| In this project, I explore how Idealism, Transcendentalism, and Buddhist Modernism developed modes of thought to embrace the fact of living on a single, shared globe. I argue that there is a previously unexplored connection between these movements, predicated precisely on a debate about how to think globally. Furthermore, I argue that understanding the relations and differences between these three movements gives us a new vantage on the globality of modern letters as such. To begin, I show how the Idealists developed a synthetic apparatus (the dialectic), committed to the enlightenment of all peoples, but were convinced that European forms of thought and governance were the only possible route to - and meaning of - enlightenment. They argued explicitly that enlightenment was the capacity to unite "savage instinct" with "civilized rationality," and developed concepts like autonomy (Kant), dialectics (Hegel), aesthetics (Schiller), and communism (Marx) to name how this form of life could be achieved. The Transcendentalists, in response, denied the claim that there was a unique path to enlightenment through the process of synthesizing world cultures. To the contrary, they argued, dynamics of continual difference formed the paths of progress and the routes toward ever better forms of life. Rather than synthesizing cultures, we are to learn to move between them, respecting each as dynamic collectivities always evolving through new connections and historical patterns. Buddhist modernism, finally, is a complex and often misunderstood movement that worked to transform the archives and practices of various Buddhist traditions in the late 19th and early 20th century. One major claim in this project is that we should understood Buddhist modernism not as an adaptation to the demands of the West, as is common today, but rather as a key interlocutor in debates about global thought. I argue that practices like meditation and the goal of egolessness were redefined as practices of the self that allowed one to think more globally. Concluding with 20th century literary engagements with Buddhism, I argue that contemporary literature continues to be part of complex, interactional, and international movements struggling to articulate the best modes of global thought available today. |
