Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:04:26.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Does the Comparative Do for Literary History?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Djelal Kadir
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The comparative provides literary history with a margin of redemptive self-betrayal. by the comparative, we should understand certain practices of reading and inquiry that reveal actions and texts to be more than they appear and that expose narrative claims as other than they strictly claim to be. Historiography is likewise susceptible to this exposure. Narrative acts of literary history no less subject to such self-salvaging through comparative discernment, alert us to historiography's uncertain adequacy to the histories it narrates. The redeeming quotient of the comparative signaled here resides in its preemption of tautology. The comparative, that is, can forestall, if not preclude outright, the possibility of any phenomenon's becoming definitively self-identical. In affirming the comparability of its objects, textual or otherwise, the comparative uncovers and ratifies the difference within and among phenomena and the contingencies of their existence, a sanctioning of difference that could mitigate solipsism and self-delusion. For literary history, this means foreclosing, or at least hedging against, literary history's morphing into world history as tautologically plotted by certain master narratives of historiography that claim total explicatory power over the fortuities of history and historical life. These include narratives of imperial successions, providential history, world monarchies, epochal histories that plot human existence on the self-universalized grid of their own periodicity, and the history of Spirit commonly referred to as “Prussian universalisms.” In this regard, Hegelian Geistgeschichte, with its dialectical-materialist derivative known as Marxism and its liberal-democratic free-market remnants called capitalism, both plied under the flag of modernization theory, is exemplary (Pomper, Elphick, and Vann). These are among historiography's most salient master narratives, perennially dominant in historical discourse and in the hegemony of states that have ideologically abetted and politically deployed them (Fasolt 219-32; Guha 24-47). The comparative persistently troubles the structural coherence of these historiographical master plots and their self-validating systematicity.

Type
Theories and Methodologies
Information
PMLA , Volume 128 , Issue 3 , May 2013 , pp. 644 - 651
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by The Modern Language Association of America

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

Works Cited

Altieri, Charles. “What Theory Can Learn from New Directions in Contemporary American Poetry.” New Literary History 43.1 (2012): 65–87. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Ed. Urmson, J. M. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Print.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. “Discourse in the Novel (1934-35).” The Dialogic Imagination. By Bakhtin. Ed. Michael Holquist. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Holquist. Austin: U of Texas P, 1981. 259–422. Print.Google Scholar
Benjamin, Walter. “The Storyteller: Reflections on the Work of Nikolai Leskov.” Illuminations. By Benjamin. Ed. Hannah Arendt. Trans. Harry Zohn. New York: Schocken, 1969. 83–109. Print.Google Scholar
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. “The Climate of History: Four Theses.” Critical Inquiry 35.2 (2009): 197–222. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. “Postcolonial Studies and the Challenge of Climate Change.” New Literary History 43.1 (2012): 1–18. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasolt, Constantin. The Limits of History. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2004. Print.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. Addinglnsult to Injury: Nancy Fraser Debates Her Critics. Ed. Olson, Kevin. London: Verso, 2008. Print.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the “Post-socialist” Condition. New York: Routledge, 1997. Print.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World. New York: Columbia UP, 2009. Print.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, Stephen. Marvelous Possessions: The Wonder of the New World. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1992. Print.Google Scholar
Guha, Ranajit. History at the Limit of World-History. New York: Columbia UP, 2002. Print.Google Scholar
Hegel, Hegel Georg Wilhelm. Lectures on the Philosophy of World History. Trans. Nisbet, H. B. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1982. Print.Google Scholar
Hegel, Hegel Georg Wilhelm. Phenomenology of Spirit. Trans. Miller, A. V. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977. Print.Google Scholar
Herder, Herder Johann Gottfried. “Results of a Comparison of Different Peoples' Poetry in Ancient and Modern Times.” The Princeton Sourcebook in Comparative Literature: From the European Enlightenment to the Global Present. Ed. Damrosch, David et al. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2009. 3–9. Print.Google Scholar
Herodotus. The History of Herodotus. Trans. G. C. Macaulay. Vol. 1. London, 1890. Project Gutenberg. Web. 25 Nov. 2012.Google Scholar
Kadir, Djelal. Columbus and the Ends of the Earth: Europe's Prophetic Rhetoric as Conquering Ideology. Berkeley: U of California P, 1992. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadir, Djelal. Memos from the Besieged City: Lifelines for Cultural Sustainability. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2011. Print.Google Scholar
Kadir, Djelal. “To Compare, to World: Two Verbs, One Discipline.” Comparatist 34 (2010): 4–11. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadir, Djelal. “To World, to Globalize: Comparative Literature's Crossroads.” Comparative Literature Studies 41.1 (2004): 1–9. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Ed. Louden, Robert B. Introd. Kuehn, Manfred. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006. Print.Google Scholar
Pomper, Philip, Elphick, Richard H., and Vann, Richard T., eds. World History: Ideologies, Structures, and Identities. Malden: Blackwell, 1998. Print.Google Scholar
Radhakrishnan, R. “Why Compare?” New Literary History 40.3 (2009): 453–71. Print.Google Scholar
Rancière, Jacques. Aesthetics and Its Discontents. Trans. Corcoran, Steven. Malden: Polity, 2009. Print.Google Scholar
Said, Edward W. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Knopf, 1994. Print.Google Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. “The Limits of Historical Explanations.” Philosophy 41 (1966): 199–215. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suny, Ronald Grigor, and Kennedy, Michael D. Introduction. Intellectuals and the Articulation of the Nation. Ed. Suny, and Kennedy, . Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 2001. 1–51. Print.Google Scholar
White, Hayden. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1973. Print.Google Scholar
Whitman, Walt “Preface to Leaves of Grass.” Poetry and Prose. Ed. Kaplan, Justin. New York: Lib. of Amer., 1982. 5–26. Print.Google Scholar