Reading Note of Comparative Literature in an Age of Globalization

有物混成，先天地生。⋯⋯吾不知其名，字之曰道，強為之名曰大。
There was something undefined and complete, coming into existence before Heaven and Earth. ...I do not know its name, and I give it the designation of the Dao (the Way or Course). Making an effort (further) to give it a name I call it The Great.
                                                                                -------Lao Zi
After the collapse of the Babel, is there a way up to the boundless?
                                                                                -------Alec Wang

This decennial report of comparative literature edited by Haun Saussy assumes two tasks: disciplinary self-reflection and disciplinary description.

The aim of self-reflection renders this report different from most decennial reports in that it emphasizes a multivocal approach, displaying different, sometimes disagreeing voices within the confine of the “discipline”. By so doing, the editor tries to achieve “the unity of difference and non-difference”. Why would the editor adopt such an editorial method? Is it a necessity for all report books to reduce the editorial authority, or is it a special requirement of the discipline of comp lite? Does the discursive space produced within reflect the multiplicity of comp lite?

Without answering such questions, I will only briefly sum up the topics and argumentation as regards the two tasks.

“What is comparative literature?”

As the editor of this book as well as former chairperson of one the best comp lite programs in America, Haun Saussy clearly tries to provide a answer to this unanswerable question. He talks about comp lite as a way of study, as academic institution and discipline(As a method, the logic of com lite is as old as lite itself----as institution, it has a particular origin in the era of nationalism.), talks about its methods, research subjects (identification with methods instead of subject), and so on.

He claims “it so happens that identity is the pivot of our triumph---and our wraithlikeness”, suggests “linguistics of literariness” as a framework of its subjects, and points out that “com lite is best known not as the reading of literature, but as reading literarily.”

Similarly, “Monument and Document” also proclaims the fundamental task of the discipline as learned and imaginative understanding. We may say that these are efforts to set up borderlines of comp lite study, and to define it as a modern academic discipline?

As the editor expected, disagreeing voices exist in this very book, as represented in late philosopher Richard Rorty’s piece. Rorty doubts “literariness”, and holds that “discipline” is dubious, which has history but no essence. He advocates a reduction of disciplinary restrictions over com lite students, leaving them to “follow their nose”, and claims that America’s acceptance of European philosophy through literary study is a historical accident instead of dialectical necessity.

Expressing in a different way, David Ferris, in “Indiscipline”, points out that comp lite is both “meta-discipline” and “counter-discipline”.Its feature of “selflessness” decides that comp lite’s success as a mode of study will right be its disappearance as a discipline.

To certain degree, the book does fulfill its aim of “unity of difference and non-difference”. The authors all agree that comp lite should not be a common discipline, or that it should be a discipline of disciplines. The difference only exists where they disagree about the specific ways of study and education. In this academic world of modern disciplinization, is it really feasible to study so freely as Rorty requires? Is it already time for comp lite to die when it has fulfilled its historical responsibility?

After the collapse of the Babel, could there be a way up to the boundless unity of human thoughts? If there could, will it have to be a modern discipline? What else can it be if not? It’s obvious that comp lite scholars harbor ambitions that cannot be disciplinized, while comp lite is only a name of the nameless, just as this whole book is an answer of the unanswerable.

“What is comparative literature doing?”


Some comparativists advocate that we just ask “what we should do and what we can do” instead of “what we are”. This book does provide a macroscopic picture of what people are doing in this field, with topics covering canonization, feminism, visual arts, music, translation, terrorism and literature, post-colonialism, etc.

The variety of the topics defies any attempt to define the boundaries of comp lite exactly, but Haun Saussy’s proposition of “reading literarily” is not a bad way of seeing the current situation.

There are also authors calling for “equal and just” attention to specific literatures or periods, like the Middle Ages literature. I will not give detailed recount of the arguments.

This book provokes numerous other questions:

What does disciplinary boundary mean? Is it mere obstacle?
What if com lite carry literary study so far as to have no boundaries, no limitations?
What does comp lite’s study have to do with people’s way of perceiving the world and themselves?
What kinds of people can be com lite scholars? Only some genius?

We will be expecting the next report of comp lite to see where and how it is going.