University of Oklahoma

Productive Comparative Angst: Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism

Author(s): Linda Hutcheon
Source: World Literature Today, Vol. 69, No. 2, Comparative Literature: States of the Art
(Spring, 1995), pp. 299-303
Published by: University of Oklahoma
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40151140
Accessed: 05/08/2009 03:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=univokla.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Oklahoma is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World
Literature Today.

http://www.jstor.org
Productive ComparativeAngst:ComparativeLiterature in the Age of
Multiculturalism
By LINDA HUTCHEON The currentexplosion
of interestin the state
of the disciplinecalled
comparative literature may be a sign of institutional
anxiety or intellectualexcitement - or perhapsboth.
The rapidpublicationof the book Comparative Lit-
eraturein the Age of Multiculturalism^ edited by
CharlesBernheimer,1is more than a tribute to the
efficiency and publishing savvy of the Johns Hop-
kins UniversityPress;it is a sign of the urgencyfelt
by comparativiststo rethinkand even to reconfigure
their affiliationsin the light of recent intellectual
and academic realignments.Within a year of the
December 1993 Modern Language Association
convention,at which the newest public debate for-
mally began, this collection of essays has made
availablefor even wider discussion the American
ComparativeLiteratureAssociation's 1993 Bern-
heimer Report entitled "ComparativeLiteratureat
the Turn of the Century."Following on books like
TheComparative on Literature:
Perspective Approaches
to Theoryand Practice?this volume joins a host of
others3in examiningwhat it calls the "anxiogenic"
state of comparativeliteraturein the United States
(and elsewhere)today.
This state of anxiety may well feel familiar to
those who recall Rene Wellek's 1958 worries (in
"The Crisis of ComparativeLiterature")4 about the
lack of both subject matter and methodology in
what many referto by the contraction"CompLit."
Indeed, as Bernheimernotes in his introduction,the
variousshifts in the discipline'sfocus "since World
WarII can be viewed as a seriesof attemptsto cure,
contain, or exploit the anxiety of comparison"(3).
The most recent in this series of attempts was
brought about by that new ACLA document: just
like the Levin Report of 1965 and the Greene Re-
port of 1975, the 1993 BernheimerReport is un-
avoidablythe product of a particulargenerationof
comparativists.5The reprintingin this volume of
these three reportsmakespossible the kind of com-
parison that clearly reveals the generationalshift
Linda Hutcheon is Professorof Englishand ComparativeLit-
eratureat the Universityof Toronto. She is the authorof eight
books, the latest of which is Irony's Edge: The Theoryand Politics
of Irony (1995).
from the Americanizationof the workof those post-
war Europeanemigrephilologistsand literaryhisto-
rians, through to the domestication of what was
called "theory"when it was housed in comparative
literaturedepartments,to the currentquestioningof
the centralityof the "Lit" in CompLit. Tellingly,
perhaps,the first two were called reports"on stan-
dards";the most recent one has been amendedby
the ACLA to bear the title of a reporton "the state
of the discipline."
The second section of ComparativeLiteraturein
the Age of Multiculturalism contains the three re-
sponses to the BernheimerReport- by K. Anthony
Appiah, Mary Louise Pratt, and Michael Riffa-
terre- that were presented for debate at the 1993
MLA convention. The third and largest section is
given over to thirteen "position papers" from re-
spected comparativistsof several generations, re-
spondingin turn not only to the reportsthemselves
but also to the very differentstances taken in the
threeMLA papers.Chosen for the "diversityin crit-
ical perspective and institutional affiliation" (xi)
they represented,these scholarsoffer a wide range
of opinion and position. In short, if you come to
Comparative Literaturein theAge of Multiculturalism
looking for a single answer to any of your worries
about the discipline, or if you are not comfortable
with the postmodern-lyplural and contingent,you
will not find your anxieties lessened by your read-
ing. This is not a book for the faint of (metanarra-
tive) heart.
It is, however, a book for provoking thought,
specificallythought on four majorareas of concern
for comparativiststoday, as reflected in the Bern-
heimerReport:1) the historicalEurocentrismof the
CompLit traditionand its relationto the multicul-
tural reality of the present; 2) the continuingcon-
cerns about the desirabilityof reading- and com-
paring- literaturesin their original languages and
not in translation;3) the position of theory in the
disciplinetoday; 4) the debate between what might
be calledthe "formalists"and the "contextualists" -
or, in institutionalterms, literarystudies versus cul-
turalstudies.
Few would deny that the history of comparative
literaturein North Americais the historyof its Eu-
ropean emigrefoundingfathers;for some, that past
300 WORLDLITERATURE
TODAY
has lived on as a kind of cosmopolitan, "poetic
Euro-chic"6that may still be worn as a " 'classy'de-
signerlabel"today.7While even the 1965 Levin Re-
port stressed the need to transcend that cultural
limitationand the 1975 Greene Report emphasized
the "global"nature of literature,the disciplinehas
nonethelesslargelyremainedbased in Europeanlit-
erary and historical traditions. The essays in this
volume thoughtfullycombat any knee-jerkrejection
of this fact, however. K. Anthony Appiah urges:
"Studythese interconnectedEuropeanliteratures,I
say. They make sense together.They were made for
each other."8However, he goes on, study as well
other interconnectedbodies of writing that cohere
aroundother culturalnotions in other parts of the
world.David Damroschalso remindsus that, in the
face of the enormous scope of comparativelitera-
ture's "mission,"workingwithin only the European
languages may have been, for European-trained
scholars,"less a matterof culturalimperialismthan
it was a melancholyacceptanceof unbridgeablelim-
its."9
The earlyconstructionsof the field- like those of
other fields of literarystudy- have now been called
into questionbecause of their omissions, omissions
made more evidentthroughthe increasinglydiverse
demographicsnot only of North Americansociety
but of the North Americanacademyitself. As an in-
ternationalist discipline, comparative literature
could not remain untouched by the pluralisticde-
mands for canon revisionand the ethical considera-
tions vis-a-vis minoritizedgroups that were part of
the contested academic and intellectualclimate of
the 1980s. In fact, it has faced particularand partic-
ularlytroublesomeproblemsbecause of its compar-
ativefunction.These includedproblemsas different
as accusationsof implied universalism,on the one
hand, and, on the other, chargesof essentializingin
the face of the mimeticimperativethat often accom-
panies notions of authenticity. There have been
problems caused by geopolitical complexities and
the historicalprocesses of globalization,democrati-
zation, and decolonization that are collectively
changinghow literatureand culture have been un-
derstood and studied.10And, of course, there have
been problemscausedby the image of the compara-
tivist as colonizingimperialisttakingover individual
linguisticand literarydomains.
The BernheimerReport'sadvocacyof "a plural-
ized and expanded contextualizingof literarystud-
ies" (11) is one responseto these diverseproblems,
one to which I will returnshortly.But a number of
the contributorsto this volume suggest that com-
parativeliterature,by its very nature, is alreadya
particularly "hospitable space" for what Mary
Louise Pratt calls "the cultivationof multilingual-
ism, polyglossia,the artsof culturalmediation,deep
interculturalunderstanding,and a genuinelyglobal
consciousness"(62). This Utopianview of CompLit
as the "site for powerfulintellectualrenewalin the
study of literatureand culture" (62) is part of its
history too, in a way: in the nervouspostwaryears
of its North Americanfounding,it was seen as rep-
resenting"the spirit of peace, sincerity,reasonable-
ness, and hope."11Inherentlypluralist,CompLit is
argued to be "awareof but not defined by Differ-
ence in all its powerful forms: language, religion,
race, class, and gender."12This idea of the discipline
as "a theoreticalfree space and a more cosmopoli-
tan environmentfor multilingualand multiaccentu-
al community"13goes a long way toward making
comparativeliteratureinto the "humanitiescounter-
partto internationalrelations."14
The dissentingview in the volume is that of those
like Emily Apter who suggest that CompLit's day
may in fact have passed, that now is the time for
postcolonialand not comparativestudies: "Withits
interrogationof culturalsubjectivityand attentionto
the tenuous bonds between identity and national
language, postcolonialism quite naturally inherits
the mantle of comparative literature's historical
legacy."15 WhileApterand othersrejectthat implied
consensualor Utopianmodel in favorof a dissensual
one that would confront First with Third World
cultures, Rey Chow offers an importantreminder:
"Insteadof being a blankspace readyto be adopted
or assimilatedby comparativeliterature,non-West-
ern languageand literatureprogramshavebeen sites
of production of knowledgewhich function along-
side United States State Departmentpolicies vis-a-
vis the particularnations and cultures concerned"
(108). From anotherangle, David Damroschstress-
es the need to historicizeand contextualizeimperial-
ism. Empire is not a recent phenomenon;it is not
only a Europeanone (126).
Postcolonialworkis, of course,being done in na-
tional literaturedepartmentsas well, largelybecause
of its frequentlyunilingualfocus: the culturalpower
of colonialismlives on in language.This bringsme
to the second source of anxietyfor comparativists -
the familiarone of linguisticcompetenceand of the
pedagogicand ethical issues involvedin "engaging"
two or more literaturesadequatelyin their original
languages.The question of the use of translations
has provokeda predictable"elitistversus populist"
debate.16However, multilingualism,as we are re-

minded in this volume, is in itself trans-ideological
in the sense that it can "as easilyservethe agendaof
reactionary politics as it can serve progressive
ones."17Thus., its intrinsicpositive value (assumed
in the Levin and Greene Reports) is called into
question,even as the limits of unilingualismare rec-
ognized:not all literaryconcernscan be satisfactori-
ly investigatedthroughtranslations.ElizabethFox-
Genovese takes a strong stand on this issue, urging
the seekingof alternativesto the use of translations
with its implicit throwingup of hands because "we
are too limited (read imperialist)to appreciateit in
the original"(135). A sensible and attractivealter-
nativeis the one offeredby Damrosch:collaborative
work for scholarsand collaborativetrainingfor stu-
dents (132).
The issue of translationmergeswith that of Euro-
centric critique in the third area of common con-
cern among the contributorsto Comparative Litera-
ture in the Age of Multiculturalism. The ready
availabilityof English versions of the European
structuralistand poststructuralisttheorists'workhas
threatenedCompLit departments'housing of theo-
ry: national literaturedepartmentsof all kinds can
now "do" theory. There is little doubt that the rise
and fall of the institutionalpower and cohesion of
the Yale ComparativeLiteraturegroup has left its
mark on the discipline and, many would argue,
upon the very process of reading. The compara-
tivistswho writefor this volume, however,are divid-
ed in their views of the continuing importanceof
theory to CompLit's self-definition.Yale's current
chairof ComparativeLiterature,Peter Brooks,feels
theory is still the lingua franca of the discipline
(103), and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese feels it would
"be difficultto imaginecomparativeliteraturewith-
out theory, not least since the mere posing of the
comparative problem is inherently theoretical"
(139). Appiah, on the other hand, while agreeing
that theory has been important historically to
CompLit, does not see it as either the goal or the
defininguniquenessof the discipline(53).
The theories of textuality that the Yale School
representedare not, of course, the only components
of what we lump together these days as "theory,"
and that comes throughloud and clear in the posi-
tion paperspublishedin this book. With the increas-
ing importanceof feministtheoryin North America,
a majorinterestin context- social, cultural,histori-
cal, political context- was added to the concern
with textuality.The impact of feminist work dove-
tailed with the theories of Foucault, Bakhtin, and
Benjamin,and of Marxist, postcolonial, New His-
HUTCHEON 301
torical, gay and lesbian (and queer) theorists to
make ideology an unavoidableissue in literarystud-
ies, comparativeor otherwise.One of the results of
this shift of focus has been the rise of a North Amer-
ican version of what in Britain had been dubbed
cultural studies. The BernheimerReport expresses
this shift in quite cautiousterms as a broadeningof
the field of inquirythat "does not mean that com-
parativestudy should abandonthe close analysisof
rhetorical,prosodic, and other formal featuresbut
that textuallyprecise readingsshould take account
as well of the ideological,cultural,and institutional
contexts in which their meanings are produced"
(43).
This may sound like a safe-enoughcompromise,
but the strong reactionsof contributorswould sug-
gest otherwise. While accepting that formal and
contextual studies are necessarily complementary,
Michael Riffaterreassertsthe need to "decontextu-
alize" and focus on the esthetic features of litera-
ture.18Peter Brooks protests the "abjectlyapologic
tone" of the Reportwhich suggeststhat the teaching
of literatureis "an outmoded mandarinpractice"
(99) instead of the study of the "processesby which
meaning is made, the grounds for interpretation"
(101). Warningof the dangers of interdisciplinary
amateurism,Brooks eloquently argues that "real"
interdisciplinarity"comes when thought processes
reachthe point wherethe disciplinaryboundaryone
comes up againstno longermakes sense- when the
internal logic of thinking impels a transgressionof
borderlines.And to the extent that this is teachable
at all, it requiresconsiderableapprenticeshipin the
disciplinethat is to be transcended"(102).
Many contributorsattest to their belief in what
one calls the "valuablespecificity"of literature.19
For some, this is a reasonfor remaining,in Brooks's
terms, a "viable interlocutorto cultural studies,"
one that can insist that "contextualizationsof litera-
ture in ideologicaland culturalterms remainaware
of literature'sinstitutional definitions and of the
uses of poetics and rhetoric in understandingthe
ways in which literaturecreatesmeaningsthat both
resemble and differ from those produced in other
discourses" (103). But need CompLit's position
here merely be one of interlocutor?Has any com-
parativist,even the most formalist,ever reallyread
literatureoutside of some context, as not inextrica-
bly embedded in a vast set of cultural practices?
This is not a rhetoricalquestion;nor is it an utterly
naive one, despite appearances.It points to my gen-
uine puzzlementover what feels like a false dichoto-
my.
302 WORLDLITERATURE
TODAY

The disciplinarytrainingof a comparativist,like preciselywhat the emergingfield of culturalstudies

that of any scholarwho studiesEnglishor Frenchor could most profitfrom. And the seeming expansion
Koreanor Nigerianliterature,teaches us all that in- of the scope of the discipline to include not only
terpretationdoes not happenin a vacuum, that it is high art but also popularcultureis maybemore ap-
always relationaland dynamic. Our literarydisci- parent than real: minimalhistoricizingis needed to
plines may well traffic,not in politicalwisdom, but remind us that Shakespeare'splays were not what
in "metrics,narrativestructure,double, triple and we would now call high art for the entire audience
quadruplemeanings,"as StanleyFish has argued;20 of the Globe Theater, and that writerslike Rabelais
but the analysis of, say, narrative structure just deliberatelychose to write in the vernacular,not in
mighthave to deal with the fact that storiesare writ- Latin.24The monolingualand often parochialnature
ten- and read- in certainways for certain reasons of much cultural-studieswork in the recent past
(conscious or unconscious reasons) in certain con- need not stand as the final definitionof this emerg-
texts at certaintimes. These are the insightsthat our ing field. The additionof the workof comparativists
formaltrainingallowsus to carryforwardto the in- could serveto expandit in significantways.
terpretationof other culturalartifactsor other dis- Comparative literature's major disciplinary
courses. We never stop being comparativeliterature strength and major intellectual attractionhave al-
trainees;our "deformationprofessionnelle"is per- ways seemed to me to lie in a positive version of
manent.At least it is if we have had that training. what Emily Apter considersits "unhomely"quality
(90) and what Bernheimercalls its "qualityof dis-
possession - a kind of hauntingby otherness"(12).
The ACLA documentis not only a reporton the
I remain as worriedas ever, both in pragmaticand
state of researchin the disciplineas it now stands;it
in political terms, about its vast scope- even vaster
is a provocativechallengeto broaden the scope of
in this new definition "chargedwith the study of
what we teach in CompLitdepartments.Like many discourses and cultural
of us, the Report's authorswere formed and "de- productions of all sorts
throughout the entireworld."25 1 also sharemany of
formed"as comparativists;they have that to build the contributors'worriesabout the
possible institu-
upon and to deploy in new areas. The inevitable tional consequencesof a move outwardfrom the lit-
danger for our students in broadeningwhat is al- erary:in these days of financialconstraints,unstable
ready an impossiblybroad discipline is the loss of disciplinaryboundaries can mean unstable fund-
any useful and distinctivetraining,even in skills of ing.26Of course, the inherentversatilityof compara-
interpretation.The result, lamentsAppiah,may not tivists can also mean the kind of institutionalflexi-
be interdisciplinaritybut "an unstructured post- bilitythat could spell survival.27
modernhodge-podge"(57). This is a warningwe as If you have evertaughtor been taughtin a Comp-
teachersmust heed- for our students' sakes. But I Lit program,you will know that comparatistsmay
still do not think the institutionalor pedagogic an- appearto have little in common with one another:
swer is to leave culturalstudies to the nationallan- "As a discipline with no common body of knowl-
guage and literature departments - where cultural edge other than literarystudies, and without a cen-
specificitymay indeed make such a focus logical. tral purpose except to carry out its astringentor
This is JonathanCuller's solution, one that would stimulantmotions, comparativeliteratureappearsto
leave comparativiststo study "literaturecompara- invite misunderstandingeven from its own familyof
tively"and attempt"to attend to its global manifes- scholars."28But what ComparativeLiteraturein the
tations."21But the question of cultural specificity Age of Multiculturalism revealsis that any such mis-
will not go awayso easily- eitheras a problemor as understandingis part of the intellectualvitality of
a temptation- for those engagingmore than one lit- the field and part of the continualself-criticismof a
erary or culturaltradition.22 Culture is no more or protean discipline that has never been willing (or
less "translatable" than literature.Culture,like liter- able) to fix its self-definition.That is what is frus-
ature,is a matterof form as much as of content.23 tratingabout CompLit,but it is also what attracted
The BernheimerReport had advised caution for many of us to it. The ACLA, as an importantpro-
comparative literature vis-a-vis cultural studies, fessional voice for comparativiststudies, has pro-
"wheremost scholarshiphas tended to be monolin- voked productiveand continuingdebate on the fu-
gual and focused on issues in specific contemporary ture of the discipline through the Bernheimer
popular cultures"(45). But the historicalcommit- Report. This is not the last word, of course. There
ment of comparativestudies, conjoined with the can, luckily,be no last word on this subject.
archival work of historians themselves, might be Universityof Toronto
 HUTCHEON 303

1
ComparativeLiteraturein the Age of Multiculturalism, ed. questionswhethersuch a worthysocial aim, however,is an ade-
CharlesBernheimer,Baltimore,JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress, quateor even appropriatefoundationfor a discipline.
1995. Most page referencesto this volumewill appearin paren- 12Ed Ahearnand Arnold
Weinstein,"The Function of Criti-
thesesin the text. Subsequentreferencesin the notes will use the cism at the PresentTime: The Promiseof ComparativeLitera-
abbreviationCL. ture,"in CL, p. 78. They go on to note: "Thereis no periodor
2 The on Literature: to Theory
Comparative Perspective Approaches place of artisticproductionwhich is not similarlymixed, cross-
and Practice,eds. Clayton Koelb and Susan Noakes, Ithaca, cultural,cross-pollinated.Virginliteratures,like the virginland,
N.Y., CornellUniversityPress, 1988. are a myth. Comparativists arethe peopletrainedto bringus this
3See Borderwork: FeministEngagements withComparative Liter- news"(79).
ature,ed. MargaretR. Higonnet,Ithaca,N.Y., CornellUniversi- 13
Mary Russo, "Telling Tales Out of School: Comparative
ty Press, 1994; Buildinga Profession: Autobiographical
Perspectives Literatureand DisciplinaryRecession,"in CL,p. 189.
on the Beginningsof Comparative Literaturein the UnitedStates, 14AhearnandWeinstein, 81.
p.
eds. Lionel Gossmanand MihaiI. Spariosu,Albany,N.Y., State 15
Emily Apter, "ComparativeExile: CompetingMarginsin
Universityof New York Press, 1994; and the recent translation the History of ComparativeLiterature,"in CL, p. 86. Further
by ColaFranzenof ClaudioGuillen'sbook TheChallenge of Com- pagereferenceswill appearin parenthesesin the text.
parativeLiterature,Cambridge,Ma., HarvardUniversityPress, 16See Elizabeth
Fox-Genovese, "BetweenElitism and Pop-
1993. ulism:WhitherComparativeLiterature?" in CL, p. 134. Further
4Rene Wellek, "The Crisis of
ComparativeLiterature,"in pagereferenceswill be in parenthesesin the text.
Concepts ed. StephenNichols, New Haven, Ct., Yale
of Criticism, 17Chow, 110.
p.
UniversityPress, 1963. 18Michael Riffaterre,"On the
Complementarityof Compara-
5For a detailed considerationof these tive Literatureand CulturalStudies,"in CL,pp. 67, 70.
generationalchanges,
see RolandGreene,"TheirGeneration,"in CL,pp. 143-54. 19FrancoiseLionnet,
"Spacesof Comparison,"in CL, p. 172.
6Peter Brooks,"MustWe
Apologize?"in CL, p. 97. Further Furtherpagereferenceswill appearin parenthesesin the text.
referenceswill be in parenthesesin the text. 20
StanleyFish, "WhyLiteraryCriticismIs Like Virtue,"Lon-
7
Rey Chow, "Inthe Name of ComparativeLiterature,"in CL, donReviewofBooks,10 June 1993, p. 12.
p. 107. Furtherpage referenceswill appearin parenthesesin the 21JonathanCuller,
"ComparativeLiterature,at Last!"in CL,
text. p. 121.
8K. 22See the
AnthonyAppiah,(iGeistStories,"in CL,p. 54. importantpoints madeby MarjoriePerloff,"'Litera-
9David Damrosch,
"LiteraryStudy in an EllipticalAge," in ture'in the ExpandedField,"in CL,p. 180; Damrosch,p. 123.
CL,p. 130. Furtherpage referenceswill appearin parenthesesin 23See Siebers, 196-97.
pp.
the text. 24Lionnet, 172.
p.
10 25Culler, 117.
MaryLouisePratt,"Comparative Literatureand GlobalCit- p.
izenship,"in CL, p. 59. Furtherpage referenceswill appearin 26See Perloff, 182.
p.
parenthesesin the text. 27Russo, 193.
p.
11Tobin Siebers, 28Greene, 145.
"SincerelyYours," in CL, p. 195. Siebers p.