The problem that I feel we began to tackle in class last week was (to generalize)––is the pursuit of including transnational literature into American studies not perpetuating and recycling the same American exceptionalism it claims to combat? I think that this is a good critique. We, mostly meaning white, privileged, Anglo-Americans, have a tendency to appropriate any other culture we come in contact with and call it “appreciation.” In thinking about how to constructively critique the transnationalist movement, I found that Winfried Fluck and Bryce Traister were the most helpful.
Fluck helped me to frame how I was thinking of transnationalism as a literary movement. She said, "my question is therefore not whether transnational studies are, in principle, a good thing or not, but what uses are being made of this new perspective in American studies" (366). I had not realized that I was thinking of transnational studies as being moral, but I was. I felt like I was doing a “good work” by agreeing that we should study marginalized literatures from the Americas and broaden our horizons to be more inclusive. But Fluck is right, I think. It’s not about whether or not it is “good,” it is about how useful the hermeneutic is. Breaking away from this idea that wanting to pursue transnational literature is somehow altruistic allows us to make the transition from a vague, existential understanding of transnationalism to a more concrete one. From theories of a more ‘real’ and ‘true’ America to “experiences of solidarity” (Fluck 377).
Traister continues to criticize the uncomplicated, unified vision of a new, more diverse American studies. He suggests that the theoretical turn was only reenacting the familiar myth of "the new nation rising from the ashes of the historical house burned down by the revolutionary arson of the present" (12). I think Traister puts into practice the transnational hermeneutic in a way that really works when he reads the 9/11 Commission Report through Herman Melville’s “Benito Cereno.”
". . . how American jurisprudence manufactures its others (the 'illegal' revolution of slaves becomes the 'illegal' terrorism of the 9/11 assailants); how the American ideology of freedom sustains incarceral practices (Amasa Delano's liberality depends on where it doesn't create the conditions of marginalized resentment); and how the story of one nation under God carries with it the traces (and the desired elimination of those traces) of supernational and intranational practices (the international traffic in slaves becomes the neocolonial imperialism of contemporary global geopolitics)" (22).
This transhistorical approach would not work all the time, and even this example is not air-tight. But it is a functional and eye-opening reading that might open doors for further connection and research. He admits that the process itself employs American exceptionalism, and his admission helps to clarify the example, not confuse it. I think that transnational/transhistorical/etc. literary practices are important for the reasons why Porter and Kolodny did––because they broaden our scope and represent a more accurate America. But I also think these tools are important because they enable us to look critically at our literature and culture.
There is a moral dimension, maybe even an impulse, in transnationalist scholarship. This is why scholars seem to be always fighting over whether an exceptionalist ideology has wormed its way into a supposedly radical cultural critique. I like your emphasis on Traister's transhistorical approach to "Benito Cereno" and American exceptionalism, and would like to hear more about how you (or Traister) see the relationship between transhistorical and transnational. There is a risk involved with doing transhistorical analysis--can you hear the Historians screaming about anachronistic fallacies?--but Traister does it, as you note, in a convincing way. So many variations of transnationalist thinking compel us to embed texts and authors in specific times and places. Thus it ain't easy to break out and talk about 9/11!
ReplyDeleteKatie,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your use of Fluck to remind us that the simple application of the moral impulse to perform a transnational sort of scholarship is insufficient. The hermeneutic of usefulness is invaluable. After all, there are times at which we as members of the academy are called to account for the value of our work. If we are already using that lens to consider our scholarship, then we should, theoretically be more prepared to answer the charges. I also appreciate your discussion of transhistorical scholarship. I am made to think of the challenges of using current literary theory on literature of the past. For example, one cannot suggest that Shakespeare was a feminist; feminism, as such, didn't exist in his time. However, one can employ the various branches of feminist theory when considering the works of Shakespeare. We as scholars must employ such theories with a healthy dose of mindfulness. This carefulness would, I hope, help keep the Historians that Dr. Doolen referenced quiet.