Why do humans compare? A Toy Story.

There were two ideas brought up in Miner’s texts that presented a bit of a conundrum for me. Miner states that comparing should be done interculturally, rather than intraculturally. He also states that the problem with comparative practice today is that is assumes the predominance of Western genres: drama, lyric and narrative, and theory of literature.

Wherein lies the conundrum? Trying to understand the practice of comparing as it developed, I traced it back to my first encounters with it, in children (like a good Romantic would). Look at Toy Story. In this film (drama or narrative?), Andy establishes a parameter to gain order in his life: he writes his name on his beloved toys, distinguishing between what is his and what is not. Didn’t Descartes do something similar, by trying to establish an absolute truth from which to base all other thought? Doesn’t our author, Miner, seek to do the same by tracing back in history to the first (authoritative) text/poetic, outlining how a genre should be (Aristotle’s poetics). A second lesson from Toy Story: after establishing the parameter, comparisons are made. We base something new on something we already know. Is this based on a desire to lighten the cognitive load (think: lazy/efficient J)? “I’ve already learned one complicated new thing… are there other things like it?” Woody and Buzz are both Andy’s toys, this is an intracultural comparison. Buzz is initially judged “cooler” than Woody because of his more advanced technology. (The problem with Pixar, is that it appears to be an ideal world for didactic purposes, making it difficult to elaborate on the point I’d like to make, that initial comparisons predispose the comparatist to making evaluative comparisons.) When comparing Woody and Buzz with Sid’s toys next door, these “other” toys are deemed scary and malformed through in the initial shock of seeing them, and the film’s creators play on this fear. This is our initial reaction when viewing the other in this comparison. See this as first drawing an intercultural comparison: how does this “other” text compare to what I know (Andy’s toy/not Andy’s toy)? This “other” is not complete or whole within the standard of what I know (in a Toy Story, it’s downright scary). My conundrum? If we can understand Toy Story as being universally applicable for scholars growing up in western, capitalist countries, these scholars are also predisposed to establishing parameters and drawing evaluative comparisons from childhood! Miner recognizes this and cautions against turning western eyes on the world, looking, for example, for what one knows

Over the course of the movie, we come to understand these “other” toys, not as malformed, but ultra-useful, having functions (like strong arms, pulleys and levers, and the scare-factor) and compassion that bespeak their intrinsic worth. While the lesson gained from the movie is valuable in learning to appreciate the intrinsic worth of both parties when drawing comparisons, it’s impossible to ignore the fact that Pixar’s “other” is voiceless in the film… Predominance of the standard of comparison persists! Would a comparatist know better? After reading Miner’s text, would they know better?