Gayatri Chakravorty
Spivak is one of the key figures in postcolonial theory and Comparative
Literature. Death of a Discipline is a work which analyses the
disciplines Comparative Literature, Area Studies, cultural and ethnic studies
and calls for a disciplinary collaboration. Spivak argues for the movement of
Comparative Literature from the Euro-US cultural dominance to the new immigrant
groups from Asia and Africa. Spivak sees Literature not as a measurable entity
but as one which can cross boundaries with a sense of ‘mobility’.
For ages, we are
accustomed to the Arnoldian notion of ‘the best that is known and thought in
the world’. The world had some set ‘superlatives’ which ruled and lead the
world and ignored the rest. It was against this ideal norm that Comparative
Literature fought in and got placed. Susan Basnett, describes Comparative
Literature as one which “involves the study of texts across cultures that it is
interdisciplinary and that it is concerned with patterns of connection in
literatures across both time and space”. Comparative Literature arises from an
urge or instinct to move out of a subject or from a quest done within the
similarities in cultural contexts between texts or authors as Matthew Arnold in
his Inaugural Lecture at Oxford in 1857 said “Everywhere there is connection,
everywhere there is illustration. No single event, no single literature is
adequately comprehended except in relation to other events, to other
literatures” (qtd. in Ray 106). Comparative Literature is more a result from
the quest of knowledge, the knowledge which moves a reader of Shakespeare to
Dante or Boccacio. When we read Chinua Achebe, we are reminded of Marquez and
Marquez in turn remind us on Khushwanth Singh and we tend to connect our
aesthetic sensibility to the colonization that struck many countries. It rose
as a reaction to the imperial arrogance existing in the society regarding
Literature. Ian Watt’s “Rise of the Novel” discussed about English Novel alone.
Meanwhile again this trend can be seen getting repeated in Indian Literature
where Salman Rushdie’s edited work Anthology of Indian Literature is
just a collection of Indian English works and does not include any works from
regional Literature. Literature should cross boundaries even to the regional
languages.
The
history of Comparative Literature is a journey through arguments and
confusions. The term
‘Comparative Literature’ appeared when in European nations, freedom movements
were taking place and new nation states came into being, that is at a time when
the sense of nationality was at its peak point. That ‘sense of spirit of
nationality’ has helped and disturbed comparative literature at the same time. In
Byron’s Prophecy of Dante, Byron
talks about the notion of Italians who disapprove a foreigner just because he
is a foreigner and he recognized that a nation engaged in struggles for
independence jealously guarded its literary heritage against all foreigners.
The late 18th century and early 19th century was a time
of immense turmoil throughout Europe, issues of nationality increasingly
appeared linked to cultural developments. With the discovery of some forged
manuscripts in 1817-18, a language (Czech) itself was completely on the tracks
of development. The publication of Fairy
Tales and folk tales were all reactions to this sense of nationality.
Certain politics allowed only certain literatures to be read in a country, for
instance Britain feared and despised Scottish and Irish nationalism and the
Irish pasts were banned to be read in the country. It was American Revolution
of 1776 which shook the world significantly which had set English to a new path
variant from that of Eurocentrism. American Literature’s development evoked
many questions. Though they modelled English writers, they were developing
separately. Meanwhile, Latin American writers were on a journey set to create
their own epic. Thus world was on a way different to that of the path showed by
none. Politics of Imperialism and negligence of ‘Orientalism’ started fading
away from the scene. The Eurocentric attitudes prevailed in the world has only
used Comparative Literature as a tool to demarcate others. But the discipline
has emerged breaking all its barriers; it evolved with two mainstream ideologies
namely the French perspective and the German perspective. Later, with the
emergence of the ‘new world’, a third vision was also gaining importance, the
American school of Comparative Literature. The concept of Comparative Literature which involved a
consideration of more than one Literature was discussed in Europe in the early
years of 19th century. The beginning of the notion of comparison in
Literature arose from the typical scientific practice of reaching to a
hypothesis by comparing or contrasting.
The world was getting empowered with
two visions on Comparative Literature, the French perspective and the German
perspective. The French perspective oriented more to the study of cultural
transfer. Their assumption was that Comparative Literature was all about
knowing ourselves, a concern with the study of production of mankind.
Meanwhile, German perspective was also getting rooted. For them, comparative
Literature is all about knowing literary history. In
the late 19th century, the subject acquired academic status. The
first chair of comparative literature was at Lyon in the year 1897 and
subsequently in France. It was French Comparative Literature which dominated
the field. In the U.S, Shackwell taught ‘General or comparative literature’
from 1871 at Cornwell. Similarly Gayley taught Comparative Literary Criticism
at University of Michigan from 1887. The first chair was set up in U.S in the
year 1890 at Harvard. Thus in the last two decades of the 19th
century, comparative literature began to get established internationally. It
became a subject being taught in the educational institutions in Europe.
Posnett published a full length study on the subject ‘Comparative Literature’ in 1886. Meltzl’s journal Acta Comparationis Literarum Universarum was
founded in Europe, two periodicals edited by Max Koch, German comparatist, Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Literatureg eschichte(1887-1910)
and Studien zur vergleichenden
Literaturgeschichte(1901-1909) was published. Posnett’s evolutionary model
and Gailey’s melting point idea were different from the European models. The
American school of Comparative Literature has also progressed to the front row.
Unlike the other schools, American School of Comparative Literature is multicultural
and idealistic. The process of depoliticization of comparative
literature is a hallmark of the American school.
Comparative
Literature had distilled many passions even against it. In 1903, Benedetto
Croce argued that Comparative Literature was a non subject, and he dismissed
the argument of seeing it as a separate discipline. When on Comparative
Literature, arguments go on whether the discipline is died or not, Translation
Studies has emerged as an independent discipline with professional
associations, journals, publishers’ catalogues and a proliferation of doctoral
theses. The relationship between Comparative Literature and Translation studies
is a complex and problematic one. Translation has tended to be regarded as the
poor relation, as an activity involving little talent and creativity. Hillarie
Belloc in 1931 said “The art of translation is a subsidiary art and derivative.
On this account, it has never been granted the dignity of the original work,
and has suffered too much in the general judgement of letters” (qtd. in Antes
111).
Writings
on the subject of translating go far back in recorded history. Indeed, the translation
of the Bible in Western Europe was to be-well over a thousand years and
especially during the Reformation in the sixteenth century-the battleground of
conflicting ideologies. Though the art of translation is long established, the
study of the field developed into an academic discipline only in the second
half of the twentieth century. Comparative Literature was only a parallel
approach where Literature is studied and compared transnationally and
transculturally, necessitating the reading of some literature in translation. A
good comparatist accordingly should only read original texts in original
language. The primary accusation heard by Translation discipline is that when a
work is translated, and the translation is exact, then it’s said to have lost
the ‘spirit’ of the original. Susan Basnett opines that “Comparative Literature
has had its day. Cross Cultural work in women’s studies, in post colonial
theory, in cultural studies has changed the face of literary studies generally.
We should look upon translation studies as the principal discipline from now
on, with comparative Literature as a valued but subsidiary subject area.” Here
gets validated the importance of translation studies over comparative
literature which lacks a definite methodology.
‘Crisis’ is a word comparatists have heard so often that now it is
almost considered their fate to live with its many manifestations and
inclusions. American School of Comparative Literature’s manifesto Crisis of Comparative Literature written
by Rene Wellek emphasizes the importance of literary theory and champions
‘cosmopolitan humanism over cultural nationalism’. According to Wellek,
Comparative Literature is confined to the interrelation between two literatures
while general literature is a collection of movements and fashions that sweep
across several literatures. Therefore, Comparative Literature instead of
concentrating in the source focuses scattering over the influences of all. Wellek attacked on what he saw as
methodology and prejudiced nationalism. He warned that Comparative Literature
has not established yet and the struggle with the problems will continue to
wrestle for which he blamed the French school. He accused Teigham and French
group for restricting the scope of Comparative Literature, for putting forth an
approach that lead nowhere.The future of Comparative Literature is always a
debate within the scholars. Comparative Literature sometimes is praised as ‘the
discipline of future’ while sometimes it is degraded as a dead subject. Susan
Basnett’s comment on Comparative Literature is that subsequent generations of
younger scholars turn away from the subject as it appears to be irrelevant and
antiquated. The number of Literary theorists increased while the number of
comparatists decreased. She remarks that since the argument continues, there is
no place for such a subject in the post modern world. It’s now time as Wellek
and Harry Levin says to abandon the old, unnecessary distinctions and to see
them for what they were in the particular age and cultural context. Susan
Basnett and Lefever in their essays entitled Translation, History and Culture(1990) also comments that the time
has come to rethink on the marginalization of translation studies within
Comparative Literature. Jancy James cites on her introduction to the the Quest of a Discipline that “it is the
shaken, critical, disenchanted persons who facilitate the true growth of the
discipline. Their inventions and suggestions, even their dismissive statements,
mark a particular stage of development of Comparative Literature and are bound
to trigger the next phase of its growth”
Spivak sees Comparative Literature
as a discipline that can train the imagination to listen to the other. She
wants a new Comparative Literature which can be world embracing and whose
hallmark remains a care for language and idiom. She does not want the
discipline to be too politicized. Since Comparative Literature is not clearly
defined, it can consider the open ended possibility of studying all literatures
with linguistic and historic sense. Spivak sees Area studies as a discipline
which was established to secure U.S power in the cold war. It concentrates on
the rigorous knowledge of the ‘Other’ in the service of power. Spivak wants
Comparative Literature to associate with Area Studies inorder to bring in a
definite perspective in the study of different regional literatures. She sees
in this future a hope. The gradual deterioration of resources in the discipline
can be made up with this collaboration. For instance, a reading of an African
novel within the methodology of Comparative Literature can be strengthened with
a good knowledge on Africa. Without getting a proper aid from humanities, Area
studies will merely be about crossing borders and without the help of Area
Studies, Comparative Literature will not cross borders and get confined to one
place. Area Studies is explicitly tied to the power elite, conservative
politics. The quality of language learning is only limited to the needs of
Social Science field work. There is this constant conflict between cultural
studies and social sciences on this concern of language and literariness.
Spivak says that the real ‘other’ of cultural studies is the civilization
courses offered by the European national language departments and not
comparative literature. There was this kind of distinction that Area studies is
about foreign areas and Comparative Literature is about Western European
nations. It can be said that what Comparative Literature does is continuing a
modified sort of imperialism. Spivak proposes a combination of the traditional
linguistic sophistication of Comparative Literature and supplement the
political role of other disciplines in Humanities. Spivak wants the discipline
to move away from Anglophony and Eurocentrism. This can be made possible only
through the classes engaged in universities rather than the resolutions passed
in Associations. Our perceptions on other languages are largely based on the
hegemonic values inscribed by the Eurocentric notion that the native informant
if not resembling metropolitanism is not a part of cultural study. There are
remedial classes offered in American Universities to students who do not have
their first language to be English. English as a subject has to acknowledge its
European ties. The history of class oppression and monarchy tied with English
language needs to be understood which can be medicated if there is a rethinking
in the discipline outside the barriers of the language. Comparativism has to
approach diversified ethical systems diachronically which is more successful
through language based literary investigation than through cultural evidences.
Comparative Literature can even study the scope of performativity of cultures
as instantiated in narratives. How the narratives got to fix certain dialects
is an example. It can be seen that West Midland dialect got fixed as the
traditional and conventional. Thus Literature along with training the
imagination also does the inbuilt instrumentation of othering.
Literature should also be read as political comments or sociological evidences. Spivak cites an example from J.M
Coetzee’s Waiting for the Barbarians showing how the colonized are
portrayed through the viewpoint of a young imperialist officer’s character.
The
inability to provide an exact definition and methodology of the discipline
Comparative Literature shows its openness to all disciplinary approaches and
literary theories, regardless of cultural origin. But it also lies as the greatest
drawback of the discipline. Anything that discusses art and literature, that
trace the influence of film within textual studies, or take post-colonialism as
their central theme, encapsulate the comparative spirit. This indicates that
there is no need of isolating one art form from another or to limit literary
studies to one national culture. As Spivak clearly pointed out, collaboration
between the disciplines will help to leave the notion of dominant self. Though
‘literary’ is not a blueprint for social action, it can be if literature is
also taken as an object of investigation. Spivak herself feels that there is a
utopian notion in presenting the two disciplines together. The fear of
disciplinarity hinders a mutual connection as the growth of literariness is
feared by Social Sciences and the discipline of Social Sciences fears their
trivialization into “their rational expectation straitjackets”. Spivak opines
that “Sustained and focused discussion is all the more necessary as the
boundaries of disciplinary knowledge are being redrawn” (393). The fear of
quality control also arises as obstruction for a complete engagement. The
crossing of borders might not be easy for peripheral countries as it is for
metropolitan countries. Unless the power relations are questioned, there is no
point in crossing the borders. There are no Indian experiences based on which
theories are formulated in sociological studies or any other humanitarian
disciplines.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Antes, Peter.,
Armin.W.Geertz, and Randi.R.Warne, eds. New Approaches to the Study of Religion.
Germany: Walter de Gruyter, 2004.Print.
Bassnett, Susan. Comparative
Literature: A Critical Introduction. UK: Blackwell Publishers, 1993.Print.
Bhaduri, Saugata and Amar Basu. Perspectives on
Comparative Literature and Culture in the Age
of Globalisation. India: Anthem Press, 2010. Print.
Damrosch, David. Princeton
Sourcebook of Comparative Literature. New Jersey: Princeton UP, 2003. Print.
Raj, Rizio Yohannan. Quest of a Discipline.
New Delhi: Cambridge UP, 2012. Print.
Ray, Mohit.K. Studies
in Literary Criticism.New Delhi: Atlantic, 2002.Web.
No comments:
Post a Comment