Comparative literature in the age of multiculturalism-2:
The Levin report, 1965 The report on professional standards
l The developing of CL became harder without the support of National defense education act (p.21)
l Q1: is it suitable for CL course to exist in language departments if not many universities can measure up?
l Q2: the presentation of CL within a faculty ought to take the form of a department, a sub-department, or a committee? (p.22)
l The function of CL: to augment[擴大]and bridge literature and language→ interdepartment, cooperation of specialists.
I. CL practice
A. interdepartmental committee: the most practical arrangement in the early years.
B. Professional scholars: very few scholars are wholly in CL→ consider the relevance of other subjects (interdisciplinary)
C. Crouse offering: the subjects should be broadened. (translation)
II. The demands for the MA course:
A. cooperating departments→ integrated, transcending national limits (p.23)
B. two basic courses: theory of literature + textual methods or technique problems
C. solid training in a few language
III. The demands for the BA course: language limitation
IV. The demands for the doctor level: certain auxiliary[輔助的]languages→ French and German and other classical language (p.24)
V. Appendix: the undergraduate major
l The need for minimal standards in undergraduate programs in CL is no less urgent than in the graduate area. (p.25)
A. The institution(p.26)
1. Have strong departments in both classical and modern language and literature→ variety and balance
2. At least one staff who doctorate in CL
3. Have substantial library holdings in several languages and literature
B. The programs: Good undergraduate CL classes
C. Minimum requirements for the undergraduate major in CL
1. At least two literatures which could be studied and reading in the original→ international perspective
2. Study in depth of at least one literature
3. Some acquaintance with the major writings of western literature. (p.27)
The Greene report, 1975. A report on standard
l The CL gathered strength in the
I. Perspectives of CL in 1975: new internationalism
A. Broader perspectives on works and authors
B. A European grasp of historical movement
C. Larger contexts in the tracing of motifs, themes, and types as well as larger understanding of genres and modes.
D. Great theoretical issues of literary criticism from a cosmopolitan vantage[有利] point.
E. Bring together the respective European language departments in a new cooperation
F. Across disciplinary boundaries, even beyond.
II. How does Greene see Levin’s report: elitism. High standards within a few, small departments. (p.29)
III. the present situation (1975) (p.30)
A. Rapid growth. Entities[實體]- departments, programs, committees
B. The heavy swing toward undergraduate teaching and indeed toward colleges with no graduate training
C. The growth of CL programs whose staff contains no Ph. D. trained in the subject, programs depending on libraries whose holdings are modest, and supported by language departments not fully equipped for comparative purposes.
D. The growth of the large lecture course teaching literature in translation which makes no linguistic demands upon its undergraduate audiences but seems to establish an equation[均等] between WL and CL.
E. The admission[入學許可] into graduate school of larger numbers of matriculants[錄取] than ever before.
F. The erosion[侵蝕] of the strength of foreign language departments in the wake[甦醒]of abolished requirements, an erosion which in some places may actually stem in part from the growing popularity of CL course.
G. The growth of interdisciplinary programs. (global literature)
IV. Greene: the importance of standard (p.31)
A. The recent expansion of CL especially at the undergraduate level seems to be based on an uneasy compromise between qualitative[性質上] and quantitative. (now shifting more toward quantitative)
B. Course in translation art potentially of great value to the student, but if no one in the classroom, including the instructor, is in touch with the original language, then CL integrity is lost.
V. CL programs(p.32)
A. Department
1. An adequate staff
2. The department’s relationship to other literature departments
3. The joint appointment[聯合約定]: Communications and properly supplies a structural basis for a spirit of cooperation
4. Neighboring departments of national literatures
5. Humanities departments at its institution
l Without a strong English department and strong foreign language teaching, CL cannot itself be strong
- Graduate school (p.33)
1. Admit only that number of capable students it can truly educate as they deserve, as the discipline requires, and as available fellowship funds permit.
2. Overpopulation in out graduate school will be reduced if we weigh scrupulously[嚴謹] the credentials[憑據] of each applicant for admission.
- Graduate student
1. Should bring to graduate study considerable knowledge of at least two language; after one or two years, this number should rise to three. Of these, one should be an ancient language.
2. Some philological training is highly desirable. (p.34)
3. He or she could teach at least one literature in undergraduate programs
4. Various courses (多涉獵)
5. Dissertation: at least 75 pages (p.35)
- undergraduate level: the association of translation
1. the college lecturer who teach CL is a comparatist
2. the teacher has read the text in the original
- cross-disciplinary programs: welcome but be alert[留神] (p.36)
- non-European literature: while working toward global perspective, we will still need the virtues of precision and integrity our inherited culture has taught us.
Ⅵ. Institutions
A. Evaluation committee
B. Members of the ACLA (p.37)
The Bernheimer report, 1993. Comparative literature at the turn of the century
I. Brief analysis of the previous two reports (p.39)
A. Both the Levin and Greene reports address the notion of high standard→ the very basis of CL’s elite image, the reading and teaching of foreign language works in the original.
B. The use of translation is condemn→
C. The growth of interdisciplinary programs is a threat
D. “Crossing” plays the same role of translation→ not purity.
E. The diachronic[語言史] study of literature threatened to become secondary to a largely synchtonic study of theory. (theory dominate the feild) (p.41)
II. Renewing the field (p.42)
A. The Eurocentrism after WWⅡ is been replace by multiple perspectives: The ways of contextualizing literature in the expanded fields if discourse, culture, ideology, race, and gender are so different from the old models of literary study according to authors, nations, periods, and genres that the term literature may no longer adequately describe our object of study.
B. Sociocultural environment: scholars come from non-comparative fields. The “cultural studies” is more active than CL.
III. The graduate program
A. The CL departments should moderate their focus on high-literary discourse and examine the entire discursive[散亂的]context in which texts are created and such heights are constructed. It does not mean that comparative study should abandon the formal features but that textually precise readings should take account as well of the ideological, cultural, and institutional contexts in which their meaning are produced. (p.43)
B. The knowledge of foreign language remain fundamental to our study. Students have to learn at least one non-European language. (study two literature in the original, learn an ancient “classical” language.)
C. Translation can well be seen as a paradigm[範例] for larger problems of understanding and interpretation across different discursive traditions (p.44)
D. CL should be actively engaged in the comparative study of canon formation and in reconceiving[再構想] the canon. Attention should also be paid to the role of non-canonical readings of canon texts, readings from various contestatory, marginal, or subaltern[副的] perspectives.
E. CL departments should play an active role in furthering the multicultural recontextualization of American and European perspectives. This does not mean abandoning those perspective but rather questioning and resisting[抵抗] their dominance. (reevaluation)
F. CL should include comparisons between media from early manuscripts[手抄本] to television, hypertext[超文件], and virtual realities. (p.45)
G. The pedagogical implications of the points previously outlined should be explored in courses, colloquia[學術報告會] , and other forums sponsored by departments and programs of CL. Professors from different disciplines should be encouraged to join faculty in CL to team-teach coursed that explore the intersections of their fields and methodologies.
H. Graduate students should be required to take a course in the history of literary criticism and theory. (p.46)
IV. The undergraduate programs
A. CL courses should teach not just great books but also how a book comes to be designated as great in a particular culture.
B. Requirements for the major should offer a flexible set of options.
C. Undergraduate programs should offer a range of courses that study relations between western and non-western cultures
D. Teachers in CL courses should refer frequently to the original text of a work they assign in translation.
E. CL faculty need to alert themselves and their students to related subject areas in their institutions outside the discipline. (p.47)
V. Conclusion: since progressive tendencies in literary studies, toward a multicultural, global, and interdisciplinary curriculum, are comparative in nature.
Sincerely yours by Tobin Siebers
l after WWⅡ: The attempt of “reunify
l The terms such as “Bicultural”, “multicultural”, “global citizens”, “cultural pluralism”, “internationalists”, and “cosmopolitans” are popular. (p.196)
I. CL as a discipline is dying
A. CL was an early advocate of a world-view that has found a new and more popular formulation in multiculturalism. However, multiculturalism has found a marketing strategy that make it available to more people. Comparatists are losing their identity in the university because everyone is becoming a comparatist of a kind
B. Comparatists in the classical mold[模子] believe literature and cultures cannot be understood in translation. While the multiculturalists believe that culture is translatable. No one needs to know the original language and culture of the work. (CL重 language training)
l Conclusion1: CL cannot compete with multiculturalism. (p.197)
l Conclusion2: the philosophical differences between CL and multiculturalism are minimal, largely symbolic, and not worth debating because neither one can deliver on its promises. It remains to be seen whether the symbolism alone is useful.
l Conclusion3: multiculturalism is fine as long as it is the right kind of multiculturalism. (p.199)
l Conclusion4: the ethic of multiculturalism is to increase communication and understanding among people of different discourses. (p.200)
l Conclusion5: the enemy of CL and multiculturalism is skepticism.
留言列表
讀書會 (5)