University of Oklahoma

Versions of Incommensurability
Author(s): Natalie Melas
Source: World Literature Today, Vol. 69, No. 2, Comparative Literature: States of the Art
(Spring, 1995), pp. 275-280
Published by: University of Oklahoma
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40151136
Accessed: 23/12/2009 01:32

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=univokla.

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 service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Oklahoma is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World
Literature Today.

http://www.jstor.org
Versionsof Incommensurability
By NATALIE MELAS Comparison as it has
come down to us from
the "comparativemeth-
od" developedacrossso many emergentfields in the
nineteenthcenturyis a highlynormativeprocedure.
An ideal or type is posited a priorior derivedempir-
ically from the similarities between various ele-
ments; this type in turn becomes the standardor
criterionaccordingto which judgmentsof value, of
deviation, of inclusion or exclusion are proposed.
Comparative literature owes its name to this
methodborrowedfrom the naturalsciences, and in-
deed, some of its early academic practitionersbe-
lieved that they could derivewith scientificrigorthe
generallaws and the universalhistoryof world liter-
atureof which idealistscould only dream.2
I begin with this brief evocation of the compara-
tive method because though it may be largelyfor-
gotten in the humanities,it has, for lack of any sus-
tained theoretical reflection on the subject of
comparison, never been replaced. Consequently,
the comparisonof the culturalexpressionsof differ-
ent languages,nations,peoples in practiceseems al-
ways constrained by an invisible binary bind in
which comparisonmust end either by accentuating
differencesor by subsumingthem under some over-
archingunity.3In the first case, which might more
preciselybe called "contrastiveliterature,"emphasis
falls on the differential,on the irreducibleparticu-
larityof the workin questionor the nationalcharac-
ter it reflects.In the second case similarityis under-
lined and the emphasis falls on the unification of
diverse phenomena into general laws or even
demonstrationsof the unity of "human"nature.4
Both modes of comparison depend on an initial
generalizationin the form of a criterion or norm,
deployed either to differentiateor to generalize.As
one critic puts it, "comparisonis doubly generaliz-
ing: at its point of departureand its point of ar-
Natalie Melas teachesComparativeLiteratureat CornellUni-
versity. She is workingon a book about comparisonand the
problemof the multicultural.
. . . les poetiquesmultiplieesdu monde ne se proposent
qu'd ceux-ld seuls qui tentent de les ramasserdans des
equivalencesqui n'unifientpas.
. . . the multiplepoetics of the worldpresent themselves
to those alone who attempt to gather them into equiva-
lencesthat do not unify.1
Edouard Glissant, Le discoursantillais
rival."5At the currentliterarycriticalmoment, heir
on the one hand to the critiquefrom variousangles
of the unity of the literarywork and certainlyof the
unity of national character,and on the other hand
to the critique,particularlyfrom a postcolonialper-
spective,of pretensionsto the generalor even to the
universal,the aims of the comparativemethodin lit-
erature or culture seem more than suspect; they
seem downright obsolete.6This obsolescence is a
symptom of the historical determinationsof criti-
cism;7it suggests too that reflection on the unex-
plored possibilitiesof comparativestructuresmight
also involvehistoricizingand contextualizingvarious
modes of comparison.
This essayis a brief excursusinto a mode of com-
parisonproducedby a particularlycolonial disposi-
tion of power as describedby FrantzFanon in Black
Skin, WhiteMasks.I will arguethat this text offersa
descriptionof the "equivalencesthat do not unify"
which Glissant challenges the critic (in the last
pages of his magisterialanalysisof the postcolonial
Antilles, Le discoursantillais,quoted here in the epi-
graph)to seek as a mode for gatheringtogetherthe
multiple poetics of the world. Attemptingto con-
ceive of equivalencesthat do not unify points the
way to a practiceof comparisonthat might not syn-
thesize similaritiesinto a norm. My workinghypoth-
esis is that colonialcomparisonconflatestwo modes
of comparison, qualitative and quantitative,thus
producing a version of incommensurabilitywhich
differs from our received definition of the incom-
mensurableas "that which cannot be measuredby
comparisonfor lack of a common measure,"sug-
gesting instead a definitionalong the lines of "that
comparison which cannot measure because its
equivalencesdo not unify."
Incommensurabilityas the negation of common
ground and thereforeof the very possibilityof com-
parativerelationis often evoked as a remedyto the
excesses of normative or assimilatorycomparison.
Rejectingthe claim of the Western scientificmode
of knowledgeto judge by criteriainternalto its own
rules non-Westernnarrativemodes of knowledge(a
crucialbasis for the legitimationof Western"cultur-
276 WORLDLITERATURE
TODAY
al imperialism") , Jean-Francois Lyotard, for in-
stance, arguesthat traditionalculturesand modern
cultures are incommensurable,each governed by
"rules [that] are specific to each particularkind of
knowledge."8He concludes that it is therefore"im-
possible... to judgethe existenceor validityof nar-
rative knowledge on the basis of scientific knowl-
edge and vice versa; the relevant criteria are
different.All we can do is gaze in wondermentat
the diversity of discursive species."9Attractive as
this vision of radicallydiscreteand autonomoushet-
erogeneitymay be as palliativeto the assimilatory
excessesof comparison,it exposes severalproblems.
For one thing, comparisonis not so much overcome
as it is inverted:a judgmentof incommensurability
is still one based on comparisonand thereforeon a
criterion,only its resultis the determinationof con-
trast rather than similarity, absolute difference
rather than unity. Since comparison determines
both what is inside and what is outside its compass,
it is hard to distinguish, structurallyat least, be-
tween what is above compare,what is beneathcom-
pare, or what is somewherebeyond or outside com-
pare. To posit discourses or cultures as radically
separateentities that do not conform to the same
laws does not per se protect them from a judgment
of value or the deploymentof a norm, since incom-
parabilitycan be a mark of superior or inferior
worth. When Lord Macauley,for instance, declares
in a famousminute that he has "certainlynevermet
with any Orientalistwho venturedto maintainthat
the Arabicand Sanscrit (sic) poetry could be com-
pared to that of the great European nations," he
means for that incommensurabilityto indicate infe-
rior"worth."10 Whateverfunctionaldifferencemight
obtain between, let us say, Macauley'sincompara-
bility as "thatwhich cannotbe compared"and Lyo-
tard'sincommensurabilityas "thatwhich cannot be
measuredby comparison,"the point remains that
both rely on comparisonto determinewhat is be-
yond compare.
To say that a judgmentof incommensurabilityis
itself a judgment arrivedat through comparisonis
also to indicatethat such a judgmentreservesa po-
sition or at least a point of view for the comparatist
outside the comparison. Lyotard's very phrase,
"gaze in wondermentat the diversityof discursive
species,"suggeststhe possibilityof a distancedand
panoramicperspectiveon a vast arrayof heteroge-
neous systems, a position from which, one might
add, the observercould just as easily gaze acquisi-
tively as in wonderment.The equivalenceor com-
mon ground withdrawn from the objects under
comparisonreappearsin the very stance of the com-
paratist:the objectshave nothingin common buthis
unifiedvision. What remainsunexaminedis the lo-
cation from which the comparison is offered. As
Bruce Robbinspoints out regardingthe disinterest-
ed purviewof the disengagedcosmopolitan,such a
privileged and exterior apprehensionendows cul-
tures with the autonomyof esthetic objects,making
them availablein all their enclosed diversityto the
collector'sgaze.11In all fairnessto Lyotard,I should
make clear first that the referencesto incommensu-
rabilityI have plucked from ThePostmodern Condi-
tionare peripheralto the main line of his argument,
and second that, though I have assimilatedhis com-
ments to a culturalrelativistposition that defends
the integrityof separatecultures,his interestis not
so much in heterogeneousentities as it is in hetero-
geneous discourses or language games. All the
same, despite its emphasison modes of knowledge,
his example of incommensurabilityoffers a pano-
ramic perspective on a heterogeneitymade up of
separate,autonomousentities.
Lyotard'sprime motive in evokingincommensu-
rabilityseems to be to banish similarityaltogether,
as though to punish excessivehomogeneitywith its
opposite. But the similarityat issue in the word is of
a very particularkind. Incommensurability, deriving
from the Latin incommensurabilis, meaning"lackof a
common measure"and renderedin dictionarydefi-
nitions as "thatwhich cannot be measuredby com-
parison,"foregroundsboth the act of measurement
and this measurement'sdependence on a common
denominator;incommensurability,in other words,
inscribes a conjunction between similarity and
value. The similarityat issue here is one that has al-
ready been instrumentalizedas a norm; what two
entities have in common can be used to measure
them against each other or in a largerframework.
To try and imagine a comparisonor a setting into
relation that is not normativeor assimilatory,one
would perhapsfirst want to look for a way of sun-
deringthe perceptionof similarityfrom the consoli-
dation of a norm. Classicalrhetoricmakes such a
distinctionin its separationof comparisoninto two
categories:similitudo,qualitativecomparison("Shall
I comparethee to a summer'sday?"),and compara-
tio, quantitativecomparison("Thou art morelovely
and moretemperate").12 The conceit in these exam-
ples, the first two lines of Shakespeare'ssonnet 18,
is preciselyto scramblethe two rhetoricalmodes of
comparison so that comparatiois turned on simi-
litude, converting the similarity grounding the
metaphoricalequivalencebetween the beloved and
a summer day into the common denominatorun-
derlyinga measurementby comparison.Comparatio
can only occur in isotopic context, determining
value accordingto rigidlydefinedrealms;it enforces
the comparisonof apples with apples and oranges
with oranges. Similitudo,on the contrary,depends
on metaphor's transgressionof isotopic contexts
and encouragesthe comparisonof apples with ob-
jects much furtherafield than oranges. Comparatio
enforces preexisting similarities,whereas similitudo
 MELAS 277

posits new resemblances,stretchingthe limits of a deemed his society inferior. Indeed, the civilizing
code. To combine them, as Shakespearedoes, vio- mission, predicated on an evolutionaryteleology
lates the ground rules of both comparisons:it is to that has determinedwhitenessthe culturalstandard,
compareapples to orangesand to measure accord- necessarilymakes that culture availableto acquisi-
ing to strict categories an equivalencewhose very tion, to general dissemination.But, along the way,
point is to transgressthose categories.While compa- on his journeyto the metropolis,the evoluewill en-
rators measure by comparisonis clearlybound by counter in racial differencean insuperableobstacle
historical,discursive,and institutionalfactors,since to assimilation:"L'Antillaisqui va en Franceafin de
it determinesthe value and legitimacyof basic sys- se persuaderde sa blancheury trouve son veritable
tems of order,13similitudo,on the contrary,flaunts visage" (The Antilleanwho goes to France to con-
the flexibilityof existingcategories,though its intel-
vince himself of his whitenessfinds there insteadhis
ligibilitytoo dependsin the final analysison culturaltrue face; PiV, 145n). The black man finds himself
norms.14Thus, though apparentlyin opposition to doubly bound by the contradictoryinjunction of
each other, these two modes of deployingsimilarity white culture:you must be like me, you can't be like
are not by any means mutuallyexclusive.It is out- me. This paradoxcan be formulatedas the internal-
side the scope of my essay to explore this complex ly necessarycontradictionof a certain structureof
issue in greatdetail. Here I want merelyto markthe identity,as David Lloyd shows: "The process of as-
differencebetween similitudoand comparatio and thesimilation. . . requiresthat which definesthe differ-
importanceof their complementarityin orderto at- ence between the elements to remain over as a
tend more carefullyto their conflation in Fanon's residue."18In order for white culture to remain it-
descriptionof Antilleancomparison. self, it must be differentiatedfrom the black. Short
The versionof incommensurability of undoing the superiorityand integrity of white
which posits a
radical separation between autonomous systems culture, the black man thereforecannot, by defini-
seems problematicin a colonial context simply be- tion, figurativelywhiten. The residue of initial dif-
cause colonialismis a complex of social, economic, ferentiation - blackness- must remain.
and cultural practices predicated precisely on the What emerges starkly from this paradox is the
eradicationof autonomous realms. Subsumingthe necessaryassociationbetween qualitativeand quan-
titative comparison,similitudoand comparatio.The
globe under its law, it sets all differencesinto rela-
tion with Europeanmetropolitanpowersas the eco- bounding of particulardomains accordingto simi-
nomic center and the culturalstandard.Here Lyo- larity(the black,the white) is converteddirectlyto a
tard's definition of incommensurabilityin terms of standardof comparisonwhich disposesobjectshier-
systems or laws ratherthan objects takes on a par- archically(the white as standard);if the realm of
ticularresonance.In TheDifferendhe writesthat the similitudeis breached,the standardof comparison
criterionfor incommensurabilityis "the impossibili- founders. This production of residual difference
ty of subjectingthem [phraseregimens]to a single may be characteristicof all structuresof identity,as
law (except by neutralizingthem)."15Colonialismis Lloyd claims, but it seems to me peculiarlypervert-
indeed the impositionof a single law, at least in theed in the colonial context, because the culture of
cultural realm, for the civilizing mission brings colonialismclaimsuniversalityon the groundsof an
everythinginto comparison;the world it imaginesis explicitly comparativeevaluation.Such an englob-
composed, if one may say so, only of apples. How- ing standardcannot on the one hand be identified
ever, while this unlimited comparabilitydenies in- with particularpeople- that is, revertfrom concept
commensurabilityas startingground, incommensu- or trope of whitenessto actualwhite people- with-
rability,I will argue, becomes a productof colonial out weakening its generalizingforce, but on the
comparisons.Colonialismmay, to varyingdegrees, other hand it cannot extend to those it excludes
neutralize the differences that distinguished colo- without losing its authorityto differentiate.The as-
nized cultures,but a whole set of differentialeffectssimilatedblack man or evolueis caughtbetween his
takestheirplace. acceptanceof whitenessas a transcendentuniversal
The demand colonial society makes on the black quality and his encounterwith whiteness as simple
man, particularlythe black man from the Antilles, and bruteskin pigmentation.
where no original culture survived colonialism, According to Fanon, what results for the colo-
Frantz Fanon asserts in Peau noire>masquesblancs, is nized is an existence caught in differentialcompari-
to "blanchirou disparaitre"(whitenor disappear).16 son. Fanon elaborates his concept by stating his
Heeding the call of assimilation,the evolueendeav- "first truth":
ors to acquire French civilizationthrough educa- Les negres sont comparaison.Premiereverite. Us sont
tion, language,culture, behavior.From his17stand- comparaison, c'est-a-dire qu'a tout moment ils se
point on the distant islands, he takes whiteness preoccupent d}auto-valorisationet d'ideal du moi.
figurativelyas the sign for the most advancedstage Chaquefois qu'ilsse trouventen contactavec un autre,
of the civilization whose universal standard has il est questionde valeur,de merite.Les Antillaisn'ont
278 WORLD LITERATURE TODAY
pas de valeur propres,ils sont toujourstributariesde
rapparitionde l'Autre.(PiV,191)
Negroes are comparison.Firsttruth.They are compar-
ison, that is, at every moment they are preoccupied
with autovalorizationand with the Ego ideal.Whenever
they are in contactwith another,there is concernwith
value, merit. Antilleanshave no propervalue;they are
alwaystributariesto the apparitionof the Other.
The stark assertion "Negroes are comparison" by it-
self unsettles both the tropic (similitudo)and evalua-
tive {comparand)grounds of comparison in a move
that seems to me characteristic in various ways of
the entire text of Peau noire, masquesblancs.19Noth-
ing in the sentence's structureor its context directs
us with any certaintytowarda metaphoricalor a lit-
eral reading.This undecidabilityis crucialin that it
participatesin the erosion of the differencebetween
figurativecomparisonand evaluativecomparison.Is
the copulaof the verb to bebindingNegroesand com-
parisona metaphoricalequivalence:the Negroes are
"like"comparison?What might it mean to be like
comparison - that is to say, like likeness or like
likening?The sentence loses nothing of its vertigoif
we read the copula as a statement of identity, for
how can we think our way around a person being
identicalto the process of identificationitself rather
than to somethingelse, an ego ideal, for instance.
What could it mean to be comparison?The mat-
ter is complicated by the plural subject, "Ne-
groes,"20 for while we might at the limit imagine an
individualcaughtin the processof comparison,how
do we conceivea collectivityall at once and together
in identity with comparison?The pluralizationof
the subject of comparisonis crucialhere, since the
thrustof this whole passageis to reviseAdlerianego
psychologybased on the individualto what Fanon
insists in the Martinicancase is fundamentallyan
inferioritycomplex rooted in the social neurosisre-
sulting from colonialism's destroying any "proper
value"for the Antillean.As Fanon puts it: "La so-
ciete antillaiseest une societe nerveuse,une societe
'comparaison'.Done nous sommes renvoyesde l'in-
dividu a la structuresociale" (Antilleansociety is a
neuroticsociety, a society of comparison.Hence we
are sent back from the individualto the social struc-
ture; PN, 192). Just as colonial ideology defines an
unlimited field for comparability,so too its effects
exceed individualbeings and come to shape whole
socioculturalcomplexes. The consequent disjunc-
tions areinternalto the processof comparisonitself.
In order to distinguishAntillean social neurosis
from Adlerianindividualneurosis, Fanon produces
a schemafor the comparisonhe has in mind:
Le Martiniquaisne se comparepasau Blanc,considere
commele pere,le chef,Dieu, maisse comparea son
semblablesousle patronage du Blanc.Une comparai-
sonadlerienne se schematise
de la manieresuivante:
"Moiplusgrandquel'Autre."
Lacomparaison parcontre,se presenteainsi:
antillaise,
Blanc
Moidifferent de l'Autre
(PN, 194)
The Martinican doesnot comparehimselfto theWhite
man,consideredas father,leader,God, but compares
himselfto his similars[otherMartinicans] underthe
Whiteman'spatronage.An Adleriancomparison can
be schematizedin thefollowingmanner:
"EgogreaterthantheOther"
The Antilleancomparison, in contrast,presentsitself
thus:
White
Egodifferent fromtheOther
As Lloyd elaborates,this revisedAdleriancompari-
son places one term above, "self-identical, the
metaphorof metaphoricalidentity:white."This ele-
vation of the white man to "the universallyrepre-
sentative man," however, produces a relation
among the blacks of "pure difference,""a suspen-
sion in perpetualcomparison."21 As Lloyd's choice
of words makes clear, the element which Fanon
adds to the Adlerian comparison, "White,"func-
tions at once and indistinguishablyas metaphor,in-
voking the similarityof similitudoand as a universal
standard,setting the norm of comparatio. If the dis-
tinction between these modes of comparisonfueled
Shakespeare'sconceit in sonnet 18, the collapse of
that distinctionhere characterizesa particularmode
of colonial comparison. Adlerian comparison de-
scribesthe overcompensationof an individual'sfeel-
ings of inferioritythroughdirectaccess (via compar-
ison) to a "governingfiction" or model. Since the
Antilleancannot enterinto comparisondirectlywith
the white standard,he can only measurehimselfby
it in comparisonwith others like him, other blacks.
Similaritysuch as it emerges here is construed as
difference from difference. The Martinican can
compare himself to the white only with respect to
his difference from the differences of others like
himself.Moreover,the termsunderthe bar are nec-
essarilyplural,but the comparisonin which they en-
gage alienatesand differentiatesone from the other
indefinitely.The equivalencesbetween Martinicans
indeed cannot ever unify so long as they are fixed
under the bar of difference.Antillean comparison
produces, strictly speaking, incommensurablesub-
jects- subjects who, despite their total imbrication
in a process of comparison,can never be fully mea-
sured by it- and rather than fixing them into au-
tonomous realms,that incommensurability launches
them insteadinto a differentialflux.
A similarityconstitutedas differencefrom differ-
ence can never coalesce into a standardand there-

fore producea measurementby comparison.In this
lies its claim to incommensurability.Differencehere
is not the radicalseparationof singularentities but
the differentialeffect of an impossibleidentification.
There is no positionfor the comparatistoutside, be-
yond the objects under comparisonfrom which to
gaze down in wonderment;on the contrary,the An-
tillean comparatistspeaks from within, or even in
the guise of, the comparison.In its very extremity,
the versionof incommensurability we can discernin
Fanon's analysisof Antilleancomparisonpermitsus
to graspwith some precisionwhat equivalencesthat
do not unify might be and what sorts of forms an
engaged or even imbricated comparatism might
take.
While the paradox of colonial racism provides
one mode of conceivingof equivalencesthat do not
unify, the extension of such equivalences to the
practiceof comparingcultures or literatureswould
requirea full elaboration.As a first step in this di-
rection, one might note that the Martinicanpoet,
novelist, and theorist EdouardGlissant'senigmatic
directivewhichhoversover this essay as an epigraph
("the multiple poetics of the world present them-
selves to those alone who attempt to gather them
into equivalences that do not unify") suggests a
transvaluationof the kind of colonial comparison
Fanon outlines. If we can see in Fanon the West's
englobing comparisonoverreachingitself and col-
lapsingonto its colonizedsubjects,then Glissant,to
use one of his words, "relays"the momentum of
this collapseto its logical conclusion, "l'eparsinfini
de la Relation"(the infinite dispersalof Relation).22
If the colonial comparisontips measureinto incom-
mensurabilityby subsumingall similarityinto com-
paratio'sstandard,conjuringa world that would be
all apples,then perhapswe might imaginethe world
of "Relation"Glissantprojectsas one in which the
balance tips over into similitudo.In this disposition
of equivalences,a transversalsequence of similari-
ties and conjunctionsproliferateswithout ever uni-
fying into a standard;comparisonhere cannot mea-
sure because it gathers equivalences that do not
unify. Insteadof the panoramaof multiple,discrete,
and autonomous systems Lyotard envisages, Glis-
sant's "eparsinfini de la Relation"presentsthe ex-
tension of one, internallymultiplying,incommensu-
rablecode.
CornellUniversity
1EdouardGlissant,Le discoursantillais,Paris, Seuil, 1981, p.
466. My rather literal translation.Michael Dash's translation
readsas follows:"... the proliferationof visionsof the world is
meant only for those who try to make sense of them in terms of
CaribbeanDiscourse,
similaritiesthat are not to be standardized."
Charlottesville,UniversityPressof Virginia,1989, p. 254. Dash's
emphasis.
2The
applicationto literatureof the comparativemethodin its
scientific guise is associated with, for instance, Ferdinand
MELAS 279
Brunetiereand HutchesonMacaulayPosnett.For a summaryof
this view at the turn of the century,see CharlesMills Gayley,
"WhatIs ComparativeLiterature?" AtlanticMonthly,92 (1903),
pp. 56-68; reprintedin Comparative Literature,the Early Years:
An Anthologyof Essays,eds. Hans JoachimSchulzand PhillipH.
Rhein, Chapel Hill, Universityof North CarolinaPress, 1973,
pp.3 85-108.
Anna Balakian'spresentationfor the panel at the MLA at
which this paperwas deliveredwas a spiritedappealfor general-
izing and unifyingcomparisonin view of what she sees as the di-
visive and separatistemphasis on culturaldifference(see this
issue of WLT,pp. 263-67). The first questionerattemptedto
makeof my presentationthe opposingview. I deflectedthe ques-
tion then, partlybecause I have neitherthe inclinationnor the
sex to engage in the Oedipalagons of institutionalgenerations
and partlybecause, generationallyat least, this isn't my fight in
the first place. As I attempt to outline here, where a previous
generationset the disciplinarydebate between generalistsand
particularists,cosmopolitanistsand provincialists,the question
now seems to centernot on what the ends of comparisonought
to be but on whethercomparisonis a viableoperationat all.
4In the late fiftiesthese two modes of
comparisonwererough-
ly coincidentwith positionsin the debate on comparativelitera-
ture held respectivelyby the Frenchand Americanschools. See
Rene Wellek,"The Crisisin ComparativeLiterature,"in Proceed-
ings oftheACLAII, vol. 1, 1959, pp. 149-59.
5Adrian Marino,Comparatisme et theoriede la litterature,
Paris,
PUF, 1988, p. 243; my translation.
6
Among recent appealsfor reconceptionof the discipline,see
for instanceEdwardSaid, who, in Cultureand Imperialism (New
York,Knopf, 1993, pp. 43-61), exploresthe developmentof the
disciplineof comparativeliteratureagainstthe backgroundof the
concurrentconsolidationof imperialismand suggestsreplacing
the exclusiveand idealizingpracticeof comparisonwith a mode
of "contrapuntal" reading.For a provocativetheoreticalelabora-
tion of the challengesemergentliteraturespose to the monumen-
talizing function of comparativeliterature,see Wlad Godzich,
"EmergentLiteratureand ComparativeLiterature,"in TheCom-
parativePerspective on Literature,
eds. ClaytonKoelb and Susan
Noakes,Ithaca,N.Y., CornellUniversityPress, 1988, pp. 18-36.
For a multifacetedconsiderationof the disciplinefroma feminist
perspective,see Borderwork: FeministEngagements withCompara-
tive Literature,ed. MargaretHigonnet, Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell
UniversityPress, 1994. The latest Reporton Standardsreleased
by the AmericanComparativeLiteratureAssociationsuggestsre-
formsroughlyalong the lines towardwhich these and othercrit-
ics point.
7SusanBassnett,in her Comparative Literature: A CriticalIntro-
duction(Oxford, Blackwell, 1993), makes an interestingargu-
ment for the link between the concurrentdevelopmentsof na-
tionalism in the competition among nations and the rise of
comparativeliterature.It is, accordingto her, preciselybecause
comparativeliteraturedid not fulfillthe functionof consolidating
a national tradition in competitionwith other nations in the
United Statesthat this countrybecamethe vanguardof compara-
tive literature'smost generalizingand idealizing aspect. She
points out that comparativeliteratureoutside Europe is often
veryexplicitlyframedas the propermethodfor buildinga nation-
al literature.
8Jean-FrancoisLyotard,ThePostmodern Condition: A Reporton
Knowledge,trs. Geoff Benningtonand Brian Massumi,Minne-
apolis, Universityof MinnesotaPress, 1984, p. 23.
9Ibid., 26.
p.
10Minute addressed
by Lord Macauley to Lord Bentinck,
GovernorGeneralof India,2 February1835;reprintedin Imperi-
alism:TheDocumentary Historyof Western Civilization,ed. Philip
D. Curtin,New York,Walker,1971, p. 53.
11Bruce Robbins,
"ComparativeCosmopolitanism,"Social
Text,31/32 (1992), p. 56.
12For a discussionof this distinction,see Paul Ricoeur,La me-
taphorevive,Paris,Seuil, 1975, pp. 236-37.
280 WORLD LITERATURE TODAY
13See
especially Michel Foucault, Les mots et les choses, Paris,
Gallimard, 1966, preface, chapter 1 section on "Les quatres
similitudes," and chapter 3 section on "Pimagination de la
ressemblance."
14Deborah Durham and
James Fernandez go so far as to argue
that understanding metaphor not only presumes a shared culture
but constitutes it: "[The creation of metaphor is] ... a joint
recognition of these shared understandings- that is, culture in a
fundamental sense." "Tropical Dominions: The Figurative
Struggle over Domains of Belonging and Apartness in Africa," in
Beyond Metaphor: The Theoryof Tropesin Anthropology,ed. James
Fernandez,Stanford,Ca., StanfordUniversityPress, 1991, p.
196.
15
Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Differend:Phrases in Dispute, tr.
GeorgesVan Den Abbeele,Minneapolis,Universityof Minneso-
ta Press, 1988, p. 128.
16FrantzFanon, Peaunoire,
masquesblancs,preface& postface
by FrancisJeanson,Paris,Seuil, 1952, p. 100. Henceforthcited
in the text as PN. My translation.
171 maintainthe masculine
pronounthroughout,as Fanon re-
serves this experienceof assimilationspecificallyto Martinican
men. The questionof genderdifferencein structuresof compari-
son, colonialor otherwise,requiresa separateelaboration.
18David
Lloyd, "RaceUnder Representation,"OxfordLiterary
Review,1-2 (1991), p. 76. 1 havebenefitteda greatdeal fromthis
essay'sdiscussionof Fanon alongwith other authorsin an argu-
ment for the conjunctionof the narrativeof self-formation,the
structureof metaphor,and the constitutionof the judgingsubject
in the cultural definition of race. My approachdiffers from
Lloyd'schieflyin that he approachesthis passagein Fanon to il-
luminatethe metaphoricalstructureof assimilation,whereasI-
forgive the chiasmus- seek in it insight into the assimilatory
structureof comparison.
19Time
preventsme from elaboratingthis analysisfully. Peau
noire,masquesblancsdeploysmultiplediscoursesto diagnoseand
cure the problemsrevealedin racialassimilation(it is a text that
aims not only to interpretbut to change, and it aims to do this
both throughanalysisand throughpoetic transformation of voice
and language).On one registerthis involvesthe thoroughgoing
critiqueof comparativeevaluationsof the black man (especially
in psychology);on anotherregisterit involvesan extraordinary
and anguishedperformanceof the metaphoricallanguageboth of
racismand of negritude.In this sense, the text seemsto me to ex-
pressmost fullythe murderousconjunctionof tropicand evalua-
tion comparison.
20The
only EnglishtranslationI knowunaccountablyturnsthe
plural "les negres" into the singular"the Negro." See Frantz
Fanon, Black Skin, WhiteMasks, tr. CharlesLam Markmann,
New York, Grove, 1967, p. 211. The translationis generally
sound,but some of its idiosyncrasieshaveresultedin interesting-
ly inaccuratecriticalappropriations,particularlywith respectto
the title of the much-commentedchapterrenderedin Englishas
"The Fact of Blackness"from the Frenchoriginal"L'experience
vecue du noir."
21
22Lloyd, p. 84.
Glissant,p. 153.