12/6/22

12/5/22

the canon vs. diversity

James Atlas, an editor for The New York Times, no doubt wishing to cash in on the coattails of such as Allen Bloom and Eric D. Hirsch, summarizes what he considers to be the basic debate between the traditionalists (read Great Books and Dead-White- European-Males) and the radicals (read multiculturalists who would have us read gay and Hindu literature) who espouse cultural relativism. His Battle of the Books: The Curriculum Debate in America will not overload your shelves, physically or mentally.

Tradition, I suppose, is useful for building stability and creating a reference point from which to examine new ideas, but it seems to me that both sides of the issue miss the point; both sides want to operate in a world exclusive of the other, rather than take the best of both.

Allen Bloom, who started the whole thing, or at least brought the debate into the open, argues that democracy and its desire for equality, really is at fault; that the cultural relativism of the sixties removed us from the traditional values of the "Great Books", which, of course gave us slavery and colonialism. Atlas, who comes down on the side of the "canonists," (those arguing for a traditional canon of reading) -- along with William Bennett -- forget that the classics of today were the radical nonsense of yesterday. Surely a century that has seen genocide and the creation of weapons of universal destruction, can stop to examine the literature of the present in the context of the current century. And, surely, in a world in which all countries must rely on each other, it is useful to examine and understand the history, politics and social milieu of other peoples. After all, Hirsch argues that if we do not all have a common base of knowledge we will not be able to communicate with each other. Surely it becomes important to communicate with other than just ourselves.

Both sides are engaged in a political struggle: the Left wanting more attention paid to the disenfranchised, and the Right fearing the trend away from traditional values. Both sides suffer from an extreme naivete if they believe that excluding the literature of either side will carry the day for their own point of view.
Atlas wanders all over the place, blaming the univerities' "publish or perish" requirement for the decline of scholarship and the trend away from the classics. (How much more can be said about Shakespeare or Milton?) He is a fan of assimilation of other "cultures"; that it's important to maintain the superiority and power and righteousness of the United States of America. (Stand up and salute at this point.) The problem is, of course, that mainstream, white society has never permitted the assimilation of those who look or act differently from their own male WASP society; hence, perhaps, the trend toward valuing uniqueness and values other than those of the Dead White European Males.

Ultimately, I agree with Brumwich, who argues that the real purpose of education is not to transmit a point of view, -- although I see nothing wrong with that -- but to help students to think and make rational choices based on knowledge rather than opinion. Whether we've done that, of course, is a whole other debate.

( )

While the author of this book makes some very strong points, in my perspective, there’s room within the cannon for some diversity. I don’t believe any of the classics should be removed (unlike some on the extreme left end of this “battle”). Just because men have controlled what has be placed on this list of books doesn’t negate the fact that the books in the cannon have lasted because they have had a very large impact on (at least in the west) our identity. It also doesn’t change the fact that these were the books which lasted. (There were other books which have basically been forgotten.)

The reverse is also true. Unlike some on the far right of this issue, I don’t feel that the “cannon” should be preserved as is for eternity. There’s always room for improvement and I see diversity as a strength. So, there’s no reason why we couldn’t slowly a carefully place books from cultures outside the western world and books from women authors of the peripherals of the cannon and give them time to see if they stick. I don’t believe you can force a book to become a classic. Either it will still have something important for us in 50, 100, 1000 years or it will seem trite and dated. So placing books at the edges of the cannon won’t hurt a thing. It also allows for more diversity in historical and literary education.

The book is an interesting read and has some worthwhile ideas to ponder, but be warned. Liberals will likely find parts of it offensive. I did.

I give it a B-. Definitely worth the time, but obviously flawed by some extreme bias against change and anything even remotely open minded. ( )