“The Geography Of Comparative Literature” by Rebecca Gould: Summary and Critique

Main Ideas:

• Comparative Literature vs. History:
  • Gould critiques the disparity between history and comparative literature regarding global representation.
  • She notes that “history has proven more capable than literature of reversing the Eurocentric trend,” while comparative literature remains largely Eurocentric. (p.170)
  • History has incorporated non-European narratives effectively, but comparative literature is “fundamentally limited to Western Europe” (Moretti 2000, 54).
• Eurocentrism in Comparative Literature:
  • Comparative literature has not achieved the global reach envisioned by Goethe.
  • Eurocentric biases in comparative literature are evident in anthologies like the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism (NATC), where “less than one hundred pages are devoted to non-European literary-theoretical traditions.” (p.174)
  • Historical inquiry tends to be more inclusive and “addresses itself empirically to the entire world,” unlike comparative literature, which remains mostly Western-centric. (p.172)
• Institutional and Disciplinary Bias:
  • The structure of academia privileges history over literature when studying non-European cultures. Universities hire scholars of non-European history rather than non-European literature. (p.172-173)
  • Even within European institutions, comparative literature departments primarily focus on European languages, with little representation of non-European literatures. (p.173)
• Genre Criticism and Its Exclusion of Non-European Traditions:
  • Western genre criticism, such as Fowler’s Kinds of Literature (1982), assumes the irrelevance of non-European literary traditions. (p.168)
  • Fowler’s lineage of genre studies moves from Aristotle to Sidney, “eliding all contributions from non-European literary traditions during the intervening millennium.” (p.168)
  • Islamic poetics, including Al-Jurjani’s work on takhyil (imagination), is ignored in dominant Western theories, despite its relevance to literary discourse. (p.169)
• The Concept of the ‘Untranslatable’ in Comparative Literature:
  • Theories of untranslatability, as advanced by Spivak and Apter, dominate comparative literature, but they may unintentionally reinforce Eurocentrism. (p.171)
  • If comparative literature privileges the ‘untranslatable,’ it risks limiting its scope to what is already translated and therefore remains Eurocentric. (p.171)
• Colonialism and Internalized Eurocentrism in Literary Studies:
  • Prominent Arab and Middle Eastern scholars, such as Taha Hussein, “internalized colonial perspectives,” identifying their own traditions primarily with European intellectual heritage. (p.170)
  • Hussein, for example, claimed that “Egypt had regular, peaceful, and mutually beneficial relations only with the Near East and Greece,” disregarding the deep influence of Persian and Islamic civilizations. (p.170)
  • This Eurocentric approach affects the way non-European literatures are studied within their own regions.
• Area Studies and Its Limitations:
  • While area studies have provided a space for non-European literatures, they often treat literature as secondary to historical and political contexts. (p.173)
  • Area studies are more historically than literarily oriented, meaning literary studies outside of Europe remain marginalized. (p.173)
• Canonization and the Exclusion of Non-European Theories:
  • The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism (NATC) reinforces Western dominance by selecting non-European theorists only when they engage with European frameworks.
  • Adunis, Karatani Ko-jin, Zehou Li, and C. D. Narasimhaiah are included in NATC primarily because they “illuminate Western perspectives and traditions.” (p.175)
  • There is little to no representation of premodern non-European literary theory in the major anthologies. (p.175)
• Challenges for Comparative Literature in a Global Context:
  • Comparative literature in North America and Europe is declining, while it is thriving in the Arab world.
  • Scholars in Middle Eastern and Persian studies engage with comparative literature in a way that “challenges Eurocentric biases and incorporates non-Western methodologies.” (p.180)
  • Muhammad Ghunaymi Hilal, a leading figure in Arab comparative literature, contributed significantly by studying Arab-Persian literary relations, which counters the Eurocentric model of literary studies. (p.180)
• Moving Beyond European-Centric Comparison:
  • Comparative literature must break free from its Western-centered model by integrating global literary theories and traditions.
  • The discipline should learn from history’s methodological inclusivity and expand beyond its current Euro-American focus. (p.183)
  • By decolonizing comparative literature and embracing the broader literary traditions of the world, the discipline can be revitalized. (p.184)

Conclusion:

Gould calls for a fundamental restructuring of comparative literature to move beyond its Eurocentric limitations. She argues that the discipline must integrate non-European literary traditions on their own terms rather than through the lens of Western theoretical frameworks. By adopting the methodological inclusivity of history and area studies while maintaining a focus on literary analysis, comparative literature can evolve into a truly global discipline.

1. Postcolonial Literary Theory

• Critique of Eurocentrism in Comparative Literature
  • Gould highlights how comparative literature remains largely Eurocentric, in contrast to history, which has become more inclusive of non-European perspectives.
  • “Comparative investigations into the meaning and substance of literary knowledge are absent from most major scholarly journals concerned with non-European literary traditions.” (p.167)
• Internalized Colonialism in Non-European Scholarship
  • She examines how scholars from colonized regions have often adopted European literary frameworks at the expense of their own traditions.
  • “Taha Hussein’s efforts to purge Egypt’s cultural heritage of all non-European ancestries and to graft onto it a European genealogy is profoundly entangled with the legacies of colonial hegemony.” (p.170)
• Calls for a Decolonization of Literary Studies
  • Advocates for a shift away from Eurocentric paradigms and the integration of non-European texts and methodologies.
  • “There is no intrinsic link between comparativist readings of European texts and the encounter with subaltern knowledge.” (p.182)

2. Comparative Literature Theory

• Critique of the Institutional Biases in Comparative Literature
  • Gould argues that comparative literature departments have failed to move beyond European traditions, despite the discipline’s supposed global nature.
  • “Few Comparative Literature departments in research universities across the country have full-time faculty in non-European languages.” (p.172)
• Encouragement of Non-European Literary Theories
  • Calls for the inclusion of classical Arabo-Persian literary theories, such as takhyīl (imagination), to enrich comparative literature.
  • “Al-Jurjani’s defense of poetic imagery in the Qur’an, and his proposal that the study of pre-Islamic poetry was a necessary prelude to understanding the Qur’an, interestingly dovetails with Sir Philip Sydney’s Defense of Poesy.” (p.169)
• Reassessment of Canon Formation in Comparative Literature
  • Criticizes the limited geographical and temporal scope of canonical anthologies like The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism.
  • “Out of over three thousand pages of text, less than one hundred are devoted to non-European literary-theoretical traditions.” (p.174)

3. Translation Studies and Untranslatability Theory

• Examines the Role of the “Untranslatable” in Comparative Literature
  • Discusses how the concept of “untranslatability” limits the scope of comparative literature.
  • “The untranslatable has been framed as the object and goal of comparative literary studies… If comparative literary studies must privilege the untranslatable, then where does that leave the discipline’s imperative to compare?” (p.171)
• Argues that Comparative Literature Over-Relies on Already Translated Texts
  • Highlights how the discipline often depends on translations, which affects its epistemic reach.
  • “If the untranslatable is the necessary (or ideal) point of departure for comparative literature, then it follows that the discipline is best off basing itself on what has already been translated.” (p.171)

4. Literary Historiography and World Literature Theory

• Challenges the Temporal Bias in Literary Studies
  • Points out that many literary theories exclude non-European texts and medieval non-Western contributions.
  • “Fowler’s normative trajectory…leads directly from Aristotle to Sir Philip Sidney, eliding all contributions from non-European literary traditions during the intervening millennium.” (p.168)
• Critique of Presentism in Literary Theory
  • Argues that literary studies prioritize modern theories at the expense of historical diversity.
  • “The editorial policy of privileging the contemporary at the expense of the past perhaps stemmed from a reasonable desire to make the inclusion of still-living theorists an anthological priority.” (p.176)
• Advocates for a More Inclusive World Literature Model
  • Calls for a return to Goethe’s vision of Weltliteratur that is truly global, rather than Eurocentric.
  • “Goethe’s concept of world literature sought to transcend national boundaries, yet comparative literature has failed to achieve this vision.” (p.174)

5. Subaltern Studies and the Role of Marginalized Voices in Literary Theory

• Emphasizes the Role of Non-European Scholars in Expanding the Archive
  • Points out that while historians like Ranajit Guha have extended the archive of subaltern voices, literary studies have lagged behind.
  • “Guha’s work has substantially extended the historical archive, something yet to be done in comparative literature.” (p.177)
• Highlights the Need for Non-European Comparative Literary Approaches
  • Discusses how Arab and Persian scholars are developing new comparative frameworks outside of the Western model.
  • “Even as Spivak presides over the ‘death of a discipline’ in the Euro-American context, scholars from the Arab and Persian world are learning to approach their literary pasts in ways informed by European methodologies but not subordinate to them.” (p.180)

6. Canon Formation and Literary Pedagogy

• Exposes the Structural Barriers to the Inclusion of Non-European Literary Traditions
  • Argues that non-European literary traditions are sidelined not just in research but also in pedagogy.
  • “At Middle Eastern universities, comparative studies are commonly situated in English literature departments, making fluency in English a prerequisite for comparativism.” (p.172)
• Critique of Western-Centric Anthologies
  • Points out that even when non-European theorists are included, they are framed in relation to Western theory.
  • “For each of these inclusions, the merit of the text is gauged by the extent of its interaction with Kant, Marx, Eliot, Leavis, or with foundational issues in the Continental and Anglophone literary-critical traditions.” (p.176)

Conclusion: Gould’s Call for a Reorientation of Literary Theory

Rebecca Gould’s The Geography of Comparative Literature makes a strong case for rethinking literary theory through a more globally inclusive lens. By exposing the Eurocentric biases in comparative literature, translation studies, and canon formation, she urges scholars to broaden their methodologies and incorporate non-European traditions more meaningfully. Her work aligns with postcolonial theory, subaltern studies, and world literature while offering a unique critique of how institutional structures limit the comparative scope of literary studies.

1. Overemphasis on Eurocentrism Without Providing Concrete Alternatives

• While Gould effectively critiques Eurocentrism in comparative literature, she does not provide a clear roadmap for restructuring the discipline beyond calling for the inclusion of non-European traditions.
• Critics argue that her approach focuses on dismantling existing structures rather than proposing a practical methodology for incorporating non-European literary theories.
• Limited Engagement with Non-Western Theorists

• Although Gould advocates for the inclusion of non-European literary traditions, she largely references Western scholars such as Moretti, Chakrabarty, and Spivak, rather than extensively engaging with primary sources from non-Western traditions.
• Some critics believe that her work could be stronger if she engaged directly with untranslated non-Western theoretical texts instead of relying on their reception in Western academia.
• Generalization of Comparative Literature’s Institutional Structure

• Gould critiques American and European comparative literature departments for their lack of diversity in literary traditions, but her argument assumes a uniform structure across all institutions.
• Scholars have pointed out that many comparative literature programs in non-Western countries (e.g., in China, India, and the Arab world) have already embraced a more global perspective, making her critique less universally applicable.
• Binary Oppositions Between Literature and History

• Gould presents history as more successful than comparative literature in overcoming Eurocentrism. However, critics argue that this creates an artificial dichotomy between the two disciplines.
• Some scholars believe that comparative literature has also made significant strides in decolonizing its methodologies, and history itself is still affected by Eurocentric narratives.
• Neglect of Linguistic Barriers in Expanding the Comparative Field

• While advocating for global inclusivity in literary studies, Gould does not address the practical challenge of linguistic accessibility.
• The need for scholars to acquire multiple linguistic competencies remains a significant barrier in expanding comparative literature beyond European traditions, yet this issue is largely overlooked in her argument.
• Assumption that Literary Studies Must Follow the Model of History

• Gould frequently argues that comparative literature should learn from history’s approach to global scholarship, yet some argue that literature and history have fundamentally different methodologies.
• Critics question whether literary studies should be expected to adopt the same archival and empirical methods as history, rather than developing its own comparative frameworks.
• Neglect of Modern Postcolonial and World Literature Approaches

• Postcolonial studies and world literature have already expanded the field of comparative literature to include non-European traditions, yet Gould largely critiques outdated models without fully acknowledging contemporary shifts.
• Scholars such as David Damrosch, Aamir Mufti, and Pheng Cheah have contributed to world literature studies that address many of the issues she raises, making her critique seem somewhat retrospective rather than forward-looking.
• Idealization of the Non-European Perspective Without Examining Internal Biases

• While advocating for the inclusion of non-European traditions, Gould does not critically engage with the internal biases and exclusions that exist within non-European literary cultures themselves.
• For instance, Arabic and Persian literary traditions have their own hierarchical structures that marginalize certain voices (e.g., subaltern, indigenous, or gendered perspectives), which her argument does not fully address.
• Lack of Discussion on Interdisciplinary Approaches in Comparative Literature

• Modern comparative literature has increasingly embraced interdisciplinary approaches (e.g., cultural studies, digital humanities, and media studies), yet Gould focuses primarily on textual and archival comparisons.
• Some scholars argue that a more interdisciplinary perspective would help comparative literature evolve in a global direction rather than solely following historical methods.
• Ambiguous Definition of the “Geography” in Comparative Literature

• The article critiques the Western-centered geography of comparative literature, but does not clearly define how literary geography should be restructured.
• While Gould suggests expanding to non-European traditions, she does not engage with how geographical concepts (e.g., border studies, migration studies) might reshape comparative literature in practice.

Summary of Key Criticisms:

✅ Strengths: Raises important issues about Eurocentrism in comparative literature, highlights overlooked literary traditions, and calls for more inclusivity.
❌ Weaknesses: Lacks concrete solutions, generalizes institutional structures, and does not fully acknowledge contemporary global shifts in literary studies.