CLCWeb: Comparative
Literature and Culture: A WWWeb Journal ISSN
1481-4374
CLCWeb Library of Research and Information ...
CLCWeb Contents
1.3 (September 1999)
<http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/clcweb99-3/totosy99.html> © Purdue
University Press
Steven TÖTÖSY de ZEPETNEK
Author's profile: Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/totosycv.html> works in comparative culture and media studies. His published work includes
arcticles and books in the areas of literary and culture theory, modern and
contemporary European and North American fiction, ethnic monority writing, audience
studies and readership, film and literature, etc. His most recent book is Comparative
Literature: Theory, Method, Application (1998). Among other projects, he is now working on an intellectual and institutional
history of the discipline of comparative literature, a theoretical framework
and methodology for comparative cultural studies as well as the framework's
application to various areas of literature and culture. The paper below is forthcoming in the Purdue University Press monograph series volume Comparative Literature and Comparative Cultural Studies (Ed. Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek), see at <http://www.thepress.purdue.edu/series/compstudies.asp >. E-mail: <clcweb@purdue.edu>.
From Comparative Literature Today toward
Comparative Cultural Studies
1. Historically, the comparative perspective
and method has proven itself indispensable in many disciplines and established
itself accordingly intellectually as well as institutionally. For example, in
a review of the recent volume, The Comparative Imagination: On the History
of Racism, Nationalism, and Social Movements by George M. Fredrickson (1997),
it is argued that the comparative perspective "give[s] us a good opportunity
for assessing how comparative history can contribute to modern knowledge ...
in The Comparative Imagination, Fredrickson welcomes the increasing tendency
of historians of the United States to write from a "comparative perspective
... by using foreign examples to explain what is distinctive about American
society" (Thompson 48; incidently, Fredrickson explains that before his turn
to history, he pursued the study of comparative literature [Fredrickson 8]).
In the humanities, it has been established sufficiently and often enough that
the discipline of comparative literature has intrinsically a content and form
which facilitate the cross-cultural and interdisciplinary study of literature
and culture. As well, it is generally accepted in scholarship that the discipline
has a history that substantiated its intrinsic aims and objectives in content
and in practice. Predicated on the borrowing of methods from other disciplines
and on the application of the appropriated method to areas of study single-language
literary study more often than not tends to neglect, the discipline is difficult
to define however, because it is fragmented and pluralistic, non-self-referential
and inclusive.
2. As a comparatist, I find it irritating that
approaches and subject areas in cultural studies purport to be innovative when
in fact the same areas have been studied under similar terms in comparative
literature (for the argument that comparative literature historically included
many aspects of current cultural studies, see, for example, Daniel and Peck
16-17; Straw 89; Tötösy 1994). And I consider this practice a misleading
and misdirected act in scholarship. With regard to the current situation of
cultural studies, it is also known among comparatists and among a critical mass
of scholars working in the humanities -- although rarely acknowledged publicly
-- that the discipline of comparative literature is rich in its history with
regard to both theory and practice of much of what cultural studies is about
today. Areas of study such as popular culture or film and literature have a
long history of incisive work in comparative literature, for example. It is
true, however, that cultural studies often presents new theoretical approaches
(more often than not borrowed similarly to comparative literature), methods,
terminologies, and rhetorical content which when applied result in innovative
work in the study of culture. In consequence, I accept the currency of cultural
studies and I am aware of the intellectual and institutional difficulties comparative
literature, in contrast, is experiencing globally while cultural studies has
acquired both intellectual and institutional standing. Thus, for political reasons
but which are at the same time parallel to intellectual bases and considerations,
I intend to explore the viability of enriching and developing both fields of
study, that of comparative literature and that of cultural studies. This theory
construction involves the merger of aspects of comparative literature and cultural
studies into a new approach I designate as "comparative cultural studies." In
this article, for reasons implicit in my statement above, namely that comparative
literature has had contributed significantly to literary studies, I argue that
it also has much to offer to cultural studies. In my discussion, I begin with
a description of some aspects of the current situation of comparative literature
from which I will then proceed to a draft proposal of a framework for "comparative
cultural studies." In principle, comparative cultural studies is conceived as
an approach -- to be developed eventually to a full-fledged framework -- containing
(for now) three areas of theoretical content: 1) To study literature (text and/or
literary system) with and in the context of culture and the discipline of cultural
studies; 2) In cultural studies itself to study literature with borrowed elements
(theories and methods) from comparative literature; and 3) To study culture
and its composite parts and aspects in the mode of the proposed "comparative
cultural studies" approach instead of the currently reigning single-language
approach dealing with a topic with regard to its nature and problematics in
one culture only. In this schema of theoretical components the study of literature
is not privileged although for now because of my own interests I confer focus
on literature. In other words, the discipline of comparative cultural studies
would implicitly and explicitly disrupt the established hierarchy of cultural
products and production similarly to the disruption cultural studies itself
has performed. Among others, the suggestion is to pluralize and parallelize
the study of culture without hierarchization.
An International History of the Discipline
of Comparative Literature
3. With regard to the history of the discipline
of comparative literature, it is surprising that a truly international and synthetic
history of the discipline -- a description of its history within the larger
field of literary studies as well as the history of theories and methodologies
within comparative literature and with a description of the discipline's institutional
history and making -- is yet to be written. Curiously, apart from usually short
descriptive studies such as chapter two in the early volume by Ulrich Weisstein, Einführung in die Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft (1968) or
chapter one in Claudio Guillén's The Challenge of Comparative Literature (1993), or, in German, the chapter "Zu Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Komparatistik," in Peter V. Zima and Johann Strutz's Komparatistik: Einführung in die
Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft (1992) or brief descriptions of comparative
literature within national borders such as those in the recent collected volume
of Tania Franco Carvalhal, ed., Comparative Literature World Wide: Issues
and Methods (1997) or as in the Italian volume by Armando Gnisci and Francesca
Sinopoli, eds., Comparare i comparatismi. La comparatistica letteraria oggo
in Europa e nel mondo (1995), the history of the discipline is available
only in this fragmented form. There are also some volumes such as Arno Kappler's Der literarische Vergleich. Beiträge zu einer Vorgeschichte der Komparatistik (1976) or specific histories such as Peter Theodor Leithmann's Moriz
Carriere and the Development of Comparative Literature (1977). However,
these studies, similar to the article-length type I mentioned above, offer a
partial and limited view of the history of the discipline at best (for a selected
international bibliography of histories and theories of comparative literature,
see Tötösy 1999 <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/library/clitbib1-99.html>;
for a shortlist of recently published volumes in comparative literature, see
Tötösy 1999 <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/library/booklist.html>;
for a long list of works in comparative literature, see Tötösy 1999 <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/library/clitbib2-99.html>).
4. There are "supplementary" types of material
which would also be important for a synthetic international history of comparative
literature. For example, personal histories such as Lionel Gossmann and Mihail
I. Spariosu, eds., Building a Profession: Autobiographical Perspectives on
the Beginnings of Comparative Literature in the United States (1994; with
articles by Wellek, Levin, Lange, Greene, Rosenmeyer, Holdheim, Balakian, Guerard,
Hart, Furst, Perloff, Lindenberger, Gillespie, Corngold, Gossmann, Spariosu)
or descriptions of various conferences in comparative literature such as Marko
Juvan's "Thematics and Intellectual Content: The XVth Triennial Congress of
the International Comparative Literature Association in Leiden" (see Juvan at <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/clcweb99-1/juvan99.html>)
or my own "Comparative Literature and Applied Cultural Studies, Or, a
Report About the XIVth Triennial Congress of the ICLA/AILC (University of Alberta,
August 1994)" (Tötösy 1994). As well, there is a marked need of institutional
histories of comparative literature in both national and international contexts
(for a selection of sources, see Kirby 197-203).
5. The usual process of presenting histories
of comparative literature in all of the above mentioned volumes and in all others
is in the context of and limited to national borders, that is, comparative literature
in Germany, in France, in the United States, in China, etc. While this is the
approach I would like to circumvent in an international history of comparative
literature I am working on now, I realize that it is indeed easier to proceed
in the national model. And when I myself, in this article, present examples
of a renaissance of comparative literature in various "peripheral" countries
(see below), I present these examples by listing countries (because it is easier
to do so). However, I would like to point out with utmost conviction that this
is not the best approach. A more "comparatist" model would be to discuss the
histories of comparative literature with regard to their cultural and regional
settings, their sources of theory and method, and so on. One useful approach
would be, I propose, to present a description of the history of the discipline
based on a regional approach where "region" is understood as a specific cultural
environment, a system of communication incl. a specific environment of scholarship
historically and linguistically determined (and I hope to be able to present
such an international and synthetic history of the discipline in my forthcoming
work).
Comparative Literature Today
6. In my observation, compressed here in a
brief overview, the following developments can be observed in comparative literature
from a global perspective of the last ten to fifteen years: 1) The appropriation
of theory by cultural studies and English and the consequent reduction of the
area of activity by comparative literature, tied to the diminishing institutional
stability of the discipline of comparative literature in the traditional centres
of the discipline (USA and Europe); 2) The development of a comparative European
literature; 3) The emerging of comparative literature in "peripheral" geo-cultural
spaces of scholarship; 4) The "Americanization" of comparative literature; and
5) The potential development of comparative literature with/within new media.
In the following, I will proceed in my discussion with a focus on selected points
from the above five points, with the plan to eventually develop my discussion
and proposals in forthcoming publications. With regard to my second observation,
namely the development of a comparative European literature, I take my point
of departure with George Steiner. When Steiner gave his inaugural lecture as
Lord Widenfeld Professor of European Comparative Literature at Oxford University
in 1994, he presented a paper entitled "What is Comparative Literature?" First,
Steiner described how "every act of reception of significant form, in language,
in art, in music, is comparative" (1) and he argued that "from their inception,
literary studies and the arts of interpretation have been comparative" (3).
True, especially today, after literary theory has become mainstream and in the
era of cultural studies, this position is hard to refute. Steiner proceeds to
say that "I take comparative literature to be, at best, an exact and exacting
art of reading, a style of listening to oral and written acts of language which
privileges certain components in these acts. Such components are not neglected
in any mode of literary study, but they are, in comparative literature, privileged"
(9). If I understand Steiner correctly, he is referring here to that traditional
form of comparative literature where the knowledge of foreign languages for
the scholar of comparative literature is an essential factor. Fair enough and
I agree with him. He then outlines three specific areas which are essential
features of the discipline in his opinion: 1) "It aims to elucidate the quiddity,
the autonomous core of historical and present 'sense of the world' (Husserl's Weltsinn) in the language and to clarify, so far as is possible, the
conditions, the strategies, the limits of reciprocal understanding and misunderstanding
as between languages. In brief, comparative literature is an art of understanding
centred in the eventuality and defeats of translation" (10), 2) the "primacy
of the matter of translation in comparative literature relates directly to what
I take to be the second focus" (11), and 3) "Thematic studies form a third `centre
of gravity' in comparative literature" (13). Steiner's argument, clearly, hinges
on the knowledge of foreign languages and on the matter of subject matter, that
is, themes, which are universal, at least in principle. While I agree with Steiner
that this knowledge is an essential and basic aspect of the discipline, I find
his argument seriously lacking. For, as we know, the knowledge of foreign languages
is not necessarily a privilege of comparatists, i.e., there are many scholars
in literary studies in English departments or in other national language departments
who do speak and work with other languages. In my opinion, the distinctive feature
of comparative literature is cumulative, that is, including interlinked
factors such as the knowledge of foreign languages with an inclusionary ideology
(the attention to alterité) tied to precise methodology (for an
elaboration, see Tötösy, Comparative Literature 13-23). Curiously,
Steiner does not mention methodology either explicitly or implicitly in his
argumentation and thus this part of his position is hardly defendable in the
present situation of the discipline.
7. In the USA, the much discussed Charles Bernheimer
volume of collected articles, Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism (1995; with articles by Appiah, Pratt, Riffaterre, Apter, Bernheimer, Brooks,
Chow, Culler, Damrosch, Fox-Genovese, Greene, Higonnet, Lionnet, Perloff, Russo,
Siebers, Weinstein), is in several ways similar to Steiner's arguments. With
particular attention to what I find of importance, namely theory and methodology,
the vast majority of contributors to the volume do not mention methodology either
implicitly or explicitly. Of course, the main and most important feature of
the volume is its aspects of and call for politically based ideology of inclusion.
And the question of methodology does not appear in most comparative literature
textbooks or works of today either. Perhaps this is for the reason that comparative
literature, either as the translation of literatures and cultures (as in a conceptual
and ideological translation and/or as as actual translation) or as a cross-cultural
inclusionary ideology and practice is assumed to be a methodology per se. While
I accept this as a historical argument and as an essential characteristic in
the same historical context, I propose that this is not enough to justify the
discipline today. And the fact that the comparative approach without explicit
methodology is not enough to convince scholars today is evident, for instance,
in an article entitled "Why Comparisons Are Odious" by the editor of Critical
Inquiry, W.J.T. Mitchell, in 1996, in his response to the 1995 topical issue
of World Literature Today, Comparative Literature: States of the Art. I would even argue that Steiner's proposal of a comparative European literature
-- as coming from an internationally reputed scholar whose work otherwise without
doubt has been influential -- manifests in some ways a certain regression. In
contrast, Hugo Dyserinck situated comparative literature a decade earlier, in
1985, in two major areas, "1) A comparative history of literature, involving
the mutual relations, as well as the similarities and differences, between individual
literatures" and "2) A comparative theory and methodology of literature, dealing
with literary theories developed in individual countries (or linguistic areas)
and with corresponding methods of literary criticism" (xvii). In principle,
the second point is closer to my own contention that in comparative literature
one ought to state at all times a clearly and precisely described method which
then is applied. And there are of course some good examples of such as in Dyserinck's
theoretical and applied work, imagology, which has evolved since its early days
in the 1960s and 1970s into a full-blown field of imagology with many studies
where the framework has been applied successfully (see Joep Leersen's imagology
material and bibliography at <http://www.hum.uva.nl/images>).
There are some areas, however, where Steiner's argumentation corresponds to
both Dyserinck's first area of comparative literature (literary history) and
to Susan Bassnett's or André Lefevere's proposal that the discipline
may be saved by such areas of study, among others, as the study of translation:
see Bassnett's Comparative Literature: A Critical Introduction (1993)
and Lefevere's Translating Literature: Practice and Theory in a Comparative
Literature Context (1992). In Steiner's proposal this is located in the "dissemination and reception of literary works across time and place" (11),
further specified in the study of "who reads, who could read what and when?
(12). This area of scholarship, indeed, I find promising, especially when defined
as the area of "sociology and history of reading and readership" I propose in
my own work (see, for example, Tötösy, Comparative Literature
43-78).
8. The notion of a comparative European literature
is also prominent in French comparative literature. Among the publications of
recent years, in particular the collected volume of Béatrice Didier,
ed., Précis de Littérature Européenne (1998) and
Didier Souiller and Wladimir Troubetzkoy, eds., Littérature comparée
(1997) propagate the said notion championed by Steiner. The Précis
de Littérature Européenne is divided into sections of methods,
space, periods, and genres. In the first section, methods, the volume contains
several articles discussing in various ways and from several points of view
the notion of a the theory of comparative European literature and the topics
range from the problematics of the study of European literature, the history
of a European literature, the comparative history of myth in European literature,
the question of European literature and social classes, European cultures and
interdisciplinarity, the publishing history, libraries, and the reading of literature
in Europe, and the history of the teaching of literatures in Europe. As the
editor of the volume, Didier, announces and argues for, the volume is about
comparative European literature. However, the definition of a European literature
encompasses mainstream literatures and cultures (which I would call canonization
one) and within the mainstream canonized texts and authors (which I would call
canonization two). There are a few articles which deal with marginal, minor,
or peripheral literatures and cultures in Europe, such as Jiddish and Arabic
and there are two articles which argue "pour une littérature qui ne se
limite pas à celle des 'langues courantes'" (185-89) and for the "place
des littératures régionales en Europe" (191-98). Overall however,
the general tone of the articles emanates from a national approach to literatures
and cultures and the notion that in a unified Europe each literature and culture
becomes "regional" is untouched and implicitly rejected. The approach and tone
in the Souiller and Troubetzkoy volume is similar. In other words, there is
an implicit and at times explicit hierarchy in the approach, which then stretches
also to the methodologies discussed and presented. Here, comparative literature
is based on the premise of national literatures which then can be and should
be compared to each other and that the comparisons rest on the canon of mainstream
literatures and cultures as well as on the canon of specific authors writing
in the mainstream languages and cultures. Granted, it is difficult to argue
for a divorce of literature from national bases and it takes some work to do
this: Souiller and Troubetzkoy and the contributors to the Didier volume offer
studies where the focus on national literatures -- compared or not -- is mediated
by attention to genres or themes, for instance. However, overall both volumes
are in a traditional mode of literary study and they do not take into account
the newer developments of cultural studies, feminism, multiculturalism, or any
such. There are also a number of programs in comparative literature where the
notion of comparative European literature is established.
9. With regard to my observation that comparative
European literature is, in principle, based on the premise of national literatures
and that this represents anew an entrapment in the national paradigm, there
is a further aspect I would like to mention briefly. This is the problem of
national self-referentiality within the scholarship of comparative European
literature. For example, in the above mentioned volumes of Souiller and Troubetzkoy
and Didier, such volumes as Margaret R. Higonnet's collected volume Borderwork:
Feminist Engagements with Comparative Literature (1994; with articles by
Lionnet, Brodzki, Rajan, Metzger, Cullens, Vlasopolos, Higonnet, Hirsch, Miller,
Gölz, Malti-Douglas, Gaard, Goodwin, Clark, Snaider Lanser, and Nnaemeka)
are not cited and referred to. Obviously, I am not criticising the fact that
a particular text was not cited. Rather, my observation brings me to the following
additional factor with regard to national self-referentiality in scholarship,
comparative European or other. Whether it is German or French oriented comparative
literature, most work concentrates on "home-grown" sources, that is, in the
case of French works on French sources and in the case of German works on German
sources while North American works pay attention to at least mainstream French
and German sources (although rarely to any other). I think it is precisely in
comparative literature where the notion of "theory approximation" should be
a standard: when a theoretical framework, method, or theme is discussed, attention
must be paid to similar and/or analogous frameworks in a range of languages
and cultures (see Tötösy, Comparative Literature 215-20).
10. In principle, I do not object to a comparative
European literature if it constitutes method but I do object to it if it is
implicitly or explicitly ideological and based on perceived or real hierarchies
and curiously by keeping to the "national" agenda. In an odd twist, there is
further potential in comparative European literature and that is to counteract
the often criticized Eurocentrism of comparative literature itself. Although
I did not find any reference to this most obvious aspect of a comparative European
literature, I assume that the focus on a truly inclusive study of all European
literatures would make the criticism of Eurocentrism in this specific new designation
redundant and paradoxical. At the same time -- as with reference to what I said
above about national self-referentiality in scholarship and the national basis
of a comparative European literature -- a new geo-political focus no matter
how much on the surface aesthetically oriented would also include somewhat of
a logical lapsus with regard to the established parameters of comparative literature;
regardless of the truth of the criticism that the discipline -- or rather some
of its practitioners -- have indeed often been and are Eurocentric.
11. Next, I would like to briefly elaborate
on my third observation of comparative literature today, namely that there is
an emerging of comparative literature in some corners of the globe, geo-cultural
spaces which in the politics of education and scholarship one would understand
as "peripheral" areas. I would like to note that in some but not all cases this
"peripheral" situation of education and scholarship overlaps with economics
and technology while in some it does not. The said emerging of comparative literature
is of some interest from several points of view, such as the sociology of knowledge,
the current situation and history of literary studies, and the general status
and situation of the humanities, etc., and including for and in the history
of the discipline itself. This emerging appears to take place despite Bassnett's
statement in her Comparative Literature: A Critical Introduction that "today, comparative literature in one sense is dead" (47). This development
-- perhaps as a quasi implicit structural response to the Anglo-American situation
as perceived by Bassnett -- is not occurring in the traditional geographical
and cultural loci and mainstream of the discipline such as the United States,
France, or Germany (although, I should add in a context of differentiation and
with an eye on the particular that disrupts generalizations, some universities
in states of the former East Germany such as Halle-Wittenberg, Franfurt/Oder,
Frankfurt/Main, and Erfurt appear to be interested in establishing new chairs
of comparative literature). While Bassnett may be right that comparative literature
in the traditional centres -- France, Germany, the United States -- is undergoing
both intellectual and institutional changes and a certain loss of intellectual
as well as institutional position owing to factors such as the takeover of theory
by English, the impact of cultural studies, the diminishing number of comparative
literature professorships, etc., this loss of presence is occurring in the centres
of the discipline and with regard to its own natural context of Eurocentrism
and Euro-American centre. Clearly, Bassnett's pronouncement of the death of
comparative literature is exactly from that Eurocentrism she otherwise attempts
to subvert and to oppose in her work. And thus, curiously, Bassnett pays no
attention to the strong development of the discipline and the promise its holds
outside of the discipline's traditional centres: in the last two decades comparative
literature has shown much promise in some countries and cultures where the discipline
has not been very strong or, in some cases, in existence at all before. As I
mentioned earlier, interestingly, while the traditional centres of the discipline
-- the ménage-à-trois of France, Germany, and the United
States -- are at best able to maintain a status quo of the discipline, in Mainland
China, Taiwan, Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece,
universities in the states of the former East Germany, etc., the discipline
is emerging and developing strongly and this can be gauged by the emergence
of new comparative literature journals, new chairs in comparative literature,
a marked increase in publications, etc. And it is not without reason and in
my view well based and logical reasons that colleagues from Spain and Italy,
for example, write to me that in their view the insistence of the International
Comparative Literature Association to maintain English and French as the official
languages of the association is wrong, colonial, outdated, etc., because if
French than why not Spanish, German, Chinese, and ALL the other languages. Consequently,
they argue, only English should be the official language -- as our present lingua
franca -- with many other languages allowed for presentation if there is an
audience and interest.
12. Following my argument -- in relation to
my above third observation of the current situation of comparative literature
-- namely that we must pay attention to the situation of the discipline of comparative
literature not only in the centres but also (or perhaps mainly) in the "peripheries,"
here are a few examples of recent work published in comparative literature in
the "peripheries":
13. In Portugal, the Portuguese Comparative
Literature Association brought out its second series of publications emanating
from the recently founded annual comparative literature conferences, Margarida
L. Losa, Isménia de Sousa, and Gonçalo Vilas-Boas, eds., Literatura
Comparada: Os Novos Paradigmas (1996; with articles by Lopes, Carlos, Clüver,
Segers, Ramalhete, Opitz, Cadete, Martins, Delgado Mingochio, Braga Neves, Sousa,
Capinha, Coutinho, Silva, Pires, Ferreira Duarte, Lam, Carvalho Homem, Barrento,
Almeida Flor, Bastos, Teixeira Anacleto, Sequeira, Ferreira Hörster, Carvalho,
Hüsgen, Fátima Gil, Keating, Schmidt, Rusch, Viehoff, Zurbach, Schreier,
Halász, Esteves, Leal, Ribeiro, Ibsch, Tötösy, Seixo, Paiva
Monteiro, Kushner, Moser, Fokkema, Bulger, Silva, Grossegesse, Reis, Carvalhal,
Esperança Pina, Laranjinha, Barros Dias, Moreira, Guincho, Lago, Alves,
Carneiro, Simöes, Jorge, Sarmento, Alves, Coelho, Novakovi, Azevedo, Cordeiro,
Silva, Matos Frias, Gil, Conrado, Pina, Lemos, Medeiros, Cunha-Pereira).
14. In Brazil, we have the collected volume
of Tania Franco Carvalhal, ed., Comparative Literature World Wide: Issues
and Methods (1997) with articles on comparative literature in the USA by
Gillespie, in Brazil by Souza and Miranda, in France by Chevrel, in Canada by
Kushner, in Romania by Cornea, in Portugal by Buescu, in Uruguay by Behar, in
Hungary by Szegedy-Maszák, in Korea by Hyun, in Argentina by Palermo,
in the Low countries by Van Gorp and Neubauer, in Greece by Siaflekis, in China
by Yue, and in Spain by Gual. It appears that comparatists in Brazil are also
very active with annual conferences for the discipline. As well, Brazilian comparatists
take an active role within the executive of the International Comparative Literature
Association.
15. In Spain -- a particularly active area
of comparative literature today -- several books and manuals of comparative
literature are of note. There are, for example, Dolores Romero López,
ed., Orientaciones em literatura comparada (1997; with articles by Bassnett,
Chevrel, Culler, Fokkema, Gillespie, Kushner, Marino, Prawer, Remak, Swiggers,
Tötösy), Maria José Vega and Neus Carbonell, eds. Literatura
comparada. Principios y métodos (1998; with articles by Texte, Croce,
Gayley, Baldensperger, Van Tieghem, Wellek, Remak, Fokkema, Ruprecht, Laurette,
Chaitin, Chevrier, Ashcroft-Gareth-Tiffin, Gnisci, Sniader Lanser, Lefevere,
Tötösy), Dolores Romero López's Una relectura del "fin de
siglo" en el marco de la litteratura comparade" teoría y praxis (1998),
and Claudio Guillén's Múltiples moradas. Ensayo de literatura
comparada (1998) (for a review of these volumes, see Zambrano at <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/clcweb99-2/books99-2.html>),
Darío Villanueva's collected volume, Avances en... teoría de
la literature (1994; with articles by Villanueva, Iglesias Santos, Jauss,
Manteiga Pouse, Cabo Aseguinolaza, Casas, Even-Zohar). Although not specifically
comparative literature, most material in Montserrat Iglesias Santos's Teoría
de los Polisistemas (1999; with articles by Dimic, Even-Zohar, Lambert,
Robyns, Shavit, Sheffy, Toury, Yahalom). As well, the University of Huelva publishes
a new comparative literature journal since 1997, Exemplaria: Revista Internacional
de Literatura Comparada.
16. In Argentina, we have the special issue
of Filología 30.2 (1997), Literaturas comparadas, with
translated articles by Antelo, Bernheimer, Gilman, Rodríguez Pérsico,
Tötösy, Mignolo, Aguilar, Campos, Rabaté, Merkel, Spiller,
Matamoro, Gárate, Chicote, Guido, Iribarren, Gamerro, and Muschietti.
The latter volume is interesting because it contains a mixture of foreign and
domestic authors while most other such volumes I cited above contain translated
work. Further, there are the volumes with selected papers from the second and
third conferences of the AALC: Asociacion Argentina de Literature Comparada
of 1997 and 1998.
17. In Australia there is the new University
of Sydney World Literature Series with volume one by Mabel Lee and Meng Hua,
eds., Cultural Dialogue and Misreading (1997; with articles by Gillespie,
Cornea, Dev, Valdés, Fokkema, Ersu, Yue, Gu, Qian, Siaflekis, Findeisen,
Lee, Qin, Didier, Wang, Szegedy-Maszák, Coutinho, Blodgett, Boening,
Veit, Van Gorp, Shen, Zhang, Detrie, Moura, Neubauer, Wang, Tanaka, Schmeling,
Seixo, Bessière, Losa, Tao, Kaes, Larsen, Segers, D'Haen, Meng, Klein,
André, Tötösy, Hyun, Valdés, Carvalhal, Kelson, Sondrup,
Song, Guo, Cao) and volume two by Mabel Lee and A.D. Syrokomla-Stefanowska,
eds., Literary Intercrossings: East Asia and the West (1998; with articles
by Gibbins, Hasegawa, Yihuang, Leal, Lee, Lee, Lee, Quinzhang, Matsui, Nakayama,
Odagiri, Ota, Qian, Sugawara, Takachi, Walker, Wang, Wang, Wong, Yip, Yoon).
Further volumes in the series are planned.
18. In Holland -- a traditionally strong area
of comparative literature -- we have the Festschrift in honour of comparatist
Douwe Fokkema by Harald Hendrix, Joost Kloek, Sophie Levie, and Will van Peer,
eds. The Search for a New Alphabet: Literary Studies in a Changing World (1996; with articles by Andringa, Bertens, Bessière, Behar, Boeft, Bons,
Brandsma, Bronzwaer, Carvalhal, Chang, Chevrel, Coetze, Dev, Dijkstra, Doleel,
Enkvist, Gillespie, Glas, Goedegebuure, Gorp, Gräbe, Ibsch, Janaszek-Ivaniková,
Kushner, Lambert, Lange, Lernhout, Livingston, Miner, Moerbeek, Mooij, Musarra-Schroeder,
Neubauer, Ben-Porat, Rigney, Ruiter, Runte, Schmidt, Segers, Seixo, Shen, Steinmetz,
Stralen, Strydom, Suleiman, Szegedy-Maszák, Thüsen, Tötösy,
Turk, Valdés, Coller, Vervliet, Viehoff, Vlasselaers, Wang, Weisgerber,
Wesseling, Wiersma, Yuan, Yue, Zwaan).
19. In Mainland China and Hong Kong -- among
publications in Western languages -- we have Yue Daiyun and Alain Le Pichon,
eds. La Licorne et le dragon. Les Malentendus dans la recherche de l'universel
(1995; with articles by Yue, Eco, Le Goff, Rey, Danchin, Pichon, Hua, Peng,
Shen, Tang, Wang, Sun, Chen, Zhou, Sun, Wang, Teng, Tang, Zhou, Qian, Chun)
and the volume New Perspectives: A Comparative Literature Yearbook (1995;
with articles by Liu, Yue, Lee, Mi, Jun, Lee, Ding, Tatlow; for a recent description
of the situation of comparative literature in Taiwan and the Mainland today,
see also Tötösy 1997).
20. In Italy we have the collected volumes
of Armando Gnisci and Franca Sinopoli, Comparare i comparatismi. La comparatistica
letteraria oggi in Europa e nel mondo (1995) and Manuale storico di letteratura
comparata (1997). The 1995 Italian volume is also of some interest for the
following reason. It is common knowledge that in Italy the mastery or even interest
in foreign languages is limited (perhaps even more than in the United States)
and thus the publication of anthologies of comparatist texts serves at least
two purposes: it supports the suggestion that the interest in comparativism
as an international discipline in the age of globalization makes sense and it
suggests -- via the presentation of the texts in Italian -- that the local aspect
of scholarship, that is, the study of the international via the local is also
with purpose and of intellectual and pragmatic content and potential results.
The 1995 volume contains articles on comparative literature in Latin America
by Carvalhal, in Japan by Kutsukake, in China by Xie, in Latin America again
by Badin, in Italy by Sinopoli, and with thematic articles on imagology by Dyserinck,
on the interliterary process by Durisin, on postcolonialism by Neri, and on
the International Comparative Literature Association and its literary history
volumes by Pál. As to the pragmatically important genre of manuals for
the teaching of comparative literature, Gnisci and Sinopoli's other collected
volume, Manuale storico di letteratura comparata (1997) is of note. The
editors provide their Italian readership with a historical perspective of comparative
literature from the earliest times (Texte, Croce, Van Tieghem) through the discipline's
golden age (Wellek, Etiemble, Remak), through its present tense (Miner, Bernheimer,
Yue, Gnisci). The volume contains also a list of comparative literature handbooks
and incisive articles since 1931 to the present, a list of the proceedings of
International Comparative Literature Association congresses, a list of published
volumes of the International Comparative Literature's A Comparative History
of Literatures in European Languages, a list of major comparative literature
learned journals, and a list of bibliographies of comparative literature. Similarly
to Iglesias Santos volume in Spanish, Teoría de los Polisistemas,
cited above, Aldo Nemesio's collected volume, L'esperienza del testo
(1990; with articles by Nemesio, Tötösy, Schmidt, Larsen and Seilman,
Hayward, Whitten and Graesser, Roberts and Kreuz, Miall and Kuiken, Dixon and
Bortolussi, Goetz and Sadoski, Halász, Andringa, László),
too, contains much comparative literature material.
21. In Hungary we have the special issue of
neohelicon: acta comparationis litterarum unversarum, a journal that
over the last two decades issued several state-of-the-art volumes about the
discipline of comparative literature. Its latest such issue is 24.2 (1997) which
contains articles by the usual line-up of established comparatists (Balakian,
Gnisci, Runte, Strelka, Szili, Valdés, Weissstein, Zima) but a few newer
names found themselves also into the volume (Friggieri, Sexl, Tötösy).
22. In Austria -- a country where in recent
years substantial efforts have been made in educational policy, university restructuring,
funding, etc., to internationalize its scholarship -- a recent volume of interest
is the collected volume of Norbert Bachleitner, Alfred Noe, and Hans-Gert Roloff,
eds., Beträge zu Komparatistik und Sozialgeschichte der Literatur
(1997). The volume is a Festschrift in honour of the Austrian-Italian
comparatist Alberto Martino. It is divided into sections of history of reception
(with articles by Gemert, Heydemann, Dilk, Bachleitner, Belski), translation
(with articles by Knape, Noe, Kanduth, Meloni, Ley, Pfister, Kolb), traditional
comparisons of texts (with articles by Pol, Michele, Costazza, Hahl, Sagarra),
papers on the social history of literature (with articles by Heger, Hinterndorfer,
Mannack, Wittmann, Vignazia, Martens, Fischer, Gugler, Jezek, Göpfert,
Girardi, Raponi, Battafarano), and a section on literary theory and comparative
literature (with articles by McCarthy, Bertozzi, Rossel, Gillespie, Konstantinovic,
Roloff). We also have Peter V. Zima and Johann Strutz's volume Komparatistik:
Einführung in die Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft (1992). It is
somewhat difficult to classify Zima and Strutz's volume as "Austrian" (and thus
peripheral) as the volume was published in Germany for a German readership predicated
on the fact that it is in Germany where there are a number of comparative literature
programs while in Austria only in Vienna and Innsbruck (in Klagenfurt there
is no degree offered in the discipline); however, since both scholars work at
the University of Klagenfurt, it should be made known that we are dealing with
a different cultural source than that of Germany. The volume is divided into
chapters introduction, the history of comaparative literature (with focus on
American, British, French, German, Marxist approaches), comparative literature
as a theory dialogism, the typological approach, the genetic approach, reception
theories, translation studies, periods and genres, and an example of regional
comparative literature. Strutz and Zima published a collected volume previously, Komparatistik als Dialog (1991; with articles by Haderlap, Kofler, Zima,
Reininger, Kucher, Slibar, Giacomini, Guagnini, Kosuta, Sequi, Gsteiger, Grüning,
Strutz.), a precursor of their 1992 volume (above) in that the volume deals
with questions relating to the triangle of the cultures of Southern Austria,
Slovenia, Switzerland, and Italy.
23. At the same time, the traditional centres
of comparative literature have also produced some new works in the discipline
and, at least intellectually, this scholarship suggests that all is not as desperate
as we may assume. For example, the Bernheimer volume I referred to above has
made a major impact across the globe which, in turn, suggests the impact American
comparative literature is able to claim. But to deduce optimism from the production
of influential work in the USA, Canada, France, or Germany would perhaps be
pushing one's luck, at least in my opinion. To use anecdotal evidence, here
is what I recently read in Winter 1998 in QPB: The Quality Paperback Book
Review: "While earning her M.A. in comparative literature, Louise Rafkin
never imagined that she'd end up cleaning houses for a living" (11). In other
words, comparative literature, even a graduate degree, does not rate very high
in North American society....
24. In addition to some of the volumes published
in the traditional centres of the discipline I already referred to above, I
should mention Yves Chevrel's L'Etudiant chercheur en littérature
(1992), a good manual because despite its general title, the volume is clearly
comparatist. Chevrel's translated volume -- by Farida Elizabeth Dahab -- Comparative
Literature Today: Methods and Perspectives (1994) should also be noted as
it can serve as a good text book for North American students of comparative
literature. As to manuals in the context of useful pedagogical tools for comparative
literature, the single North American volume of recent years of such, we have
John T. Kirby's The Comparative Reader: A Handlist of Basic Reading in Comparative
Literature (1998; with contributions by Allert, Anderson, Benhamou, Broden,
Bullock, Clowes, Dixon, Dubois, Elia, Freeman, Györgyey, Hart, Hsieh, Hughes,
Johnson, Kirby, Lamb, Lawton, Leitch, Mancing, Merrell, Mvuyekure, Peterson,
Poster, Sagar, Schiappa, Schrag, Scott, Sekine, Shallcross, Sharpley-Whiting,
Stephenson, Tamburri, Thompson, White, Zhang). The volume is divided into selected
bibliographies of national literatures (further divided into periods), literary
and critical theory, various methodologies such as psychological, semiotic,
etc., approaches, media and literature incl. film, postcolonial literatures,
and an interesting chapter on the professional and institutional aspects of
the discipline of comparative literature. In addition to volumes I already mentioned
above, in the USA we also have the 1995 special issue on comparative literature
of the journal World Literature Today (1995; with articles by Kadir,
Perloff, Loriggio, Balakian, Vuller, Brodsky Lacour, Melas, Isstaif, Komar,
Greene, Hutcheon, Hassan, Zhao).
25. In Canada -- a cultural space that may
be considered peripheral or as a centre, depending -- we have the special issue
of the Canadian Review of Comparative Literature / Revue Canadienne de Littérature
Comparée (1996; with articles by Tötösy, Dimic, Brooks,
Cavell, Hutcheon, Moser, Fokkema, Gnisci, Nitrini, Wang, Gálik, Teleky)
and my own volume, Comparative Literature: Theory, Method, Application (1998, although published in Holland). And there is also the large collected
volume of Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek, Milan V. Dimic, and Irene Sywenky,
eds., Comparative Literature Now: Theories and Practice / La Littérature
comparée à l'heure actuelle. Théories et réalisations (see its table of contents <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/library/champion.html>,
1999; chapter one "Comparative Literature and Literary Theory" with articles
by Bessière, Birus, Brady, Chevrel, Dev, Dugast, Fokkema, Gálik,
Gu, Kao, Kushner, Losada Goya, Margolin, Mourão, Ribeiro, Saramago, Schmeling,
Skulj, Tatlow, Van Peer, Wägenbaur, Yue; chapter two "Literary History
and Histories of Literature" with articles by Beeler, Berg, Brix, Camps, Cornea,
Dahab, Dubost, Esterhammer, Foste, Friedman, Hart, Leersen, Lobo, Martin, Rao
and Rao, Veit, Wang; chapter three "Genres and Textual Properties" with articles
by Duarte, Engel, Fachin, Kolesch, Leung, Moser, Palleiro, Tanteri; chapter
four "The Novel and Other Prose" with articles by André, Chen, Larsen,
Moyal, Oliveira, Stovel, Van Gorp, Walker, Wallace, Wolf; chapter five "Drama
and Literature and the Other Arts" with articles by Aaltonen, Ádám,
Barban, Caprioli, Grammatas, Kürtösi, Polit, Schwarz, Solomon; chapter
six "Literature and Film" with articles by Avrutin, Barrett, Danan, Oliveira,
Kline, Thornton; chapter seven "Literature and Technology" with articles by
Baker, Beeler, Campe, Schmitz-Emans, Zhang; and chapter eight "A Bibliography
of Theories, Methods, and Histories of Comparative Literature" by Tötösy
(for the online version of the bibliography, see Tötösy [1999] <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/library/clitbib1-99.html>;
for a first review of the volume since its publication, see Grabovszki at <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/clcweb99-3/books99-3.html>;
see also Tötösy [1999] <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/library/sysbib97.html>).
26. In Germany, there is the interesting volume
of Reinhold Görling, Heterotopia: Lektüren einer interkulturellen
Literaturwissenschaft (1997). The volume is interesting because while the
author refrains from naming comparative literature -- there are brief references
to the discipline on pages 27, 34, 53, and 65 -- the general concept of the
book as well as the applications to primary texts of the proposed approach are
comparativist. Perhaps the reason for the author's understated references to
comparative literature is a result of his acute observation of the discipline's
often preoccupation of doing comparative literature by default only. That is,
the situation when the framework and its applications are based on and in the
bases on national literatures, one would have better success in the academe.
And there are the two recent volumes by Carsten Zelle, Kurze Bücherkunde
für Literaturwissenschaftler (1998) and Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft
(1999). The former contains a good section on comparative literature as
well as it contains material about new media and the study of literature; the
latter is a collection of selected articles about the history and contemporary
situation of the specifically German Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft
(general literature) including specific examples of the subject matter taught
at the universities of Essen and Siegen but also extending to the brief example
of Vanderbilt University (with articles by Link-Heer, Brodsky Lacour, Zelle,
Link-Heer, Zima, Schmidt, Roloff, Gendolla, Pfeiffer, Glaser, Riha, Franke and
McCarthy). Interestingly, at least one author (Gendolla) discusses the question
of the study of general literature in the context of new media and technology
in more detail.
27. Last, I elaborate briefly on my fifth observation
of the current situation of comparative literature, namely the potential of
new media, that is, specifically the internet and the world wide web and their
impact on scholarship (for a recent article on the topic, see Grabovszki at <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/clcweb99-3/grabovszki99.html>).
Here is a quote from a recent article by Robert Lepage, the internationally
renown Québéçois-Canadian playwright who recognized early
the advantages and positive meaning of a global view for his own plays as well
as contemporary Québéçois-Canadian literature as a whole.
What he is saying is relevant to my discussion by analogy: the peripheral situation
of Québéçois-Canadian literature is similar in concept
to the marginalized situation of the humanities and comparative literature in
turn within the humanities today. Lepage argues that the world wide web and
"its spread is part of the reason why Quebeckers are so abruptly questioning
their identity and coming to such new conclusions. New technology leaves no
room for xenophobia. How can Quebec sell its Internet products if it continues
to have an isoationist image? And if you send me an e-mail, and you don't have
all the accents and the c and the little hat [circumflex] -- what is so French
about it? So a lot of people decided to write in English. These things may seem
trivial, but they are hints of a much bigger shift" (69). There is no doubt
in my mind that the world wide web and the internet provide possibilities for
the study of culture, including comparative literature and the proposed comparative
cultural studies and that, in my opinion, scholars in the humanities must exploit.
Unfortunately, there is much Ludditism among scholars in the humanities including
comparatists while scholars in cultural studies tend to be more interested and
competent (for an example of the discussion of this resistance in the humanities,
see Norbert Gabriel's Kulturwissenschaften und Neue Medien. Wissensvermittlung
im digitalen Zeitalter ([1997]). With regard to the world wide web and the
discipline of comparative literature, web in full-text and free-access there
are only a few such in existence: The Bryn Mawr Review of Comparative Literature at <http://www.brynmawr.edu/bmrcl/> (publishes book reviews only), Surfaces: Electronic Journal / Revue électronique
<http://pum12.pum.umontreal.ca/revues/surfaces/home.html>,
and Literary Research / Recherche littéraire: An ICLA/AILC Bulletin
of Book Reviews <http://www.uwo.ca/modlang/ailc/> (it will soon go off-line) (for a list of journals in comparative literature,
see <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/library/journals.html>.
In comparative literature and culture there is one such journal in existence
-- print or online -- the recently founded journal CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture.
28. Granted, there are some infrastructural
problems, too, which affect the situation of the web and the internet in general:
there are two such problems of major impact: one is the obvious problem of different
technological development and availabilities among regions of the world and
the second one is the infrastructure of telephone line providers and its economics.
Technologically advanced societies of Europe are seriously handicapped in the
development of the internet in comparison with North America for the simple
reason that local calls are expensive in Europe while they are much less to
minimal in North America. Clearly, in Europe the monopoly of the state telephone
companies will have to be modified and this has started to begin: whether it
will evolve to similarly easy access to telephone lines or other ways of web
access -- such as cable TV -- remains to be seen. And there is also the perception
of scholars in the humanities of the emergence and significance of web journals.
It is true that some web journals do not have a comparable scholarly content
traditional hard-copy journals offer. But this can be changed and the time constraints
and financial constraints hard-copy journal suffer under will make it ultimately
imperative that knowledge transfer and scholarly communication will demand the
switch to ejournals and the internet. That an online journal in the public domain
has much potential is already observable in the case of CLCWeb, now online
with three issues of five articles each and several book reviews in each issue.
Of interest here is that in the first available period of statistical analysis
of the CLCWeb's access and online use, 13-30 April 1999, the journal
received 1,950 hits. This means 108 hits per day on the average and for an esoteric
subject such as comparative literature and culture this shows high-level and
involved use. The statistics also show -- among many aspects of the ways, length,
precise use of specific sections of the journal, various technical aspects of
access, etc. -- that CLCWeb has been accessed from a large number of
countries, incl. many countries outside North America and Europe. Interestingly
and contrary to my expectations, the relatively large traffic on CLCWeb has not subsided: in June there were 118 hits per day and in July there were
126 hits per day, plus similarly high numbers for multiple users, etc. (for
ongoing statistics of web use and traffic, go to the journal's subpage "web
traffic" off the index page).
29. In closing my observations on new media
and comparative literature (and on work in the humanities by extension), I would
like to briefly refer to an aspect of institutional policies which have some
impact on the situation of not only comparative literature but on scholarship
in the humanities in general. Briefly put: how is it possible that, for example,
the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada (SSHRC) to date refuses
to even consider funding of an online journal in the humanities precisely because
it is in the public domain? After several attempts of explanation, I received
the final decision by an SSHRC official that because CLCWeb does not
have minimum 200 paid subscribers, it is ineligible for funding. My explanations
that the CLCWeb is in the public domain and thus cannot logically have
paid subscribers was not accepted and the large web traffic with the ejournal
-- which clearly shows that the CLCWeb is being used by the scholarly
community -- did not make an impression either. Obviously, this particular government
agency is still stuck to a traditional mindset and its policy makers -- who
include academics -- have not followed the developments made possible by the
new web culture of scholarship. In my opinion, scholarly communication and knowledge
transfer on the world wide web should be facilitated by open and competitive
funding by government agencies, just as are other types of scholarly activities.
Online journals should be able to compete for such funding because government
agencies use taxpayers' money in the first place and this way some of that money
is returned to the taxpayers, just like in other areas of scholarly activity.
Unfortunately, the present policies of the SSHRC have not followed the emerging
situation of scholarship in the humanities where online journals in the public
domain perform the said meaningful service for the scholarly community and where
they perform knowledge transfer on an international scale previously unheard
of as well as impossible to enact. The said policies are short-sighted and counter-productive
and I hope that the SSHRC will rather sooner than later consider changing its
policies of funding online ejournals in the public domain.
30. Last but not least I would like to touch
briefly on a most contentious issue, namely on the comparative study of "Other"
literatures and cultures, here with specific reference to East/West comparative
literature. The still dominant aspect of the national paradigm and its position
with regard to comparative literature and its claim of inclusion is a most important
issue in the politics of comparative literature. As I have argued in a previous
paper, "A Report on Comparative Literature in Beijing, October 1995 / Rapport
sur la littérature comparée à Beijing, Octobre 1995" (1995),
for a Western comparatist the inclusion of the Other is problematic at best.
But here as always, I argue that it is the "how" and not the "what" that determines
scholarship. I quote from my paper: "I took issue with [the] ... notion that
Orientalism can be successfully studied only by an Oriental. This notion, as
often as it occurs under the generic notion of "appropriation" in North American
scholarship in particular, leads in my opinion to the doctrinization of scholarship
and counter-acts the very notion of dialogue, scholarly or other. Cultural communication
prescribes dialogue about perception and view from whichever locus one speaks
from. If the notion ... is correct then its logical conclusion is that Orientals
should not study the Occident either. Surely, this is an untenable position
of either side. Of course, if an Occidental scholar studies Oriental works,
any correction of his/her analysis by an Oriental scholar should be welcome
and seriously considered. The argument that the post-colonial base of power
disqualifies an Occidental to study the Oriental becomes a tool of harm if implemented" (11-12). More recently, Takayuki Yokota-Murakami, in her book Don Juan East/West:
On the Problematics of Comparative Literature (1999), argues that comparative
literature and its claim of and for inclusion is a priori marginalization and
exclusion. Yokota-Murakami argues that comparative literature is in principle
and throughout its history Eurocentric and its claim of inclusion is an unsuccessfully
disguised attempt to "universalize" humanity as expressed in literature but
from the said Eurocentric point of view and power. I fully agree with the author
that Western humanities and comparative literature in particular "included" the Other from its own Eurocentric locus. But as forceful and insightful Yokota-Murakami's
description and arguments are, she does not offer a solution and implicitly
we would end up with the untenable situation as I describe in my quote above.
Toward Comparative Cultural Studies
31. In recent debates in comparative literature,
too, and in the humanities in general, innovation is a matter of great interest
(and, of course, a real necessity). Taking my point of departure from the current
interest and large amount of work produced in cultural studies everywhere and
applying my approach to comparative literature from within the framework and
methodology of the systemic and empirical approach to literature and culture
(for my publications in the area, see <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/totosycv(complete).html>;
for a selected bibliographies of work in the approach, see Tötösy
1999 at <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/library.html>),
I first developed a set of principles for comparative literature and culture,
as presented in my book, Comparative Literature: Theory, Method, Application
(1998, 15-18). Here is a brief dictionary definition of the systemic and empirical
approach understood as a contextual approach:
32. The systemic and empirical approach is
a theoretical and methodological framework for the study of culture including
several fields such as comparative cultural studies, cultural studies, comparative
literature, literature, anthropology, ethnography, audience studies (see Tötösy
"Toward a Framework of Audience Studies" <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/library/audiencestudies.html>), and cognitive sciences. The main question is what happens to products of culture
and how: It is produced, published, distributed, read/listened to/seen (etc.),
imitated, assessed, discussed, studied, censored, etc. The systemic and empirical
study of culture originates as a reaction to, and an attempt at, solving the
problematics of hermeneutics. The approach and methodology(ies) of the framework
are built on the theory of constructivism (radical, cognitive, etc.), in turn
based on the thesis that the subject largely construes its empirical world itself.
The consequence of this line of thought -- as seen in the work of scholars in
Germany, Holland, Belgium, Hungary, Italy, Canada, the USA and elsewhere in
several fields and areas of study -- is the replacement of (metaphorical) interpretation
with the study of culture products and the processes of the products as based
on radical constructivism, systems theories, and the empirical (observation
and knowledge-based argumentation). The system of culture and actions within
are observed from the outside -- not experienced -- and roughly characterized
as depending on two conventions (hypotheses) that are tested continually. These
conventions are the aesthetic convention (as opposed to the convention of facts
in the daily language of reference) and the polyvalence convention (as opposed
to the monovalency in the daily empirical world). Thus, the object of study
of the systemic and empirical study of culture is not only the text in itself,
but roles of action and processes within the system(s) of culture, namely, the
production, distribution, reception, and the post-processing of culture products.
The methods used are primarily taken from the social sciences, systems theories,
reception theory, cognitive science, psychology, etc. In general, the steps
to be taken in systemic and empirical research are the formation of a hypothesis,
putting it into practice, testing, and evaluation.
33. Next, I propose an adjusted set of principles,
for the proposed new approach of comparative cultural studies. These principles
are not new or particularly original, especially to those who know or are in
comparative literature: what is intended is the explicit formulation of principles
already known and/or established in the discipline of comparative literature
and at the same time adapted to the new paradigm of a comparative cultural studies.
I should also like to mention that many of the principles I am suggesting here
are obviously part and parcel of various approaches, theoretical or methodological
and/or national and homogeneous literatures. My point is that it is the cumulative
perspective of the approach that may make a difference and that may be innovative.
My notions toward a comparative cultural studies is at this point is obviously
not a full-fledged framework. Rather, the principles represent an approach (incl.
ideological content) which I develop in detail in my forthcoming work. To date,
curiously, the comparative aspect in cultural studies is relatively unexplored
and there are relatively few universities where there are degree programs in
a combination of comparative literature and cultural studies or an outright
program in "comparative cultural studies." Here is a partial list of institutions
where such programs exist: the graduate program in Comparative Culture
at Sophia University (Tokyo), the program of Cultural Studies and Comparative
Literature at the University of Minnesota, the Centre for British and Comparative
Cultural Studies at the University of Warwick (<http:www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/BCCS/>),
the Centre for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies at Monash University
(<http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cclcs/>),
the Comparative Cultural Studies program at Trinity College of Vermont,
the Center for Comparative Cultural Studies at the Palacky University
(Czechia), the Comparative Literary and Cultural Studies program at the University
of Connecticut (<http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~wwwmcl/Programs/Graduate/gCO/gCO.htm>),
or the University of Virginia program in Comparative Cultural Studies (<http://www.virginia.edu/~cch-surv/>).
The situation is much more limited with regard to theoretical and methodological
frameworks for a "comparative cultural studies" on the landscape of published
studies and, perhaps, the nearest conceptualization of a theoretical framework
-- with not much methodology, however -- of comparative cultural studies is
Itamar Even-Zohar's more recent work such as "Polysystem Theory and Culture
Research" and "Culture Repertoire and the Wealth of Collective Entities" at <http://www.tau.ac.il/~itamarez/papers/>.
34. The above demonstrated ("peripheral") interest
in the discipline of comparative literature outside the established mainstream
French-German-American core may be a result of the often-occurring time-shift
-- delayed reaction time -- within knowledge transfer or it may be a result
of the general globalization here emanating from and taking place in the "peripheries."
But there may be another reason, that of a sophisticated approach to the study
of culture by scholars in many ways located outside or parallel to the French-German-American
mainstream and that, of course, dominates the study of literature world wide
today, in particular the American schools including the situation where the
French Derrida or the Italian Eco or the German Habermas are translated into
English, published in the USA, and therefrom impact on thinking in cultures
where the first language is not a mainstream European language. What I mean
is this: In Anglo-American, French, and German literary study -- general or
comparative -- the aspect of theory saturation is a well-known situation and
the fact that in recent years the focus in literary study switched from the
study of literature proper to all sorts of inquiries of culture in general brought
about a preoccupation of literary scholars with other matter than literature.
For comparatists in the mainstream German-French-American core this created
serious problems because their areas of theory, interdisciplinarity, etc., have
been successfully appropriated and today everyone may be a "comparatist" While
this may be an interesting development, it appears to me that scholars working
in non-mainstream cultures and within that in comparative literature, seem to
be interested in maintaining a focus on literature while at the same time they
want to study it in an international context writing for a regional scholarly
readership. Concurrent to the interest in comparative literature as I perceive
it and discussed above, there is of course the impact of cultural studies --
mainly although not exclusively from North America -- in the humanities everywhere,
including in the countries where comparative literature itself is experiencing
a renaissance or emerging interest. It this situation that I think we can capitalize
on. What I mean is that the interest and new work in comparative literature
occurring outside the traditional centres of the discipline can be related and
connected to the impact of cultural studies on the one hand and taking the history
and intellectual achievements of comparative literature - in particular its
aspect of cross-culturality based upon in-depth knowledge and familiarity with
other languages and cultures - toward the construction of a framework and practice
of comparative cultural studies on the other hand.
35. I would like to insert here a brief comment
about the problematics of globalization versus localization and regionalism.
In my opinion, while regionalism is obviously a viable alternative to and meaningful
replacement of nationalism and aspirations to cultural homogeneity, globalization
can be understood and perceived as a positive force that does not necessarily
embody American cultural imperialism. I concur with the view that "global culture
doesn't mean just more TV sets and Nike shoes. Linking is humanity's natural
impulse, its common destiny. ... cultures don't become more uniform; instead,
both old and new tend to transform each other. The late philosopher Isaiah Berlin
believed that, rather than aspire to some utopian ideal, a society should strive
for something else: 'not that we agree with each other ... but that we can understand
each other'" (Zwingle 33; see also <http://www.nationalgeographic.com/2000/culture/global>).
Among other perspectives, comparative literature and comparative cultural studies
aspires to be scholarship precisely in this sense.
36. It appears to me that it is the North American
type of cultural studies has acquired the most incisive impact in scholarship
in the humanities everywhere. Overall, however, my observation is that similar
to literary studies, work in cultural studies has produced limited results based
on an empirical, that is, evidence- and observation-based perspective in theory
and in application. In other words, while cultural studies in North America
in general, in the United Kingdom (see Grossberg 1993), Germany (see Burns),
in France (see Forbes and Kelly), in Spain (see Graham and Labanyi), or in Italy
(see Forgacs and Lumley) produce relevant and incisive work, they more often
than not lack the type of evidence-based theoretical and methodological approach
I propose for both comparative literature and comparative cultural studies I
develop from the systemic and empirical approach to literature and culture (in
turn based in radical constructivism; for an extensive web site of material,
see Riegler at <http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/>;
see also Tötösy, "Constructivism" <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/library/totosy(constructivism).html>).
I am aware, however, that in sociology, ethnology, history, anthropology, ethnography,
cognitive science, etc., -- including work related to or about literature --
there is a large corpus that is "empirical," evidence-based and argued in both
theory and application. With regard to cultural studies, while in isolated cases
it is briefly mentioned that the historical and conceptual background of cultural
studies is based, in many ways, on work (theory and application) in comparative
literature, the comparative approach in and for cultural studies is not explored
apart from a few rudimentary beginnings such as Aleida Assman's "Cultural Studies
and Historical Memories" (1999). Consequently, while there is empirical work
with explicit methodology undertaken in cultural anthropology and similar fields
which have some impact on cultural studies (see, in particular, Norman Denzin's Symbolic Interactionism and Cultural Studies), cultural studies when
in literary studies -- or the other way around -- is almost exclusively hermeneutic,
discursive in the essayistic mode, and metaphorical, at best political. In other
words, evidence-based and argued work in cultural studies appears to be produced
in fields and with approaches from sociology, ethnology, anthropology, history,
etc., while in the fields of traditional humanities such as English-language
literature, such approaches are neglected or even rejected in favour of the
said metaphorical and essayistic "scholarship" and there are scholars few and
far between who would agree with the notion that "cultural studies has to be
disciplined ... to get better and useful knowledge takes rigorous theoretical
and empirical work" (Grossberg 1999, 29; my emphasis; for various sources
in cultural studies, see <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/library.html>).
Ten Principles toward a Framework of Comparative
Cultural Studies
37.1 The first principle
of comparative cultural studies is the postulate that in and of the study, pedagogy,
and research of culture -- culture is defined as all human activity resulting
in artistic production -- it is not the "what" but rather the "how" that is
of importance. This principle follows the constructivist tenet of attention
to the "how" and process. To "compare" does not -- and must not -- imply a hierarchy:
in the comparative mode of investigation and analysis a matter studied is not
"better" than another. This means -- among other things as listed below -- that
it is method that is of crucial importance in comparative cultural studies in
particular and, consequently, in the study of literature and culture as a whole.
37.2 The second principle of comparative cultural studies
is the theoretical as well as methodological postulate to move and to dialogue
between cultures, languages, literatures, and disciplines. This is a crucial
aspect of the framework, the approach as a whole, and its methodology. In other
words, attention to other cultures -- that is, the comparative perspective --
is a basic and founding element and factor of the framework. The claim of emotional
and intellectual primacy and subsequent institutional power of national cultures
is untenable in this perspective. In turn, the built-in notions of exclusion
and self-referentiality of single culture study and their result of rigidly
defined disciplinary boundaries are notions against which comparative cultural
studies offers an alternative as well as a parallel field of study. This inclusion
extends to all Other, all marginal, minority, border, and peripheral and it
encompasses both form and substance. However, attention must be paid of the
"how" of any inclusionary approach, attestation, methodology, and ideology so
as not to repeat the mistakes of Eurocentrism and "universalization" from a
"superior" Eurocentric point of view. Dialogue is the only solution.
37.3 The third principle of comparative cultural studies is
the necessity for the scholar working in this field to acquire in-depth grounding
in more than one language and culture as well as other disciplines before further
in-depth study of theory and methodology. However, this principle creates structural
and administrative problems on the institutional and pedagogical levels. For
instance, how does one allow for development -- intellectually as well as institutionally
-- from a focus on one national culture (exclusionary) towards the inclusionary
and interdisciplinary principles of comparative cultural studies? The solution
of designating comparative cultural studies as a postgraduate discipline only
is problematic and counter-productive. Instead, the solution is the allowance
for a parallelism in intellectual approach, institutional structure, and administrative
practice.
37.4 The fourth principle of comparative cultural studies
is its given focus to study culture in its parts (literature, arts, film, popular
culture, theatre, the publishing industry, the history of the book as a cultural
product, etc.) and as a whole in relation to other forms of human expression
and activity and in relation to other disciplines in the humanities and social
sciences (history, sociology, psychology, etc.). The obstacle here is that the
attention to other fields of expression and other disciplines of study results
in the lack of a clearly definable, recognizable, single-focused, and major
theoretical and methodological framework of comparative cultural studies. There
is a problem of naming and designation exactly because of the multiple approach
and parallelism. In turn, this lack of recognized and recognizable products
results in the discipline’s difficulties of marketing itself within the inter-mechanisms
of intellectual recognition and institutional power.
37.5 The fifth principle of comparative cultural studies is
its built-in special focus on English, based on its impact emanating from North
American cultural studies which is, in turn, rooted in British cultural studies
along with influences from French and German thought. This is a composite principle
of approach and methodology. The focus on English as a means of communication
and access to information should not be taken as Euro-American-centricity. In
the Western hemisphere and in Europe but also in many other cultural (hemi)spheres,
English has become the lingua franca of communication, scholarship, technology,
business, industry, etc. This new global situation prescribes and inscribes
that English gain increasing importance in scholarship and pedagogy, including
the study of literature. The composite and parallel method here is that because
comparative cultural studies is not self-referential and exclusionary; rather,
the parallel use of English is effectively converted into a tool for and of
communication in the study, pedagogy, and scholarship of literature. Thus, in
comparative cultural studies the use of English should not represent any form
of colonialism -- and if it does, one disregards it or fights it with English
rather than by opposing English -- as follows from principles one to three.
And it should also be obvious that is the English-language speaker who is, in
particular, in need of other languages.
37.6 The sixth principle of comparative cultural studies is
its theoretical and methodological focus on evidence-based research and analysis.
This principle is with reference to methodological requirements in the description
of theoretical framework building and the selection of methodological approaches.
From among the several evidence-based theoretical and methodological approaches
available in the study of culture, literary and culture theory, cultural anthropology,
sociology of culture and knowledge, etc., the systemic and empirical approach
is perhaps the most advantageous and precise methodology for use in comparative
cultural studies. This does not mean that comparative cultural studies and/or
its methodology comprise a meta theory; rather, comparative cultural studies
and its methodologies are implicitly and explicitly pluralistic.
37.7 The seventh principle of comparative cultural studies
is its attention and insistence on methodology in interdisciplinary study (an
umbrella concept), with three main types of methodological precision: Intra-disciplinarity
(analysis and research within the disciplines of the humanities), multi-disciplinarity
(analysis and research by one scholar employing any other discipline), and pluri-disciplinarity
(analysis and research by team-work with participants from several disciplines).
In the latter case, an obstacle is the general reluctance of humanities scholars
to employ team-work in the study of culture including literature. It should
be noted that this principle is built-in in the framework and methodology of
the systemic and empirical approach to culture (for an outline of inter-disciplinary
work in the humanities, see Tötösy, Comparative Literature
79-82).
37.8 The eighth principle of comparative cultural studies
is its content against the contemporary paradox of globalization versus localization.
There is a paradoxical development in place with regard to both global movements
and intellectual approaches and their institutional representation. On the one
hand, the globalization of technology, industry, and communication is actively
pursued and implemented. But on the other hand the forces of exclusion as represented
by local, racial, national, gender, disciplinary, etc., interests prevail in
(too) many aspects. For a change toward comparative cultural studies as proposed
here a paradigm shift in the humanities and social sciences will be necessary.
Thus, the eighth principle represents the notion of working against the stream
by promoting comparative cultural studies as a global, inclusive, and multi-disciplinary
framework in an inter- and supra-national humanities.
37.9 The ninth principle of comparative cultural studies is
its claim on the vocational commitment of its practitioners. In other words,
why study and work in comparative cultural studies? The reasons are the intellectual
as well as pedagogical values this approach and discipline offers in order to
implement the recognition and inclusion of the Other with and by commitment
to the in-depth knowledge of several cultures (i.e., languages, literatures,
etc.) as basic parameters. In consequence, the discipline of comparative cultural
studies as proposed advances our knowledge by a multi-facetted approach based
on scholarly rigor and multi-layered knowledge with precise methodology.
37.10 The tenth principle of comparative cultural studies
is with regard to the troubled intellectual and institutional situation of the
humanities in general. That is, the tenth principle is with reference to the
politics of scholarship and the academe. We know that the humanities in general
experience serious and debilitating institutional -- and, depending on one’s
stand, also intellectual -- difficulties and because of this the humanities
in the general social and public discourse are becoming more and more marginalized
(not the least by their own doing). It is in this context that the principles
of a comparative cultural studies is proposed to at least to attempt to adjust
the further marginalization and social irrelevance of the humanities.
38. A definition of comparative cultural studies
is as follows. Comparative cultural studies is field of study where selected
tenets of the discipline of comparative literature are merged with selected
tenets of the field of cultural studies meaning that the study of culture and
culture products -- including but not restricted to literature, communication,
media, art, etc. -- is performed in a contextual and relational construction
and with a plurality of methods and approaches, inter-disciplinarity, and, if
and when required, including team work. In comparative cultural studies it is
the processes of communicative action(s) in culture and the how of these processes
that constitute the main objectives of research and study. However, comparative
cultural studies does not exclude textual analysis proper or other established
fields of study. In comparative cultural studies, ideally, the framework of
and methodologies available in the systemic and empirical study of culture are
favoured.
Works Cited
Assmann, Aleida. "Cultural Studies and Historical Memories." The Contemporary Study of Culture. Ed. Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Verkehr and Internationales Forschungszentrum Kulturwissenschaften. Wien: Turia & Kant, 1999. 85-99.
Bachleitner, Norbert, Alfred Noe, and Hans-Gert Roloff, eds. Beträge zu Komparatistik und Sozialgeschichte der Literatur. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1997.
Bassnett, Susan. Comparative Literature: A Critical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.
Bernheimer, Charles, ed. Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1995.
Burns, Rob, ed. German Cultural Studies: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1995.
Carvalhal, Tania Franco, ed. Comparative Literature World Wide: Issues and Methods. Porto Alegre: L&PM Editores, 1997.
Chevrel, Yves. L'Etudiant chercheur en littérature. Paris: Hachette, 1992
Chevrel, Yves. Comparative Literature Today: Methods and Perspectives. Trans. Farida Elizabeth Dahab. Kirksville: The Thomas Jefferson UP, 1994.
Daniel, Valentine E., and Jeffrey M. Peck. "Culture/Contexture: An Introduction." Culture / Contexture: Explorations in Anthropology and Literary Studies. By Valentine E. Daniel and Jeffrey M. Peck. Berkeley: U of California P, 1996. 1-33.
Denzin, Norman K. Symbolic Interactionism and Cultural Studies. Oxford: Blacwell, 1992.
Didier, Bétarice, ed. Précis de Littérature Européenne. Paris: PU de Paris, 1998.
Dyserinck, Hugo, and Manfred S. Fischer. Internationale Bibliographie zu Geschichte und Theorie der Komparatistik. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1985.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. "Polysystem Theory and Culture Research." (1999): <http://www.tau.ac.il/~itamarez/papers/>.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. "Culture Repertoire and the Wealth of Collective Entities" (1999): <http://www.tau.ac.il/~itamarez/papers/>.
Forbes, Jill, and Michael Kelly, eds. French Cultural Studies: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1995.
Forgacs, David, and Robert Lumley, eds. Italian Cultural Studies: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1997.
Fredrickson, George M. The Comparative Imagination: On the History of Racism, Nationalism, and Social Movements. Berkeley: U of California P, 1997.
Garber, Marjorie, Rebecca L. Walkowitz, and Paul B. Franklin, eds. Fieldwork: Sites in Literary and Cultural Studies. New York: Routledge, 1996.
Gnisci, Armando, and Francesca Sinopoli, eds. Manuale storico di letteratura comparata. Roma: Meltemi, 1997.
Gnisci, Armando, and Franca Sinopoli, eds. Comparare i comparatismi. Roma: Lithos, 1995.
Görling, Reinhold. Heterotopia. Lektüren einer interkulturellen Literaturwissenschaft. München: Fink, 1997.
Gossmann, Lionel, and Mihail I. Spariosu, eds., Building a Profession: Autobiographical Perspectives on the Beginnings of Comparative Literature in the United States. Albany: State U of New York P, 1994.
Grabovszki, Ernst. "The Impact of Globalization and the New Media on the Notion of World Literature." CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture: A WWWeb Journal 1.3 (1999): <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/clcweb99-3/grabovszki99.html>.
Graham, Helen, and Jo Labanyi, eds. Spanish Cultural Studies: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1995.
Gabriel, Norbert. Kulturwissenschaften und Neue Medien. Wissensvermittlung im digitalen Zeitalter. Darmstadt: Primus, 1997.
Grossberg, Lawrence. "The Formation of Cultural Studies: An American in Birmingham." Relocating Cultural Studies: Developments in Theory and Research. Ed. Valda Blundell, John Sheppard, and Ian Taylor. London: Routledge, 1993. 21-66.
Grossberg, Lawrence. "Globalization and the 'Economization' of Cultural Studies." The Contemporary Study of Culture. Ed. Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Verkehr and Internationales Forschungszentrum Kulturwissenschaften. Wien: Turia and Kant, 1999. 23-46.
Guillén, Claudio. The Challenge of Comparative Literature. Trans. Cola Franzen. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1993.
Guillén, Claudio. Múltiples moradas. Ensayo de literatura comparada. Barcelona: Tusquets, 1998.
Hendrix, Harald, Joost Kloek, Sophie Levie, and Will van Peer, eds. The Search for a New Alphabet: Literary Studies in a Changing World. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1996.
Higonnet, Margaret R., ed., Borderwork: Feminist Engagements with Comparative Literature. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1994.
Juvan, Marko. "Thematics and Intellectual Content: The XVth Triennial Congress of the International Comparative Literature Association in Leiden." CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture: A WWWeb Journal 1.1 (1999): <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/clcweb99-1/juvan99.html>.
Kappler, Arno. Der literarische Vergleich. Beiträge zu einer Vorgeschichte der Komparatistik. Bern: Peter Lang, 1976.
Kirby, John T. The Comparative Reader: A Handlist of Basic Reading in Comparative Literature. New Haven: Chancery P, 1998.
Lee, Mabel, and Meng Hua, eds. Cultural Dialogue and Misreading. Sydney: Wild Peony, 1997.
Leersen, Joep, "Imagology" (1999): <http://www.hum.uva.nl/images>.
Lefevere, André. Translating Literature: Practice and Theory in a Comparative Literature Context. New York: Modern Language Association of America, 1992.
Leithmann, Peter Theodor. Moriz Carriere and the Development of Comparative Literature. Ann Arbor: Xerox University Microfilms, 1977.
Lepage, Robert. "Guess Who's Here: A Cultural Shift is under Way in Quebec That Puts French and English in a New Perspective." Time: The Weekly Newsmagazine Special Report Canada 2005: CanCult Boom (9 August 1999): 68-69.
López, Dolores Romero. Una relectura del "fin de siglo" en el marco de la litteratura comparade. Teoría y praxis. Bern: Peter Lang, 1998.
López, Dolores Romero, ed. Orientaciones em literatura comparada. Madrid: Arco/Libros, 1997.
Losa, Margarida L., Isménia de Sousa, and Gonçalo Vilas-Boas, eds. Literatura Comparada: Os Novos Paradigmas. Porto: Afrontamento, 1996.
Mitchell, W.J.T. "Why Comparisons Are Odious." World Literature Today 70.2
(1996): 321-24.
Riegler, Alexander. Radical Constructivism (1998-): <http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/>.
Nemesio, Aldo, ed. L'esperienza del testo. Roma: Meltemi, 1999.
Santos, Montserrat Iglesias, ed. Teoría de los Polisistemas. Madrid:
Arco / Libros, 1999.
Souiller, Didier, and Wladimir Troubetzkoy, eds. Littérature comparée.
Paris: PU de Paris, 1997.
Steiner, George. What is Comparative Literature? Oxford: Clarendon, 1995.
Strutz, Johann, and Peter V. Zima, eds. Komparatistik als Dialog. Literatur
und interkulturelle Beziehungen in der Alpen-Adria-Region und in der Schweiz.
Bern: Peter Lang, 1991.
Thompson, Leonard. "Comparatively Speaking." The New York Review of Books (14 May 1998): 48-51.
Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. "Comparative Literature and Applied Cultural
Studies, Or, a Report About the XIVth Triennial Congress of the ICLA/AILC (University
of Alberta, August 1994)." Canadian Review of Comparative Literature / Revue
Canadienne de Littérature Comparée 21.3 (1994): 469-90.
Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. "A Report on Comparative Literature in
Beijing, October 1995 / Rapport sur la littérature comparée à Beijing, Octobre 1995." Bulletin: Comparative Literature in Canada / La Littérature
Comparée au Canada 26.2 (1995): 10-16.
Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. "The Study of Literature in China and
Taiwan Today: Impressions of a Visitor." East Asian Cultural and Historical
Perspectives: Histories and Society / Culture and Literatures. Ed. Steven
Tötösy de Zepetnek and Jennifer W. Jay. Edmonton: Research Institute
for Comparative Literature, U of Alberta, 1997. 341-50.
Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. Comparative Literature: Theory, Method,
Application. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA.: Rodopi, 1998.
Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. "A Selected Shortlist of Comparative Literature
(Text)Books in English, French, and German (1965-1999)." CLCWeb: Comparative
Literature and Culture: A WWWeb Journal (Library) (1999): <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/library/booklist.html>.
Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. "Selected Bibliography of Studies on the
Theories, Methods, and History of Comparative
Literature." CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture (Library) (1999): <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/library/clitbib1-99.html>.
Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. "A Selected Bibliography of Work in Comparative
Literature and Literary Theory." CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture (Library) (1999): <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/library/clitbib2-99.html>.
Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. "A Selected Bibliography of Work in the
Systemic and Empirical, Institution, and Field Approaches to Literature and
Culture." CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture (Library)
(1999): <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/library/sysbib97.html>.
Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. "Constructivism and Comparative Cultural
Studies." CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture (Library): <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/library/totosy(constructivism).html>.
Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. "Toward a Framework of Audience Studies." CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture (Library): <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/library/audiencestudies.html>.
Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven, Milan V. Dimic, and Irene Sywenky, eds. Comparative Literature Now: Theories and Practice / La Littérature
comparée à l'heure actuelle. Théories et réalisations.
Paris: Honoré Champion, 1999. <http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/library/champion.html>.
Vega, Maria José, and Neus Carbonell, eds. Literatura comparada. Principios
y métodos. Madrid: Gredos, 1998.
Villanueva, Darío, ed. Avances en... teoría de la literatura.
Santiago de Compostela: U de Santiago de Compostela, 1994.
Weisstein, Ulrich. Einführung in die Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1968.
Yokota-Murakami, Takayuki. Don Juan East/West: On the Problematics of Comparative
Literature. New York: State U of New York P, 1999.
Yue, Daiyun, and Alain Le Pichon, eds. La Licorne et le dragon. Les Malentendus
dans la recherche de l'universel. Peking: Peking UP, 1995.
Zelle, Carsten. Kurze Bücherkunde für Literaturwissenschaftler.
Tübingen: Francke, 1998.
Zelle, Carsten, ed. Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft. Konturen und Profile
im Pluralismus. Opladen: Westdeutscher, 1999.
Zima, Peter V. "Zu Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Komparatistik." Komparatistik.
Einführung in die Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft. By Peter V.
Zima and Johann Strutz. Tübingen: Francke, 1992. 15-59.
Zima, Peter V., and Johann Strutz. Komparatistik. Einführung in die
Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft. Tübingen: Francke, 1992.
Zwingle, Erla. "Goods Move. People Move. Ideas Move. And Cultures Change." Millennium
Supplement: Global Culture Special issue of the National Geographic 196.2 (August 1999): 12-33. <http://www.nationalgeographic.com/2000/culture/global>.
to top of page
CLCWeb:
Comparative Literature and Culture: A WWWeb Journal ISSN 1481-4374
CLCWeb Library of Research and Information
... CLCWeb Contents
1.3 (September 1999)
<http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/clcweb99-3/totosy99.html> © Purdue
University Press