Comparative Mobilities

A. Behdad, Dominic Thomas
{"title":"Comparative Mobilities","authors":"A. Behdad, Dominic Thomas","doi":"10.53397/hunnu.jflc.202201004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay explores recent incursions into comparative modalities and highlights how global comparative literature better reflects the ways in which borders and mobility have become defining elements of the 21st century. However, the humanities remain under attack. Recent openings towards decolonizing the curriculum and strengthening synergies between various social justice approaches may prove fruitful in coordinating defenses. Today, economic and historical circumstances are such that it has become increasingly hard to think of literary traditions in monolithic terms since globalization has dramatically transformed the circulation of literary works. In our understanding, a comparativist is not necessarily invested either in demonstrating the intrinsic connections between cultural or literary objects as traditional practitioners of comparative literature have been, or committed to disclosing incommensurable differences, as postcolonial comparativists have been. Instead, the comparative frame of mind is defined by the fundamental insight that any cultural product or production is inherently heterogeneous and hence requires no external object of comparison. Put otherwise, a comparative frame of mind does not require the co-presence of two or more cultural or literary archives in practicing comparative literature, for any single object can be read in relation to, or even against, its own context. Likewise, languages are not, and should not be considered monolithic entities. Rather, they are historical containers, mobile vessels that transport perpetually evolving references and symbols across borders, the portals and vectors that allow for multi-dimensional cultural and linguistic expression. We therefore argue that the persistent privileging of multi-lingual fluency as the raison d’être of comparative literature needs to be relinquished, and that instead one needs to embrace the idea that one can be a comparatist within a single language. In other words, we argue that comparison is as relevant within diverse national traditions as it is between them.","PeriodicalId":65200,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Languages and Cultures","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Languages and Cultures","FirstCategoryId":"1092","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53397/hunnu.jflc.202201004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This essay explores recent incursions into comparative modalities and highlights how global comparative literature better reflects the ways in which borders and mobility have become defining elements of the 21st century. However, the humanities remain under attack. Recent openings towards decolonizing the curriculum and strengthening synergies between various social justice approaches may prove fruitful in coordinating defenses. Today, economic and historical circumstances are such that it has become increasingly hard to think of literary traditions in monolithic terms since globalization has dramatically transformed the circulation of literary works. In our understanding, a comparativist is not necessarily invested either in demonstrating the intrinsic connections between cultural or literary objects as traditional practitioners of comparative literature have been, or committed to disclosing incommensurable differences, as postcolonial comparativists have been. Instead, the comparative frame of mind is defined by the fundamental insight that any cultural product or production is inherently heterogeneous and hence requires no external object of comparison. Put otherwise, a comparative frame of mind does not require the co-presence of two or more cultural or literary archives in practicing comparative literature, for any single object can be read in relation to, or even against, its own context. Likewise, languages are not, and should not be considered monolithic entities. Rather, they are historical containers, mobile vessels that transport perpetually evolving references and symbols across borders, the portals and vectors that allow for multi-dimensional cultural and linguistic expression. We therefore argue that the persistent privileging of multi-lingual fluency as the raison d’être of comparative literature needs to be relinquished, and that instead one needs to embrace the idea that one can be a comparatist within a single language. In other words, we argue that comparison is as relevant within diverse national traditions as it is between them.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较的机动性
本文探讨了最近对比较模式的入侵,并强调了全球比较文学如何更好地反映边界和流动性已成为21世纪决定性因素的方式。然而,人文学科仍然受到攻击。最近开放的课程非殖民化和加强各种社会正义方法之间的协同作用可能会在协调防御方面取得丰硕成果。今天,由于全球化极大地改变了文学作品的流通,经济和历史环境使得人们越来越难以用单一的术语来看待文学传统。在我们的理解中,比较主义者不一定像传统的比较文学从业者那样致力于展示文化或文学对象之间的内在联系,也不一定像后殖民比较主义者那样致力于揭示不可通约的差异。相反,比较心态的定义是,任何文化产品或生产都是内在的异质性,因此不需要外部的比较对象。换言之,在实践比较文学时,比较心态不需要两个或两个以上的文化或文学档案的共同存在,因为任何一个对象都可以相对于甚至违背其自身的背景来阅读。同样,语言不是,也不应该被视为单一的实体。相反,它们是历史容器,是跨越国界运输不断演变的参考和符号的流动船只,是允许多维文化和语言表达的门户和载体。因此,我们认为,需要放弃将多语言流利性作为比较文学存在理由的一贯特权,相反,人们需要接受这样一种观点,即一个人可以在一种语言中成为一个比较主义者。换言之,我们认为,在不同的民族传统中,比较与它们之间的比较同样重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊最新文献
Contentious Politics, State Repression and Civil Dissidence: The Discourse of Resistance in Utpal Dutt’s Nightmare City What Is at Stake in Comparing the Literatures? Chinese Tradition in the World Literature: Review of Zhang Longxi's A History of Chinese Literature Schizophrenic Border and Viral Optics in Raymond Williams's Border Country Nihilism and Desire in "The Posthumous Memoirs of Brás Cubas": Literature and Psychoanalysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1