We, the students of the Centre for Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto, affirm that:
1. Comparative literature is a strong and growing discipline in its own right.
2. Comparative literature, and comparative studies more generally, are imperative disciplines in an increasingly globalized world.
Furthermore,
3. The ability to deal with multiple literatures on their own terms and in the original languages is crucial to synthesized understanding; the availability and quality of translations into English are uneven; the assumption that texts’ availability in English negates their usefulness or relevance in the original language is a colonizing and homogenizing assumption—precisely the type of thinking comparative literature exists to combat.
a. The Centre for Comparative Literature is the only unit at U of T whose mandate includes a central, defining commitment to multilingual research.
b. The trend away from multilingual research (and thus necessarily toward Anglo-centric scholarship) is an enormous, dangerous, and troubling step backward.
4. Comparative literature at U of T is not, strictly speaking, a language and literature department.
a. In addition to traditional literatures, our faculty and students specialize in anthropology, art history, cinema, drama, history, philosophy, popular culture, political theory, religion, science studies and visual culture. Our research programmatically draws on all the major disciplines in the humanities and social sciences; additionally, it regularly engages in meaningful dialogue with the fine arts and the natural sciences.
b. While U of T argues that comparative literature can be preserved within the proposed School of Languages and Literatures, fully 2/3 of our faculty will not receive an appointment to that School since they hold cross-appointments from departments outside it. Thus, we are similar in structure and mandate to interdisciplinary programs such as East Asian Studies, which is threatened with dissolution, and Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations and the Centre for Medieval Studies, which are not. The School of Languages and Literatures as currently proposed entails the abandonment of comparative literature as a discipline at U of T, since its members will be dispersed across the university.
5. Comparative literature is a priority discipline at all universities U of T considers its global peers.
a. The disestablishment of comparative literature at U of T removes the university from the ranks of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Rutgers, Tokyo, London, etc., top universities which have historically strong relationships with the Centre for Comparative Literature and recognize the continuing high calibre of work done at the Centre.
6. The disestablishment of comparative literature at U of T seriously decreases our ability to research and the quality of our academic experience as students. It also devalues the degrees we will receive as graduates. It is tantamount to a breach of contract between the university and students who came here in good faith because of the international reputation of the Centre and a pledge of ongoing support for comparative literature as a discipline.
a. There is no other Centre, Program, Department, or School at U of T that would allow us to carry out our research. Indeed, projects with SSHRC funding have been turned down from national literature departments.
It is therefore vital that the Centre for Comparative Literature be able to maintain its degree-granting status, its innovative courses, and faculty.
7. The University has no grounds to dissolve the Centre for underperformance. The quality and performance of comparative literature students are second to none. We have not seen, and do not expect to see, any statement from the University that challenges this fact.
8. Our colloquium, now in its 22nd year, is the largest and most highly regarded graduate colloquium held at U of T; since 2008, the colloquium has twice received SSHRC Aid to Workshop grants; Jackman Humanities Institute Program for the Arts Award; and the proceeding of all those conferences have been published. Sander L. Gilman has called it “a destination conference” for comparatists. The 2001 conference, “Writing and Terror” also received SSHRC funding.
a. The colloquium also brings in top scholars from around the globe, both as keynote lecturers and as presenters, most recently having keynotes including:
2011: Carol Mavor and Michael Taussig; 2010: Carl Freedman, Eva-Lynn Jagoe, and Svetlana Boym; 2009: Sander L. Gilman, Peter Nesselroth, and Mario J. Valdés; 2008: Phillip Kennedy, Jonathan Hart, Christine Tarnopolsky, and Piero Boitani.
These scholars are among the top in the world; no other graduate conference at U of T is able to consistently attract speakers of this calibre.
9. The members of comparative literature make real and important contributions to the University at large. The courses taught in the Centre have no analogue in any other department, and their cancellation will mean the end of comparison in teaching and research.
a. The University, explaining the recommendation for the Centre’s dissolution, has said condescendingly that “the Centre has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams,” which means that, because the canon of critical theory is read by many in national-literature departments in translation, the University no longer needs comparative literature. In other words, we’ve been so effective that we’re now slated for elimination. There are several problems with this argument:
i. Examination of the course lists of the other language and literature departments reveals that critical theory is in fact not widely taught in these departments (an exception is the English department; however, this department will not be included in the School of Languages and Literatures and furthermore, they are limited by the availability of translations);
ii. It is not the case that, because a discipline’s central texts are valuable to scholars elsewhere, that the discipline ipso facto does not need to exist. In the humanities, we must all be conversant in, say, the basic texts that form the philosophy canon; this does not mean there is no further use for philosophy as a discipline. No viable literature project could do without significant reading in history; this does not mean there is no further use for history as a discipline;
iii. The argument presents a false picture of what comparative literature is and does. Comparative literature, while historically the home for continental cultural theory, has in fact always had broader aims and mandates than simply championing this body of work.
10. The Departments of East Asian Studies, German, Italian, Slavic Languages and Literatures, and Spanish/Portuguese, in their current forms, are invaluable resources for us as comparatists. Comparative research is compromised by their amalgamation, just as their research is compromised by the dissolution of comparative literature.
a. Comparative literature relies on strong, focused, institutionally autonomous research in all the individual languages and literatures (including English, French, the Near Eastern languages, and the classical and medieval languages, all of which will be excluded from the School of Languages and Literatures). Likewise, students in these disciplines rely on us. They come to the Centre for coursework and scholarly collaboration because comparative literature provides resources and methodologies unavailable in their home disciplines. The Centre is widely recognized as a nexus for cultural theory, interdisciplinary comparison, and critical thought. With no facility, faculty, body of courses, or degrees, this nexus will cease to exist. The School of Languages and Literatures claims it will be space for collaboration and unexpected synergies. In fact, such collaboration already regularly occurs, and a space for it already exists; it is called the Centre for Comparative Literature.
