Commentary Seneca Nuñeza Pellano [
[email protected]]
Commentary on “Comparative Literature, at Last” by Jonathan Culler If the perennial problem of comparative literature revolves around hows and whats – methods and objects – of the discipline; then clearly, our problem circulates around the question of existence; more precisely, the fundamental philosophic problem of the nature of being. Perhaps comparatists have already asked this question once: is it “we compare, therefore we are”? And with essays initiated by Saussy, Culler, and other comparatists, we know now that is not the case; but rather, for our field, it is: “we compare, therefore they are”. As such, we hail, among ourselves, this triumph of being the “universal donor” to other bodies of knowledge and label this as “selflessness”, resulting in lifelessness on our part: lacking funds and, even worse, suffering from an identity crisis. As a result, the discipline is in the process of constant reinvention. From the source and influence study to a wider intertextual study, comparative literature opens its doors to facilitate and accommodate not only literary theories and traditions but also experimentations and engagements with other areas of knowledge. In my description: a ceaseless recreation of a discipline in danger of ceasing to exist. In resolving this, suggestions are presented by the 1993 ACLA report for us “to turn global and go cultural”; but perhaps this move might be too broad of a promise to keep and live up to. However, because of this “cultural and global studies” phenomenon, national literature departments are now shifting to culture (e.g. French literature departments shifting to Department of French Studies). For Culler, this might be an opportunity for the discipline to reinvent its identity: to study literature as a “transnational phenomenon”. I like to put Culler’s thought in this framework: that if before, we are best known for our method – the comparative activity – only to be appropriated by various disciplines, then it might suit us best to highlight what is left of us — our subject matter, literature, which we do best, even intimately, through close reading. With this, I could not agree more with Saussy’s simplistic definition of our field as “comparisons with literature” as this description of our study retains the centrality of literature in our field, as well as the diversity in scope of the subject area. Still, Culler asks the most pertinent question facing us today: how should CL deal with world literature? Culler’s concern is, of course, resonated by Spivak’s assertion that in dealing with literatures, comparison and contrast is not a question but rather a matter of judging and choosing: Who judges what? How to choose where? More specifically, Culler’s ultimate concern is that “comparisons will impose implicit norms and standards” which will be constructed from the “perspective of a hegemonic power”. These fears cannot be ignored and, to avoid these concerns, it is pertinent to focus on a “well-constructed course” as exemplified by a World Literature course in Yale which highlights
faculty expertise on temporality, consciousness, and perspective. With this kind of approach, it seems to me that the problem here may not be world literature but the teaching and most importantly, the critique of it. From here, Spivak’s aesthetic education may again be relevant to teach literatures of the world through training of the imagination. In imposing world literature, the battle here can be seen as not solely theoretical, but rather critical and most importantly educational. Here Spivak’s relevance enters back into picture in approaching world literature, aesthetically and critically, through teaching. It is also within this frame that our question of identity as a field of study will be determined; that perhaps as comparatists, we are the ones who foremostly need to train our imagination to creatively answer the persistent question regarding our identity. Until now, in my view, the discussion seems to constantly revolve around this formlessness of our field. As the postcolonial author, Salman Rushdie once wrote: “Everything has shape if you look for it. There is no escape from form.” In our field, perhaps it us who needs to shape the seemingly formless form of our discipline, creatively.
