The "Western Canon"

[Corraleno]

I was going to post this in one of the other threads but decided it deserved a thread of it's own. I suspect that when people discuss "the Western Canon" they may have very different ideas of what that means, and in some cases I think people just use it as short-hand for a very small selection of European (predominantly British) literature. That is not the "canon" Ester Maria refers to, nor is that how it would be defined by various Great Books programs. Here are a couple of reading lists based on "the Western Canon":

Adler's Great Books list

Harold Bloom's (mostly literature)  list

I would assume that most homeschoolers here read the Iliad and/or Odyssey and a few Greek plays, but who actually reads more than a few excerpts from Herodotus and Thucydides, let alone Xenophon, Hesiod, or Sappho? Roman literature is usually limited to the Aeneid, bits of Caesar & Cicero, and a smattering of poetry. Who is reading full works by Horace, Lucretius, Tacitus, Epictetus, and Pliny? 

Who studies math and science by reading Euclid, Archimedes, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Huygens, Newton, and Lavoisier? Those are all part of the Western canon, and the last version of TWTM that I read (not the most current) did in fact recommend studying science by combining those readings with the very basic and superficial Biology 101/Chemistry 101/Physics 101 paperbacks. Does this classical/canonical approach really provide a better education, and create better scientific thinkers, than modern texts?

Most of us will expose our kids to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, but how many are actually reading Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Rousseau, Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, Husserl, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Comte, Mill, Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Sartre? Those are absolutely crucial parts of the "Western Canon" that Ester Maria is talking about, and which she herself studied. (I have also read most of that list, as well as a lot of other 20th century philosophy, not because I considered it part of my "cultural heritage" but because I happen to be quite interested in it.) Those works are actually much more foundational to an understanding of Western culture than a bunch of novels, so why isn't an educational philosophy that touts the importance of the Western canon centered on these works? This is where the difference between the sort of classical European education EM received and a neoclassical (or Classical Christian) education are most apparent. 

Even if one limits the idea of "the canon" to Western literature, I think most people's conception of that is a smattering of Greek & Roman lit, a bit of Dante, lots of British literature, and a handful of works from other European cultures (e.g., Crime & Punishment and/or War & Peace, Metamorphosis, Don Quixote, Candide or The Stranger, etc.). How many homeschoolers are also reading the canonical works by Boccaccio, Ariosto, Cellini, and Verga? Whose kids will be reading at least one full work each by Moliere, Pascal, Balzac, Racine, Proust, Rabelais, Flaubert, Hugo, Zola, Pushkin, Gogol, Lermontov, Turgenev, Tolstoy, Chekov, Gorky, Dostoevsky, Hamsun, Ibsen, Schiller, Goëthe, Hesse, and Mann?

Obviously most people are not going to read everything on those lists, and most will not read more than a tiny fraction of "the canon," so how do you choose what to eliminate? And if it's OK to skip whole swathes of "the canon," why is not also OK to sub in some nonWestern and "noncanonical" works? Are Nobel- and Pulitzer-winning works by non-Europeans, women, and American writers of color really less well-written, less reflective of the "cultural heritage" of 21st century America, and less worthy of study than "canonical" works like Tristram Shandy, Moll Flanders, and The Vicar of Wakefield? What do we learn about our "cultural heritage" by reading the poetry of William Cowper that would be irretrievably lost if we studied Pablo Neruda instead? Why spend time on light-weight 18th century sit-coms like School for Scandal or She Stoops to Conquer when there are so many truly brilliant contemporary writers worthy of study?

 

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Corraleno

[Little Green Leaves]

I love this topic -- thanks for introducing it! I also love your description of School for Scandal as a lightweight sit-com. Couldn't agree more.

I think the Adler list is an interesting place to start. There's a lot there that I'd keep, and plenty that I'd prune to make room for more. 

Definitely American students should read at least some of Hobbes and Locke and JS Mill -- it really helps explain the ideas that the founding fathers were wrestling with. I think they should also read Frederick Douglas and WEB Dubois. I don't know why that's not on Adler's list.  Students doing 20th century history should probably also read Elie Wiesel and others to get an understanding of the holocaust -- also Aime Cesaire, Nasser, and other anti-colonial figures. I'd add them and would trim others to make space.

I think the Greek histories (Herodotus, Thucydides) are really useful for older students who can get into how historians work. I'd also keep at least one play by Aeschylus and Sophocles. Definitely the Iliad, maybe the Odyssey.

I'd get rid of a lot of the British literature (Alexander Pope, Samuel Johnson, Byron and lots of others) and I'd replace it with works by non-Europeans, women, and people of color. Toni Morisson, James Baldwin, Adrienne Rich, Pablo Neruda...I'd probably take Sartre off the list too but that's just me.

It's impossible for students to read absolutely everything in high school. A lot of the items on the Adler list are things I read myself, after finishing high school, because everyone around me was a big reader too. So that's something we can try to cultivate. I think it's worthwhile for teachers to assign excerpts from some books (we used to get those mimeographed sheets when I was in high school) to give students a flavor of the text, make them aware of it so that they can read it on their own if they choose. 

I really haven't read the science and math books on the list, and I'm curious what others say about whether it's worth reading them instead of reading about them. 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by Little Green Leaves

[lewelma]

Great questions!  I have always used SWB's list in "The Well Educated Mind" (not WTM) as the cannon.  In it, she separated works to be studied into Poetry, Drama, History, Philosophy, and Novels (I think that is right, but I can't find the book right now). When I saw that list, I came to realize that I had studied Poetry (and lots of it as I did 6 years of latin, so I read in the original language too), Drama (Shakespeare mostly), Novels (my high school did pretty well at 19th C), but I never even touched the cannon in history or philosophy.  And my older boy has done a very-respectable push in novels but we neglected the other 4 categories.

If I had known about the full cannon of 5 categories when planning my homeschool all those years ago, would I have had my boys read them?  Maybe Philosophy, but the others, no I don't think so. My older boy and I dabbled in philosophical ideas of the cannon, but never read the originals.  But this background has now allowed him in university to read widely in the western cannon of philosophy in multiple classes (and he is at a tech school!). I personally don't value the histories, and I lump drama, novels, and poetry under the same category of creative writing. It is only the philosophies that I think would have been a worthy addition to my ds's studies.  But if we had put the time into those, he would not be at MIT now because he would not have had the time to go so far in math and science.  The world is bigger than it was long ago, and there have been a equal number of amazing thinkers in the 20th century as in all centuries before.  I would never choose to limit my children to only the older selections.

As for learning science by reading classic texts, that is not a good plan.  Many scientists of the homeschooling community (myself included) told SWB that exact thing, and she has changed her recommendations from her first edition of the WTM.

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by lewelma

[lewelma]

I don't have time for a full reply, but I wanted to mention that my ds really enjoyed the modern literary novels. He read Mann-Booker award winners like Wolf Hall and the Luminaries.  And experimental novels like House of Leaves and If on a Winter's Night a Traveler.  And many many more.  These were complex beautiful works that he very much values having put the time into.  

[Momto6inIN]

I am not a classical hs'er by any definition 😉 I'm here because it's where I get good ideas and become inspired to be the best teacher I can be and because the WTM gave me confidence that I could, in fact, teach high school at home. So take this for what it's worth.

There are so many good and great   books that I can't possibly imagine saying "these are the ones you have to read to be well educated". I have pored over book lists til my eyes ran and figured out which ones that commonly make the lists *I* am capable of understanding enough to guide a discussion about and *I* am willing to spend my valuable free time reading. That narrows it down significantly 😉 Then I give my kids the list and say to pick some. They could not ever possibly keep up with the pace that WTM or Texan describes. We pick only 6-9 choices per year, but we make those good and meaty choices and we make the discussion about them good.

I like the Western Canon as a starting place, but we don't limit ourselves to that.

[8filltheheart]

I dont have time to get involved in more discussions (last child and wife are flying in from CA early in the morning) but one of the core requirements in our homeschool is now philosophy. I am most definitely not a classical homeschooler, so most of the lit listed is not covered. However, the first time I taught philosophy I was astonished by how unaware I was of how the philosophy of society did shape my thinking when I had been pretty sure I was far removed from how society thinks. 

Now we study the major philosophers and their impact. So, in this respect, yes, I absolutely believe understanding what has formed the culture you are part of is a necessary component of an excellent education, classical or otherwise.

[lewelma]

2 hours ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Whispering - Wolf Hall is the best book ever 😄

I've seen it listed as the best book of the 20th Century. He liked it, but his love is still the Russians. 

[Shoes+Ships+SealingWax]

9 hours ago, 8FillTheHeart said:

I absolutely believe understanding what has formed the culture you are part of is a necessary component of an excellent education, classical or otherwise.

At what age(s) did you begin diving into philosophy with your children? 

[Roadrunner]

You are correct. EM even gave out a list (I have it saved 😉) of what she would consider a minimum just to cover Romans. And it’s a lot more than Aeneid. 

I think the reality is we are all time constrained. There is no way to do it all, so for me (a parent who is no expert on deciding how to prioritize these texts), often looking at what others chose is a good starting point. CLRC has a sequence of 1 year Greeks (yes, Herodotus and Thucydides read in their entirety), a semester on Romans..... Looking at what texts they chose could be one way. Looking WTMA list is another way.  I certainly couldn’t pick and chose without some guidance. 

[Roadrunner]

I think personally that some works should be read in school as part of “transmission of culture.” So in a western society there are some very foundational works of literature that every educated person should be familiar with and while we can debate the list, Homer should be on it. Greek myths should be on... I think to further branch out, the English speaking world would want to include (again from cultural perspective) select British and American authors. That’s not to say that people from other cultures shouldn’t read Dickens, but as somebody mentioned up the thread, Russian speaking world is most likely going to be heavier on Russian Lit and French speaking one on French Lit and so forth. I do think that public schools should not brush aside all classics because our civilization stands on these works. 

I think how many works we include in public schools and how in depth we teach should depend on schools themselves, and I advocate for a variety of them to better fit kids’ interests and abilities. 

 

And yes, every time you reread a book, you understand a little more or a little different, and I think that has to do with our maturity, our experiences in lives, our emotional states and perspective we gain with age. 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Roadrunner

[Melissa in Australia]

21 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Who studies math and science by reading Euclid, Archimedes, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Huygens, Newton, and Lavoisier? Those are all part of the Western canon, and the last version of TWTM that I read (not the most current) did in fact recommend studying science by combining those readings with the very basic and superficial Biology 101/Chemistry 101/Physics 101 paperbacks. Does this classical/canonical approach really provide a better education, and create better scientific thinkers, than modern texts

 

 

 

My oldest did though we ran out of time for newton and beyond. He is gifted in math, so we did the classical aproach adapted to his abilities. He was a bit shocked when he went to Uni and was quoting Euclid and other students had no idea what he was talking about. One of his fellow students actually came and visited me and said he wished his teacher had got him to read Euclid instead of to kill a mockingbird. Would have been way more beneficial.

we did though do Saxon math and a biology ,physics and chemistry text as well

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Melissa in Australia

[Melissa in Australia]

I have never heard it called the “western cannon” before, but rather the “great conversation “

[8filltheheart]

5 hours ago, Expat_Mama_Shelli said:

At what age(s) did you begin diving into philosophy with your children? 

In depth, in high school. We discuss theology from early childhood.

[lewelma]

3 hours ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I've seen her degree plan and it's not got much in it with anything to do with lit. Comp classes are now for people who can't even write a sentence, so I doubt she'll get much out of those. She has ONE class selection between Lit, Philosophy, or Culture. Then everything else is math and science. 

One of the reasons my older boy decided to study in America rather than the UK or Australia is that the American universities have a liberal arts year. My ds is a mathematician and scientist through and through, but he is also a deep reader and lover of ideas.  He is required to take eight courses (1 per semester) in HASS subjects (humanities, arts, and social sciences). He has chosen Philosophy and Ethics for Engineers as two of those eight, and has just spent the semester working his way through many of the great philosophical thinkers. So I guess it depends on the university, but ONE class selection sounds sad.  ☹️

[lewelma]

3 hours ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

My oldest is my guinea pig, and I'm always torn about the fear of "reading things too soon to appreciate them."

My dh gave my older boy Brave New World at the age of 12.  That was definitely an oopsie. 

[Farrar]

Canons are sort of nonsense to me. They're inherently exclusionary. They're inherently snobbish. Because we pretty much only talk about the western canon, they tend to be inherently culturally superior in all the worst ways.

It's just not a goal of mine, in education, to raise a kid who has only read this "Western canon" stuff. And seeing as you can't read it all unless you're pretty advanced and keep going through college, obviously even just trying to do a slice means ignoring a lot of non-Western stuff that's super important. Plus, a lot of modern stuff.

I find discussions of canon inherently suspicious, honestly. And I say this as someone who does think that reading broadly and historically and with tradition in mind is a positive thing. It's just that when you go and define it and set it into a canon, I think it's the first step in exclusion.

[Momto6inIN]

On 12/21/2019 at 10:21 PM, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Whispering - Wolf Hall is the best book ever and I only wish I could get my dd to read it and also Alias Grace. 2 of my tops of all time, not Homer is not on MY list, LOL. 

I got a Barnes and Noble gift card as a gift, so I ordered these 2 for my nook after reading this thread  🙂

[Rosie_0801]

On 12/23/2019 at 8:46 AM, mms said:

 Educated people read great books because that is what their education enabled them to do. 

 

This line jumped out at me because I've been listening to people in their 20's and 30's who consider themselves readers, but had to give up 'Little Women' because it was too hard. Not because it bored them or they didn't fancy it, but it was too hard.

[regentrude]

On 12/21/2019 at 3:59 PM, Corraleno said:

Who studies math and science by reading Euclid, Archimedes, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Huygens, Newton, and Lavoisier? Those are all part of the Western canon, and the last version of TWTM that I read (not the most current) did in fact recommend studying science by combining those readings with the very basic and superficial Biology 101/Chemistry 101/Physics 101 paperbacks. Does this classical/canonical approach really provide a better education, and create better scientific thinkers, than modern texts?

No. definitely not. As I have expressed on these boards before, while I greatly admire the humanities education recommended in TWTM, the science education falls woefully short of that level because this approach neglects to acknowledge that science is a skill based subject. It is not sufficient to talk about science; a thorough conceptual understanding in physics and chemistry cannot achieved without problem solving. One will not become a proficient at math by reading Euclid and Newton - you have to actually practice problem solving. Just like you won't become a pianist by reading about somebody playing the piano.

 

[Violet Crown]

On 12/25/2019 at 11:34 AM, regentrude said:

No. definitely not. As I have expressed on these boards before, while I greatly admire the humanities education recommended in TWTM, the science education falls woefully short of that level because this approach neglects to acknowledge that science is a skill based subject. It is not sufficient to talk about science; a thorough conceptual understanding in physics and chemistry cannot achieved without problem solving. One will not become a proficient at math by reading Euclid and Newton - you have to actually practice problem solving. Just like you won't become a pianist by reading about somebody playing the piano.

 

I'm just going to add -- being married to a professional philosopher -- that this goes also for the list of philosophical texts. Only someone specializing in the history of philosophy, or in a related field, needs to read "Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, ... Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Rousseau, Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, Husserl, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Comte, Mill, Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Sartre." Yes, dh read from most of those as part of his major; but philosophy is now a highly technical field (the Continentalists having lost the war against the analytic philosophers). Philosophy is issues-oriented; it's not a matter of reading and appreciating Great Works of Philosophy, but of tackling various philosophical topics -- which may involved reading some or all of the "great works," but more usually will involve reading modern philosophical writings.

I'm currently reading Kierkegaard's Either/Or. I wouldn't recommend tackling it without some understanding of Hegel's ideas ... but you don't have to have actually read Hegel. (Also you really need a good familiarity with Mozart's Don Giovanni.) And if someone were very interested in aesthetics and ethics, while at some point she would end up reading at least some of Either/Or, it would not be the way to start out studying those areas of philosophy.

Dh adds: One worry about the near-fetishization of "classics" in a field, whether one is speaking of philosophy, or math, or art, is that it runs the risk of making students feel that they can't be contributors themselves to the field, or that the field is not currently a living area of study ... because it seems as if it exists in a literary museum.

My own addition: Middle Girl took a course this semester that included Euclid (read in Greek), and wrote a paper for it that analyzed Euclid's geometry. But she had to already understand the relevant geometry thoroughly -- as well as Greek -- in order to analyze Euclid and try to figure out what he was trying to convey. She would never have tried to learn her geometry from Euclid.

Edited December 27, 2019 by Violet Crown