Comparative Literature
was introduced in 19th Century Europe as a discipline of literary
study crossing the monolingual nature of national literature. Prior to the
Second World War, the French influence dominated the discipline and the major
thrust was on factual contacts, the influence of notable writers abroad. After
the Second World War a new impetus to the discipline was given by the American
school which promoted parallel study of various literatures. This model
received a major blow with the emergence in the 1960s with the dominance of
critical theories that supplanted literature with theories. Today we can sense
that even after the so-called ‘decolonisation’ of countries from their erstwhile
rulers, colonisation of mind and academic disciplines still operates. Such is
the status of Comparative Literature. Eurocentric hegemony has enveloped the
discipline so much so that its transnational image and humanised agenda have
been challenged. We are so much caught up within the razzmatazz and hullabaloo
of Euro-American developments that we tend to forget that it has a separate
existence outside also. It is true that Comparative Literature was an offshoot
of European project. It got a major boost from comparative anatomy or
comparative zoology. It also got a major fillip from the organic theory of nature
proposed by the Romantic poets who saw a kinship existing between the outer
nature and inner nature. The present task of a comparatist is to harbour a more
inclusive approach.
Among the various problems
thwarting the fullest development of Comparative Literature the chief one is
monolingualism or, to put it more specifically, the dominance of English
language. In spite of being the 'lingua franca’ of the world we need to remember
that it has become a hegemonic imposition upon the lives of people. Ngugi Wa
Thiang Wo in his Decolonising the Mind
observes how in Kenya colonial masters banned the use of Gikuyu in schools and
students were punished if caught speaking Gikuyu. This was a part of cultural
genocide through a calculated approach:
The
domination of peoples’ language by the language of the colonizing nations was
crucial to the domination of mental universe of the colonised (2003:16).
We are reminded
of R. Parthasarathy’s opinion in The Rough Passage,
‘That
language is a tree
Loses colour under another sky.’
(1977:17)
Truly Parthasarathy has
presented the symbiotic relationship between a culture and a language. A
language is the expression of a cultural ethos of a community. Amiri Baraka
once made a remark, ‘‘European language carries the bias of its inventors and
users. You must be anti-black, speaking in their language, except by
violent effort.”(1972:60) In order to whittle away at hegemony of English
language special care need to be taken to read non-English texts in the
original language. Herein the task of a comparatist becomes more important
because of his command over many languages.
Globalisation has also wiped out
the heterogeneity from our life and attitude. It is a hegemonic imposition of
the same system that is prevalent everywhere. Wide spread of Internet, advanced
telecommunication system, upgraded transportation, ease of trade have augmented
the process making the world a ‘global village’. However, the craze for
globalisation is a double-edged sword. In the name of globalisation western
cultural values are circulated and exalted all over the world. Minority culture
is being engulfed. Spivak in her book Death
of a Discipline protested against the global perspective. She prefers the word
‘planetary’ to ‘global’ as the former refers to the specis of alterity. She
writes in the concluding paragraph:
The
“planet” is, here, as perhaps always, a catachresis for inscribing collective
responsibility as right. Its alterity, determining experience, is mysterious
and discontinuous—an experience of the impossible. It is such collectivities
that must be opened up with the question “How many are we?” when cultural
origin is detranscendentalized into fiction—the toughest task in the diaspora
(2003: 102).
Through promoting and valorising Comparative
Literature we can trace the occluded cultural practices.
Another drawback for Comparative
Literature is the dominance of national literature. The genesis of the
discipline of Comparative Literature can be traced in a context that put a
kibosh on nationalist propaganda. The ACLA report of 1993 demanded a transnational
studies of ideology and discourse that would run counter to the erstwhile model
of study according to author, nation. In Amitav Ghosh’s The Shadow Lines we find how our cartographic identities give birth
to fissiparous selves. Thamma was a victim of primordial nationalism who while
travelling to Bangladesh, was nonplussed about not finding a literal border.
Meenakshi Mukherjee in her essay ‘Anxiety of Indianness’ articulated the
dilemma of Indian novelists who in order to steer clear of the ‘sin’ of writing
in the coloniser’s language generally succumb to such grand narratives as
nation, language et al in their writings. Even the syllabus of most of the
colleges and universities in India is at fault. Certain texts have got
canonical status and are included in the syllabus of most academic disciplines
which function as ideological apparatuses that safeguard and promote the values
of nation. Makarand Paranjape’s Another
Canon tries to excavate certain texts that have been occluded by the grand
narratives of nation. Certain texts such as Raja Rao’s Comrade Kirillov are seldom known while his Kanthapura has eked out a prestigious position for having dealt
with the national image of India. So our task should be akin to that of a
Neo-Historicist to open up, in Louis Montrose’s words, ‘historicity of texts
and textuality of history.’ For example, during anti-colonial movement
classical Sanskrit literature was revived to posit the cultural ethos of India.
However, Tamil, the rival classical literature, was pushed to the margin. This
alternate traditions need to be excavated.
Since the 1960s we have seen an
influx of critical theories that have dominated every discipline. Comparative
Literature is no exception. However, the methods and approaches have always
been chalked out by the western scholars. Western pundits chalk out the way of
literary practices of non-western countries. For example, the west has always
treated the non-west as a reservoir of artistic achievements. Michel Foucault
in his History of Sexuality(vol1) distinguishes
between the occidental and oriental version of sexuality as ‘scientia sexualis’
and ‘ars erotica’ respectively while it need to be taken into cognizance that
oriental discourse on sexuality also admits of the status of ‘scientia
sexualis’. This presupposition of identities should be shaken off by the method
of ‘decolonised’ Comparative Literature. Similarly, we should not always judge
a postcolonial text with western theories. That would be a straitjacketed
approach. For example, we cannot consider Obi Okonkwo as a tragic hero in No Longer at Ease with the Aristotelian
model disregarding Igbo ontology. Likewise, Willy Loman in Miller’s Death of a Salesman is not a tragic hero
in the Aristotelian sense yet he is a tragic hero par excellence considering
the context in which the play is situated (for example, Stock Market Crash and
the Great Depression of 1929). So it is pertinent to formulate alternative
aesthetic and critical tradition to counter the inundation of western critical
theories.
The empowerment of Translation Studies can
play a vital role in decolonising the Euro-Us hegemony of Comparative
Literature. ‘To translate’ means ‘to carry across’. We carry across not only
language but also culture. Translation Studies provides a sort of solid
foundation to Comparative Literature. It has in fact valorised the discipline.
However, it also needs to be seen that Translation Studies has also been
dominated by Eurocentric prejudices. Today in a post-colonial world we are yet
to imbibe a postcolonial mentality. In a postcolonial country translations are
being done from the regional languages into, mostly, English. We need to expand
the frontiers of translation. The ‘cannibalistic’ nature of English which
consumes other languages needs to be challenged. For example, in India the
emergence of Dalit autobiographies has been a remarkable phenomenon that has
come as a bomb-shell upon the settled citadel of caste-based hierarchy. These
Dalit autobiographies are written in multiple Indian languages like Tamil,
Hindi, Bengali etc. But there is a seldom attempt to translate one Tamil text
into Bengali or vice versa. However, there has been an influx of translations
into English with some added subtitles (for example ‘Joothan: a Dalit’s Life) that
simultaneously reveals the longing for reward and recognition from the West and
fetishisation of Indian products in the West. If practised in this way, Translation
Studies will get suffocated and become a one-way traffic. So to decolonise
Translation Studies is essential for decolonising Comparative Literature. Rizio
Yohannan Raj in his article Beyond ‘Other Words’ puts much emphasis on Translatology to
revitalize Comparative Literature:
Yet, most contemporary Indian
writers whose names are known
around
the world are writers of English. This surely has as much to
do
with the politics of literary transmission and reception as it does
with
the intrinsic quality of their work. This imbalance in Indian
literature
can only be changed from within, by translators who can
find
an English that matches, step for step, the linguistic charge and
syntactical
challenges of the great works of other Indian languages.
Towards
that end and many such, Translatology should awake and
arise.
(2012:90)
Comparative Literature is still limited by its
insistence on the primacy and ‘foregrounding’ of literature. It goes without
saying that in order to have a separate existence and autonomy, Comparative
Literature prioritises literature. However, for being relevant in a changing
world, the discipline demands transcendence beyond literature into other
discourses. Spivak in her book Death of a
Discipline talks about various ways in which Comparative Literature as a
traditional discipline is dead and how a new Comparative Literature can emerge
with its alliance with Area Studies, with comparatists learning new languages
outside European ones etc. Yet she hardly goes beyond ‘literature’ in her
discussion. It is high time that Comparative Literature did expand its frontiers.
That is why inclusion of Performance Studies and Film Studies can make the
discipline ‘open up’. We should study performance as a text, as a kind of
signifying system that can dismantle the hegemony of literature. As a method of
study, Comparative Literature should take under it’s purvey different
behavioural patterns in everyday life.