This week, I have a lot of meandering thoughts about our readings, so I don't expect that my ideas will make too much logical sense, but I hope you get the spirit of my message.
I’ve tired to remove political biases from my teaching and research, but this seems impossible in view of Berlin’s history. English studies are entirely politicized. Even New Criticism, which takes great lengths to divorce itself from real world urgency, shows us that being nonpolitical is in fact political. But can we leave out the politics of our time and control how much they affect what we do?
Berlin seems to take New Critics to task for stepping out of the political arena. In the 1950s, he suggests that New Critics were scared of backlash from the very present red scare marching across the country. Were these New Critics cowards for not adopting a more radical approach to literature? Maybe. Maybe not. The politics of the time had to play some part in the longevity of New Criticism even if it stunted the progression that Berlin praises.
When I think of politics influencing English Studies now, I wonder what we’re taking up as major political issues of our day. It is pretty much assumed that people in our field are liberal. In our classes, diversity is very present—our World Literature section requires a balance of Western and Non-Western texts. We no longer just teach about “dead white men,” and we’re not allowed.
One specific issue that comes to mind: what about the urgent question of Western relations to the Arabic world? While we have comparative literature courses, I haven’t seen English departments offering Arabic literature—in translation, course—as part of the curriculum. Does that step out of the bounds of English? At the risk of sounding paranoid, what’s keeping the study of Arabic literature out and keeping American and British literature in?
From what I gather, we can describe what we're doing by also describing what we're not doing. And, if we can't escape politics, I wonder how we can be aware of them and use them effectively in our work.
Todd -
ReplyDeleteYou highlight an important point here about the ways that engagement with politics seems... forever ongoing when teaching. For me, that discussion perpetually pushes me back to epistemic rhetoric and the general idea that our interactions with the world determine the meanings we assign things. It isn't so much that everything is political for me as a teacher, but everything is rhetorical. If we believe that rhetoric creates knowledge and doesn't just present knowledge (and I do) then things get sticky, especially in teaching life.
In that way, English Studies might be more explicitly political than other disciplinary arenas because it is (hopefully) highly self-aware of the ways language works to construct knowledge.
In terms of Berlin and New Criticism. I read Berlin as most critical of New Criticism because its practices result in the study of texts arhetorically, outside of any rhetorical context. And for Berlin, a proponent of transactional and epistemic rhetoric, this kind of stripping away of rhetorical context is a great crime. I resist Berlin's reading of the New Critics as most explicitly responding to the red scare. New Criticism, as a movement, begins much earlier and mostly as an attempt to stick to the text and avoid ideological interferences that seemed all too present after the world wars.
In terms of ongoing politics in English Studies... I'll indulge myself and name some of the hot topics I find most interesting right now - arguments about student plagiarism, the rise of the Writing and Rhetoric Major, World English, and the expansion of rhetoric and composition into international or what some call transnational writing studies.
I agree with a lot of thing questions your pose here, they are questions I share in many ways. I wanted to comment about Arabic literature though: we are starting to see Arabic literature being brought into the English classroom. This past semester, I know at least one professor had a reading group class based on the common book this year, _Three Cups of Tea_ by Greg Mortenson, and that the class read parts of the _Arabian Nights_ and I believe a few other translated Arabic texts. I think you raise a valid point though. Even when we teach "world lit," we still aren't teaching everything, and how could we? The choices we make are very significant. The first thing we must do is be aware that all of our choices in the classroom can be (or will be) political. By being aware of that situation, we can (hopefully) make informed decisions.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTodd
ReplyDeleteI see that you broached the issue of politics and teaching. It does seem that what is not being taught informs what is being taught-- or should be taught. I'm not sure if the politics of current English studies is archaic and clinging to life on an outdated paradigm, e.g., teaching mostly English based literature with other cultures lightly represented or that English literature is just what we know best and we teach what we know best. Bringing, say, Arabic literature into the current arena is ambitious and exciting, but it may not translate( no pun intended) into a curriculum. I am very curious to see where the study of English is going in the context of multi-lingual teachings. A multi-lingual curriculum is a far cry from where we are now, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. It seems that English has to adapt and evolve by recognizing what it is good for and considering what it needs to incorporate to best serve the future.