ABSTRACT
The utility of including a non–Euro-American cultural tradition in a discussion of the relationship between imagery and understanding is that it perforce raises the issue of “cross-cultural validity,” a topic often debated in anthropology but too often taken for granted in cultural studies. Among other things, it requires that one consider how important the “original language” is for setting the terms of analysis. Underlying this question lurks the tension between history and criticism as presently construed, and no less the question of how one may still practice history in a postmodern scholarly universe.
