The Rise of Comparative Literature as an Ideology

Most scholars agree that comparative literature does not have a unique
“comparative methodology” of its own. On the contrary, comparing is one of the basic
ways of thinking of human beings, which was used to evaluate literary works long
before comparative literature came into being as a systematic study of literature. The
rise of comparative literature as a discipline in the 19th century, as we have pointed
out in the previous lecture, was part of the converging tendencies in academic fields
in Europe (e.g. comparative anatomy, comparative erotics, etc.). But if we examine
the historical and political background in Europe in the 19th century, we find that
comparative literature was nurtured in two dominant trends of thought, that is,
romanticism and nationalism.
The romantic feature of comparative literature in the 19th century expressed
itself in its passion for history. The prevailing primitivism at that time believed that
the essence of a thing could be revealed by tracing its origin. In academic studies,
historical interpretation was vigorously sought so that the present could be justified by
means of historical authority. Good examples are the theory of evolution, which
explains the origin and evolution of life, biblical textology, which attempted to
retrieve the “historical Jesus” by tracing the oldest version of the bible, and philology,
which tried to revive the prototype of Indo-European languages and study the
relationship and mutual influence between Indo-European languages.
But this kind of historical interpretation could only retrieve or reconstruct the
oldest samples; it failed to analyze the historical conditions under which the
headstream originated. Nor did it explain how this headstream and its historical
surroundings interacted with each other to produce its ultimate form. In other words,
primitivism in the context of romantic sentiments was only interested in establishing
the family tree of things (linear relationship), it failed to consider the historical
conditions of the family tree.
So, comparative literature which rose under this academic environment and
trends tended to trace the origin of works, themes, forms, and movements. It believed
1
that objective and scientific means and an attitude of matter-of-fact could reveal
literary truths and the relationships between literary works.
If we say that romanticism invested comparative literature with a tendency to
seek historical interpretation of literature, then nationalism invested comparative
literature with a realistic motive for this kind of pursuit.
Because of the cultural mixing pot in central Europe, nationalism became a
powerful ideology. Nationalists have tired to use these common bonds to unit together
peoples to fight for or support a common goal. Nationalism has usually evolved from
real or imagined cultural unity, mostly manifesting itself through the commonality of
language, religion, history, or territory. Most romantics saw the growth of modern
industry as ugly, brutal attack on their human personality and nature itself.
German scholar Hans Robert Jauss pointed out that during the course of
restructuring history, comparative literature strung together all the literary works of a
nation to form the so called “national literature”, and looked on these works as the
manifestation of the soul and fate of the nation. According to Jauss, the research work
done by comparative literature served a special ideological function: to its own people,
the study of the manifestation of national soul in literary works of all ages would
enhance national unity, heighten people’s morale, and pave the way for national
development.; to people in other countries, the study of national literatures of other
countries would prove the superiority of one’s national literature. So in the 19th
century when imperialist expansion and competition was the order of the day, the rise
of comparative literature was by no means fortuitous.
Nationalism and the romantic propensity of early comparative literature offered
another ideological function, that is, to wipe out class hatred. In the 19 th century,
political and social movements in major European industrial countries led by the
working class were common. Under this social condition, education took up the
responsibility of removing class hatred, as more and more people became literate. The
discussion of national literature would, on the one hand, show that the sameness in
terms of origin, race and culture was far more important than class differences; and on
the other, the emphasis of national uniqueness would minimize the possibility of
2
international unity of the working class.
Before the Second World War, only a small number of American universities
had a department of comparative literature, for example, Columbia University,
Harvard University, Wisconsin University and North Carolina State University. But
these departments were usually small and the teaching work was mostly done by
professors from literature departments and language departments. Comparative
departments were usually criticized for the lack of their own research domain. The
signature course “World Literature” was no more than teaching students world
classics in translation. Comparative literature was not able to carry out serious
comparative studies of different literatures.
Starting from the end of the Second World War, due to the great effort of Werner
P. Friedrich, dean of Department of Comparative Literature of North Carolina State
University, comparative literature expanded enormously in America. By the end of the
1950s, comparative literature had already established its status as an important
discipline.
Here comes the question: what helped American comparative literature to put an
end to its status of marginalization and become a major branch of literature studies?
Friederich tried to answer this question in his speech at the MLA Conference in
1956. He explained the underlying reason for the rapid development of comparative
literature in America in terms of the effect of the war. He pointed out that rise of
comparative usually took place in the wake of a world war, for example, the
prosperity of comparative literature in France after World War I. He argued the world
war was a result of the exclusionism of politics and cultural chauvinism. When
reflecting upon the world war, scholars believed that the research of the
interrelationship between national literatures would help strengthen the so called
“literary internationalism”, thus contributing to fill the chasm between nations.
Friederich’s opinion seemed reasonable, but when considering it in a larger
social and historical context, we find that his judgment does not hold water, for it fails
to reveal the real cause of the rise of comparative literature in America after World
War II.
3
 From the historical point of view, the Second World War was a war in which the
leftist and the rightist joined together to fight against the fascist. After the war, this
union broke up, and the western world was divided into two political and military
groups: NATO and WTO.
As the competition and confrontation between the two groups grew intense, the
western countries felt their military alliance alone was not enough. They needed
something to hold them together tightly, since even inside the NATO countries when
America had an overwhelming role to play while western European countries were
badly weakened by the war, they were confronted with many political and economic
problems and conflicts. To strengthen unity between America and western countries,
western countries felt an urgent need to cast away their differences, and focus upon
the sameness between Europe and America: the same cultural background, the same
origin, the same past and the same future. But how to persuade people to believe that
they shared the same cultural heritage when actually their languages and customs
were different? So, this is where comparative literature came in. Because of this
ideological function comparative literature might have, comparative literature got
support from the policy makers. This is the real reason why comparative literature
developed so fast after the war.