Question posed in Eng Lit class at local cc...

[pixelroper]

"You might reasonably ask, what difference does broadening the literary canon make? It makes a tremendous difference. You learn a great deal about the society you live in from your reading---what it values, what it condemns, how it expects you to behave, what constitutes success both economically and morally, what it sees as the very nature of good and evil. If your reading is limited to say, Eurocentric works and you are embedded in a non-European social group, you will not discover yourself or your peers in the books you read. Thus, schools and anthologies that project a narrow literary canon present a world foreign to your experience. The resulting sense of anomie---a rootless lack of purpose, identity, and values---can be terribly damaging. At the same time, ignorance of your neighbors’ lifestyles can also seriously impair your life by denying you insight into cultural differences. All of us can avoid the baleful consequences of racism, hypernationalism, and human ignorance by embracing a wide and inclusive literary canon. Reading will make wise, humane, and just citizens of us all."

 

 

So what would you make of this???? Passed to me by a continuing ed friend, this was posed as an agree or disagree essay question, then up for discussion. Thought I'd share....

[In The Great White North]

The literary canon is composed of works that transcend time and place, and gender, and race and socio-economic group, etc. Great literature is above these petty differences. There is great literature in every culture that has stood the test of time.

 

Works that I've seen in more recent "required reading" lists often seem to have been placed there entirely because they represent some "disenfranchised" group or to include some modern author with an agenda, regardless of the quality of the work. They focus on the grievances of an individual subset of society, not of society as a whole.

 

"The resulting sense of anomie---a rootless lack of purpose, identity, and values-" can also be caused by ignoring the rich heritage of literature from before the twentieth century.

[Myrtle]

the baleful consequences of racism, hypernationalism, and human ignorance by embracing a wide and inclusive literary canon.

 

 

• This seems a typical modern defense of multiculturalism. They use literature as the instrument by which they will attempt social engineering of their students, much like a pastor delivers a sermon to a congregation.

   

• The author of the passage speaks as though there is no selection bias on their part made in what constitutes the "canon" and yet alludes to the bias of this unnamed other.

   

• There is nothing but vague refences to "otherness" in this passage. Any specifics would probably meet with criticism. My guess is that their idea of multiculture tolerance doesn't include FLDS literature, for example.

   

• I'd be hard pressed to come up with a "value" that hasn't been expressed by some "Eurocentric" author. From communism to anarcho-capitalism, utilitarianism, deontolgy, misogyny, misandry, equality, involuntary servitude, death penalty, religous extremism of every variety, atheism of every variety, arguments for every imaginable form of government, you name it, there is a western author that has written about it either in a fictional novel or directly via political philosophy, moral philosophy, or theology.

 

 

I am weary of being "exposed to other people's values" in the guise of literature to ease someone else's anxiety that I might not vote the way they want me to. I'm all up for good discussions about politics and religion as part of an education, but I want to call that for what it is.

[pixelroper]

I suggested to my friend to look up canon & anomie, then to read very carefully... she reported back that based in the definitions she disagreed w/the statement BUT she was the only one in the class to do so and was given hell for it during discussion. Teacher had no comment either way?!?!!

 

I grow weary toooooo. I may write my own dictionary and self publish it.

[mcconnellboys]

I agree. I picked up a Silver Burdett Ginn lit study guide recently and was reminded of what constitutes "literature" within the public school realm. I believe this very topic was addressed in the book "Losing our Language", decades ago. Including vapid, abridged and sometimes severely modified partial texts of works by authors of varying nationalities, sexes, etc. does not make for "depth" in reading.

[Hen]

the part about ignorance of neighbor's lifestyles jumped out at me...I would wonder then if agreeing to this statement would make Oprah's bookclub worthy material to enlarge one's viewpoint...the few books I have read from her list were depressing. I wouldn't value a book list merely for being modern and exposing different lifestyles or viewpoints.

[Audrey]

"You might reasonably ask, what difference does broadening the literary canon make? It makes a tremendous difference. You learn a great deal about the society you live in from your reading---what it values, what it condemns, how it expects you to behave, what constitutes success both economically and morally, what it sees as the very nature of good and evil. If your reading is limited to say, Eurocentric works and you are embedded in a non-European social group, you will not discover yourself or your peers in the books you read. Thus, schools and anthologies that project a narrow literary canon present a world foreign to your experience. The resulting sense of anomie---a rootless lack of purpose, identity, and values---can be terribly damaging. At the same time, ignorance of your neighbors’ lifestyles can also seriously impair your life by denying you insight into cultural differences. All of us can avoid the baleful consequences of racism, hypernationalism, and human ignorance by embracing a wide and inclusive literary canon. Reading will make wise, humane, and just citizens of us all."

 

 

So what would you make of this???? Passed to me by a continuing ed friend, this was posed as an agree or disagree essay question, then up for discussion. Thought I'd share....

...she reported back that based in the definitions she disagreed w/the statement BUT she was the only one in the class to do so and was given hell for it during discussion. Teacher had no comment either way?!?!!

 

I used to pose questions similar to this to my students just to get them to think outside their little boxes, and then, in discussion, I, too, would not argue any side of the question. It encourages students to defend themselves. I always let the students argue it out for themselves (keeping civility in order). The moment the prof offers any opinion, that is the way the class will sway.

[pixelroper]

I used to pose questions similar to this to my students just to get them to think outside their little boxes, and then, in discussion, I, too, would not argue any side of the question. It encourages students to defend themselves. I always let the students argue it out for themselves (keeping civility in order). The moment the prof offers any opinion, that is the way the class will sway.

 

 

This makes sense, however I'm a bit confused, agreeing w/it after knowing the definitions, especially anomie & canon seems absurd. Why the subtleties and negative insinuations? And how would you grade? for participation in discussion? why not something blatantly at odds to practice debate? I really am interested to know.

[DawnUK]

The literary canon is composed of works that transcend time and place, and gender, and race and socio-economic group, etc. Great literature is above these petty differences. There is great literature in every culture that has stood the test of time.

 

Works that I've seen in more recent "required reading" lists often seem to have been placed there entirely because they represent some "disenfranchised" group or to include some modern author with an agenda, regardless of the quality of the work. They focus on the grievances of an individual subset of society, not of society as a whole.

 

"The resulting sense of anomie---a rootless lack of purpose, identity, and values-" can also be caused by ignoring the rich heritage of literature from before the twentieth century.

 

 

Well said!

--Dawn

[pixelroper]

Anomie speaks directly to a loss of common standards (I know, redundant) and feeling disconnected. The canon is formed by standards.

 

Further more, what I really take issue w/is the implied racism in a standard. An ugly word no one would readily admit too, which would lead to a gut reaction, not a questioning/thinking reaction. Who is really being racist? The interloper expecting/wanting to fit in?

 

"If your reading is limited to say, Eurocentric works and you are embedded in a non-European social group, you will not discover yourself or your peers in the books you read."

 

Peers? What peers? the peers from your culture, not there w/you? Are you Euro in non Euro, or non Euro in non-Euro. Again this is confusing if you know the definition of peers, why that word? If you are indeed in a foreign land, alone, can you have peers? Peers speaks to a standard of sorts and therefore exclusive in nature.

 

thanks for letting me ramble... I've enjoyed the commentary, thanks everyone, and would really like Audrey to answer as she has experience w/the classroom and these sorts of questions.

[Catherine]

reading lists, or just to the ideas expressed in the statement. I guess I would agree with the statement, partly because I can't imagine a serious objection to it. Are you arguing that reading widely is NOT beneficial? On what basis? Finding good literature from many sources would be a good thing. If such a policy was used to justify reading "young adult fiction" (much of my high school's reading list-ugh), I'd object mightily. OTOH, books like Things Fall Apart I would consider great literature-would any of you detractors object to this book? What about Love in the Time of Cholera? Invisible Man?

[pixelroper]

reading lists, or just to the ideas expressed in the statement. I guess I would agree with the statement, partly because I can't imagine a serious objection to it. Are you arguing that reading widely is NOT beneficial? On what basis? Finding good literature from many sources would be a good thing. If such a policy was used to justify reading "young adult fiction" (much of my high school's reading list-ugh), I'd object mightily. OTOH, books like Things Fall Apart I would consider great literature-would any of you detractors object to this book? What about Love in the Time of Cholera? Invisible Man?

 

No, and as a voracious reader, and a proponent of a Liberal education, Well roundedness is not a bad thing. This doesn't mean you can borrow from different cultures to avoid anomie.

 

my point, is the statement is too vague and slightly twisted. For example: It is an argument against a narrow canon. Well by definition a canon is narrow. Widening the canon would render it no longer a canon.

[Catherine]

awkwardly expressed in the statement, but the careless language used to express them?

[In The Great White North]

I have a problem with both the statement and the reading lists it spawns.

 

(Sorry, the only way I know how to quote is to cut & paste.)

 

"You might reasonably ask, what difference does broadening the literary canon make? It makes a tremendous difference. You learn a great deal about the society you live in from your reading---what it values, what it condemns, how it expects you to behave, what constitutes success both economically and morally, what it sees as the very nature of good and evil. If your reading is limited to say, Eurocentric works and you are embedded in a non-European social group, you will not discover yourself or your peers in the books you read. Thus, schools and anthologies that project a narrow literary canon present a world foreign to your experience. The resulting sense of anomie---a rootless lack of purpose, identity, and values---can be terribly damaging. At the same time, ignorance of your neighbors’ lifestyles can also seriously impair your life by denying you insight into cultural differences. All of us can avoid the baleful consequences of racism, hypernationalism, and human ignorance by embracing a wide and inclusive literary canon. Reading will make wise, humane, and just citizens of us all."

 

I disagree with the first premise: that "you learn a great deal about the society you live in from your reading - what it values, what it condemns, what constitutes success both economically and morally, what it sees as the very nature of good and evil." Sorry, but you learn all this from the people you live with. You can easliy find reading on opposite sides of almost every issue.

 

The second premise makes the asssumption that you are not part of an Eurocentric social group. This is debateable. America is at the very least, Eurocentrically based (in laws, languages and customs) and therefore, to some extent, all Americans live in a Eurocentric social group.

 

Therefore their conclusions, that a narrow literary canon presents a world foreign to your experience, doesn't follow at all.

 

And the idea that a wider literary canon will avoid racism, hypernationalism and ignorance is simply unsupported.

 

I'm unfamiliar of the three books you mentioned and have not seen them on any of the high school or college reading lists I've looked at lately. Could you provide authors?

 

I think "You'll know a tree by its fruit" applies here also. The reading lists (fruit) seem to indicate a problem with the theory (tree).

[Audrey]

Class discussions are not graded (at least not in any of my classrooms). Discussions are meant to be vehicles for exploring a topic, so that later, when there is a paper assigned or a test, the student can think back on the discussion and hopefully have gleaned some insight from it. One still needs to employ logic and quantifiable fact to back up one's position.

 

As to how I graded: If I disagreed with a certain position, that was my opinion, not basis for grading. However, if the position was not backed up sufficiently, you can bet that I'd rip the argument apart and grade accordingly.

[genie]

 

I disagree with the first premise: that "you learn a great deal about the society you live in from your reading - what it values, what it condemns, what constitutes success both economically and morally, what it sees as the very nature of good and evil." Sorry, but you learn all this from the people you live with. You can easliy find reading on opposite sides of almost every issue.

 

 

 

I actually agree with this premise. I don't think I would learn about my society as a whole only from the people with whom I live. I might learn about my family's particular, individual stand on issues, but that is not the same as learning what my society as a whole values and condemns, what it considers successes, or what it sees as the nature of good and evil. That would be better learned through looking at works of popular culture. What movies and books succeed in our society? And what values do they portray? I'm not at all endorsing popular culture, but I do believe that it is a reflection of our society in general, good and bad.

[Mama Lynx]

You might look at Myrtle's post - her objections more or less sum it up for me.

 

I object to the idea that broadening the canon will rid the world of the ills of racisim, etc. etc. The only purpose of that sentence is to appeal to emotion.

 

Yes, reading widely is beneficial. Yes, reading outside your culture is beneficial. What I object to is the idea that the canon should be widened *because* reading outside your culture is beneficial. A Great Book should be a Great Book. A good book should not be bumped up to Great Book status simply because we need more multiculturalism in the canon. Should it be read? Sure! But it should only be included in the canon if it can be judged, on its merits alone, to be "great."

[Myrtle]

I should have been more careful in my original response to promote a distinction between "Eurocentric" and "Western Civ" or Western Canon.

 

It is not clear that the teacher has made such a distinction or that such a distinction is being made by the students.

 

The phrasing by the teacher is very clever, "IF you are embedded in a non-European social group..." (And so now we must disambiguate non-European from Eurocentric!) It seems almost certain that this was not said to a group of Quiche women in the tropical forest of Guatemala by a Peace Corps volunteer, but rather to Westerners in a Western institution. Perhaps the best response would be, "The conclusion is true but irrelevant since we are Westerners of various colors in a Western institution in a Western culture."

 

I did not discover until I was an adult that Western Civ has so much more to offer than what the multiculturalists claimed it did. It reflects the voices of both strict Puritans and Greek pagans, monks and libertines, luddites and inventors. Without a Celsus using Western rhetoric and philosophy to argue his case, Origen's "Contra Celsum" would have never existed.

 

Medieval theologians and American Puritans did not have a monopoly on the definition and scope of Western Civ or Western literature, but neither do the more modern polemicists whose world view is very narrowly limited to identity politics and personal therapy.

[pixelroper]

Medieval theologians and American Puritans did not have a monopoly on the definition and scope of Western Civ or Western literature, but neither do the more modern polemicists whose world view is very narrowly limited to identity politics and personal therapy.

 

Absolutely-

 

and to agree on another point--"clever"-- an excellent choice of words, I would also add devious, calculating, dangerous and arrogant b/c of precisely what happened to my friend when she disagreed w/said statement. The reaction of other students was not reasoned, kind or contemplative. She was attacked. As an intellectually insecure(her words not mine) "student" she failed to find the educational value in the discussion, unless it was for her to learn to join the rest of the class in mindless agreement. Was this the intent, I have no idea.

 

To clarify my intent in posting:

I'm not trying to cause any undue conflict, as a hs mom I want my dd to be able to navigate these types of statements. The intent of my posting was not to draw lines but to get opinions on the nature of such statements. I feel there is much confusion over such things and I am still trying to sort out some of it so that I can approach such things correctly in the hs arena.

[Catherine]

I'm all for reading the great books. I try to do it myself and with my kids. Things Fall Apart by Chinua Acebe, Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison are twentieth century books that might qualify as "multicultural" and one of them (Invisible Man) is on TWTM's highschool great books reading list.

 

I'm unsure if I understand everything that has been said thus far which is no doubt a reflection of my own ignorance. Some of you have a quibble with the definitions the writer used, some with the idea that reading "non-Eurocentric" literature could help to combat nationalism and racism. What I *do* believe is that exposure to the great writings of cultures other than the Eurocentric one is positive, for many reasons. Particularly, I think books like Things Fall Apart are useful. It tells a story of African colonization from the point of view of the natives. What I can imagine is great discussions arising after reading it and a book like Heart of Darkness.

 

Reading widely is a good thing, IMO.

[dragons in the flower bed]

Yes, reading widely is beneficial.

 

Reading widely may be beneficial, but not studying widely, not in high school, as you recently posted in your blog.

 

What I object to is the idea that the canon should be widened *because* reading outside your culture is beneficial. A Great Book should be a Great Book. A good book should not be bumped up to Great Book status simply because we need more multiculturalism in the canon.

 

This is my objection to a widened canon as well. But please allow me to play devil's advocate.

 

But it should only be included in the canon if it can be judged, on its merits alone, to be "great."

 

I am sure many responsible for seemingly randomly widening the canon do so because they don't believe multicultural works can be judged on their merits alone. Persons thickly immersed in western culture are usually the ones doing the judging, so they're going to believe books are great because they reflect those themes which underly our culture. Will we say Sundiata or the Ramayana is as amazing as Homer? If so, are we not still using our culture as the reference point? What makes Homer the center of the universe, other than that we (in our infant state as Greece, childhood as Rome, or adolescence as Britain) won the world?

 

One might suggest that we choose based on how much influence the book has had on the course of history, or how long it has gone on being studied. But we're the conquering force, responsible for squishing, at sword and gun point, the opportunities for those books to continue being studied. So are we then saying that the books which are great are those which so inspired their culture to be so strong, that no one ever has been able to defeat the people carrying them in their literary consciousness?

 

Are we to judge our art based on the results of our wars?

 

Just a few off the cuff ideas to liven up my Tuesday morning. :tongue_smilie:

[pixelroper]

This is my objection to a widened canon as well. But please allow me to play devil's advocate.

 

Devil's advocate away.

 

 

I am sure many responsible for seemingly randomly widening the canon do so because they don't believe multicultural works can be judged on their merits alone. Persons thickly immersed in western culture are usually the ones doing the judging, so they're going to believe books are great because they reflect those themes which underly our culture. Will we say Sundiata or the Ramayana is as amazing as Homer? If so, are we not still using our culture as the reference point? What makes Homer the center of the universe, other than that we (in our infant state as Greece, childhood as Rome, or adolescence as Britain) won the world?

 

I would say the canon has little to do with cultural themes (although they exist) and much more to do w/being universally applicable to humanity.

 

But we're the conquering force, responsible for squishing, at sword and gun point, the opportunities for those books to continue being studied.

 

well we have had losses too, choices were made on what to *save* and some did not escape destruction (I would assume :confused:)

 

Just a few off the cuff ideas to liven up my Tuesday morning. :tongue_smilie:

;) mine too

[HollyinNNV]

"You might reasonably ask, what difference does broadening the literary canon make? It makes a tremendous difference. You learn a great deal about the society you live in from your reading---what it values, what it condemns, how it expects you to behave, what constitutes success both economically and morally, what it sees as the very nature of good and evil. If your reading is limited to say, Eurocentric works and you are embedded in a non-European social group, you will not discover yourself or your peers in the books you read. Thus, schools and anthologies that project a narrow literary canon present a world foreign to your experience. The resulting sense of anomie---a rootless lack of purpose, identity, and values---can be terribly damaging. At the same time, ignorance of your neighbors’ lifestyles can also seriously impair your life by denying you insight into cultural differences. All of us can avoid the baleful consequences of racism, hypernationalism, and human ignorance by embracing a wide and inclusive literary canon. Reading will make wise, humane, and just citizens of us all."

 

 

So what would you make of this???? Passed to me by a continuing ed friend, this was posed as an agree or disagree essay question, then up for discussion. Thought I'd share....

 

Sounds like multiculturalism 101.

 

I think the problem with the prompt is that it presupposes a definition of what the literary canon is and hence its purpose. In my mind, the idea of the canon is that the works transcend lifestyle/nationalities and deals with the human condition. Therefore I understand my neighbor by understanding "everyman/woman."

:lol:I have to laugh at the whole "damaged by anomie" part of the prompt. Just the other day I cried myself to sleep because I felt so anomie (anonymous?)! I was thinking of that nameless person in Germany that I just couldn't relate to because of my lack of reading. Har har! Must the collegiate crew be so dramatic?

Holly

[Call Me Cordelia]

I think it's a great jumping off point for discussions. I would be bummed if the entire class took one viewpoint.

 

I think reading about other cultures is great. It's pretty much the closest I come to experiencing other cultures at this point in my life. I live in a fairly multi-cultureal area, although the dominant force is still caucasian. We do however have many of Indian descent, asian, african-american and other "black" (not sure of the right word) cultures and hispanic.

 

I like something I think Phred said regarding development of not just tolerance for other cultures, but respect. Wow. Tolerance is so...non-active to me. Respect is something I can do. I can appreciate other cultures, learn about them, grow as a person because of my knowledge about them, etc... I can respect their strengths and commiserate (most likely) with their weaknesses.

 

Will it change my viewpoint as a conservative Christian? No. But I think diversity can be a wonderful thing. God created each culture and individual and I can respect and even celebrate each as His creation. That certainly doesn't mean I agree with all they each believe. As (I beleive Phred) also pointed out, Christians can't agree with each other on much stuff. I'm not sure I even agree with myself half the time :).

 

Blessings,