Search published articles
Showing 5 results for World Literature
Volume 8, Issue 2 (5-2020)
Abstract
World literature is a reaction against unfulfillment and diminished satisfaction hereby national literature to be existed so. The vivid fulfillment is a solid world people and hidden one is a superiority and national excess as a matched hope of aims in this way. A solvtion of result is a coefficency among world literates to be gained by colture instrument beside of language and literature.
Goetheś aspects in this view of world literature is a reaction of thoughts, aims and events through his days of life hence, those are many and much continuously canged. The essay to be fronted is trying to survey these Goetheś aspects towards world literature and his demands fulfilled from world literature as his situation to be matched by borders and know how to be accomplished
Omid Azadibougar,
Volume 8, Issue 29 (3-2015)
Volume 8, Issue 29 (3-2015)
Abstract
The growing theoretical discussions around the notion of World Literature in the past two decades ensue from the limitations of Comparative Literature and efforts to redefine the principles of literary criticism. It is part of an effort to include non-Western literatures and to write a history of world literature. The translation of Pascale Casanova’s La Republique mondiale des lettres has introduced part of these discussions into Persian. In this paper, I sketch a theoretical frame for World Literature, discuss the three axes of Casanova’s model (the republic, the centrality of Paris, and the nation-state ideology), and explain why the history of Persian literature does not fit into such definitions and why accepting this model would lead to epistemological changes that write off a great deal of Persian literature from world literary history. Then, in this connection, I discuss power relations, translation, and the implicit colonialism involved in it.
Volume 10, Issue 2 (7-2022)
Abstract
Johan Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), a reflective thinker and speaker from Germany, firstly announced the world group of literature words in May 1827. His speech in demand of world literature has become an essence for writing and speaking among those world philosophers who were researchers of literature in that time. There are many gaps to be fulfilled on this subject matter. In the same way, the original demand of his direct willing in making world literature has not been reached to a certain result. At last, the following research on the bases of disputed conversations, biographies (self-writing and others), letters, and his essays could be the sources in the fulfillment of Goethe’s point of view about world literature. It is no doubt that Goethe's point of view and other thinkers and speakers from Germany in the decades of 18th and 19th centuries could be a means for other nations and countries in the way of gathering world literature considering awareness, sympathy, and preservation of the great combination of world literature basically in relation to Europe and Germany in that time. In the following research, considering a historical creation in the way of comparative literature, the original demand of Goethe about world literature was investigated
Volume 10, Issue 3 (10-2022)
Abstract
What is introduced to readers around the world as “world literature” by scholars and critics is rather an anthology of writers and their works from other countries than an equal opportunity for all nations to have the world listen to their literature without socio-political preferences. This selective approach in introducing “world literature”, mostly practiced by the West to maintain its position, resembles in essence the application of collage in conversation pieces, in a way that creating and developing “world literature” in different times could be paralleled with a collage piece so that this art acts as a metaphor for “world literature”. This study, interdisciplinary in approach, investigating the themes and techniques of collage in “A Conversation with Dante on Divine Comedy,” as a conversation piece, peers into its selection of certain literary figures in light of Bakhtin’s “carnival” and Franco Moretti’s “distant reading” to shed light on the role of critics, scholars, professors, translators, and publishers in making up “world literature”.
Abolfazl Horri,
Volume 17, Issue 67 (10-2024)
Volume 17, Issue 67 (10-2024)
Abstract
This qualitative article employs an analytical-explanatory approach and is based on library resources to examine the relationship between World Literature, Global Literature, and Cosmopolitan Literature through the lens of Comparative Literature. The study aims to clarify the distinctions and connections between these three concepts to better understand the position of Iranian literature within Global Literature. Several questions are raised: “Are World Literature and Global Literature synonymous, or are they distinct?” “How do they relate to Cosmopolitan Literature?” “What connections do they share with Comparative Literature?” Some scholars consider World Literature and Global Literature interchangeable. Others view World Literature as comprising outstanding works from local literature that have achieved recognition either through translation or in their original language at transnational and international levels. The findings reveal that World Literature is retrospective, focusing on canonical historical works, while Global Literature is contemporary and a product of modern globalization processes. Additionally, the concept of Cosmopolitan Literature, which emphasizes a sense of global belonging and cultural interactions, closely aligns with these two. Comparative Literature serves as a framework for analyzing these relationships and strengthening the connection between Persian literature and global currents.
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
The expansion of globalization processes and the resulting economic and cultural transformations have given rise to several concepts in the fields of literature and culture. Among these is the notion of World Literature, which has been the subject of considerable debate since its inception. It has also sparked fundamental questions, particularly in the context of globalization studies: “Are World Literature and Global Literature synonymous, or are they distinct?” “How do they relate to Cosmopolitan Literature?” “What is the relationship between these latter forms and local or regional literature?” Despite numerous studies on these concepts, significant gaps remain in understanding the relationships among them and their connections to Comparative Literature. Using an analytical-explanatory approach, this article seeks to address these gaps and provide a basis for answering three central questions:
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
The expansion of globalization processes and the resulting economic and cultural transformations have given rise to several concepts in the fields of literature and culture. Among these is the notion of World Literature, which has been the subject of considerable debate since its inception. It has also sparked fundamental questions, particularly in the context of globalization studies: “Are World Literature and Global Literature synonymous, or are they distinct?” “How do they relate to Cosmopolitan Literature?” “What is the relationship between these latter forms and local or regional literature?” Despite numerous studies on these concepts, significant gaps remain in understanding the relationships among them and their connections to Comparative Literature. Using an analytical-explanatory approach, this article seeks to address these gaps and provide a basis for answering three central questions:
- Are World Literature and Global Literature synonymous, or do they differ?
- What is the relationship between these concepts and Cosmopolitan Literature?
- What role does Comparative Literature play in analyzing and explaining these concepts?
Clarifying these relationships may help shed light on the position of Persian literature within Global Literature and contribute to the development of comparative studies in Iran.
The study of the relationship between World Literature, Global Literature, and Cosmopolitan Literature has given rise to diverse perspectives within Comparative Literature. Goethe introduced the concept of World Literature, emphasizing cross-cultural interactions and the elevation of exemplary national works as a starting point for understanding these concepts. Building on this foundation, Marx and Engels offered a critical perspective, viewing World Literature as a product of bourgeois society, emerging from the processes of economic globalization. This view highlights the material and economic dimensions of literature’s circulation and reception on a global scale.
More modern studies suggest that Cosmopolitan Literature, by fostering a sense of global belonging and cross-cultural interactions, serves as a bridge between national and Global Literature. It connects localized literary traditions to broader global frameworks, emphasizing shared human values and cultural exchange. Despite this background, significant gaps remain in analyzing the connections among these concepts through the lens of Comparative Literature. This article seeks to address these gaps, offering insights into their interrelations and providing a framework for further understanding.
2. Literature Review
Regarding the relationship between the concept of World Literature and other related notions, particularly Global Literature and Cosmopolitan Literature, several Persian-language studies, in addition to the theoretical sources analyzed in this article, have explored these relationships. Horri (2021) examined the Eastern origins of World Literature from Goethe’s perspective, arguing that "from Goethe’s point of view, World Literature is neither a collection of national literature nor a compendium of global masterpieces; rather, it is a dynamic process of interaction among nations aimed at dismantling the walls of national prejudices that hinder peaceful coexistence” (p. 229). In another study, Horri (2023) explored the interdependence of national and Global Literature, demonstrating that "the richness of World Literature may depend on the richness of national literature, and vice versa; without national literature, there would be little presence of World Literature” (pp. 34-35). Building on these insights, this article seeks to analyze the relationship between World Literature, Global Literature, and Cosmopolitan Literature, offering a comparative and theoretical perspective to clarify their intersections and distinctions
3. Discussion and Analysis
One of the key challenges in translating the term Globalization into Persian arises from the lexical similarities between terms like "world" (as in World Literature) and "global" (as in Global Literature), and their equivalents in Persian, which do not have precise distinctions. Furthermore, translators have not consistently rendered these English terms into Persian, leading to discrepancies in interpretation and application. The discourse on World Literature and its relationship with other forms, such as Global Literature and Cosmopolitan Literature, can be divided into two broad chronological and historiographical categories: 1) Early and Foundational Perspectives and 2) Contemporary and Critical Perspectives. Two influential early views on World Literature stem from Goethe and Marx and Engels. Goethe envisioned World Literature as a means of cultural exchange, fostering dialogue and understanding among nations. Marx and Engels, however, emphasized the commodification of literature within the framework of global capitalism. For them, literature became a bourgeois product circulating within the global economy and subject to the dynamics of production, consumption, and exchange. While Goethe’s focus was more cultural, Marx and Engels placed a greater emphasis on the universal aspects of literature as a product of bourgeois society, linking it closely to the concept of globalization. This commodification of literature, as described by Marx and Engels, underscores its connection to the broader socio-economic processes of globalization.
Since the early 2000s, discussions about World Literature and its relationship with other literary forms, such as Global Literature and Cosmopolitan Literature, have adopted a more theoretical and critical orientation. Bugomil (2001) argued that Global Literature is primarily aimed at a general, global audience, while World Literature is more likely to be critically received by a specialized readership (p. 5). In other words, Global Literature enjoys widespread acceptance, while World Literature invites selective and critical engagement. Damrosch (2000) contended that the broad acceptance of World Literature does not inherently conflict with its alignment with critical readerships. While Global Literature often appeals to contemporary sensibilities, World Literature tends to engage with the past, fostering interpretative and intertextual connections across texts. Bugomil succinctly encapsulates this distinction: Global Literature is present-oriented, while World Literature is past-oriented. Ian Baucom (2001) provides a more nuanced categorization of Global Literature, distinguishing between its function as a project and as a method. As a project, Global Literature involves reconfiguring literary studies to focus on what is termed Global Literature. As a method, it involves extending global approaches to specific methods for studying what is broadly defined as literature (p. 162). This distinction highlights the dual role of Global Literature as both a framework for rethinking literary studies and a methodology for expanding the scope of literary analysis.
In summary, Global Literature is future-oriented, with an emphasis on contemporary relevance and universality, while World Literature remains past-oriented, seeking to preserve and reinterpret literary traditions across cultures. The commodification and globalization of literature have shaped these distinctions, allowing for the simultaneous coexistence of broad accessibility and critical engagement. This analytical framework sets the stage for exploring the interrelations among these concepts, their implications for understanding literature, and their role in shaping both national and global literary discourses.
The relationship between Global Literature and World Literature remains a subject of significant debate. While Bugomil (2001) argues that Global Literature cannot be equated with World Literature due to differences in scope and audience, Hillis-Miller (2011) takes a more integrative stance. He suggests that Global Literature can replace World Literature and proposes the term “New World Literature” instead of the traditional concept of World Literature. Eric Hayot (2013) examines the relationship between World Literature and globalization from two perspectives: method and subject matter. Hayot argues that World Literature cannot be easily equated with globalization, as the latter adopts a scientific-social and positivist approach, primarily concerned with economic and political transformations. This framework, he notes, is largely disconnected from the aesthetic and interpretative dimensions of literature (p. 223). Hayot highlights that literary studies are often shaped by an aesthetic perspective, emphasizing close reading techniques and poetic devices. These studies view literature as a medium for imaginative escape and playful resistance against the commodification and transactional nature of global markets (Hayot, 2013).
The connection between World Literature and cosmopolitanism emerges when World Literature—or more specifically, Global Literature—is seen as a product of globalization, which is inherently shaped by external, economic, and global forces. In a globalized world, McLuhan’s metaphor of the “global village” (1994, p. 8) suggests that its inhabitants become global citizens, fostering a sense of cosmopolitanism. From this perspective, literature functions as a means of expressing and reinforcing this sense of global belonging and cultural interconnectedness. Domínguez (2013) delves deeper into the link between World Literature and cosmopolitanism, defining cosmopolitanism as the starting point of a movement toward a “hybrid perspective.” He posits that literature is initially localized (e.g., “European literature”) but gradually transforms into “Global Literature” when it reaches a broader, universal audience (p. 337). Beecroft discusses the connection between cosmopolitanism and what he terms “literature-world” or “literary ecology.” This approach emphasizes the interplay between localized literary traditions and global literary networks, offering a framework to understand how regional and Global Literature coexist and influence one another.
These perspectives collectively illustrate the intricate relationships among World Literature, Global Literature, and cosmopolitanism. While globalization serves as a material and economic backdrop for the emergence of Global Literature, cosmopolitanism emphasizes the ideological and cultural dimensions of global literary exchange. The works of Hayot, Domínguez, and Beecroft highlight the evolving roles of literature as both a product of its local environment and a participant in global literary discourse.
4. Findings, Conclusions, and Future Studies
This study sought to define and analyze key terms, particularly the four concepts of World Literature, Global Literature, Cosmopolitan Literature, and Comparative Literature, and to examine their distinguishing characteristics. The findings demonstrate that World Literature, along with national, non-national, and local literature, is incorporated into the ongoing and dynamic process of globalization through translation. This globalization process is a tangible and practical phenomenon, emerging from the era of new technologies and heavily influenced by global economic structures. In this framework, globalization transforms the world into a small village—a global village—where its inhabitants, representing citizens from all five continents, perceive this village as their homeland, fostering a sense of belonging. This global sense of attachment is described as cosmopolitanism, reflecting the worldview of global citizens in a tightly interconnected world. In summary, many theorists regard World Literature as the outcome of cultural interactions and mutual understanding, with Comparative Literature serving as a tool for better comprehending these interactions. Simultaneously, perspectives on Global Literature are primarily influenced by economic and globalization-driven dynamics, emphasizing broader accessibility and appeal. In contrast, Cosmopolitan Literature emerges as a result of global interactions and the acceptance of multiculturalism, aligning closely with the ideals of global citizenship.
Expanding upon these findings, this study highlights their relevance to Persian literature, emphasizing its significant potential in the global literary arena. By analyzing the concepts of World Literature, Global Literature, and Cosmopolitan Literature, the study demonstrates that Persian literature—enriched by its cultural depth and historical interactions—possesses immense capacity to engage a global audience.
The study of the relationship between World Literature, Global Literature, and Cosmopolitan Literature has given rise to diverse perspectives within Comparative Literature. Goethe introduced the concept of World Literature, emphasizing cross-cultural interactions and the elevation of exemplary national works as a starting point for understanding these concepts. Building on this foundation, Marx and Engels offered a critical perspective, viewing World Literature as a product of bourgeois society, emerging from the processes of economic globalization. This view highlights the material and economic dimensions of literature’s circulation and reception on a global scale.
More modern studies suggest that Cosmopolitan Literature, by fostering a sense of global belonging and cross-cultural interactions, serves as a bridge between national and Global Literature. It connects localized literary traditions to broader global frameworks, emphasizing shared human values and cultural exchange. Despite this background, significant gaps remain in analyzing the connections among these concepts through the lens of Comparative Literature. This article seeks to address these gaps, offering insights into their interrelations and providing a framework for further understanding.
2. Literature Review
Regarding the relationship between the concept of World Literature and other related notions, particularly Global Literature and Cosmopolitan Literature, several Persian-language studies, in addition to the theoretical sources analyzed in this article, have explored these relationships. Horri (2021) examined the Eastern origins of World Literature from Goethe’s perspective, arguing that "from Goethe’s point of view, World Literature is neither a collection of national literature nor a compendium of global masterpieces; rather, it is a dynamic process of interaction among nations aimed at dismantling the walls of national prejudices that hinder peaceful coexistence” (p. 229). In another study, Horri (2023) explored the interdependence of national and Global Literature, demonstrating that "the richness of World Literature may depend on the richness of national literature, and vice versa; without national literature, there would be little presence of World Literature” (pp. 34-35). Building on these insights, this article seeks to analyze the relationship between World Literature, Global Literature, and Cosmopolitan Literature, offering a comparative and theoretical perspective to clarify their intersections and distinctions
3. Discussion and Analysis
One of the key challenges in translating the term Globalization into Persian arises from the lexical similarities between terms like "world" (as in World Literature) and "global" (as in Global Literature), and their equivalents in Persian, which do not have precise distinctions. Furthermore, translators have not consistently rendered these English terms into Persian, leading to discrepancies in interpretation and application. The discourse on World Literature and its relationship with other forms, such as Global Literature and Cosmopolitan Literature, can be divided into two broad chronological and historiographical categories: 1) Early and Foundational Perspectives and 2) Contemporary and Critical Perspectives. Two influential early views on World Literature stem from Goethe and Marx and Engels. Goethe envisioned World Literature as a means of cultural exchange, fostering dialogue and understanding among nations. Marx and Engels, however, emphasized the commodification of literature within the framework of global capitalism. For them, literature became a bourgeois product circulating within the global economy and subject to the dynamics of production, consumption, and exchange. While Goethe’s focus was more cultural, Marx and Engels placed a greater emphasis on the universal aspects of literature as a product of bourgeois society, linking it closely to the concept of globalization. This commodification of literature, as described by Marx and Engels, underscores its connection to the broader socio-economic processes of globalization.
Since the early 2000s, discussions about World Literature and its relationship with other literary forms, such as Global Literature and Cosmopolitan Literature, have adopted a more theoretical and critical orientation. Bugomil (2001) argued that Global Literature is primarily aimed at a general, global audience, while World Literature is more likely to be critically received by a specialized readership (p. 5). In other words, Global Literature enjoys widespread acceptance, while World Literature invites selective and critical engagement. Damrosch (2000) contended that the broad acceptance of World Literature does not inherently conflict with its alignment with critical readerships. While Global Literature often appeals to contemporary sensibilities, World Literature tends to engage with the past, fostering interpretative and intertextual connections across texts. Bugomil succinctly encapsulates this distinction: Global Literature is present-oriented, while World Literature is past-oriented. Ian Baucom (2001) provides a more nuanced categorization of Global Literature, distinguishing between its function as a project and as a method. As a project, Global Literature involves reconfiguring literary studies to focus on what is termed Global Literature. As a method, it involves extending global approaches to specific methods for studying what is broadly defined as literature (p. 162). This distinction highlights the dual role of Global Literature as both a framework for rethinking literary studies and a methodology for expanding the scope of literary analysis.
In summary, Global Literature is future-oriented, with an emphasis on contemporary relevance and universality, while World Literature remains past-oriented, seeking to preserve and reinterpret literary traditions across cultures. The commodification and globalization of literature have shaped these distinctions, allowing for the simultaneous coexistence of broad accessibility and critical engagement. This analytical framework sets the stage for exploring the interrelations among these concepts, their implications for understanding literature, and their role in shaping both national and global literary discourses.
The relationship between Global Literature and World Literature remains a subject of significant debate. While Bugomil (2001) argues that Global Literature cannot be equated with World Literature due to differences in scope and audience, Hillis-Miller (2011) takes a more integrative stance. He suggests that Global Literature can replace World Literature and proposes the term “New World Literature” instead of the traditional concept of World Literature. Eric Hayot (2013) examines the relationship between World Literature and globalization from two perspectives: method and subject matter. Hayot argues that World Literature cannot be easily equated with globalization, as the latter adopts a scientific-social and positivist approach, primarily concerned with economic and political transformations. This framework, he notes, is largely disconnected from the aesthetic and interpretative dimensions of literature (p. 223). Hayot highlights that literary studies are often shaped by an aesthetic perspective, emphasizing close reading techniques and poetic devices. These studies view literature as a medium for imaginative escape and playful resistance against the commodification and transactional nature of global markets (Hayot, 2013).
The connection between World Literature and cosmopolitanism emerges when World Literature—or more specifically, Global Literature—is seen as a product of globalization, which is inherently shaped by external, economic, and global forces. In a globalized world, McLuhan’s metaphor of the “global village” (1994, p. 8) suggests that its inhabitants become global citizens, fostering a sense of cosmopolitanism. From this perspective, literature functions as a means of expressing and reinforcing this sense of global belonging and cultural interconnectedness. Domínguez (2013) delves deeper into the link between World Literature and cosmopolitanism, defining cosmopolitanism as the starting point of a movement toward a “hybrid perspective.” He posits that literature is initially localized (e.g., “European literature”) but gradually transforms into “Global Literature” when it reaches a broader, universal audience (p. 337). Beecroft discusses the connection between cosmopolitanism and what he terms “literature-world” or “literary ecology.” This approach emphasizes the interplay between localized literary traditions and global literary networks, offering a framework to understand how regional and Global Literature coexist and influence one another.
These perspectives collectively illustrate the intricate relationships among World Literature, Global Literature, and cosmopolitanism. While globalization serves as a material and economic backdrop for the emergence of Global Literature, cosmopolitanism emphasizes the ideological and cultural dimensions of global literary exchange. The works of Hayot, Domínguez, and Beecroft highlight the evolving roles of literature as both a product of its local environment and a participant in global literary discourse.
4. Findings, Conclusions, and Future Studies
This study sought to define and analyze key terms, particularly the four concepts of World Literature, Global Literature, Cosmopolitan Literature, and Comparative Literature, and to examine their distinguishing characteristics. The findings demonstrate that World Literature, along with national, non-national, and local literature, is incorporated into the ongoing and dynamic process of globalization through translation. This globalization process is a tangible and practical phenomenon, emerging from the era of new technologies and heavily influenced by global economic structures. In this framework, globalization transforms the world into a small village—a global village—where its inhabitants, representing citizens from all five continents, perceive this village as their homeland, fostering a sense of belonging. This global sense of attachment is described as cosmopolitanism, reflecting the worldview of global citizens in a tightly interconnected world. In summary, many theorists regard World Literature as the outcome of cultural interactions and mutual understanding, with Comparative Literature serving as a tool for better comprehending these interactions. Simultaneously, perspectives on Global Literature are primarily influenced by economic and globalization-driven dynamics, emphasizing broader accessibility and appeal. In contrast, Cosmopolitan Literature emerges as a result of global interactions and the acceptance of multiculturalism, aligning closely with the ideals of global citizenship.
Expanding upon these findings, this study highlights their relevance to Persian literature, emphasizing its significant potential in the global literary arena. By analyzing the concepts of World Literature, Global Literature, and Cosmopolitan Literature, the study demonstrates that Persian literature—enriched by its cultural depth and historical interactions—possesses immense capacity to engage a global audience.
| Page 1 from 1 |