3/17 Readings

Pandit

Non-Western theories applicable to literatures in other traditions

Example: 

• Zhang 
• Wen: liberate “wen” from Western confinement 

Example:

• Akhenaten’s Hymn to the Sun and Sabi
• Basho: Sabi = principle of “loneliness” [of all things portrayed in a poem]
• Akhenaten’s Hymn to the Sun and Dhvani 
• The poem becomes about the reification of panoptic machinery of the state (aestheticization of the state)
• What is dhvani? - artistic enjoyment from literature derived not from images but by associations and ideas evoked by these images 
• Vachya- the started
• Pratyamana- the implied 
• Sanskrit drama & Xiang, Yi, and Yan 
• Partibha: Institution, talent
• Alfrabi: imagination as that which receives, projects, and recreates images, and motivates action 

Miner

• Problem of “universality” of theory vs. problems of relativism
• 2 kinds of general poetics: 
• Implicit in practice, belongs to every culture
• Originative, foundational, found in some cultures but not in others
• “West vs. the rest” 
• Lyric, drama, narrative
• What are sufficient grounds for comparison? 
• “We must establish a basis of comparison between things possessing elements in common to degrees of likeness higher than resemblance or analogy” (21). 
• “The Practical principle holds that comparison is feasible when presumptively or formally identical topics, conditions, or elements are identified.” 

Going back to Miner’s question of the problems of both relativism and universalism, Pandit demonstrates how non-Western literary theory/aesthetic models may be applied to diverse traditions. Is she saying that each theory would be universally applicable? For example, in Pandit’s discussion of sabi and Akhenaten’s Hymn, is it enough to simply borrow the notion of “aloneness” without making more statements about the culture/time period/politics and etc. the theory or work came from? Can we isolate theory and literature like this? 

For comparison: Fokkema (cited in Miner): “In our text analysis we respect as far as possible the linguistic, stylistic or rhetorical distinctions offered by the text, instead of immediately imposing allegedly universal parameters on it” (231). Is Pandit imposing a sort of universal parameter (or at least a universalist assumption) by saying that theories can be applied to any literature or does she dodge it by simply showing that readings of literature can gain from using different approaches? 

Also, what about interdisciplinary approaches?