Why Compare?

R. Radhakrishnan

______________________________ Review by: Vishakha Khajuria

The present essay is written by R. Radhakrishnan who is a Professor of English and Comparative
Literature at the University of California. As evident from the title of the essay, the reader comes
across many observations and mainly questions concerning the study of comparison. Various
examples are used by the author, R. Radhakrishnan, to present his ideas. The primary example he
uses in the essay is his conversation with a rickshaw driver in Chennai. They both talk about
traffic conditions in India in comparison to that in the United States. Radhakrishnan draws the
reader to the theme of the essay with this conversation. He expresses a dilemma that he faces
during his discourse with the rickshaw driver and says that:

How can either one of us persuade the other, without penetrating naked aggression, that
somehow one’s own “life world” is superior to that of the other? 
When we compare, one world is always considered superior to the other. As the traffic in the
United States is better than India, it would create an aura of superiority around the United States.
This only adds to the power play and no learning takes place. If A and B have different
parameters of knowledge and aren’t learning from each other, then the comparison loses its
validity. Here the author put forth an important question that- if it is going to be unproductive
then why compare at all? 

A comparative study should facilitate learning and not highlight the dominance of one over the
other. The learning should be transformative and value-centric. The value-centric learning for
traffic conditions would be of- the efficiency of traffic, beauty, orderliness, and so on. But, the
author and the rickshaw driver cannot deny the fact both of them are interested in winning the
debate by presenting their counter-arguments. The essay explains that there is something we can
call “One World” which has several worlds inside it. The identity of the “One World’ resides in
the differences and the conversation within itself. According to the essay:

The heart of the world ticks differently in the haiku, in the novel of magic realism, in the street
theatres of India, and a variety of other genres and cultural literary formations”

If we are not different inside that ‘One world’ then the conversation would be closed-ended or
non-existent. To add to the discussion, the author uses the example of a Venn diagram. A Venn
diagram is used for a pictorial representation of the relationship between different groups. Let’s
say- A, and B are the two groups overlapping but also independent of each other in terms of
comparative study. Now if on side A, is the feminist writing of C.S. Lakshmi and on side B, is
the writing of either Virginia Woolf or Helene Cixous, how will they be compared? Like in the
Venn diagram, they overlap at the level of “knowing” and stand independent at the level of
“being.” The area where they stand independent of each other seems to matter less as the study
proceeds. But, will they be merely sidelined as hinterlands or unexplored areas? According to the
essay:
…the comparative act, in enabling a new form of recognition along one axis, perpetrates dire
misrecognition along another.
This misrecognition is also discussed in Chinua Achebe’s evaluation of “Heart of Darkness”
(1899) by Joseph Conrad. In the book, the third world Africans are considered as the “younger
brother” who needs to follow the footsteps of the white supremacist “older brother.” Why is it
necessary that the first world country is necessarily better than the third world? Is the world
operating based on a hand-me-down from “already developed” to the “to be developed”? All
these questions point towards the fact the there is a “Self-Other” problem that governs the study
of comparison. Somehow the “Self” is under the influence that “Other” is the superior one. The
comparative study starts with a utopian situation in mind that is shattered as we go along. This
can be expressed best with a quote from “Rethinking Comparativism” by Gayatri Spivak:

Comparison assumes a level playing field and the field is never level… It is, in other words,
never a question of compare and contrast, but rather a matter of judging and choosing.

The study of comparison according to the essay is epistemological and political at the same time.
The project might start with “egalitarian” interests but is highly influenced by a world that is
“captive to dominance”. Here the author insists on “deconstruction” of the apparatus of
recognition. What he means by that is to not draw meaning from anything outside the text. That
even though there are still ‘Self’ and ‘Other’ binaries, the comparative literature has to assign a
new “we” or a new subject into existence. The problem according to the essay is:

…how to produce a new “we,” and who will sign in the name of this new “we” to come?

To answer this question the author takes into consideration the works by Derrida (The Politics of
Friendship) and Gayatri Spivak (Death of a Discipline). The aim of the author here is to
highlight a phrase by Gayatri Spivak, “as yet to be determined we”. This is explained in context
to the example of the rickshaw driver. The author and the driver have similarities in terms of
being human and differ in terms of the realities they represent. While they recognize their
differences they come across the fact that they are unable to form a “we”. They aren’t able to
reach a middle ground. Thus, there is a need to form the other “we” through the practice of
comparison. Hence, Derrida’s concept of friendship makes sense that insists on the formation of
‘we to come’.

The essay now brings us face to face with the concept of the “big O”. The big O is a
mathematical notation that describes the limiting behavior of a function when the argument tends
towards a particular value or infinity. In mathematical terms, the O means that “things equal to
same things are equal to each other”. The problem here is the word “equal” when we talk about
the comparative study. The author puts up a very valid concern by saying that:

…how can “equal comparisons” be undertaken in an unequal world?

We know from the essay that a new “we” has yet to be formed. But what is a “we”? Is it Us-them
or Self-Other? These “unequal” binaries of the world hinder the formation of the other “we”, the
necessity of which has been emphasized by the author. It’s not possible for any person to not
consider his/her point of view as the center of the comparison. Then how do we take into
consideration the multiple worlds we are surrounded by? For a proper comparative study, these
questions must be addressed.
The author takes us to E.M. Foster’s “A Passage to India” (1924) to understand the two forces
trying to understand each other both “naturally and historically.” The first example taken from
the book is of the dark cave. There is little or no light inside the cave. When a visitor enters and
lights a match, there is a rise in another flame. The two flames try to unite but cannot as one
breathes air and the other stone. The flames meet for a while and the cave is dark again. The
important thing to note is that the flame is lit by the visitor and not by the native. This leads to
the formation of a Self-Other problem. The author questions the concept shared by Foster and
asks that: 

…how should the two flames behave? Should they continue to play the Self-Other game
interchangeably and maintain duality, or should they meld and fuse into each other erotically in
the name of oceanic love and transcendent friendship?

This part of the essay brings out the major issue that concerns comparative study. Just as the
flame lights the caves, the comparative study aims at illuminating the unexplored areas. But a
comparatist needs to ask himself/herself that why are they doing it? To assert some kind of
friendship or to be part of the ‘Self-Other’ problematic? Moreover, is it the right way to go? Just
as Walter Benjamin’s ‘fragments of a vessel’, we are all fragments of ‘One world’ and to be
glued together we need not be like each other.

Towards the end, the author talks about the comparison in terms of language. He once again
takes an example from E.M. Foster’s “A Passage to India”. The example he takes is of an echo in
the Marabar caves. Any sound that hits the walls of the caves echoes with the meaningless
‘boum’ sound. The sounds here are different languages and echoes are meaning attributed to it.
Once a sound bounces off the walls of the caves, they are send back meaningless echoes. The
echo is a non-language and hence cannot be distinguished. But the question arises that can one
echo be compared with others? Can English be compared with Urdu or Hindi? These are some of
the questions that haunt language based comparative study.

The examples presented from “A Passage to India” have some drawbacks as well. Foster in his
work is unable to present the facts without the colonial influence. For example, Marabar caves
are presented as a place where there is a persistence of meaninglessness. According to the author:

 The classic problem with the allegory of the caves in Forster’s novel is the tension between
“who is saying” and “what is being said.” When the primordial Hindu-Vedantic sound “Oum”
is haunted by its echo and is misrecognized into the meaninglessness of “Boum.” Which ears
register that loss: Hindu ears, Christian ears, or human ears in general? 

This misrecognition would invalidate the aim of any comparative study. In the concluding part of
the essay, the author talks about the postcolonial comparatism. He wants to say that one cannot
compare two different worlds, express their views and then return to their side of the world. The
comparison has to transform the world somehow otherwise it invalidates the need to compare.
While the essay critiques the comparative study, it also highlights the fact that is possible to
“simultaneously celebrate the world as one, and honor the world as the ongoing effect of
heterogeneous and relational worldings.” Returning to his example of the rickshaw driver he
concludes that their differences should not come in the way of learning from each other. 

The study of comparison according to the essay is a tricky business. We come across a carnival
of questions. The author's aim is not to confuse us with all the questions that he has presented in
the essay. He wants to warn us about the various pitfalls and realize the magnitude of
responsibility that we carry when we compare. “Why Compare?” acts as the information
brochure for someone who wants to compare two different worlds. To quote from the essay: 

The project of comparison finds itself somewhere between the stability of identity and the fluidity
of difference.