What is Comparative Literature today?
- Susan Basnett
The article seems to introduce the field of comparative literature by defining it as the study of texts across cultures, emphasizing its interdisciplinary nature and its focus on examining connections and patterns in literature across different times and places.
It suggests that comparative studies often begin with a desire to look beyond the boundaries of a single subject area or discipline, or from noticing apparent similarities between texts and authors from different cultures, which then prompts further exploration and comparison. Without directly quoting extended passages, I've aimed to capture the key points about how the article frames the origins and core concerns of comparative literary studies. Please let me know if you need any clarification or have additional context to provide.
Comparative literature is a rich and complex field of study that has been the subject of ongoing debates and discussions. To address your questions:
1. The object of study in comparative literature is the analysis and comparison of literary works from different cultures, languages, and traditions. It explores the relationships, influences, and interconnections between diverse literary traditions.
2. Comparison is the central objective and methodology of comparative literature. By juxtaposing and analyzing literary works from different contexts, comparatists aim to uncover universal themes, patterns, and shared human experiences that transcend cultural boundaries.
3. If individual literatures have cannons, a comparative canon might consist of significant literary works that have had a profound impact across multiple cultures and have influenced the development of literature globally.
4. Comparatists can select what to compare based on various criteria, such as shared themes, genres, historical periods, cultural influences, or theoretical frameworks. The selection process often involves identifying connections, contrasts, or cross-cultural dialogues that can yield insightful interpretations.
5. Comparative literature is generally considered a distinct discipline with its own methodologies, theoretical frameworks, and academic traditions. However, some scholars view it as a field of study that intersects with and draws upon various disciplines, such as literary studies, cultural studies, translation studies, and interdisciplinary approaches.
Regarding the crisis of comparative literature, René Wellek and others have raised concerns about the field's identity, scope, and methodological challenges. The rise of postcolonial and cultural studies has also influenced the direction of comparative literature, challenging traditional Western-centric approaches and advocating for more inclusive and diverse perspectives.
Benedetto Croce's critique questioned the distinctiveness of comparative literature from literary history, arguing that the act of comparing and contextualizing is inherent in the study of literature itself. This debate highlights the ongoing discussions around the boundaries and methodologies of comparative literature. Comparative literature continues to evolve as a dynamic field, grappling with questions of representation, canon formation, and the complexities of cross-cultural literary analysis in an increasingly globalized world.
Francis Jost claimed that comparative literature is 'an overall view of literature, of the world of letters, a humanistic ecology, a literary Weltanschauung, a vision of the cultural universe, inclusive and comprehensive'. Comparative Literature is viewed as some kind of world religion, an instrument of universal harmony.
Wellek and Warren, in their 'Theory of Literature' (1949), suggested that comparative literature "will make high demands on the linguistic proficiencies of our scholars. It asks for a widening of perspectives, a suppression of local and provincial sentiments, not easy to achieve." For Wellek and Warren, they further state that,
"Literature is one; as art and humanity are one."
A decade after the publication of 'Theory of Literature,' Wellek was already discussing the crisis in comparative literature. The great waves of critical thought that swept through one after the other shifted attention away from the activity of comparing texts and tracking patterns of influence between writers towards the role of the reader. And as each new wave broke over the preceding one, notions of single, harmonious readings were shattered forever.
In the 1950s and early 1960s, high-flying graduate students in the West turned to comparative literature as a radical subject, because at that time it appeared to be transgressive. By the late 1970s, a new generation of high-flying graduate students in the West had turned to Literary Theory, Women's Studies, Semiotics, Film and Media Studies, and Cultural Studies as the radical subject choices, abandoning Comparative Literature. Yet even as that process was underway in the West, comparative literature began to gain ground in the rest of the world, particularly in Post-colonial countries. However, this was not based on any ideal of universalism but rather on the very aspect of literary study that many Western comparatists had sought to deny: the specificity of national literatures.
Homi Bhabha sums up the new emphasis in an essay discussing the ambivalence of post-colonial culture, suggesting that:
"Comparative literature must find its disciplinary advantages by engaging with ambivalent temporalities of the 'modern'; no longer synonymous with the epoch of modernity, the 'modern' survives as a contested concept in a range of critical practices whose common denominator is the unhousing of systematic knowledges and their relocation in the everyday."
Bhabha highlights how comparative literature in the postcolonial context needs to grapple with the ambiguities and contradictions inherent in the idea of the "modern." The modern is not a monolithic, universal concept, but rather a site of contestation and renegotiation. Comparative literary studies must inhabit and explore these ambivalent spaces, unsettling established knowledge systems and finding new meanings in the lived realities and experiences of the everyday.
This resonates with Devy's linking of comparative literature in India to the rise of nationalism. The remapping of the literary terrain was intimately tied to how the modern Indian nation imagined and defined itself against and within the legacies of colonial modernity. Comparative literature became a means to resurface repressed histories, identities and epistemologies in forging a new national self-consciousness.
Wole Soyinka and a range of African critics have exposed the pervasive influence of Hegel, who argued that African culture was 'weak' in contrast to what he claimed were higher, more developed cultures, and who effectively denied African history. Today, we have a very diverse picture of comparative literary studies that varies depending on the context in which it is taking place.
Terry Eagleton's explanation of the rise of English ties in with the aspirations of many early comparatists for a subject that would transcend cultural boundaries and unite the human race through the civilizing power of great literature. As the question of what to include and exclude from an English syllabus is a contentious one, Comparative Literature has been called into question by the emergence of alternative schools of thought.
The vexed question of Shakespeare in India, a canonical writer hailed in the nineteenth century as the epitome of English greatness, poses a problem for Indian students. They must grapple with Shakespeare not only as a great figure in European literature but also as a representative of colonial values – two conflicting Shakespeares, in effect. One approach to addressing this issue is to study Shakespeare comparatively, examining his introduction into Indian cultural life and comparing his work with that of Indian writers.
The growth of national consciousness and awareness of the need to move beyond the colonial legacy has significantly contributed to the development of comparative literature in many parts of the world, even as the subject enters a period of crisis and decay in the West.
Ganesh Devy's argument that comparative literature in India coincides with the rise of modern Indian nationalism is important, because it serves to remind us of the origins of the term 'Comparative Literature' in Europe, a term that “first appeared in an age of national struggles”, when new boundaries were being erected and the whole question of national culture and national identity was under discussion throughout Europe and the expanding United States of America.
Another rapidly expanding development in literary studies, and one which has profound implications for the future of comparative literature, is 'translation studies'. Comparative literature has traditionally claimed translation as a sub-category, but this assumption is now being questioned. The work of scholars such as Toury, Lefevere, Hermans, Lambert and many others has shown that translation is especially significant at moments of great cultural change.
Evan-Zohar argues that extensive translation activity takes place when a culture is in a period of transition: when it is expanding, when it needs renewal, when it is in a pre-revolutionary phase, then “translation plays a vital part”. In contrast, when a culture is solidly established, when it is in an imperialist stage, when it believes itself to be dominant, then translation is less important.
As English became the language of international diplomacy in the twentieth century (and also the dominant world commercial language), there was little need to translate, hence the relative poverty of twentieth-century translations into English compared with the proliferation of translations in many other languages. When translation is neither required nor wanted, it tends to become a low status activity, poorly paid and disregarded.
Conclusion -
Comparative literature has always claimed translation as a sub-category, but as translation studies establishes itself firmly **as a subject based in inter-cultural study** and offering a methodology of some rigor, both in terms of theoretical and descriptive work, so comparative literature appears less like a discipline and more like a branch of something else. Seen in this way, the problem of the crisis could then be put into perspective, and the long, unresolved debate on whether comparative literature is or is not a discipline in its own right could finally and definitely be shelved.
References -
Bush, Roland E. “Comparative Literature: A Critical Introduction.” 9 November 2017, https://www.jstor.org/stable/44323029?seq=1. Accessed 25 April 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment