Assignment : 208 Comparative Literature & Translation Studies
Topic : Analysis of the Article “What is Comparative Literature Today?” Comparative Literature : A Critical Introduction
Academic Information :
Name: Reshma Bilakhiya
Roll No: 23
Semester: 4 (Batch 2023-25)
Enrolment number: 5108230008
Paper No: 208
Paper name: Comparative Literature & Translation Studies
Paper code: 22415
Topic: Analysis of the Article “What is Comparative Literature Today?” Comparative Literature : A Critical Introduction
Submitted to: Smt. S.B. Gardi, Department of English, MKBU
Email id : reshmabilakhiya21@gmail.com
Date of Submission : 17th April, 2025
Analysis of the Article “What is Comparative Literature Today?” Comparative Literature : A Critical Introduction
Introduction
Comparative Literature, as a field of study, has long been both celebrated and critiqued for its vast scope and flexibility. Susan Bassnett, in her seminal work Comparative Literature: A Critical Introduction, opens with an exploration of the discipline’s complexity and its resistance to a singular definition. The first ten pages lay a foundational understanding of how Comparative Literature emerged, evolved, and remains relevant in a constantly shifting global literary landscape.
Ambiguous Nature of the Discipline
Comparative Literature distinguishes itself from more traditional literary disciplines through its fundamental resistance to a fixed disciplinary identity. Unlike fields such as English, French, or German Literature, which are anchored in specific national, linguistic, and cultural traditions, Comparative Literature deliberately crosses these boundaries. It does not confine itself to the study of texts within a single language or culture; rather, it operates through a cross-cultural, multilingual, and often interdisciplinary framework. This unique orientation enables scholars to examine a vast array of literary texts across geographies, time periods, and intellectual traditions.
What defines Comparative Literature is not the content it studies—there is no fixed canon or national literature—but the methodology it employs. It places greater emphasis on how literature is studied than on what is studied, encouraging comparative analyses that examine intertextuality, thematic resonance, ideological contrasts, and formal innovations across diverse literary traditions. As such, it opens up space for dynamic engagement with a wide range of topics including identity, migration, trauma, gender, race, politics, and translation. This methodological openness allows for the inclusion of marginalized, non-canonical, and global literatures that are often excluded from nation-based literary studies.
However, this very openness contributes to a conceptual ambiguity that has sparked significant debate within academia. The lack of a clearly defined object of study or methodological standard makes Comparative Literature difficult to categorize or institutionalize within rigid departmental structures. It is sometimes perceived as intellectually diffuse or overly broad, leading critics to question its coherence as a discipline. There is a concern that its fluid nature may cause it to be subsumed under broader areas like cultural studies or world literature, potentially eroding its distinct identity.
Despite these challenges, the adaptability of Comparative Literature continues to be one of its greatest strengths. In a globalized world characterized by increasing cultural interconnection, the discipline provides a vital platform for engaging with literature in a way that transcends national and linguistic borders. It invites scholars to rethink inherited categories of knowledge, challenge ethnocentric paradigms, and embrace complexity. Far from being a weakness, its fluid and evolving nature allows Comparative Literature to remain intellectually vibrant and relevant, positioning it at the forefront of humanities scholarship in the 21st century.
Historical Foundations
The intellectual roots of Comparative Literature can be traced back to 19th-century Europe, particularly in France and Germany, where the discipline began to take shape as an academic pursuit distinct from national literary studies. During this period, a number of scholars and critics embarked on the systematic comparison of national literatures with the aim of identifying shared literary values, thematic parallels, and what were thought to be "universal" truths about human nature. The belief was that by juxtaposing literary texts from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, one could reveal a common moral or aesthetic core that united humanity across borders.
One of the most influential figures in this early phase was the German poet and thinker Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, who introduced the concept of Weltliteratur—or world literature. Goethe envisioned literature as a medium through which nations could engage in dialogue, transcending their differences through shared artistic expression. His vision encouraged the idea that literature could serve as a bridge between cultures and foster mutual understanding, which became a foundational ideal of Comparative Literature. Goethe’s idea was not purely aesthetic; it was also shaped by Enlightenment cosmopolitanism, which championed the idea of a universal human experience that could be accessed and expressed through literature.
However, while the notion of Weltliteratur suggested openness and inclusivity, the practical application of Comparative Literature during the 19th and early 20th centuries was far more limited and deeply Eurocentric. European scholars focused predominantly on comparing the "great works" of Western European literature—authors like Shakespeare, Dante, Cervantes, Molière, and Goethe himself—who were considered the pinnacle of literary achievement. This comparative practice often involved tracing lines of influence, origin, and development, with an emphasis on linear progress and intellectual evolution, notions that were modeled on the Enlightenment ideals of rationality and advancement.
This framework, while seemingly neutral, was inherently shaped by the imperial ideologies of the time. The idea that European literature represented the height of civilization mirrored the colonial belief that European culture was inherently superior to that of colonized peoples. As a result, the literatures of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and the Americas—particularly those emerging from indigenous, oral, or non-Western traditions—were largely excluded from early comparative studies or treated as ethnographic curiosities rather than as serious literary works. These texts were not seen as participating in the same “universal” human discourse because they did not fit into the Western literary mold.
The academic structures that supported Comparative Literature during this period reflected these exclusions. University curricula and research focused almost exclusively on European texts, reinforcing a canon that left little room for non-European voices. Even when other traditions were acknowledged, they were often read through a Eurocentric lens, judged by criteria derived from Western aesthetic values. This helped entrench a hierarchy of literatures that privileged Western narratives, forms, and philosophies, while marginalizing those that deviated from them.
Thus, while Comparative Literature began with idealistic aspirations of cross-cultural understanding and universal human values, its historical practice often contradicted these ideals. The discipline’s early methodologies and institutional frameworks were complicit in reinforcing cultural hierarchies rooted in colonial ideology. These Eurocentric foundations would eventually come under scrutiny by later generations of scholars, especially in the wake of postcolonial theory, which challenged the assumptions underpinning the discipline and called for a broader, more inclusive approach to literary comparison.
Postcolonial Critique and Crisis
By the mid-20th century, Comparative Literature faced a significant turning point—both methodologically and ideologically—as anti-colonial movements gained momentum and nations across Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean began achieving independence from European imperial powers. This wave of global decolonization coincided with an increasing awareness in academia that the Eurocentric foundations of Comparative Literature were no longer adequate—or ethically viable—for engaging with the growing body of world literature emerging from formerly colonized societies. As the geopolitical landscape shifted, so too did the theoretical frameworks used to study literature across cultures.
This period marked the beginning of what many scholars have termed the "crisis" in Comparative Literature. It was not a crisis of extinction, but rather a profound moment of introspection and transformation. Scholars and critics began to reflect critically on the limitations of the discipline’s original practices, which had privileged Western literary texts as the normative standard for comparison. These comparative models often failed to acknowledge or value the diverse historical, linguistic, and cultural contexts from which non-Western literatures emerged. As a result, much of the literature produced outside Europe and North America was either ignored, misread, or filtered through colonial assumptions.
The intellectual challenge to these assumptions was significantly shaped by the rise of postcolonial theory. Influential thinkers such as Edward Said, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, and Homi K. Bhabha brought a new vocabulary and theoretical sophistication to literary studies. In his groundbreaking work Orientalism (1978), Edward Said exposed how Western scholarship had historically constructed the East as the exotic "Other"—a strategy that served both colonial domination and epistemic superiority. Said’s critique demonstrated how literature and cultural representations were complicit in systems of power and control. His insights had a profound impact on Comparative Literature, forcing scholars to re-examine their assumptions and methodologies.
Gayatri Spivak further expanded the critique in her essay Can the Subaltern Speak?, where she questioned whether the voices of the marginalized—especially women in postcolonial societies—could ever truly be represented within dominant Western discourses. Spivak's call for critical self-awareness highlighted the ethical responsibility of scholars to avoid reinscribing imperialist narratives under the guise of academic neutrality. Similarly, Homi Bhabha introduced concepts such as hybridity, ambivalence, and mimicry to challenge the fixed binaries between colonizer and colonized, self and other, center and margin. Bhabha’s work emphasized the fluid, in-between spaces where cultural identity is negotiated and contested—spaces that traditional Comparative Literature had previously overlooked.
In response to these critiques, Comparative Literature began to shift its focus from Euro-American texts and linear influence studies to more inclusive, decent, and pluralistic approaches. Scholars started to advocate for transnational, intercultural, and decolonial frameworks that gave equal critical weight to literatures from the Global South, as well as to Indigenous, diasporic, and minority voices. Comparative studies no longer aimed solely to uncover universal themes, but to understand the unique socio-political contexts that shaped each literary tradition.
This methodological and ideological shift did not mean the end of Comparative Literature, but rather its reorientation. The crisis became a productive rupture, opening space for ethical engagement with issues of power, identity, resistance, and representation. Comparative Literature, once complicit in reinforcing colonial hierarchies, began to evolve into a site of critical resistance—a field capable of interrogating its own legacy while actively contributing to the formation of more just and equitable scholarly practices.
Ultimately, the postcolonial critique has redefined Comparative Literature in the 21st century. It has transformed the discipline from a tool of cultural comparison based on hierarchical evaluation into a space for dialogic exchange and cultural negotiation. This ongoing transformation remains central to the vitality and relevance of Comparative Literature in an increasingly interconnected, yet deeply unequal, globalized world.
Interdisciplinary Approach
One of the most transformative developments in the evolution of Comparative Literature as a discipline has been its enthusiastic and sustained turn toward interdisciplinarity. Traditionally, literary studies focused on close textual analysis within the confines of a particular language or national tradition. However, as Comparative Literature expanded its geographical and theoretical horizons, it also began to embrace methodologies and frameworks from adjacent fields in the humanities and social sciences. No longer restricted to the comparative study of literary texts in isolation, the field now interacts meaningfully with disciplines such as anthropology, history, philosophy, media and film studies, sociology, gender studies, postcolonial studies, queer theory, and most notably, translation studies.
This interdisciplinary orientation has fundamentally altered the scope and practice of Comparative Literature, making it a vibrant, evolving, and responsive field. It allows scholars to examine literary texts not only as aesthetic objects but also as cultural artifacts shaped by historical, political, and ideological forces. For example, literary texts can now be read through anthropological lenses to understand cultural practices and rituals, or through historical frameworks to contextualize the socio-political conditions that shaped their production and reception. Philosophical inquiry helps in engaging with questions of ethics, existence, and metaphysics in literature, while media studies open up new avenues for comparing narrative forms across platforms such as film, television, and digital storytelling.
Feminist theory, for instance, has brought a critical awareness of gendered voices and experiences into comparative readings. A feminist comparative approach might examine how women writers from different cultures navigate themes such as domesticity, bodily autonomy, resistance, oppression, and agency. Works by authors like Toni Morrison, Ismat Chughtai, or Tsitsi Dangarembga, when studied side by side, offer rich insights into the intersections of patriarchy, colonialism, and narrative voice.
Similarly, ecocriticism, an emerging interdisciplinary field, has found a welcome place within Comparative Literature. Scholars may now compare how environmental degradation, climate change, and human-nature relationships are portrayed in different cultural texts—for instance, contrasting the portrayal of ecological disruption in Indigenous American oral traditions with African postcolonial literature. Such comparative ecocritical readings not only expand the field thematically but also engage with pressing global concerns, reinforcing literature’s role in environmental awareness and activism.
Perhaps one of the most integral and enriching contributions to the interdisciplinary nature of Comparative Literature comes from translation studies. In a multilingual world, comparative work often depends on accessing texts through translation. This has prompted scholars to explore translation not just as a tool of accessibility but as a critical site of cultural negotiation and reinterpretation. Translation becomes an act of rewriting, one that involves choices, omissions, and ideological positioning. Through the lens of translation studies, comparatists analyze how meaning shifts, how cultural references are mediated, and how literary authority is reconstructed across linguistic borders.
Despite these enriching expansions, the interdisciplinary turn has also raised critical questions about the identity and boundaries of Comparative Literature as a discipline. Some scholars have voiced concern that as it borrows more methods and theories from other fields, Comparative Literature risks losing its disciplinary core. There is an ongoing debate about whether Comparative Literature is still primarily a literary field or whether it is evolving into a broader branch of cultural studies. These questions, while complex, are part of what keeps the discipline intellectually dynamic. Rather than signaling dilution, this disciplinary permeability can be seen as a strength—an indication that Comparative Literature is capable of adapting, reinventing itself, and staying relevant in response to shifting intellectual currents.
Ultimately, the interdisciplinary approach has empowered Comparative Literature to go beyond the mere juxtaposition of texts. It now examines literature in its fullest cultural, historical, philosophical, and linguistic dimensions. This multidimensional approach equips scholars to ask more complex questions, challenge inherited literary hierarchies, and forge innovative frameworks for reading and analysis. In a world increasingly defined by globalization, hybrid identities, and transnational flows of culture, this adaptability makes Comparative Literature a crucial and forward-looking space within the humanities.
Criticism of ‘Universality’
The notion of universality has historically served as both a goal and justification for Comparative Literature. Scholars sought to discover literary themes that transcended national and cultural boundaries—love, death, heroism, exile. However, as Susan Bassnett and others have argued, these “universal” values were often filtered through a Western lens. The criteria for universality were typically based on European Enlightenment ideals, which marginalized alternative worldviews, such as African cosmologies, Asian philosophies, or Indigenous oral traditions. By challenging this assumption, Bassnett calls for a contextual approach to literature, where each text is situated within its specific historical, social, political, and cultural environment. This shift in focus disrupts simplistic comparisons and insists on understanding the embeddedness of meaning. For example, the theme of exile may resonate across many literatures, but the experience of exile for a Palestinian poet, an Indian partition survivor, or a South African activist carries different historical and emotional weights. Recognizing these distinctions is crucial for a more ethical and nuanced comparative practice.
Role of Language and Translation
Language is not merely a medium but a cultural force, and translation is not simply a mechanical process but a site of interpretation, negotiation, and even resistance. Bassnett underscores the significance of translation in Comparative Literature, particularly in a world where linguistic accessibility is key to global literary exchange. Most readers and scholars engage with world literature through translations, which means that translators play a crucial yet often invisible role in shaping literary meaning. Every act of translation involves choices—about tone, idiom, style, and cultural references—that reflect not just linguistic skill but ideological positioning. For instance, how a postcolonial African novel is translated into English can either preserve its local flavor or erase its distinctiveness to appeal to Western readers. Bassnett’s work encourages us to view translations not as secondary or derivative texts, but as powerful sites of meaning-making. In Comparative Literature, translation becomes a lens through which power, voice, and representation can be critically examined.
Conclusion :
Susan Bassnett’s foundational insights into Comparative Literature challenge readers and scholars to rethink the discipline as a space of intellectual possibility and ethical responsibility. Her critique of Eurocentrism, call for interdisciplinarity, and emphasis on translation and context all work toward reshaping Comparative Literature into a field that is more inclusive, global, and critically engaged. Far from being a discipline in decline, it is one that is constantly reinventing itself in response to cultural, political, and theoretical shifts. By moving beyond the quest for universality and embracing plurality, Bassnett positions Comparative Literature as a field that not only studies literature but also interrogates the conditions under which literature is written, translated, read, and understood. In today’s increasingly interconnected and contested world, her vision makes Comparative Literature more relevant than ever.
Words Count : (2834)
Image : (1)
Work Cited :
Bassnett, Susan. “What is Comparative Literature Today?” Comparative Literature: A Critical Introduction, Blackwell, 1993, pp. 1–10.
No comments:
Post a Comment