Carlos G. Tee (鄭永康)摘要

July, 2010

On “D'ou venon-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous?: The Permanent Crisis of Comparative Literature” by Ulrich Weisstein

       In this paper published in 1984, Ulrich Weisstein offers an updated map of comparative literature by touching on the state of the discipline at that time, the major issues and “crisis situations” relevant to the study and practice of comparative literature, new trends and developments in the constantly pulsating field of comparative literature, its deficiencies and his own recommendations.

        Drawing inspiration from René Wellek, Weisstein alludes to a crisis in the discipline, a permanent one, exactly a quarter of a century later. Apparently, comparatists like to talk about crises as an attention-drawing way to describe how their field of study, as an organic body, necessarily keeps growing and changing with time.

        Having mentioned growths and changes in the field of comparative literature, the author suggests an updating of the definition of comparative literature, last made by Van Tieghem more than 50 years ago (at the time of Weisstein's writing). Weisstein recommends an expansion of the comparative literature terminology (190), which I believe is the logical thing to do, considering the multidisciplinary expansion of the field in recent decades. Following the same logic, Weisstein also recommends an improvement in methodology and tools (189), so as to better accommodate new fields and concepts absorbed into the realm of comparative literature.

        Weisstein laments, while recalling failed efforts by Hutcheson Posnett in late 19^th Century, the exclusion of sociological studies from comparative literature (170-171), but developments towards ethnic and gender studies in the last 40 years or so have vindicated the issue. In another area, however, developments have not been to Weisstein's wishes: Eurocentrism remains a sticking point between the American and European camps today.

        The author brings up the concept of taking science thematically in comparative literature studies, but nothing mainstream seems to have grown out of this idea in the decades that followed.

        Among the issues mentioned by Weisstein is the extension of “the boundaries of Comparative Literature beyond belles artes” (179), citing the contribution of Calvin Brown. Today, the relationship between literature and the other arts is a much-studied branch in the discipline, and in fact, has kept comparative literature bubbling with critical activity (14). The phenomenon has not abated even to this day.

       Weisstein warns about the danger of turning comparative literature into the handmaid of literary theory, fearing that the latter might absorb comparative literature if it continues deviating from the core issues (191). One of the ACLA (American Comparative Literature Association) status reports also made similar admonitions, bemoaning the tendency to use comparative literature academic departments as forums to pursue literary theory studies. However, theory has a functional tool for elucidating the relationships among subjects under comparative study. In fact, theory can make the relationship between comparative literature and cultural studies more objective, as Michael Riffaterre observes (70).

        In this paper, Weisstein made a number of recommendations worthy of further thought even to this day, but the most eloquent words he used to drive the idea of the crisis situation are as follows: “I, following Wellek, would not mind dropping the ‘comparative' if and when that qualifier ceases to be functional.”

Works Cited

Koelb, Clayton and Susan Noakes. The Comparative Perspective on Literature: Approaches to Theory and Practice. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1988.

Riffaterre, Michael. “On the Complementarity of Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies.” Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism. Ed. Charles Bernheimer. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1994, 66-73.

Weisstein, Ulrich. “D'ou venon-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous?: The Permanent Crisis of Comparative Literature” Canadian Review of Comparative Literature (1984): 167-92.