作為二十世紀中葉美國的學術史事件，比較文學學派論爭的「名」與「實」之間有較大的差異：在「名」的層面，是美國學派對法國學派的批判與反叛；在「實」的層面，則是新一代學者對傳統歐陸比較文學的繼承和發展。在1970年代，臺灣學者在選擇追隨美國學派的同時，也將以國家為單位的學派納入比較文學的知識建構中，進而在錯綜複雜的語境中將學派簡化和對立化，更推出了「中國學派」的構想。到了1980年代的中國大陸，關於學派的二元想像被繼續擴大，學派對立的故事被轉化為知識的進化圖譜。在1990年代的全球化語境中，「中國學派」在中國大陸也改換意味，成為中西關係想像的文化表徵。學派曲折的旅行過程不僅反映了中國大陸比較文學與臺灣比較文學之間的密切聯繫，而且也折射了知識生產與國家／國際政治之間的複雜關係。對學派等比較文學知識的建構史展開批判性研究，本身就是一種別具意義的比較文學實踐。

The notion of “school” in the field of Chinese comparative literature is a product of knowledge travel. Originating from mid-20th-century American academia, the internal debates concerning schools in comparative literature varied widely in name and substance: while nominally the contention pointed to the American school’s critical revolt against the French school, its true nature was America’s inheritance and development of European comparatism. In the 1970s, when Taiwan comparatists chose to follow the American school, they imported such national school labels into their own knowledge construction and strengthened the dichotomy between the two schools, while simultaneously proposing the concept of “Chinese school.” In the 1980s, Mainland Chinese comparatists pushed that dichotomy up to another level, transforming the story of schools into an evolutionary lineage. In the 1990s, the “Chinese school” was then reconceived by Chinese comparatists to symbolize the new relationship between China and the West. The case of “schools” shows the close relationship between comparative literature in Taiwan and Mainland China as well as refracts the complex relationship between (inter)national politics and knowledge production. I contend that the critical study of knowledge construction in the history of comparative literature is itself a special and meaningful kind of comparative literature studies.