Comparative Literature: Ways to Decolonise the Discipline

Comparative Literature was introduced in 19^th 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.