of this is, ultimately, a reflection and breakthrough of the 20th century Western view of language and discourse under logocentrism and phonocentrism. However, all these attempts have yet to break away from the barrier of “language” to solve the problem of the finiteness of language. As a pioneer of deconstructionism, Jacques Derrida once favored Chinese characters in his deconstruction of logocentrism, and emphasized in Writing and Difference the possibilities of Chinese culture in transcending logocentrism and phonocentrism. In fact, just like Derrida’s viewpoint, China has already proposed a way to solve the problem of the finiteness of language by breaking out of the linguistic framework as early as Confucius, that is, in the Book of Changes-Xi Ci I, Confucius put forward the idea of “Setting up an Image to Express Meanings” to show his aim of making up for the inadequacy of the language in terms of representation by means of images or imagery, which is obviously a solution to the problem of the finiteness of language in a way that is different from that of the Western tradition. This is obviously a different solution to the problem of the finiteness of language from the Western tradition. This study summarizes the above-mentioned ways of solving the problem of “linguistic negation” in the Chinese and Western traditions into two paths: “endogenous” and “exogenous”, and presents the differences and similarities between the two paths through a comparative analysis of them, pointing out the value of the Chinese literary theory’s discourse of “Setting up an Image to Express Meanings” to the Western philosophical tradition of language, so as to provide the necessary theoretical support for the mutual understanding and learning of Chinese and Western discourse and civilizations.

The perception of the independence of ancient Greek civilization and the belief that Western civilization originates solely from ancient Greece are among the historical foundations of Western superiority and Eurocentrism. However, ancient Greek civilization was not immune to the influences of ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations. The spread of civilizations across regions occurs through the mobility of their members, and mutual exchange and learning between civilizations is a fundamental law of their development. Ancient Greece was never geographically isolated from the East. The Eastern civilizations around the Mediterranean continuously contributed to the rise of ancient Greece through trade, migration, and other exchanges, laying the foundation for the flourishing of ancient Greek civilization. The formation of this brilliant civilization was never a product of isolation. Efforts to obscure the influence of Eastern civilizations on ancient Greece, to disparage Eastern civilizations, and to disregard historical facts must be addressed and clarified. The wheel of history, driven by exchange and mutual learning, turns alongside the progression of time. Historical truths must not be distorted by constructs such as "civilizational superiority" or "civilizational centrality," and ancient Greek civilization is no exception.

From the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century, the history of civilization as a kind of "new history" was established in Europe, absorbed by Japan, and then introduced to China by Liang Qichao and other scholars of the Qing Dynasty, attracting widespread attention in the academic circles. 21st century, a large number of works on the history of Western civilization have been translated and published in Chinese, and the Western trend of thought continues to influence the public's cognition of the development of civilization, and Western scholars have always dominated the discourse on the history of civilization.At the same time, the attention of the academic circles to the writing of the history of civilization has been increasing, and the works on the history of civilization written by Chinese scholars have been published one after another, and the theoretical researches have been deepened continuously. from the 19th century to the present day, the writing of the history of Chinese civilization has gone through three major stages of aphasia of writing, taking the path of the West, and breaking out of the West, and has continuously constructed a discourse system of the view of civilization with Chinese characteristics. However, it cannot be ignored that the writing of the history of Chinese civilization started late and had a short history of development, and there are still many problems, such as: omission of historical facts and insufficient understanding of the origin of Chinese civilization; applying Western theories and following the logic of Western civilization history writing in terms of writing ideas, definition of "civilization", phasing of the era, and other core concepts; lack of the concept of writing the history of civilization for mutual benefit; and neglecting the concept of writing the history of different civilizations. In the absence of the concept of mutual learning of civilizations, the intermingling and mutual appreciation among different civilizations are neglected; the writing field is limited, and no attention has been paid to the writing of the history of Chinese scientific civilization, the history of Chinese minority civilizations, and other topics.