自二十世纪六十年代以来，“跨越边界”成为比较文学的学科状态。从跨文化到跨学科，比较文学的边界不断扩张。比较文学学界多对此趋势表示欣喜，认为“跨越边界”是缓释比较文学学科危机、克服西方中心主义的正途。但是，“跨越边界”的比较文学对边缘国家和地区存在隐藏的霸权和危险，这些问题需要在具体历史语境中进行把握和揭示。

    中国台湾地区比较文学自1956年起至九十年代晚期，经历了从兴起、发展到衰颓的过程。在台湾地区比较文学早期实践中，夏济安及其同侪借鉴新批评理论，赋予台湾地区比较文学中华文明重建的社会功能；同时他们对启蒙现代性抱有警惕。台湾地区比较文学的早期实践达到了“民族-世界”的平衡。七十年代台湾地区比较文学的学院建制使得台湾地区比较文学依赖外文系，走向现代知识生产。台湾地区比较文学一代与二代的“科学VS.人文”的立场分野显现出台湾地区比较文学学者知识图景的转变：作为知识客体的西方成为台湾地区比较文学学者渴慕的对象，只有和西方接轨文学研究才能走上系统化、科学化、现代化的道路。以颜元叔为代表的台湾地区比较文学学者在学习、运用西方理论进行比较文学研究时表现出民族情绪与现代性想象矛盾的态势。到七十年代中后期，台湾地区比较文学进入理论总结阶段，出现了两种比较文学“中国学派”的提法。在同一时期，比较文学“美国学派”将比较文学研究扩展到非西方地区。台湾地区的中西比较诗学受到比较文学“美国学派”的影响，被纳入美国比较文学的全球文化霸权。1975年叶维廉提出“文化模子寻根法”，走向了文化相对主义。在一定程度上突破了对台湾地区比较文学研究中的西方中心主义。但是九十年代，政治运动与文化多元主义的勾连造成了相对主义绝对化。台湾地区几乎完全抛弃了中西比较文学研究，台湾地区中西比较文学走向衰落。

    台湾地区比较文学的衰落原因不仅是台湾地区学者知识主体性丧失，还是比较文学学科转向的结果。中国台湾地区比较文学实践与理论研究（1956-1990）应作为一个比较文学学科值得反思、警醒的案例。

     Since the 1960s, “crossing borders” has become the state of comparative literature. From intercultural to interdisciplinary, the boundaries of comparative literature have been expanding. Many comparative literature theories are pleased with this trend and believe that “crossing borders” is the right way to alleviate the crisis of comparative literature and overcome Western centrism. However, there are hidden hegemony and dangers of “border-crossing” comparative literature for marginalized countries and regions. These problems need to be revealed in the specific historical contexts.

     From 1956 to the late 1990s, comparative literature in Taiwan area of China has undergone a process of emergence, development, and decline. In the early practice of comparative literature in Taiwan area, Tsi-an Hsia and his peers drew on New Criticism to endow comparative literature with the social function of the reconstruction of Chinese civilization. At the same time, they were wary of Enlightenment modernity. The early practice of comparative literature in Taiwan area achieved a national-world balance. In the 1970s affected by the academic system of comparative literature in Taiwan area, comparative literature relies on foreign literature and move towards the modern production of knowledge. The distinction of “science vs. humanities” between the first and second generations of comparative literature in Taiwan area reveals a shift in the intellectual landscape: The West has become an object of desire for scholars in Taiwan area, and only by aligning with the West can literary studies embark on a systematic, scientific, and modernized path. The scholars in Taiwan area represented by Yuanshu Yan showed contradictory dynamics of national sentiment and modernity imagination in studying and applying Western theories to comparative literature research. In the middle and late 1970s, comparative literature in Taiwan area has entered the stage of theoretical summary, and two “Chinese schools” of comparative literature emerged. During the same period, the “American School” of comparative literature expanded the study of comparative literature to non-Western areas. Influenced by the “American school” of comparative literature, the Chinese and western poetics study has been brought into the global cultural hegemony of American comparative literature. In 1975 William Yip proposed the “Cultural Mould” theory, which led to cultural relativism. To a certain extent, it broke through the western centralism in the study of comparative literature in Taiwan area. However, in the 1990s, the combination of political movements and multiculturalism led to the absolutism of relativism. Taiwan area has almost completely abandoned the study of Chinese-Western comparative literature, and Chinese-Western comparative literature in Taiwan area has gone to decline.    

    The reason for the decline of comparative literature in Taiwan area is not only the loss of knowledge subjectivity of scholars, but also the result of the shift of comparative literature. The practice and theoretical research of comparative literature in Taiwan area of China (1956-1990) should be regarded as a case worthy of reflection and vigilance.