Constructivism and Comparative Cultural Studies
Abstract: Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek introduces in
his paper, "Constructivism and Comparative Cultural Studies," the beginnings
of a theoretical framework for the study of culture and literature. He
briefly describes relevant histories of constructivist thought in order
to present the background of his proposed framework. The epistemological
background of the proposed framework of comparative cultural studies is
built principally on Siegfried J. Schmidt's work in radical constructivism.
After the presentation of relevant histories and the tenets of several
schools of constructivism applicable for the proposed framework of comparative
cultural studies, Tötösy presents a ten-point preliminary outline
of comparative cultural studies. Based on constructivist tenets including
constructivist ethics, social responsibility, and a systems theory-based
approach, the author argues that the study of culture and literature and
their composite parts and aspects in the mode of comparative cultural studies
enhances scholarship.
The Humanities and
Constructivism
1. As a brief preamble here I would like to state that as I am discussing
my topic in the context of the humanities, and within the humanities I
am dealing with the study of literature and culture, and as my targeted
readership is North American, I hasten to point out that the currently
discussed notion of constructivism in North American humanities has little
to do with the constructivism at hand. In the last few years, scholars
mainly in departments of English began to discuss "constructivism." However,
the "constructivism" discussed is some sort of extension of the North American
school(s) of deconstruction, that is, the proposition is that according
to "constructivism" truth is never based on any real or perceived "objective"
observation or some such but that truth is always "constructed" by humans
and as such it must be suspect. In the debate of how to do scholarship
in the humanities, while there is nothing wrong with the suggestion that
positivism and similar approaches are suspect or that deconstruction makes
much "hidden" available to us, what I am concerned with is the lack of
explicit theoretical taxonomy, observation as empirical as it can be, and
following this, precise application of clearly stated premises resulting
in descriptive analysis. This approach is resisted in the humanities today,
most obviously in the study of literature and culture (to describe this
state of the situation in the humanities today goes beyond the objectives
of the present article, however). In my opinion the single framework and
methodology that corresponds to the stated tenets available to us today
is the systemic and empirical approach to literature and culture. As it
stands, comparative cultural studies as proposed is developed among others
from
Empirische Literaturwissenschaft (Empirical Science/Study of
Literature), a framework that is a collateral of (radical)-constructivism.
Thus it is obviously of good reasoning to present selected and relevant
tenets of constructivism as the background of comparative cultural studies
(for
Empirische Literaturwissenschaft see Schmidt 1980, the foundational
text of the approach; for recent studies on/about Schmidt’s work and extensions
from and developments of his work, go to the
Schmidt Home Page,
Barsch et al., <
http://www.schmidt.uni-halle.de/>.
2. There are several schools of thought in constructivism (see, for
example, Riegler <
http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism>)
and brief definitions of selected variants will be introduced here as far
as their applicability and practice is concerned with regard to the study
of culture and literature for the proposed framework of comparative cultural
studies. Thus, a more detailed differentiation between constructivism and
its variants and the surrounding critical debate about constructivism and
within it among its variants will not be discussed here: Much of this debate
can be read in such volumes as
Konstruktivismus. Geschichte und Anwendung
(Rusch
and Schmidt, 1992) or in
Empirische Literaturwissenschaft in der Diskussion
(Barsch, Rusch, and Viehoff 1994; see also Groeben and Schreier 1991).
Briefly, the origins of the mainly although not exclusively German-language
schools of thought of constructivism can be found in the work of Vico,
Berkeley, and most importantly of Piaget (Glasersfeld 1987, 1995), but
also, via Hugo Dingler, of Kant (for an Englishlanguage brief description,
see Tötösy 1993). Ernst von Glasersfeld, one of the main proponents
of constructivism bases his ideas on Piaget's developmental psychology
(see Glasersfeld 1987) and on Humberto Maturana's and Francisco Varela's
biological selfreferential systems theory. Glasersfeld suggests that constructivism
means a certain manner in which to reflect on knowledge as an act and action
and its consequences, that is, constructivism means that individuals construct
reality through cognitive subjectivity in selfreferential autonomy and
in empirically conditioned processes (1992, 20). However, it is crucial
to recognize that this constructing must be attached to the responsibility
for the way and manner the world is understood and viewed (Glasersfeld
1992, 32). Siegfried J. Schmidt, a noted theoretician and literary scholar,
founder of
Empirische Literaturwissenschaft (who, disillusioned
with the state of literary and culture studies, more recently moved into
media and communication studies) suggests that "the essence of a constructivist
epistemology is expressed in the distinction between 'reality' and 'actuality'...
'Actuality' designates the phenomenal world of our experiences, a world
constructed by our real brain; this brain is cognitively inaccessible ...
this construction happens in a 'reality' that is independent of our actuality"
(1992, 303). Schmidt further suggests that independent realities can be
hypothesised but only if following "the requirements of reasonable argumentation
in the social world of science" (1992, 303). These postulates thus provide
the bases for a
rational theory for the study of literature and
culture and in the following I will briefly outline the interaction from
the epistemological base to the theoretical and methodological framework
for the study of literature and culture.
3. Constructivism is not to be understood in its everyday meaning as
an activity of consciously and deliberately "constructing." Rather and
here is one of the premises of operationality constructivists describe
situations as empirically conditioned processes where "reality" does not
exist arbitrarily and without involvement with its constituents but according
to specific biological, cognitive, and socio-cultural conditions the individual(s)
in their socialized and natural environment are subjected to (see Schmidt
1994a, 125; see also Schmidt 1994b, 1997). A further level of the constructivist
epistemological base of the systemic and empirical approach to culture
and literature concerns the highly contentious issue of the empirical,
particularly so in North America with its history of positivism and pragmatism
(see, e.g., Diggins 1991). Schmidt suggests, based on radical constructivist
tenets postulated by Glasersfeld, Foerster, and others, that "the alleged
objectivity of experimental scientific research does not, as Constructivists
say, result from a true copy of reality, but from methodologically controlled
trivialization. In other words, in empirical research data are constructed
under conditions with reduced complexity, and these data are then rendered
significant in the framework of theories and models" (1992, 304). In other
words, empirical knowledge is operational and functional knowledge about
correlation and coherence based on our cognitive nature and capacities.
Spatial, temporal, and logical correlations between objects and occurrences
do not exists
per se but follow the logic of observation (see, for
example, Kramaschki 1992, 232-33). The constructivist concept in the empirical
means "explicitly observing observations, in other words, observing the
construction of data and their interpretation in explicitly spelled-out
theories" (Schmidt 1992, 309). This postulate determines that in literary
studies "since meaning is no longer considered to be contained in the text
itself, but as constructed cognitively and communicatively in the processing
of textual materials, interpretation is recognized as an essayistic activity
as opposed to a scientific procedure" (Schmidt 1992, 309). Hence the systemic
and empirical tenets of the framework and methodology, all of which, as
I argue, are rarely existing in literary research, generally speaking.
4. The continuum from constructivism and radical constructivism to
the systemic and empirical approach to literature (see in detail in Tötösy
1998) is primarily based on the mentioned dichotomy of actuality and reality,
the postulates of observation (e.g., the empirical) and rational argumentation,
and on the notion(s) of system. All three areas include epistemological
as well as methodological perspectives and all three are strenously objected
to by many scholars of both literature and philosophy on both sides of
the Atlantic. I take the liberty to present the example of my own work,
that is, a few examples of the critical reaction to my book, Comparative
Literature: Theory, Method, Application (1998). The book -- as the
proposed framework here -- finds itself between the two extreme poles of
power and established thinking in the humanities and thus it succeeds to
receive the objection of both camps, the traditionalists, proponents of
focus on single-language/national literature, the postmodernists, deconstructionists,
etc. (for lack of better terms to describe the dividing lines in the humanities
today). Here are the examples: Theodore Ziolkowski of Princeton writes
in his review of the book in World Literature Today: "When Totosy
goes on, however, to recommend 'the systemic and empirical approach to
literature and culture' (based mainly on the work of Luhmann and Schmidt)
as the framework and methodology for the field, he will probably lose many
of his readers" and closes his review with the statement that "Totosy begins
by lamenting the current crisis in the humanities and the marginalization
of literary study. I do not believe the Comparative Literature: Theory,
Method, Application, for all the author’s earnestness, will contribute
to the solution" (606). Here I must ask why it should be that scholars
would not be able to read and digest a framework and methodology not as
of yet in the "general" repertoire of literary scholarship? And the blanket
negation of the framework is a clear sign of a traditionalist’s objection
to a new notion, at least the way I read Ziolkowski’s review of my book.
And then on one other end of the spectrum is a review by Frans-Willem Korsten,
a scholar who approves of the "empirical" and the "systemic" approach but
in my book, he writes, "there is no substantial example of the proposed
empirical evidence or of empirical kinds of literary research that support
Zepetnek’s [sic] analyses or contentions. It’s a good book, mind
you. It contains much that I endorse. But, there is is nothing 'empirical'
in it" (39). Clearly, what is difficult here is, on the one hand, to persuade
traditionalists in literary studies that the contextual or culture approach
would at least be a valuable parallel approach while on the other hand,
to persuade hardcore cognivitists that to do the empirical and systemic
in literary studies is possible but only so far.... (I must add that, on
the other hand, the book received a good number of enthusiastic reviews.)
5. As far as I am concerned, the criticism of the constructivist being
an idealist who advocates arbitrary constructions of reality can be countered
on several points. First, there is the postulate of viability. This is
a postulate suggesting that humans genetically predisposed and by experience
"know" what is real (Schmidt 1992, 303). Second, humans interact and communicate
by similar means of sensory perception, in essence to construct consensus
by mechanisms of controlled trivialization. In other words, we use our
sensory and communicative capacities in order to arrive at the consensual
description of a table in the room we sit in. Obviously, this process becomes
more complicated as simple sensory perceptions become insufficient to deal
with higher orders of communication such as discourse, conflict, history,
fictionality, etc. Discourse, conflict, history, etc., in one word culture,
including language as an instrument of coordinating behaviour and writing
as a subsystem of the system of social interaction, may be defined as a
"program to thematize on all levels of communication the fundamental dichotomies
which lay the basis of a society's 'world model'" (Schmidt 1992, 305).
The epistemological foundations of constructivism in the context of Schmidt's
definition can be found in the works of scholars in a variety of fields.
For instance, the work of such scientists as Ervin Laszlo or Michael Bushev
suggest a strong analogy of their thinking with that of contstructivists.
Laszlo, in his volume, The Interconnected Universe: Conceptual Foundations
of Transdisciplinary Unified Theory (1995), argues for an interconnectionist
and systemic world view and Bushev, in his Synergetics: Chaos, Order,
Self-Organization (1994) defines the notion of system as "a methodology
of the scientific knowledge and of the social practice, which is based
upon the study of objects as systems. In the methodology of the syste[mat]ic
approach the parts are studied on the basis of the whole. The system[at]ic
approach defines a new cognitive paradigm, which differs in principle from
the classical one, aimed at cognizing the whole through its constituents"
(19; although Bushev uses "systematic" instead of "systemic," the latter
is more appropriate). In the case of art and literature, this approach
has profound implications: "I think there are the strongest grounds for
placing entropy alongside beauty and melody ... Entropy is only found when
the parts are viewed in association, and it is by viewing or hearing the
parts in association that beauty and melody are discerned" (Bushev 125;
Bushev uses the notion of entropy in the context of von Bertalanffy’s general
systems theory developed from thermodynamics, the basis of systems theory
and that has been adopted in literary and culture studies including Schmidt).
And Thomas Shannon, in his An Introduction to the World-System Perspective
(1996) argues for the systemic approach in a global humanistic context,
including its application in cultural analysis (204-07). Immanuel Wallerstein's
work on systems and systems theory and his work is to be mentioned here
because it appears to make some inroads in the humanities in the last few
years, at this point in postcolonial studies and globalization studies.
6. For a further component of operational constructivism, I extend
the notion of responsibility to the pragmatism and ethics of social
discourse (this is different from Luhmann's somewhat similar concept of
operational constructivism especially in the comparative context). The
important element of my postulate lies in the interconnection of (neo)pragmatism
(i.e., operationalism and functionalism) and ethics, two notions usually
(and wrongly) perceived in opposition to each other. As I suggested in
some of my previous publications, in the last two decades also Niklas Luhmann's
social systems theory influenced the debate of and about constructivists
as well as the study of literature (see, for example, Gehrke; articles
in response to Gehrke's arguments are available in the Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift
für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte with articles
by scholars associated with the University of Siegen Institute for Empirical
Literature and Media Research. In the corpus of constructivism it is acknowledged
that affinities exists between it and pragmatism (see, e.g., Kramaschki
1992, 225) but not positivism. However, I would suggest that the operational
and functional perspective of constructivism and even more so of the systemic
and empirical approach to culture and literature comes about from a different
base. As Pasternack correctly surmizes, "the methodological postulates
with those of epistemological and ontological ones are built on correlations
which cannot simply explained by pragmatic definitions" (63). Rather, the
difference is to be found in the parameters of constructivism as explained
by Schmidt in the dichotomy of "reality" and "actuality." In other words,
the aspect of operationalism and functionalism of constructivism is based
in the understanding of self-referential systems theory and the resulting
methodological postulates applied in the systemic and empirical approach
to culture and literature.
7. In addition to the
above suggested parameters of constructivism, one in my opinion crucial
aspect should be mentioned: this is the ethical dimension of constructivism.
Here, Niklas Luhmann's works are influential (see Kramaschki 1995, 259-60).
The tenets of constructivism include the postulate of social responsibility
in that it negates the scientist's indifference towards results of research
(Kramaschki 1995, 260). But this responsibility is not a simple response
to moralistic demands in a traditional sense. Science and in general cognitive
areas of human interaction are rational, when they operate without wrongly
applied operational coherence (see Maturana in Kramaschki 1995, 266). This
implies that responsibility and ethics are irrelevant and Humberto Maturana's
proposition that science as a cognitive area of activity is absolved of
validation (wertfrei) is an area of further investigation. This
is the more important as in the systemic and empirical approach the perspective
of social responsibility and the relevance of the study of literature and
culture is a built-in factor (see Tötösy 1998; nota bene: I am
referring to the study of literature and culture and not to literature
and culture: the social relevance of literature and culture per se is assumed
beforehand while the study of literature and culture is not assumed
as widely as socially relevant). As far as constructivism is concerned,
its ethical dimension is self evident: "from a Constructivist point of
view it is exactly that holistic understanding offered that "in the context
of Pieper pluralism is considered, from a pistemologico-anthropological
point of view, not only as more applicable but also as ethical pluralism
as the object of individual and social reality constructs" (Kramaschki
1995, 271; see also Foerster 1993).
8. Constructivism and
its varieties are, arguably, influencing not only the current philosophical
scene in Germany and Austria (and to some extent in the US) but they are
an important factor, I postulate, in the development of an increasingly
influential theoretical framework and methodology for the study of literature
and culture. It is an important area to investigate because it connects
and draws on a number of disciplines and fields traditionally not in touch
with each other. For example, systems theories, neuroscience and neurophenomenology,
autopoiesis (theory of living organization), cognitive science, and aspects
of literature and culture linked together are areas of investigation which
appear to be exciting avenues for a development in literary and cultural
studies. At the same time, constructivism is not a homogeneous epistemological
framework. On the current landscape of philosophy there are several varieties
of constructivism. For an introduction, perhaps the most important point
of departure may be to clarify taxonomical points. In the case of constructivism
this is obviously an important task, particularly because of the use and
history of the term with reference to Russian constructivism in art: It
is my experience that often scholars in departments of English when “constructivism”
is mentioned, the immediate reference is to "Russian constructivism" (see,
for example, Harkins 237), thus indicating a misunderstanding, clearly.
9. In addition to Radical
Constructivism which is perhaps the best known variety of the notion, there
are several variants of constructivism including Social Constructivism
(e.g., Berger; Luckmann), Cognitive Constructivism (e.g., Segers); Empirical
Constructivism (e.g., Schmidt); the "Erlangen" Constructivism; and the
various Constructivisms in Art History (e.g., Harkins; Zitterbarth) and
Mathematics (e.g., Knorr-Cetina) (see also Schmidt, 1994b). In addition
to these already established kinds of constructivism I would like to add
my own notion of a constructivist framework and methodology, one which
I define as operational constructivism. For operational constructivism
I take Peter Hejl's notion of culture: culture is neither autonomous nor
is it variedly linked to other domains of human activity and thought but
that it may be analysed by a model of layered bases, a
composite:
the biological (cognitive, neuroscientific, etc.) understood as a broader
concept including social and cultural layers (see, e.g., Hejl 22728). This
constructivist understanding of communicative action as culture allows
for the study and analysis of the literary text, an interwoven process
of literary and extra-literary factors thus the notion of the literary
system. However, while in this definition the notion of "operational" refers
to the large and system-dependent composite of communicative action
as culture as explained by such as Hejl and Schmidt, I am extending the
notion of operationalism also to the notion of how to study literature
and culture. And for this approach, see my proposal of a comparative cultural
studies below.
10. Here are some selected
definitions of constructivism as a school of thought in general and radical
constructivism as a subschool relevant to the constructivism that forms
the background for a comparative cultural studies:
10.1 "Constructivism relinquishes the postulate
that knowledge must be 'true' in the depiction of objective reality. Instead,
Constructivism suggests that knowledge is a viability as far as
it responds to the individual's world of experience" (Glasersfeld 1992,
30).
10.2
"Cognitive Constructivism" is an alternate term containing the implication
that proponents of constructivism and radical constructivism benefit(ted)
from knowledge gained in cognitive science. To signal this added perspective,
Rien T. Segers suggested the alternative designation as "cognitive constructivism"
(1994). The added perspective of Cognitive Science and Neuroscience (Neuro-epistemology,
Neuro-philosophy) is important, in particular, in areas of study concerning
the processes of reading (see, e.g, Miall).
10.3
"Radical Constructivism ... is an unconventional approach to the problem
of knowledge and knowing. It starts from the assumption that knowledge,
no matter how it is defined, is in the hands of persons, and that the thinking
subject has no alternative but to construct what he or she knows on the
basis of his or her own experience. What we make of experience constitutes
the only world we consciously live in. It can be sorted into many kinds,
such as things, self, others, and so on. But all kinds of experience are
essentially subjective, and though I may find reasons to believe that my
experience may not be unlike yours, I have no way of knowing that it is
the same. The experience and interpretation of language are no exception"
(Glasersfeld, see <
http://www.oikos.org/radcom.htm>).
10.4
"The metatheory known as
constructivism, which has been developing
over the years, has become particularly influential in the latter half
of the twentieth century. What distinguishes constructivists from people
with other orientations is an emphasis on the generative, organizational,
and selective nature of human perception, understanding, and memory --
the theoretical 'building' metaphor guiding thought and inquiries. Constructivists
view people as constructive agents and view the phenomenon of interest
(meaning or knowledge) as built instead of passively 'received' by people
whose
ways of knowing, seeing, understanding, and valuing influence
what is known, seen, understood, and valued. Attention goes to how these
ways
are acquired and manifested. Constructivism takes different forms, which
include cognitive-developmental constructivism or constructionism, personal
construct theory, radical constructivism, social constructivism and collaborative
constructivism. These forms cut across various areas of inquiry: psychological
studies (social psychology, cognitive psychology, clinical psychology,
and developmental psychology), history, educational studies, rhetorical
and literary studies, and socio-cultural studies in anthropology and sociology"
(Spivey 34).
10.5
"Operational constructivism" may be considered as variant of cognitive
constructivism. One of its main components is the ethical dimension by
attention to the real possibilities of the individual within his/her social
and physical environment. Operational constructivism is a program of how
to study literature and culture based on epistemological, systemic, and
empirical tenets as postulated in the systemic and empirical approach to
literature. Culture and literature, considered as a subsystem of culture
occurs and functions in a soft, semi-permeable, and self-referential system
of human and social interaction characterized by (cognitive) aesthetic
and polyvalence conventions. Operational constructivism as an epistemological
foundation and as a program for the study of culture and literature prescribes
that research and study of culture and literature should be performed in
an operational and functional mode. Generally speaking, the postulates
of Operational Constructivism are based on the work of Niklas Luhmann,
Itamar Even-Zohar, Siegfried J. Schmidt, and Pierre Bourdieu (see in detail
in Tötösy 1998).
11. It is the last definition and that I use as the background of my
understanding and use of constructivism, in itself a background in and
for the study of literature and culture defined as the systemic and empirical
approach and employed for the framework of a comparative cultural studies.
Next, I will briefly discuss a further composite factor of my approach
for the study of literature and culture as based in constructivism, namely
the Empirical Science of Literature (Empirische Literaturwissenschaft)
and systemic approaches. The origins of the systemic approach can be traced
to structuralism, the sociology of literature, and Russian Formalism. Structuralism
in particular has influenced via F. de Saussure and the Russian Formalists
a variety of disciplines such as philosophy, ethnology, anthropology, psychoanalysis,
and sociology with proponents such as Lévi-Strauss, Lacan, Lyotard,
Foucault, Goldmann, Bourdieu, Barthes, etc. The specific relationship between
structuralism and the systemic approaches in general is often not clear.
However, structuralism via the Russian Formalists and the Prague School
has been a confessed departure for the polysystem theory (see, e.g., EvenZohar).
In the development of similar systemic theoretical frameworks such as the
Empirische
Literaturwissenschaft (Schmidt; for a history of the school see Viehoff),
the l'institution littéraire (Jacques Dubois), and the champ
littéraire concept of Pierre Bourdieu (but: there are others,
see Tötösy 1998), this is much more indirect, and other disciplines,
such as the sociology of literature and theories of communication and media
studies, predominate as conceptual sources. As I discussed above, in philosophy
(constructivism and radical constructivism) too, there is increasing discussion
about the notion of system (see, for example, Krohn 1992).
12. Generally speaking,
systemic and institutional theories of literature, although borrowing from
a range of disciplines such as mathematics, biology, and physics, and other
theories from the Humanities and Social Sciences, as well as other frameworks
for the study of literature, emanate mainly from Sociology (in particular
Niklas Luhmann and Talcott Parsons), the sociology of literature, and theories
of communication (see, for example, Corner and Hawthorne). In this context,
it should be noted that the systemic approach to literature, in general,
refers to a micro structure although it could also be understood in the
context of literature as a macro structure.
A Preliminary Framework
of Comparative Cultural Studies
13. Based on the above
briefly outlined background of constructivism and the tenets of the systemic
and empirical approach to literature and culture, I propose a basic framework
designated as “comparative cultural studies” in the form of ten principles
as follows. The ten principles below represent the basic tenets and ideas
of the framework and they are intended to be developed into a full-fledged
framework with examples of application. For now, the principles represent
a basis for discussion and a clear statement without lengthy descriptive
argumentation. The principles of a comparative cultural studies presented
here are – at least in my opinion – innovative precisely because curiously
enough, the notion of cultural studies in most cases lacks a comparative,
that is, international and pluralistic range and depth. While it is obvious
that the framework of comparative cultural studies could be presented and
applied without tenets of constructivism, it is essential that the argumentation
of the base of the framework be stated. In other words, comparative cultural
studies -- similar to comparative literature -- is a framework that is
put together by borrowings from a variety of approaches, sources, methods,
etc.: it a composite approach. At the same time, the attentive reader will
be able to discern in many if not all of the proposed principles the constructivist
background.
13.1
The First General Principle of comparative cultural studies is the postulate
that in and of the study, pedagogy, and research of culture -- culture
is defined as all human activity resulting in artistic production -- it
is not the "what" but rather the "how" that is of importance. This principle
follows the constructivist tenet of attention to the "how" and process.
To "compare" does not -- and must not -- imply a hierarchy: in the comparative
mode of investigation and analysis a matter studied is not "better" than
another. This means -- among other things as listed below -- that it is
method that is of crucial importance in comparative cultural studies in
particular and, consequently, in the study of literature and culture as
a whole.
13.2
The Second General Principle of comparative cultural studies is the theoretical
as well as methodological postulate to move and to dialogue between cultures,
languages, literatures, and disciplines. This is a crucial aspect of the
framework, the approach as a whole, and its methodology. In other words,
attention to other cultures -- that is, the comparative perspective --
is a basic and founding element and factor of the framework. The claim
of emotional and intellectual primacy and subsequent institutional power
of national cultures is untenable in this perspective. In turn, the built-in
notions of exclusion and self-referentiality of single culture study and
their result of rigidly defined disciplinary boundaries are notions against
which comparative cultural studies offers an alternative as well as a parallel
field of study. This inclusion extends to all Other, all marginal, minority,
and peripheral and it encompasses both form and substance. However, attention
must be paid of the "how" of any inclusionary approach, attestation, methodology,
and ideology so as not to make the crucial mistake of a Eurocentric "universalization"
and inclusion from a Eurocentric locus and point of view. A solution can
only be dialogue, that is, inclusion.
13.3
The Third General Principle of comparative cultural studies is the necessity
for the scholar working in this field to acquire in-depth grounding in
more than one language and culture as well as other disciplines before
further in-depth study of theory and methodology. However, this principle
creates structural and administrative problems on the institutional and
pedagogical levels. For instance, how does one allow for development --
intellectually as well as institutionally -- from a focus on one national
culture (exclusionary) towards the inclusionary and interdisciplinary principles
of comparative cultural studies? The solution of designating comparative
cultural studies as a postgraduate discipline only is problematic and counter-productive.
Instead, the solution is the allowance for a parallelism in intellectual
approach, institutional structure, and administrative practice.
13.4
The Fourth General Principle of comparative cultural studies is its given
focus to study culture in its parts (literature, arts, film, popular culture,
theatre, the publishing industry, the history of the book as a cultural
product, etc.) and as a whole in relation to other forms of human expression
and activity and in relation to other disciplines in the humanities and
social sciences (history, sociology, psychology, etc.). The obstacle here
is that the attention to other fields of expression and other disciplines
of study results in the lack of a clearly definable, recognizable, single-focussed,
and major theoretical and methodological framework of comparative cultural
studies. There is a problem of naming and designation exactly because of
the multiple approach and parallelism. In turn, this lack of recognized
and recognizable products results in the discipline's difficulties of marketing
itself within the intermechanisms of intellectual recognition and institutional
power.
13.5
The Fifth General Principle of comparative cultural studies is its built-in
special focus on English, based on its impact emanating from North American
cultural studies which is, in turn, rooted in British cultural studies
along with influences from French and German thought. This is a composite
principle of approach and methodology. The focus on English as a means
of communication and access to information should not be taken as Euro-American-centricity.
In the Western hemisphere and in Europe but also in many other cultural
(hemi)spheres, English has become the lingua franca of communication, scholarship,
technology, business, industry, etc. This new global situation prescribes
and inscribes that English gain increasing importance in scholarship and
pedagogy, including the study of literature. The composite and parallel
method here is that because comparative cultural studies is not self-referential
and exclusionary; rather, the parallel use of English is effectively converted
into a tool for and of communication in the study, pedagogy, and scholarship
of literature. Thus, in comparative cultural studies the use of English
should not represent any form of colonialism -- and if it does, one disregards
it or fights it with English rather than by opposing English -- as follows
from principles One to Three. And it should also be obvious that is the
English speaker who is, in particular, in need of other languages.
13.6
The Sixth General Principle of comparative cultural studies is its theoretical
and methodological focus on evidence-based research and analysis. This
principle is with reference to methodological requirements in the description
of theoretical framework building and the selection of methodological approaches.
From among the several evidence-based theoretical and methodological approaches
available in literary theory, culture research, cultural anthropology,
sociology, etc., the systemic and empirical approach to culture and the
polysystem approach are perhaps the two most advantageous and precise frameworks
and methodologies for comparative cultural studies. This does not mean
that for a comparative cultural studies the proposal here entails the suggestion
of a meta theory; rather, comparative cultural studies and its methodologies
are implicitly and explicitly pluralistic. However, it appears that from
the many possibilities of methodology, the proposed one is most advantageous.
13.7
The Seventh General Principle of comparative cultural studies is its attention
and insistence on methodology in interdisciplinary study (an umbrella term),
with three main types of methodological precision: intra-disciplinarity
(analysis and research within the disciplines in the humanities), multi-disciplinarity
(analysis and research by one scholar employing any other discipline),
and pluri-disciplinarity (analysis and research by team-work with participants
from several disciplines). In the latter case, an obstacle is the general
reluctance of literary and culture scholars to employ team-work for the
study of literature. It should be noted that this principle is built-in
in the framework and methodology of the systemic and empirical approach
to culture.
13.8
The Eighth General Principle of comparative cultural studies is its content
against the contemporary paradox of globalization versus localization.
There is a paradoxical development in place with regard to both global
movements and intellectual approaches and their institutional representation.
On the one hand, the globalization of technology, industry, and communication
is actively pursued and implemented. But on the other hand the forces of
exclusion as represented by local, racial, national, gender, disciplinary,
etc., interests prevail in (too) many aspects. This localization can be
seen in the institutional parameters of current cultural studies itself.
Scholars in literature or various other disciplines producing work in cultural
studies -- the intellectual as well as institutional carriers of the discipline
-- appear to be appointed based on scholarship in a single area and this
results in correspondingly lacking work. In other words, intellectual focus
when in combination with institutional aims and objectives result, still,
in the interest of single focus scholarship. For this to change toward
the comparative cultural studies proposed here, a paradigm shift in the
humanities will be necessary. Thus, the Eighth Principle represents the
notion of working against the stream by promoting comparative cultural
studies as a global and inclusive discipline of international humanities.
13.9
The Ninth General Principle of comparative cultural studies is its claim
on the vocational commitment of its practitioners. In other words, why
study and work in comparative cultural studies? The reasons are the intellectual
as well as pedagogical values this approach and discipline offers in order
to implement the recognition and inclusion of the Other with and by commitment
to the in-depth knowledge of several cultures (i.e., languages, literatures,
etc.) as basic parameters. In consequence, the discipline of comparative
cultural studies as proposed advances our knowledge by a multi-facetted
approach based on scholarly rigour and multi-layered knowledge with precise
methodology.
13.10
The Tenth General Principle of comparative cultural studies is with regard
to the troubled intellectual and institutional situation of the humanities
in general. That is, the Tenth Principle is with reference to the politics
of scholarship and the academe. We know that the humanities in general
experience serious and debilitating institutional -- and, depending on
one's stand, also intellectual -- difficulties and because of this the
humanities in the general social and public discourse are becoming more
and more marginalized (not the least by their own doing). It is in this
context that the principles of a comparative cultural studies is proposed
to at least to attempt to adjust the further marginalization and social
irrelevance of the humanities.
14. Drawing together the above presented proposals toward a framework
of a comparative cultural studies, here is a composite definition: Comparative
cultural studies is a new field of study where the notion of comparative
is merged with the field of cultural studies from the basic premises of
the discipline of comparative literature, meaning that the study of culture
and culture products -- including but not restricted to literature, communication,
media, art, etc. -- is performed in a contextual and relational construction
and with a plurality of methods and approaches, inter- and multi-disciplinarity,
and, if and when required, including team work. In comparative cultural
studies it is the processes of communicative action(s) in culture and the
how of these processes that constitute the main objectives of research
and study. However, comparative cultural studies does not exclude textual
analysis proper or other established fields of study. In comparative cultural
studies, ideally, the framework of and methodologies available in the systemic
and empirical study of culture are favoured.
Works Cited
Barsch, Achim, Gebhard Rusch, and Reinhold Viehoff, eds. Siegfried
J. Schmidt Festschrift Home Page. Halle: U of Halle-Wittenberg (1999-):
<http://www.schmidt.uni-halle.de/>.
Barsch, Achim, Gebhard Rusch, and Reinhold Viehoff, eds. Empirische
Literaturwissenschaft in der Diskussion. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1994.
Berger, Johannes. "Autopoiesis: Wie 'systemisch' ist die Theorie sozialer
Systeme?"
Sinn, Kommunikation und soziale Differenzierung. Beiträge
zu Luhmanns Theorie sozialer Systeme. Ed. H. Haferkamp and M. Schmid.
Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1987. 129-52.
Bertalanffy, Ludwig von.
General Systems Theory. New York: George
Braziller, 1968.
Bushev, Michael. Synergetics:
Chaos, Order, SelfOrganization. New Jersey: World Scientific, 1994.
Corner, John, and Jeremy Hawthorn, eds. Communication Studies: An
Introductory Reader. London: Edward Arnold, 1993.
Diggins, John P. The Promise of Pragmatism. Chicago: University
of Chicago P, 1991.
Dubois, Jacques. L'Institution de la littérature. Introduction
à une sociologie. Bruxelles: Labor, 1978.
Dubois, Jacques. "Analyse de l'institution littéraire. Quelques
points de repère."
Pratiques
32 (1981): 122-30.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. Polysystem Studies. Special Issue of Poetics
Today 11.1 (1990): 12-68.
Foerster, Heinz von.
Wissen
und Gewissen. Versuch einer Brücke. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1993.
Gehrke, Ralph. "Was leistet der Radikale Konstruktivismus für
die Literaturwissenschaft?"
Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift für Literaturwissenschaft
und Geistesgeschichte 68.1 (1994): 170-88.
Glasersfeld, Ernst von.
Wissen,
Sprache und Wirklichkeit. Arbeiten zum Radikalen Konstruktivismus.
Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1987.
Glasersfeld, Ernst von.
Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing
and Learning. New York: Falmer, 1995.
<
http://www.oikos.org/radcom.htm>.
Groeben, Norbert and
M. Schreier. "Does an Empirical Science of Literature Need Metatheoretical
Discussion? Yes, but -- Some Answers." Empirical Studies of Literature.
Ed. E. Ibsch, D. Schram, and G. Steen. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 1991.
371-79.
Harkins, W.E. and Gerald
J. Janacek. "Constructivism."
The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry
and Poetics. Ed. Alex Preminger and T.V.F. Brogan. Princeton: Princeton
UP, 1993. 237.
Hejl, Peter M. "Konstruktion der sozialen Konstruktion. Grundlinien
einer konstruktivistischen Sozialtheorie."
Der Diskurs des Radikalen
Konstruktivismus. Ed. S.J. Schmidt. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1987. 30339.
Hejl, Peter M. "Culture as a Network of Socially Constructed Realities."
Cultural
Participation: Trends since the Middle Ages. Ed.
Ann Rigney and Douwe Fokkema. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1993. 227-50.
HyperBourdieu HTM: A Comprehensive, Contextual and Referential Bibliography
and Mediagraphy of His Works
and Public Statements (1990): <
http://www.iwp.unilinz.ac.at/HyperBourdieu.html#BMenglish>.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin. "Spielarten des Konstruktivismus. Einige Notizen
und Anmerkungen."
Soziale Welt 40.12 (1989): 86-96.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin.
"Zur Unterkomplexität der Differenzierungstheorie. Empirische Anfragen
an die Systemtheorie."
Zeitschrift für Soziologie 21.6 (1992):
406-19.
Korsten, Frans-Willem. "SASOTRT(L)T: How the Empirical Study of Literature
Started with the Wrong Name and How It Did Not Truly Substantiate What
It Promised."
Frame: Tijdschrift voor Literatuurwetenschap 14.23
(2000): 28-42.
Kramaschki, Lutz. "Konstruktivismus, konstruktivistische Ethik und
Neopragmatismus."
Konstruktivismus und Ethik.
Delfin 1995.
Ed. Gebhard Rusch and Siegfried J. Schmidt. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1995.
224-68.
Krohn, Wolfgang and Günter Krüppers, eds.
Emergenz. Die
Entstehung von Ordnung, Organisation und Bedeutung.
Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1992.
Laszlo, Ervin.
The Interconnected Universe: Conceptual Foundations
of Transdisciplinary Unified Theory. New Jersey:
World Scientific, 1995.
Luckmann, Thomas. "Kultur und Kommunikation."
Kultur und Gesellschaft.
Ed. M. Haller, H.J. HoffmannNowotny, and W. Zapf.
Frankfurt: Campus, 1989. 33-45.
Luhmann, Niklas.
Social Systems. Trans. J. Bednarz, Jr. Stanford:
Stanford UP, 1995.
Luhmann, N., H. Maturana, M. Namiki, V. Redder, and F. Varela.
Beobachter.
Konvergenz der Erkenntnistheorien?
München:
Fink, 1992.
Maturana, Humberto.
Erkennen. Die Organisation und Verkörperung
von Wirklichkeit. 2nd ed. Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1985.
Miall, David S. "Anticipation and Feeling in Literary Response: A Neuropsychological
Perspective."
Poetics: Journal of Empirical Research on Literature,
the Media and the Arts 23.4 (1995): 275-98.
Pasternack, Gerhard. "Empirische Literaturwissenschaft und ihre wissenschaftsphilosophischen
Voraussetzungen."
Empirische Literaturwissenschaft in der Diskussion.
Ed. Achim Barsch, Gebhard Rusch, and Reinhold Viehoff. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp,
1994. 55-81.
Riegler, Alex, ed.
Radical Constructivism Home Page (1996-):
<
http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism>.
Rusch, Gebhard, and Siegfried J. Schmidt, eds.
Konstruktivismus:
Geschichte und Anwendung. Delfin 1992. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1992.
Rusch, Gebhard, and Siegfried J. Schmidt, eds.
Konstruktivismus
und Sozialtheorie.
Delfin 1993. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp 1993.
Rusch, Gebhard, and Siegfried J. Schmidt, eds.
Konstruktivismus
und Ethik.
Delfin 1995. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1995.
Schmidt, Siegfried J.
Foundations for the Empirical Study of Literature:
The Components of a Basic Theory. Trans. Robert de Beaugrande. Hamburg:
Buske, 1980.
Schmidt, Siegfried J. "The Logic of Observation: An Introduction to
Constructivism."
Canadian Review of Comparative Literature / Revue Canadienne
de Littérature Comparée 19.3 (1992): 295-312.
Schmidt, Siegfried J.
Kognitive Autonomie und soziale Orientierung.
Konstruktivistische Bemerkungen zum Zusammenhang
von Kognition, Kommunikation, Medien und Kultur. Frankfurt:
Suhrkamp, 1994a.
Schmidt, Siegfried J. "What Can 'Empirical' Mean in a Constructivist
Context? 10 Considerations."
Empirical Approaches to Literature.
Ed. Gebhard Rusch. Siegen: Siegen U, Institute for Empirical Literature
and Media Research, 1994b. 109-12.
Schmidt, Siegfried.J. "The Empirical Study of Literature: Reasons,
Plans, Goals."
The Systemic and Empirical Approach to Literature and
Culture as Theory and Application. Ed. Tötösy de Zepetnek
and Irene Sywenky. Edmonton: Research Institute for Comparative Literature,
U of Alberta, and Siegen: LUMIS, Siegen U, 1997. 137-53.
Segers, Rien T. "Dynamics and Progress in Literary Studies? Some Notes
on a Neglected Topic in Literary Scholarship with Special Reference to
Reception Research."
Celebrating Comparativism. Ed. Katalin Kürtösi
and József Pál. Szeged: József Attila U / Gold P,
1994. 167-205.
Shannon, Thomas R.
An Introduction to the WorldSystem Perspective.
Boulder: Westview Press, 1992.
Spivey, Nancy Nelson.
The Constructivist Metaphor: Reading, Writing,
and the Making of Meaning. San Diego: Academic P, 1997.
Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. "The Empirical Science of Literature
/ Constructivist Theory of Literature."
Encyclopedia ofContemporary Literary
Theory: Approaches, Scholars, Terms. Ed. I.R. Makaryk. Toronto: U of
Toronto P, 1993. 36-39.
Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. Comparative Literature: Theory,
Method, Application. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 1998.
Tötösy de Zepetnek,
Steven. "Selected Bibliography of Work in Systemic and Empirical Approaches
to Literature, 1969-1995."
CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture:
A WWWeb Journal (
Library): <
http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/library/sysbib95.html>).
Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. "From Comparative Literature
Today toward Comparative Cultural Studies."
CLCWeb: Comparative Literature
and Culture: A WWWeb Journal 1.3 (1999): <
http://clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu/clcweb99-3/totosy99.html>.
Viehoff, Reinhold, ed.
Alternative Traditionen. Dokumente zur Entwicklung
einer Empirischen Literaturwissenschaft. Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1991.
Wallerstein, Immanuel.
The Modern World-System. New York: Academic
P, 1974.
Wallerstein, Immanuel.
The Capitalist World-Economy. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1979.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. "World-System Analysis: Theoretical and Interpretative
Issues."
World-System Analysis: Theory and
Methodology. Ed. Terence K. Hopkins et al. Beverly Hills: Saga,
1982.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. "The Relevance of the Concept of Semiperiphery
to Southern Europe."
Semiperipheral Development: The
Politics of Southern Europe in the Twentieth Century. Ed. Giovanni
Arrighi. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1985. 31-39.
Wallerstein, Immanuel.
Geopolitics and Geoculture. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1991.
Wallerstein, Immanuel.
After Liberalism. New York: The New Press,
1995.
Ziolkowski, Theodore. Review of Steven Totosy de Zepetnek,
Comparative
Literature: Theory, Method, Application
(Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi, 1998).
World Literature Today 73.3
(1999): 606.
Zitterbarth, Walter. "Der Erlanger Konstruktivismus in seiner Beziehung
zum konstruktiven Realismus."
Formen des Konstruktivismus in der Diskussion.
Ed. M.F. Peschl. Wien: VUV, 1991. 73-87.