Toward a Multilingual Space: A Critique of Franco Moretti’s Theory of World Literature

This paper endeavors to undertake a critical examination of Franco Moretti’s theory of world literature, elucidating its limitations, and subsequently proposing an alternative approach. Specifically, it proposes the establishment of a multilingual world literary framework as a counterpoint to the monolingualism emphasized within Moretti’s conception of a world literary ‘space.’ While Moretti’s pioneering “distant reading” method once sparked controversy and marked a transformative juncture in the field of world literature studies in the United States, it has since evolved into one among several critical methodologies in the discipline. In Korea, conversely, Moretti’s theory has attained mainstream recognition within academic research. This prevalence, coinciding with the ascent of digital humanities, quantitative research, and interdisciplinary approaches, may inadvertently lead to an uncritical acceptance of the inherent limitations within Moretti’s theory of world literature. For Moretti, who draws inspiration from Immanuel Wallerstein’s world system theory to conceptualize the world literary space, the paramount objective is to ‘explain’ the complexities of ‘one and unequal’ global literary landscape. However, world literature theory should not only seek to ‘explain’ the unevenness within the world literature space but also engage in a critical analysis of the mechanisms perpetuating these inequalities, ultimately striving to effect change. In this regard, Gayatri Spivak’s notion of ‘planetarity’ and Emily Aptor’s concept of ‘untranslatability’ offer valuable insights, enabling us to envision a multilingual world distinct from the homogeneity often associated with globalization. While their focus centers on exploring the presence of the ‘world in literature,’ Francesca Orsini’s alternative perspective offers a critique of the inherent monolingualism within Moretti’s theory while advocating for the adoption of the concepts of ‘multilingual local’ and ‘significant geographies’ to unravel and elucidate the interrelationship between ‘literature in the world’ and the ‘world in literature.’ Orsini’s argument may provide a reference point for critically engaging with hierarchical center-periphery dynamics by empowering numerous independent local voices. This approach can enable us to reposition Moretti’s theory of world literature as one of the available methodologies, paving the way for a more nuanced and enriched understanding of world literature.