Susan Bassnett's Perspective on Comparative Literature: A Detailed Summary
Susan Bassnett's introduction to her 1993 book "Comparative Literature: A Critical Introduction" offers a comprehensive examination of comparative literature as a field of study, tracing its evolution, debates, and changing significance across different cultural contexts. The chapter begins by defining comparative literature in its simplest form as "the study of texts across cultures" - an interdisciplinary approach concerned with patterns of connection in literature across time and space.
Bassnett frames comparative literature as a journey that begins with the desire to transcend the boundaries of a single subject area, drawing on Matthew Arnold's 1857 Oxford lecture which emphasized that "everywhere there is connection, everywhere there is illustration." While this perspective might suggest comparative literature is merely common sense facilitated by translations, Bassnett reveals a complex history of debate dating back to the early nineteenth century that continues to this day. This ongoing discourse raises fundamental questions about the object of study in comparative literature, the methodology of comparison, the nature of a comparative canon, and whether comparative literature constitutes a discipline or simply a field of study.
The chapter acknowledges what René Wellek defined as "the crisis of comparative literature" since the 1950s - a crisis particularly evident in Western academia. Interestingly, Bassnett notes that while comparative literature appears to be declining in the West, it is simultaneously flourishing in Eastern and postcolonial countries, often in connection with the rise of national consciousness. This dichotomy reflects the field's complex relationship with nationalism since its inception.
Bassnett explores contrasting historical perspectives on comparative literature. While Benedetto Croce dismissed the term as obfuscatory in 1903, Charles Mills Gayley proclaimed it a "common institutional expression of humanity" that transcended racial, historical, and linguistic differences. Francis Jost elevated comparative literature to "a literary Weltanschauung" and "instrument of universal harmony," while Wellek and Warren viewed it as demanding "a widening of perspectives" and "suppression of local and provincial sentiments."
The chapter traces how comparative literature's status has shifted within academia. Once considered a radical, transgressive subject in Western academia during the 1950s and early 1960s, it was largely abandoned by the late 1970s in favor of newer fields like Literary Theory, Women's Studies, and Cultural Studies. However, during this same period, comparative literature gained prominence in postcolonial countries - not based on universalism but precisely on the specificity of national literatures that Western comparatists had often rejected.
Bassnett highlights how scholars from postcolonial contexts have reshaped comparative approaches. Swapan Majumdar and Ganesh Devy connect comparative literature in India directly to the rise of modern Indian nationalism. Homi Bhabha emphasizes "cross-cutting across sites of social significance" rather than simple cross-referencing, while African critics like Wole Soyinka have challenged Eurocentric perspectives that diminished African culture and history.
The chapter examines how comparative literature offers solutions to postcolonial educational challenges, using the example of studying Shakespeare in India. Indian students must contend with Shakespeare as both a European literary figure and a representative of colonial values - a tension that comparative approaches can help navigate by studying Shakespeare's reception in Indian cultural life and comparing his work with Indian writers.
Bassnett also addresses the relationship between comparative literature and translation studies. While comparative literature has traditionally claimed translation as a subcategory, this assumption is increasingly questioned as translation studies establishes itself as a rigorous discipline focused on intercultural study. Itamar Even-Zohar's observation that extensive translation activity occurs during periods of cultural transition, expansion, and renewal provides insight into the changing status of translation across different cultural contexts and time periods.
Evan-Zohar says that a lot of translation happens when a culture is changing: when it's growing, needs new ideas, or is about to undergo major changes. During these times, translation becomes really important. But when a culture feels strong and dominant, like it doesn't need outside influence, translation becomes less valued.
For example, when English became the main language for international relations and business in the 1900s, there wasn't much need to translate foreign works into English. That's why there were fewer translations into English compared to other languages. When translation isn't seen as necessary, it becomes poorly respected, badly paid, and overlooked.
Comparative literature has always included translation as one of its parts. But now that translation studies has developed into its own field focused on studying interactions between cultures, with solid methods for both theory and practice, comparative literature looks less like a separate discipline and more like just one branch of a larger field. Looking at it this way helps us understand the "crisis" in comparative literature and might finally end the ongoing argument about whether comparative literature should be considered its own separate discipline.
The chapter concludes by suggesting that as translation studies continue to develop as a discipline with methodological rigor, comparative literature may need to reposition itself. Bassnett implies that resolving comparative literature's relationship to translation studies could help address the field's long-standing "crisis" and finally settle the debate about whether comparative literature constitutes a discipline in its own right.
No comments:
Post a Comment