Introduction: “Cultural Studies or Comparative Literature?” by Michael Berube
“Cultural Studies or Comparative Literature?” by Michael Bérubé first appeared in Comparative Literature Studies, Volume 42, Number 2, in 2005, published by the Penn State University Press. In this influential article, Bérubé explores the long-standing disconnection between the fields of cultural studies and comparative literature, arguing that their historical divergence is largely due to institutional accidents rather than fundamental intellectual incompatibilities. He revisits the theoretical lineage of both disciplines—structuralism and deconstruction for comparative literature, British Marxism and post-Marxism for cultural studies—while asserting that their mutual transformation in recent decades makes this a crucial moment for interdisciplinary dialogue. The piece sets the stage for a series of essays that explore the intersections of literary form and cultural difference, such as the aesthetics of trauma, Orientalism, performativity in testimonio, and the sentimentality in colonial discourse. Through these case studies, Bérubé emphasizes that literature and culture are not only analyzable through distinct theoretical lenses but are also co-constitutive forces. The importance of this article lies in its call to reimagine the disciplines not as rivals but as complementary inquiries into textuality and social meaning—bridging gaps that have limited scholarly collaboration. Ultimately, Bérubé invites scholars to embrace a hybrid space that acknowledges the anti-disciplinarity of literature itself.
Summary of “Cultural Studies or Comparative Literature?” by Michael Berube
🔗 Introduction: Disconnected Fields with Shared Potential
Michael Bérubé opens by reflecting on the surprising lack of engagement between cultural studies and comparative literature, despite both disciplines being invested in analyzing cultural texts. He observes that their mutual isolation in the U.S. stems more from “accidents of institutional history” than from theoretical incompatibilities (Bérubé, 2005, p. 126).
“Two fields with uncertain boundaries… might plausibly speak to (or merely about) each other more often” (p. 125).
📖 Disciplinary Lineages and Their Institutional Separation
Bérubé critiques how major intellectual movements have become anchored in particular literary periods and departments—for example, structuralism with comparative literature and British Marxism with cultural studies. He argues that this division is contingent and not intellectually necessary (p. 126).
“There does not seem to be any reason why cultural studies and comparative literature have had so little to do with one another… apart from the accidents of institutional history” (p. 126).
💣 War, Trauma, and Urban Archives (Saint-Amour)
Paul K. Saint-Amour examines literature’s response to aerial bombing and interwar trauma, describing a “pre-traumatic stress syndrome.” He analyzes novels like Mrs. Dalloway and Berlin Alexanderplatz as efforts to preserve urban memory against the threat of erasure (p. 126–127).
“A condition of hideously prolonged expectation… the advance symptom of a disaster still to come” (Saint-Amour, in Bérubé, p. 126).
🌏 Modernism, Orientalism, and Cultural Irony (Bush)
Christopher Bush connects modernist aesthetics with Orientalist critique, focusing on Wilde and Barthes. He argues that cultural forms and literary form are “mutually constitutive,” challenging the idea that aestheticism and cultural analysis are opposed (p. 127).
“Literary form and cultural difference are not only not mutually exclusive, they are often mutually constitutive” (Bush, in Bérubé, p. 127).
🎤 Testimonio as Performance and Literary Form (Brooks)
Linda Brooks explores the testimonio as a hybrid form of subaltern narrative and literary performance. She contends that performance theories have overlooked this genre’s complexity and that editorial mediation plays a critical role in shaping voice and authority (p. 128).
“Testimonios languish for lack of serious study as literary works” (Brooks, in Bérubé, p. 128).
🔥 Sentiment, Sati, and the Cross-Cultural Gaze (Herman)
Jeanette Herman interrogates British sentimental narratives about the Hindu sati ritual. Through works like The Suttee; or, the Hindoo Converts, she highlights how British and Hindu women are rendered emotionally similar, complicating colonial discourses (p. 128).
“Mainwaring represents [sati] as horrible, but… as the basis for a similarity of feeling between British and Hindu women” (Herman, in Bérubé, p. 128).
🏛️ Exhibitions, Empire, and Pan-American Revisions (Fojas)
Camilla Fojas contrasts the pessimism of Henry Adams with the optimism of Aurelia Castillo de González at the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair. González reimagines the Exposition not as imperial spectacle but as a blueprint for Latin American modernity (p. 129).
“A how-to manual of Pan-American modernity” (Fojas, in Bérubé, p. 129).
🌀 Deconstruction and the Crisis of Literary Foundations (Machosky)
Brenda Machosky concludes the issue by asserting that literature resists disciplinary containment. Drawing on de Man, Kafka, and Kamuf, she frames literature as a space of anti-disciplinarity, where the hunger for meaning remains unresolved (p. 129).
“Literature demands hunger, and we cannot fast in the presence of literature any more than we can feast on it” (Machosky, in Bérubé, p. 129).
⚖️ Conclusion: A Moment for Crossroads, Not Closure
Bérubé ends by calling for meaningful exchange between cultural studies and comparative literature. With both disciplines having evolved significantly, he sees this as a timely opportunity to “build a crossroads” rather than maintain rigid boundaries (p. 126).
“Both fields have been radically opened and significantly transformed… the moment is propitious for building a crossroads” (p. 126).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Cultural Studies or Comparative Literature?” by Michael Berube
| 🌟 Concept / Term | 📚 Definition | 🧩 Usage in the Article |
| 🧱 Institutional History | The legacy of how academic disciplines develop within universities, often shaping research and pedagogy. | Bérubé argues that the separation between cultural studies and comparative literature is less theoretical and more due to “accidents of institutional history” (p. 126). |
| 🌀 Anti-disciplinarity | The resistance to fixed academic boundaries or classifications; crossing or destabilizing disciplines. | Highlighted in Machosky’s essay, who insists that literature, by nature, resists categorization and demands a space beyond “institutional bookkeeping” (p. 129). |
| 🧠 Postmodernism | A theoretical movement questioning grand narratives, objectivity, and fixed meanings in texts and culture. | Bérubé mentions editing a volume on “postmodernism and the globalization of English,” seeking to differentiate it from postcolonialism (p. 125). |
| 🌍 Postcolonialism | A field analyzing the cultural legacies of colonialism and imperialism, often focused on identity and power. | Central to the initial confusion Bérubé encountered, where colleagues assumed he meant postcolonialism instead of postmodernism (p. 125). |
| 🎭 Performativity | The concept that identity, speech, or actions are constructed through performance rather than fixed traits. | Linda Brooks applies this to testimonio, treating it as “a mode of performance” rather than purely documentary truth (p. 128). |
| 🧱 Structure of Feeling | Coined by Raymond Williams, this refers to lived cultural experience and affective elements within historical contexts. | Jeanette Herman analyzes how British sentimentalism shaped arguments against sati, drawing from the “residual structure of feeling” (p. 128). |
| 🔍 Orientalism | Edward Said’s theory that the West constructed a patronizing and fictional image of the East to justify dominance. | Christopher Bush critiques and reframes Orientalism via ironic self-awareness in writers like Wilde and Barthes (p. 127). |
| ✨ Literary Form | The formal elements of literature—style, structure, genre—that shape meaning and artistic expression. | Both Bush and Brooks argue that cultural difference and literary form are “mutually constitutive,” not separate domains (pp. 127–128). |
| 🔨 Cultural Difference | The distinctions in values, practices, and meanings across cultures, often used in critical and comparative studies. | Examined across essays as a key lens; especially in the context of modernism, Orientalism, and testimonio (pp. 127–128). |
| 🔁 Deconstruction | A theory by Derrida asserting that texts inherently contain contradictions and defy fixed interpretation. | Referenced in Machosky’s reflection on literature’s instability and how the “division of literature” places the university itself “in deconstruction” (p. 129). |
Contribution of “Cultural Studies or Comparative Literature?” by Michael Berube to Literary Theory/Theories
🎭 ➤ Performance Theory
Bérubé, via Linda Brooks’ essay on testimonio, deepens the intersection of performance studies and literary theory by framing testimonio not merely as subaltern documentation but as literary performance. This supports the idea that voice, mediation, and staging are integral to textual authority and meaning.
“Testimonio is above all a mode of performance… not subversions of its social message but vehicles of it” (Bérubé, 2005, p. 128).
📚 ➤ Formalism and Literary Form
The article challenges the binary opposition between cultural content and literary form, especially through Christopher Bush’s argument that form itself can express cultural difference. This contributes to rethinking formalism in light of postcolonial and modernist theories.
“Literary form and cultural difference… are often mutually constitutive” (p. 127).
🔍 ➤ Postcolonial Theory
Through discussions of Orientalism (Bush) and sati (Herman), Bérubé’s issue emphasizes how imperial discourse shapes literary representations. It supports Spivak’s and Said’s models of cultural analysis, but adds nuance by showing how even Western writers ironically deconstruct Orientalism from within.
Wilde and Barthes offer “self-conscious, deeply ironic invocations of Orientalism” (p. 127).
🌀 ➤ Deconstruction
Brenda Machosky’s essay revisits deconstructive theory, arguing that literature’s resistance to definition is not a weakness but its critical strength. This reflects and renews Paul de Man’s claim about the undecidability of literary meaning within institutional contexts.
“The profession of literature is in crisis… inseparable from the definition of literature, which resists being defined” (p. 129).
🧠 ➤ Modernist Literary Theory
Paul Saint-Amour’s trauma-centered reading of modernist texts contributes to a theory of modernism as cultural archiving, rather than just aesthetic innovation. This expands modernist theory to include historical memory and urban erasure.
“Drive to archive the urban totality in the face of… wartime erasure” (p. 126).
🔗 ➤ Interdisciplinary Theory (Cultural Studies)
Bérubé’s central argument is a meta-theoretical contribution: it critiques the artificial division between cultural studies and literary theory, advocating for interdisciplinary synergy. This aligns with broader calls in new historicism and critical theory for integrative approaches.
“Both fields have been radically opened… the moment is propitious for building a crossroads” (p. 126).
🧾 ➤ Sentiment and Affect Theory
Jeanette Herman’s essay adds to affect theory by reading colonial-era sentiments not as rhetorical excess but as ideological tools in humanitarian discourse. It highlights how emotion structures both narrative and imperial politics.
“Framed by the residual structure of feeling carried over from… sensibility” (p. 128).
📊 ➤ Genre Theory / Life Writing
Brooks’ treatment of testimonio as a genre challenges the simplistic classification of non-Western texts. It calls for genre theory to account for hybrid, politically situated forms that blur the boundaries of fiction, testimony, and performance.
“Clearly literary creations… languish for lack of serious study as literary works” (p. 128).
🌍 ➤ Global English and Language Politics
Bérubé’s anecdote about postmodernism vs. postcolonialism raises questions about the globalization of English as a literary medium. This contributes to debates on linguistic imperialism, postcolonial identity, and world literature.
“The sun has long since set on the British Empire but still never sets on the English language” (p. 125).
Examples of Critiques Through “Cultural Studies or Comparative Literature?” by Michael Berube
| 🌟 Critical Work / Figure | 🧠 Scholar or Theorist Engaged | 🧩 Form of Critique | 💡 Significance |
| 📘 Orientalism by Edward Said | Christopher Bush | Challenges Said’s totalizing view of Western representation of the East by examining ironic Orientalism in Wilde and Barthes. | Shows that some Western texts resist Orientalist logic from within, complicating the binary of East/West and enriching postcolonial theory. |
| 🎭 Subaltern Studies / I, Rigoberta Menchú | Linda Brooks | Questions the reliability of testimonio as raw subaltern truth, reframing it as aesthetic and performative rather than transparent testimony. | Suggests that genre and editorial intervention shape the subaltern voice, demanding more nuanced literary readings of testimonio. |
| 🌀 The Division of Literature (Peggy Kamuf / Paul de Man) | Brenda Machosky | Reinforces but also extends deconstruction’s claim that literature defies stable institutional definition. | Advocates anti-disciplinarity as a literary strength and criticizes efforts to narrowly define the literary discipline in academia. |
| 💥 Sati and Empire Discourse (Spivak, Mani, Rajan) | Jeanette Herman | Moves beyond Spivak’s “white men saving brown women” framework by foregrounding white women–brown women sentiment exchanges. | Adds depth to postcolonial feminist theory by highlighting affect and gendered empathy in colonial literature. |
Criticism Against “Cultural Studies or Comparative Literature?” by Michael Berube
🧩 ➤ Lack of Concrete Integration Models
While Bérubé calls for a “crossroads” between cultural studies and comparative literature, he doesn’t outline specific methodologies or frameworks for meaningful interdisciplinary integration. This leaves the practical implementation of his vision vague.
The article is rich in theoretical potential but limited in structural proposals for actual curriculum or research integration.
🎯 ➤ Disciplinary Blind Spots Remain
Despite his critique of institutional divisions, Bérubé still upholds binary language by frequently framing the two disciplines as opposites or strangers. This may reproduce the very dichotomy he wants to dissolve.
Even as he calls for dialogue, his framing reinforces the notion that cultural studies and comparative literature are fundamentally distinct.
📚 ➤ Over-Reliance on Canonical Western Theorists
Though the article engages with critical theories like Orientalism and deconstruction, it still privileges voices like de Man, Kamuf, and Wilde, potentially marginalizing non-Western or decolonial scholars who could better embody the convergence Bérubé seeks.
A truly comparative or cultural approach might benefit from including more indigenous, diasporic, or global South perspectives.
🌀 ➤ Absence of Student or Pedagogical Perspective
Bérubé’s discussion is framed largely within institutional and intellectual histories, with little attention to how these theoretical crossroads might impact pedagogy, student experience, or academic training.
There’s little reflection on how students and teachers actually engage across disciplines in classrooms or curricula.
🧱 ➤ Underestimates Disciplinary Power Structures
His optimistic tone may underplay the entrenched power hierarchies and politics of university departments that inhibit interdisciplinary collaboration, such as tenure criteria, funding, or gatekeeping.
Institutional histories are acknowledged but not sufficiently critiqued in terms of structural barriers.
⚖️ ➤ Theoretical Generalization of Essays
Although Bérubé introduces six rich essays, his overview often flattens their individual complexity to fit the broader theme of disciplinary convergence.
The nuances and contradictions within each essay’s argument risk being lost under the umbrella of “comparative cultural insight.”
🛑 ➤ Silence on Digital Humanities and New Media
Given the growing relevance of media studies and digital culture, the essay misses an opportunity to explore how these evolving domains intersect with or challenge the frameworks of both cultural studies and comparative literature.
Representative Quotations from “Cultural Studies or Comparative Literature?” by Michael Berube with Explanation
| 🌟 Quotation | 🧠 Explanation / Significance |
| 🔗 “Two fields with uncertain boundaries… might plausibly speak to (or merely about) each other more often.” | Bérubé frames cultural studies and comparative literature as adjacent yet siloed disciplines overdue for dialogue. |
| 🌍 “The sun has long since set on the British Empire but still never sets on the English language.” | Illustrates the enduring global influence of English despite the fall of colonial empires—linking language and empire. |
| 🏛️ “Accidents of institutional history… are not… a sufficient explanation for why they have run in parallel.” | Challenges the idea that disciplinary separation is natural or fixed—calling for rethinking academic silos. |
| 📚 “This moment is propitious for building a crossroads.” | A metaphorical call to action: now is the time for interdisciplinary synthesis between these two fields. |
| 🎭 “Testimonios languish for lack of serious study as literary works.” | Linda Brooks critiques the neglect of testimonio as literature—advocating for aesthetic recognition. |
| 🎨 “Literary form and cultural difference are… mutually constitutive.” | Christopher Bush’s key intervention: form is not separate from culture, but shaped by and shaping it. |
| 🧱 “The profession of literature is in crisis… because it lacks a stable ground upon which to stand.” | Brenda Machosky captures the ontological uncertainty of literary studies, resisting disciplinary containment. |
| 🔁 “From the ontological to the ontic, from alterity to mere difference.” | Bush’s move to deconstruct the binary of Otherness, focusing on difference without exoticism. |
| 💬 “Division of literature… has put the university itself in deconstruction.” | Kamuf’s notion cited by Machosky: literature’s instability destabilizes academic structures too. |
| 🍽️ “We cannot fast in the presence of literature any more than we can feast on it.” | A poetic close—literature resists consumption or renunciation, demanding intellectual hunger and humility. |
Suggested Readings: “Cultural Studies or Comparative Literature?” by Michael Berube
- Bérubé, Michael. “Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature?” Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 42, no. 2, 2005, pp. 125–29. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40247472. Accessed 5 Apr. 2025.
- Zhang, Yehong, and Gerhard Lauer. “Introduction: Cross-Cultural Reading.” Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 54, no. 4, 2017, pp. 693–701. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/complitstudies.54.4.0693. Accessed 5 Apr. 2025.
- ARENS, KATHERINE. “When Comparative Literature Becomes Cultural Studies: Teaching Cultures through Genre.” The Comparatist, vol. 29, 2005, pp. 123–47. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26237106. Accessed 5 Apr. 2025.