Comparative Literature and Comparative Cultural Studies

Theory, Period Styles, and Comparative Literature as Discipline

Theory, Period Styles, and Comparative Literature as Discipline Slobodan Sucur INTRODUCTION It is sometimes said that the origins of comparative literature are tied to debates concerning the renewal of the notion of literature, tied together because such theoretical debates on literariness, text, aesthetics, etc., and theoretical debates in general which still affect us, appear to originate with the Jena-Berlin school of Romanticism (the first phase), the approximate period from which the origins of comparative literature emanate as well. The question which looms large here is the following: Can a rapprochement be brought about between various, often antagonistic, literary-theoretical views and the concept of comparative literature itself, which requires accord, consensus, agreement, etc., for it to function as a concrete body and discipline? I will deal with the question by splitting this paper into three parts. In the first part, I will expose the antagonistic nature of theory by looking at some formalist, deconstructionist, and humanist views, views which seem to feed on each other for survival, and which pose a threat to the notion of smoothly operating disciplines such as Comparative Literature, Art History, etc.; the antagonism, inconsistency, and confusion which is present in and arises because of the polemic nature of these views will be traced back to early Romanticism. In the second part of the paper, I will use Ali Behdad’s concept of “belatedness,” juxtaposed onto Virgil Nemoianu’s argument for a Biedermeier style, to explain why comparative literature as a discipline seems to be a product of the same Romanticism that gave birth to high theorizing but simultaneously seems to be divided and at odds with this “other,” theoretical product; I will attempt to account for this 152 supposed paradox. In the third and final part of the paper, I will attempt to reconcile theory and discipline (i.e., comparative literature) by bringing in the notion of literary history as a medium through which antagonisms can be subsumed , and perhaps even cancelled out, by larger narrative accounts of literary and theoretical development, by meta-endeavors, as it were; I will also speak of other concepts in this final section. THEORY, DISCORD, AND EARLY ROMANTICISM It may be odd that I am beginning a discussion on theory, discord, and Romanticism by citing examples from Russian Formalism, because the latter school of thought is often said to be anti-Romantic, especially in its reaction against Symbolist poetics, as Selden says in his A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory: The Futurists, who provided the initial impetus for Formalism , directed their artistic efforts “against ‘decadent’ bourgeois culture and especially against the anguished soul-searching of the Symbolist movement in poetry and the visual arts . . . [and against] the mystical posturing of poets” (30). Nonetheless, certain Formalist assumptions were later attacked by poststructuralism , leading to conceptual opposition and discord, and besides, while Selden believes that Formalism was anti-Romantic owing to its avoidance of Symbolist assumptions, we may also argue that Symbolism was itself antiRomantic owing to its elaboration on earlier, romantic tendencies, and so on. As I have said, certain Formalist assumptions were later attacked, and this is why I mention such assumptions. One of the clearest examples of Formalism is found in Victor Shklovsky’s article, “Art as Technique,” where one of the major points is that the very phrase, “works of art,” designates those “works created by special techniques designed to make the works as obviously artistic as possible” (17). What Shklovsky is working towards with such a comment is the idea of art, in this case poetry, as an autonomous construct, a self-sufficient entity that is set up through conscious craftsmanship: He cements the essence of his argument later by saying that what is required is a proper distinction “between the laws of practical language and the laws of poetic language” (19). Further on, Shklovsky offers a sentence that has been quoted and criticized often: “Art is a way of experiencing the artfulness of an object; the object is not important” (20; italics in the original). Near the end of the article, he once again reaffirms his views be saying “a strong tendency Theory, Period Styles, and Comparative Literature as Discipline 153 . . . to create a new and properly poetic language has emerged. In the light of these developments we can define poetry as attenuated, tortuous speech. Poetic speech is formed speech. Prose is ordinary speech—economical, easy, proper...