Constructivism and Comparative Cultural Studies
Abstract: Steven Totosy 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, Totosy 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 of
Contemporary
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.