How do we define fiction? Can these definitions be applied across time and culture? Do we even need an all-encompassing definition of fiction? Hannah Kim, assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Arizona, explored these questions from a transhistorical and transcultural perspective in her lecture “Fiction without Mimesis: A Comparative Philosophy of Fiction” as part of the Kleiner Lecture series at UGA.
On February 27, professor Kim visited UGA to give a lecture on her research about the philosophy of fiction. Defining fiction and fact is not a new philosophical question, however different cultures define fiction differently because of their historical philosophical outlook on life. She began her lecture by framing the distinction between fiction and reality as not just a fun topic for philosophers to discuss. In our current world where alternative facts exist there are “ethical and aesthetic reasons for making the fiction-nonfiction distinction,” she said.
Kim delved into her research by taking the audience back in time to ancient Greece and China, beginning with Plato’s distinction between appearance and reality and his view on mimesis. Plato believed that if something could be mimicked then there must be a true reality to mimic. She explained that Plato’s influential ideas have informed the way western philosophy tries to define fiction. Plato’s ideas have shaped certain aspects of western culture, which tends to draw firm lines between fiction and reality.
In another part of the globe, ancient China operated with a different philosophical outlook, Daoism. The concept of the Dao is that everything is changing and thus, there is less concern with making a distinction between reality and fiction. Chinese historical records focused on the emperor and would often include fantastical elements that did not exist. These inclusions did not discredit the historical records. Kim then introduced xiaoshuo, the potential rival of these histories, which are seen as truth but also contained fantastical and mythical elements. In the ancient Chinese opinion, xiaoshuo was considered a lesser literary category, not because of the fantasy elements but because it wasn’t used to convey the official state outlook on things. Ancient Chinese philosophy was not concerned with mimesis and making hard distinctions between reality and fiction.
Kim left the audience with this question, that if culture and history are so important to defining fiction vs. reality, is there a universal way to define fiction? “The is no general concept insofar as there is no general background or framework,” she said. She poses the idea that it may be difficult to find a perfect transcultural or transhistorical definition of fiction and that it may not be helpful to try and create an essentialist definition.
Image: Hannah Kim, Assistant professor of philosophy, University of Arizona