“Globalisation” and “Individuation” in Comparative Literature Studies

Abstract

Globalisation is decidedly a treacherous word. To a comparatist especially,it offers the shimmering hope of a state of affairs in which there is or mightbe understanding, communication, equivalence among contemporaneous civilisationsthe world over, and human control over the state of the world. But, immediately,a darker reality manifests itself, one which signals uniformisation and lossof control to economic forces defying not only the will of individuals butthe rule of entire states. These forces often identified with multinationalcorporations override the social and environmental interests of these states,a situation which calls for a supranational authority capable of reestablishingor establishing for the first time a world order governed by just and transparentlaws rather than unregulated economic impulses. In other words, globalisationhas the potential to betray its avowed purpose which is the development ofan effective world community. I am not trying here to make a political pointputting blame, for example, on the World Trade organization though personallyI see many reasons to blame it for distorting internationalization. RatherI should like to use the concrete phenomenon of globalisation as a metaphoror correlate for the manner in which the universalizing tendency in literarystudies, and generally in the humanities, can go wrong, when unconsciouslyor just carelessly it imposes certain patterns and suppresses others.