“Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique

1. Evolution of Comparative Literature
Initially, comparative literature focused on sources and influences, linking texts through direct transmission (Culler, 2006, p. 85). Over time, it evolved into intertextual studies, engaging broader but less defined methodologies. Comparative literature distinguished itself from national literature departments by questioning units of study—genres, periods, and themes—while becoming a hub for literary theory (p. 85-86).

---

2. The Triumph and Crisis of Identity
Culler identifies the paradox of comparative literature’s success: its methods have spread to other fields, leading to a loss of distinctiveness (p. 86). Despite its intellectual triumph, comparative literature faces institutional struggles, as academic positions still reside predominantly in national literature departments (p. 87).

---

3. Comparative Literature and the Global Turn
The 1993 ACLA report urged comparative literature to turn “global” and expand into cultural studies, justifying it as a reflection of contemporary realities (p. 87). However, Culler argues that the combined scope of global and cultural approaches risks overwhelming the discipline, diluting its focus and identity (p. 88).

---

4. Role of Literature in Comparative Literature
Culler critiques the Bernheimer Report (1993) for sidelining literature in favor of cultural studies. He defends literature’s centrality, proposing that comparative literature can distinguish itself as the site for the study of literature as a transnational phenomenon (p. 89-90).

---

5. World Literature and Comparability
The 2004 ACLA report highlights the challenge of “world literature” and its construction by hegemonic powers, risking cultural homogenization (p. 92). Culler explores the dilemma of comparability—either imposing restrictive norms or creating vacuous standards akin to the “University of Excellence” (p. 91-93).

---

6. Reconciling Comparability through Auerbach’s Ansatzpunkt
To address the problem of comparability, Culler suggests adopting specific intellectual norms like Auerbach’s Ansatzpunkt—a concrete and precise point of departure that avoids imposing universal standards (p. 93-94). This approach fosters meaningful comparisons without totalizing cultural values.

---

7. Comparative Literature as a Vanguard Discipline
Culler envisions comparative literature as a “test bed” for reconceiving knowledge, providing a space for critical, interdisciplinary projects. Despite its internal crises, the discipline’s ability to engage theoretical questions ensures its continued relevance in shaping literary and cultural studies (p. 96).

---

8. Teaching World Literature and Cosmopolitanism
Culler acknowledges world literature’s pedagogical value, emphasizing its role in fostering cultural awareness among students (p. 95). However, he stresses that comparative literature’s enduring appeal lies in its capacity to engage multiple languages, texts, and theoretical perspectives, driven by cosmopolitan ideals (p. 96).

---

9. Comparative Literature’s Identity: A Space of Crisis
Culler concludes that comparative literature’s nature as a site of intellectual crisis—where diverse approaches and ideas contend—ensures its vibrancy, even if it cannot claim institutional triumph (p. 96-97).

1. Contribution to Intertextuality Theory:

• Culler emphasizes that comparative literature has moved beyond the study of “sources and influence” to broader intertextual studies, examining how texts generate meaning through relationships with other texts (Culler, 2006, p. 85).
• This highlights the theoretical foundation of intertextuality, where meaning is created in a network of textual connections rather than isolated works.

---

2. Crisis Theory and Comparative Literature’s Identity:

• Culler introduces the concept of “crisis of identity”, highlighting the paradox of comparative literature’s intellectual success but institutional struggles (p. 86).
• This aligns with broader Crisis Theory in the humanities, where fields undergo shifts in purpose and identity due to evolving methodologies.

---

**3. Globalization and Postcolonial Theory:

• The global turn in comparative literature mirrors postcolonial theory, as it critiques Eurocentrism and expands to include non-Western literatures (p. 87).
• Culler references postcolonial perspectives, such as the identification of a shared postcolonial context for generating comparabilities (p. 92).
• This addresses how hegemonic powers shape “world literature,” contributing to discussions on cultural domination and resistance.

---

4. Contribution to Cultural Studies Theory:

• Culler engages with the Bernheimer Report and its advocacy for expanding comparative literature into cultural studies, treating literature as one discourse among many (p. 88).
• This reflects the interdisciplinary nature of Cultural Studies, as comparative literature incorporates cultural practices, political discourses, and media.

---

**5. World Literature and Hegemonic Structures:

• Culler critiques the construction of world literature as a “hegemonic” and potentially imperialistic project (p. 92).
• He highlights how dominant powers impose norms of comparability, aligning with theories of Cultural Imperialism and Global Literary Circulation.
• Pascale Casanova’s World Republic of Letters is referenced to critique how literature engages in systems of power/knowledge (p. 95).

---

**6. Comparative Literature as a Space for Theory:

• Comparative literature emerges as a vanguard of literary theory, serving as a site where questions about the nature of literature and its methods are addressed (p. 85-86).
• The discipline has historically provided a home for theoretical texts and interdisciplinary experimentation, challenging traditional boundaries of national literatures.

---

7. University of Excellence and Bureaucratic Theory:

• Drawing on Bill Readings’ University in Ruins, Culler critiques the bureaucratic standard of “excellence,” which lacks substantive content and imposes comparability (p. 91).
• This connects comparative literature’s comparability crisis to broader critiques of neoliberalism and the corporatization of the academy.

---

**8. Contribution to Aesthetics and Poetics:

• Culler argues for the continued centrality of literature in comparative literature, framing it as the site for poetics—the study of formal possibilities and discursive practices (p. 90-96).
• He observes a renewed interest in aesthetics, once marginalized by cultural studies, signaling a theoretical return to literary form and structure.

---

**9. Comparability and Auerbach’s Ansatzpunkt:

• Culler draws on Auerbach’s concept of Ansatzpunkt as a solution to the problem of comparability, emphasizing concrete and specific comparative approaches (p. 93-94).
• This aligns with hermeneutic theory, as the Ansatzpunkt provides a starting point for analyzing texts across cultures without imposing external norms.

---

**10. Contribution to Cosmopolitan Theory:

• Comparative literature promotes cosmopolitanism, fostering multilingualism, cultural awareness, and transnational engagement with literature (p. 96).
• This connects to theories of world citizenship and cultural exchange, as students and scholars embrace literature as a global phenomenon.

1. Ambiguity in Defining Comparative Literature’s Future

• While Culler critiques the discipline’s “crisis of identity,” he does not provide a clear solution for comparative literature’s future direction. His suggestions, like a focus on “literature as a transnational phenomenon,” remain abstract and open-ended.

---

2. Overemphasis on Institutional Struggles

• Critics argue that Culler’s focus on the institutional limitations (such as job scarcity and departmental struggles) overshadows more pressing theoretical and methodological challenges within the discipline.

---

3. Limited Engagement with Non-Western Theories

• Culler critiques Eurocentrism but does not deeply engage with non-Western theoretical frameworks or methods, which undermines his call for a global comparative literature.

---

4. Neglect of New Media and Digital Literature

• The article primarily focuses on traditional literary texts, ignoring how comparative literature might adapt to digital texts, new media, and emerging forms of global storytelling in the 21st century.

---

5. Insufficient Practical Solutions for World Literature

• While Culler raises valid concerns about the construction of world literature, he does not propose practical strategies for avoiding the homogenization and tokenization of diverse literatures.

---

6. Critique of Cultural Studies Lacks Nuance

• Culler’s argument that cultural studies diluted the centrality of literature in comparative literature is seen as too reductive, as cultural studies has enriched literary analysis with interdisciplinary approaches.

---

7. Ambivalence Toward the Global Turn

• Critics suggest that Culler’s stance on the global turn is contradictory. While he acknowledges its necessity, he simultaneously critiques it for diluting the discipline, failing to offer a balanced perspective.

---

8. Overgeneralization of Hypercanon Formation

• Culler’s observation of a “new hypercanon” of Anglophone writers (Achebe, Coetzee, Walcott) overlooks regional literary diversity and the continued marginalization of lesser-known global authors.

---

9. Lack of Concrete Methodological Innovation

• Culler’s focus on comparative literature as a site of theoretical debate fails to propose new methodologies or tools for comparative analysis, leaving the field without a concrete path forward.