Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T02:13:48.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Toward a New Literary History

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

Samah Selim*
Affiliation:
Department of African, Middle Eastern and South Asian Languages and Literatures, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.; e-mail: [email protected]

Extract

The past twenty years witnessed a dramatic transformation in Arabic literature studies in the United States. In the early 1990s, the field was still almost exclusively a satellite of area studies and largely bound by Orientalist historical and epistemological paradigms. Graduate students—even those wishing to focus entirely on modern literature—were trained to competence in the entire span of the Arabic literary tradition starting with pre-Islamic times, and secondary research languages were still rooted in the philological tradition of classical scholarship. The standard requirement was German, with Spanish as a distant second for those interested in Andalusia, but rarely French, say, or Italian or Russian. Other Middle Eastern languages were mainly conceived as primary-text languages rather than research languages. Philology, traditional literary history, and New Criticism formed the methodological boundaries of research. “Theory”—even when it purported to speak of the world outside Europe—was something that was generated by departments of English and comparative literature on the other side of campus, and crossings were rare and complicated in both the disciplinary and the institutional sense. Of course, one branch of “theory”—postcolonial studies—made its way into area studies much faster than the more eclectic offshoots of continental philosophy, for obvious reasons. From nationalism studies to subaltern studies, from Benedict Anderson to Gayatri Spivak, the wave of postcolonial critical theory that swept through U.S. academia in the 1980s and 1990s sparked an uprising in area studies at large and particularly in the literature disciplines. One of the first casualties of this uprising was the old historical paradigm itself: narratives of rise and fall, golden ages, and ages of decadence. Slowly but surely, scholars began to question the entire epistemological edifice through which Arabic literary history had been constructed by Orientalism. It was through the postcolonial theory of the 1980s that Arabic literature came to a broader rapprochement with poststructuralism: Foucault, Derrida, Ricoeur, Jameson, and White, to name a few of the major thinkers who began to transform the field in the late 1990s.

Type
Roundtable
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1 Spivak, Gayatri C., Death of a Discipline (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), 6Google Scholar.

2 See, for example, Kilito, Abdelfattah, The Author and His Doubles: Essays on Classical Arabic Culture, trans. Cooperson, Michael (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 2001)Google Scholar; and idem, al-Ghaʾib: Dirasa fi Maqama li-l-Hariri (Casablanca: Dar Tubaqqal li-l-Nashr, 1987).

3 Critical studies of the modern critical tradition in Arabic literature are practically non-existent in any language, including Arabic—a truly shocking lacuna in contemporary scholarship and one that speaks worlds about the U.S. field's relationship to its disciplinary object.

4 Frederic Jameson's influential 1986 essay “Third World Literature in the Era of Multinational Capital” established a theoretical framework for reading modern African and Asian literature based, however anecdotally, in the language of development discourse. More recently, world-systems-theory varieties of world literature studies map modern global literary production through a center/periphery model that produces hierarchies of (European) originals and (non-European) copies. For a cogent discussion of this problematic from an Arab perspective, see Harlow, Barbara, “Mismar Goha: The Arab Challenge to Cultural Dependency,” South Atlantic Quarterly 87 (1988): 109129Google Scholar.

5 Kamran Rastegar, “Seeds of Revolution: Symposium, April 8, 2011,” Tufts University, last modified 27 March 2011, http://sites.tufts.edu/nahdasymposium/author/kraste01/ (accessed 29 June 2011).