Modern Language Association

Comparative Literature? Theory 911

Author(s): Jean-Michel Rabaté
Source: PMLA, Vol. 118, No. 2 (Mar., 2003), pp. 331-335
Published by: Modern Language Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1261420
Accessed: 16/08/2009 04:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mla.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PMLA.

http://www.jstor.org
I I8.2

theories and
methodologies

Theory911

JEAN-MICHEL RABATE
ITWAS INEVITABLE
THATTHEEVENTSOF SEPTEMBER
2001 AND
THERAPIDLY
SHIFTINGWORLDPICTURE
THEYHAVEGENERATED
should force us to reexamine our programs,methods, orientations,and
presuppositions.Having set out to addressthe role played by theory in
comparativeliteratureprograms,I find myself caughtbetween a wish to
anticipatethis fast-changinghistory we half live, half dream,in frontof
televisionscreensand a need to takemoredistance,to surveya longerhis-
tory.Besides, since I completeda book entitledTheFutureof Theoryjust
weeks beforethese events,I feel the urgeto checkthe relevanceof some of
my analysesandpredictions.
There seems to be a growing consensus in public opinion that the
"attack"and the subsequentwar, whose possible outcome is a domino
effect throughoutthe world, have heraldedthe end of a certainnaivete
about globalization or multiculturalism.Officials and pedagogues have
discovered that we lack good students not only trainedin Easternand
Middle Eastern languages but also conversantwith emerging cultures
that have arisen from the collapse of former "empires,"and this in the
long run is expected to be beneficialto comparativeliteratureprograms.
However,the utopia of a peaceful hybridizationof culturesis often part
of a globalization project that has borrowedthe fantasy of the "end of
history,"which assumes that history does not repeatitself as tragedyor
as farce but is a bourgeois comedy whose democratic and capitalistic
happy ending was scriptedin advance, at least since AlexandreKojeve JEAN-MICHEL RABATE, professor of En-
took it on himself to rewrite Hegel. All this might have been nothing
glish and comparativeliteratureat the
more than a Western projection, a well-meaning entropic daydream Universityof Pennsylvania,has written
about a world in which differences are not abolished straightawaybut or edited twenty books on modernist
blend harmoniously to become more pungent and subtle. Alas, in the authors, psychoanalysis, and literary
variegatedmenu offered by "other"culturesthat come with their origi- theory. Recent titles include Lacan in
nal flavors, exotic spices may turn to poisons when uneven economic America(2000),JacquesLacan:Psycho-
analysis and the Subject of Literature
developmentleads to a struggleto the deathbetweenantagonisticfunda-
(2001),James Joyce and the Politics of
mentalisms and incompatiblefoundationalcreeds. It is then time to re-
Egoism (2001), The Future of Theory
think the generous utopia underpinning multiculturalism and assess (2002), and TheCambridgeCompanion
whetherwe can still cling to a concept of "culture"(whetheruniversalist to Lacan(2003).

? 2003 BY THE MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 331

 332 Theory 911
or particularist)thatwould providea haven pro-
0
tecting us from fanaticism,bigotry,intolerance,
._ and ethnic suspicion.
T( From the more limited perspective of the
0 versity of Montrealin 1989, I found numerous
academicinstitution,it seems that "culture"has
E had to play too loaded and straineda role, oscil-
lating between the vague plural of "cultural
E
*3
studies"and the slightly more rigoroussingular
of "materialculture."What is culture, after all,
L
but the remains of a language once it is forgot-
o
Q, ten? A few names, idioms, snatches of songs,
j:r blurred literary references-at times just the
ability to orderraredishes with the rightintona-
tion. However flippantthese remarksmay be, it
is clear that a soft consensus about culture has
crumbledand thatwe have returnedto an earlier
dilemma familiar to comparativeliteraturede-
partments, the difficult or impossible choice
between linguistic skills and theoreticalcompe-
tence. Eitherlanguages or theory: such was the
forced alternative I found when I became ac-
quainted with comparative literature depart-
ments in the United States and Canada in the
mid-1980s.Therewas then a divide betweende-
partmentsstressing linguistic skills, with all the
attendantculturalexpertise, and those stressing
theory as offering a unifying discourse. Since I
had been teaching in France, it looked as if I
would "do"theory the way Monsieur Jourdain
spoke prose-naturally and quite withoutknow-
ing it. It took me some time to realize thatschol-
ars who referred often to, say, Plato, Hegel,
Derrida,Cixous, Kristeva, or Lacan were sup-
posed to be "doing theory."So far, I had enter-
tained the illusion that I and my friends were
being modern or-to sound less presumptu-
ous-just young, if not radical,by contrastwith
an older and more humanistic style of literary
discourse. Besides, since we were uncomfort-
ably close to majoractorsin what we just called
philosophy and thus were aware of important
divergencesbetween camps like the Deleuzians,
the Derridians,the feminists, and the Lacanians,
not to speak of the phenomenologists, it was
more difficult for us to produce a syncretic or
IPMLA
global notion of theory as such. When I was
invited to teach as a visiting professorin the de-
partmentof comparative literatureof the Uni-
tracesof this dilemma,althoughthe thrivingde-
partmentinsisted on both types of competence
for its graduatestudents. I have to say that two
of my distinguished colleagues in Montreal
commandedat least eight languageswhile being
fluent in theory-which encompassed a wide
spectrumfrom semiotics to Heidegger,from de
Man to Deleuze.
Just as I discovered that I had been doing
theory withoutknowing it, I also realized that I
had been a comparatistwithout acknowledging
it. Having devoted roughly one-thirdof a these
d'etat to HermannBroch, while the rest dealt
with Joyce and Pound, all this supervised by
Helene Cixous (not the most traditionaltype of
director)for a doctoratein English literature,I
assumedthat one could take any amountof lib-
erty with the limits of one's field. Alas, teaching
in France, Germany, and England, I realized
how exceptionalthis freedomhad been-not to
mention the unforgivable sin of attempting to
teach authors from anothercentury than one's
own (a specifically French obsession). But be-
cause I had been rearedon a relativelystrictdef-
inition of theory,I would neverhave dreamedof
teachingit as such then.
One can never insist enough on the impact
that Louis Althusser's version of Marxism had
on subsequentdefinitionsof theory as a unified
and coherent concept. Singlehandedly,Althus-
ser createda Marx who was a living oxymoron,
a practical theoretician or the embodiment of
theoreticalpractice.In this reconstruction,Marx
was the first scientific philosopher who took
practice(i.e., politics) into account.To be a the-
oretician was no longer a curse as long as one
heeded the practical consequences of theory.
Marx vindicated Kant's claim that no philoso-
phy is valid unless it protects its a priori rules
from empiricalconditionswhile actively seeing
to the practicalenactmentof its principles.Kant
I I 8.2 ] Jean-Michel Rabate
famously debunks the old "common saying"
"This may be true in theory, but it does not
apply in practice"and shows how the saying is
misleadingin ethics, political science, and inter-
national relations. If Althusser preferredcom-
paring Marx with Spinoza, it is clear that his
Marx lent much savage wit and a broadsynthe-
sis of hithertodistinct sciences like economics,
philosophy, sociology, history, anthropology,
and comparativereligion to the constitution of
theoryas a uniqueway of searchingfor truth.
In this process, however,the author(in Fou-
cault's sense-i.e., an "inventor... of discursiv-
ity" [114]) Marxdividedinto severalMarxes,and
the question became, which Marx should one
read? Should he be the young Hegelian who in
The GermanIdeology devotes brilliantpages of
scathing literary criticism to his former col-
leagues or the mature observer of industrial
capitalism who posits an understandingof the
economic basis as prerequisite for both philo-
sophicalknowledge andrevolutionaryactivism?
WhicheverMarxone chooses, it is impossible to
avoid strugglingwith ideas developedby Althus-
ser, whose series Theorie at Editions Maspero
was foundedon the principlethatonly theorycan
bridgethe gap between an elaborationof Marx's
philosophyandthe new scientificdiscoveriesre-
layed by contemporaryepistemologyandthe his-
tory of the sciences. Theory meant removing
Hegel andFeuerbachandinstallinginsteadGas-
ton Bachelardand PresidentMao. WhatI retain
of this intoxicatingmomentis the idea thattheory
is one-just as therecanbe only one truth.
Such a unity has tended to boil down to the
election of either masterthinkersor mastersig-
nifiers, as Lacan pointed out in his later semi-
nars. This was never more evident than when a
New YorkTimes article in the summer of 2001
rippled the little pond of theory. The writerbe-
gins by contrasting earlier carefree days with
currentfears of missing the new wave and an-
nounces with fanfare that the new buzzword is
"empire."Not a review of a recently published
work, the article analyzes the rise to fame of a
333
book issued a year earlier: Antonio Negri and
*e
Michael Hardt'sEmpire allegedly contains the o
7
"next big idea," after the 1960s' structuralism, re
the 1970s' and 1980s' deconstructionand post-
structuralism,and the 1990s' postcolonialism
andnew historicism.If Empire,"aheadytreatise
on globalization,"has been "sendingfrissons of
excitementthroughcampusesfrom Sao Pauloto F"
0
ro
c
Tokyo"(EakinsB7), the proof of the validity of
0
the "new"theoryof globalizationlies, by a curi-
5"
ot
ously circular reasoning or self-fulfilling _.
prophecy, in its already global acclaim. Slavoj </>
Zizek compares the book with The Communist
Manifesto (Eakins B9), probablyslyly reiterat-
ing those "Sovietjokes" he loves: Whatis capi-
talism? The exploitation of man by man. And
communism?Justthe reverse!
If, indeed, as Fredric Jameson and Zizek
claim, Empireis "the first great new theoretical
synthesis of the new millennium,"it is reassur-
ing to note that Hardt's opinion is more mea-
sured. Rejecting the idea that he is the "next
Derrida,"Hardt says that he and his coauthor
"don't think of this as a very original book.
We're putting together a variety of things that
othershave said. That'swhy it's been so well re-
ceived" (Eakins B9). Such modesty is rare-a
previousbook by the same authors,entitledLa-
bor of Dionysus, was publishedseven years ear-
lier but did not do as well. This was probably
due to the understatedway the earlier book in-
troducesconcepts like labor,exploitation,class
conflict, proletarianstruggle, and the Marxist
theory of the state as points of departurebefore
asking cheekily, "Do dinosaurs still walk the
earth?"(3). What this really original contribu-
tion to Marxist scholarship lacked was a new
buzzword;globalizationis absentfromthe 1994
book but becomes the focus of Empire.
This suggests that theory in the United
States progressesby jumps and starts,gathering
momentumonly once it has found a key term, a
mastersignifier;then everythingis organizedas
a commercialpromotionof a floating and more
and more empty word, until it is discarded for
 334 Theory 911
another.The same thing happened in the early
1980s when poststructuralist was launched to
0
groupvarious"French"approaches.Havinghad
the honor of figuring in a distinguished post-
.Q
structuralistanthology (Attridge and Ferrer),I
E rememberthat the fateful adjective was added
quite late not by the editorsbut by an intelligent
marketing director conscious of the competi-
tiveness of the intellectualmarket.
I believe in the returnof high theorydespite
Q a demise that has been announcedrepeatedlyin
o0.
the press and academia, although it cannot re-
suscitate the unitary model elaborated by Al-
thusser (whose career now appears in all its
bafflingcomplexity and whose autobiographyis
one of the most spellbindingdocumentsof the-
ory). Theory can no longer function as a unify-
ing canon or a set of commonly sharedconcepts
that underpinthe diversity of spoken languages
and the infinity of visited cultures.Theory will
come closer to Derrida's idea that what counts
is speakingtwo (if not more) languages at once
(28-29). Theory will not renouncethe ambition
of discovering a truth while remaining aware
that, as Aristotlewrote in a phraseoften glossed
by Heidegger,"toon legetai pollakhos"-"being
is said in many ways."This is why Heidegger's
work makes more sense when translated into
French(or even into English, despite intractable
obstacles) than when read in its original lan-
guage, believed by its authorto be the only con-
temporary equivalent of philosophical Greek.
This is also why Levinas's insistence that one
should move away from the enchantedcircle of
Greek (ontological) modes of reasoningtoward
a Jewish (ethical) approachof alterityhas more
resonance when couched in its perfect classical
French,a Frenchthatwas learnedat school rela-
tively late in life and is uniquelycapableof me-
diating between Buber, Rosenzweig, Husserl,
and Heidegger.Our election of Levinas or Hei-
degger as masterthinkermatters,then, less than
our awarenessthat tensions, inconsistencies, or
divisions in their works are more productive
thanare systematicarchitectonics.
PMLA
A similarinner division adheresto some of
the schools I see emerging out of the demise of
monologic theory. I will just give one example
to map out the contours of the innerly dialogic
theory I see as relevantfor this still-young cen-
tury.In translationstudies, I think, one can see
an equivalent of the polarity between linguis-
tic skills and theoretical competence I have
sketched. Frombiblical studies to Paul Celan's
translations,a wide arrayof case studies leads
studentsto graspliterarystyle dynamically.But-
tressed by insights from WalterBenjamin and
Antoine Berman, the budding science of tra-
ductology should be a privileged domain for
comparative literature students. It will lead to
"global" confrontations between Eastern and
Westernlogoi, starting,for instance,fromparal-
lel assessmentsof the roles of Socratesand Con-
fucius as near contemporariesor comparisons
between the functions of science, power, and
technologyin ancientChinaandGreeceandpro-
ceeding into parallels between Buddhist logic
andWesternnegativetheology.Fromsucha wide
vantage point, it should be possible to view the
"religions of the book" with the necessary dis-
tanceandso to capturehow the Jewish,Christian,
andMuslimlegacies disseminatecruciallydiver-
gent traditionsof translationandliteralization.
On the whole, theorymustreturnto philoso-
phy, not as a history of philosophy for literary
criticsor as a philosophyof historyfor would-be
activists, but as the systematic"hystericization"
(as I tryto show in TheFutureof Theory)of philo-
sophicalproblems.Onemodelmightbe Socrates,
who loved nothinglike wonderandseductionand
who, moreover,believed thatany untaughtslave
could discoverthe principlesof science provided
thatthe rightquestions were asked. These ques-
tions, articulatedtogether,builda problematical-
lowing one to mediate between the irreducible
singularityof given texts andthe generalityof re-
peatable procedures underpinnedby definable
concepts.Therelies thetheoreticalmomentthatis
ineluctablypresentin anypublishabletext, not in
footnotes but in the first paragraphs,in which
118.2 Jean-Michel Rabate 335

gambits and stakes appear, a necessary stage
without which the legitimacy of our efforts as
writersandpedagogueswouldbe doubtful.
WORKS
CITED
Attridge, Derek, and Daniel Ferrer,eds. Post-structuralist
Joyce. Cambridge:CambridgeUP, 1984.
Derrida,Jacques."Deconstruction:The Im-possible."French
Theory in America. Ed. Sylvere Lotringer and Sande
Cohen.New York:Routledge,2001. 13-31.
Eakins, Emily. "What Is the Next Big Idea? The Buzz Is
Growing."New YorkTimes7 July 2001: B7+. o
,e
0
Foucault, Michel. "What Is an Author?" Trans. Josu6 V. It
Harrari.The Foucault Reader. Ed. Paul Rabinow. New
York:Pantheon,1984. 101-20.
Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. Empire. Cambridge: 3
HarvardUP, 2000.
. Labor of Dionysus: A Critique of the State-Form.
Minneapolis:U of MinnesotaP, 1994. rC
Kant, Immanuel."On the Common Saying: 'This May Be 0
Truein Theory,but It Does Not Apply in Practice.'"Po-
litical Writings. Ed. Hans Reiss. Trans. H. B. Nisbet.
Q
Cambridge:CambridgeUP, 1970. 61-92.
Rabat6,Jean-Michel.The Futureof Theory.Oxford:Black-
well, 2002.