I don’t understand analysis

[Chester]

....that only seeks to examine a piece of literature from a specific perspective. Examples: feminist criticism, Marxist criticism, gender studies, African American studies, queer theory. These perspectives all seem to be a part of college English curricula nowadays. Not sociology, mind you. English. That is to say that pieces of literature are studied with the idea of seeing only (or mainly) what they can tell us about society in so far as the respective point of view is concerned. What can Hamlet tell us about the role of women in Shakespeare’s time? What does A Rose for Emily have to say about the role of the black man in American society?

Am I wrong to think this means of limiting oneself in one’s evaluation of a piece of literature does both a disservice to the piece as well as to the author, not to mention even to the evaluator?

Can anybody offer a justification for this kind of analysis?

[curlyqlink]

Is this really widespread? Studying a piece of literature from only one perspective?

I don't agree with approaching literature as a branch of Sociology. On the other hand, Marxist criticism or Feminist criticism can be very useful. Particularly when reading Steinbeck or Virginia Woolf, respectively.

Extreme, single-minded approaches to reading literature is of course stultifying. But the other extreme is reading without any sort of method or discipline at all. Then it's all just subjective impression. "I liked the book" or "I didn't like the book" or "Emma Bovary reminds me of my grandmother". Frankly, I see a lot more of that kind of reading these days, purely subjective and empty of theory.

It seems to me that in order to talk about literature in any meaningful or rational way, there has to some sort of theoretical structure, some standards based on something. However provisional that theory may be.

[SirJazzHands]

See that kinda angers me though because when I read To the Lighthouse I was expecting some preachy "Females are superior" kinda thing since I had always heard the book described as "feminist", but it just seemed like a fantastic book to me, the feminism was there but it wasn't in the way of reading and comprehending the novel. What seems to harm a work, I think, is if it is typically thought of as only one type of literature to analyze, such as how Woolf is "feminist", and that probably only harms the work's reputation as a whole.

[JBI]

These perspectives are good if they aren't the only perspective. For instance, if everyone who reads a book reads in the same perspective, they will generate similar opinions. If people read in different perspectives, they generate different opinions. Because of this, critics trying to be original adopt a new ideology to break the anxiety of influence put upon them by other critics. Critics are the same as any other type of writer, and agon is the fuel of all their writing.

That being said, these perspectives aren't necessarily a bad thing if one doesn't take them too far. One learns more from some culture critics than they do from Freudian critics who take things over the top. The problems begin when only these methods are taught, and no longer become additional viewpoints, but become the viewpoint, and by doing so actually go against the original ideology.

When I am studying a work, generally I tend to get as many mixed viewpoints as I can on it (I use Robarts library, and JSTOR's periodicals mostly) and try to see what each person has to say of the work. That way, when I generate my own criticism, I can incorporate different, often conflicting viewpoints.

That being said, these viewpoints can only carry one so far. Some feminist critics (not all mind you) argue about the lack of female writers in the canon, and therefore bring up the most trivial 3rd rate writers from the past to fill in the gaps. This can't last of course, and eventually will kill itself when they need to decide who to read, Maya Angelou or Elizabeth Bishop, but until then, they have to be suffered.

Lets be honest however, Shakespeare criticism in particular has gained some excellent advances from female perspective criticism. I personally don't agree with all of it, but much of it is very useful. This form of criticism is going to probably keep going, as is the canon. It is just a matter of time before the trend solidifies into a more direct movement, and then eventually becomes something else. That happens with all movements, poetic and critical. They get big, and die, and some aspects of their work go on. Harold Bloom's method of inquiry may be waining, but aspects of his reading will go on. Northrop Frye, Bloom's 20th century role model went through similar things after his time. All dialectics end with a new synthesis. It's only a matter of time.

[sofia82]

It depends on why you read a book, if you want to understand it deeply these theories are helpful. The eclectical application is more useful than just contentrating on one approach. But imagine how can a person (a critic) do this, it is too broad to be expert in all theories, so one views a book from one point and another one form another point of view.
I myself try to apply such theories while reading a literary work. Sometime you only get what the author says but using these theories else your can not understand it well.

[jgweed]

At the same time, I would suggest a serious reader would also attempt to bracket various perspectives and attempt to understand, at least to the extent possible, the author's work as such and what the author meant.

[JBI]

At the same time, I would suggest a serious reader would also attempt to bracket various perspectives and attempt to understand, at least to the extent possible, the author's work as such and what the author meant.

Some theorists, Robert Barthes in particular (he founded the concept I believe), disagree with the very idea of probing the author, and declare "the Death of the Author".

[drunkenKOALA]

I think it's perfectly fine. Just because one is looking into one specific area of analysis doesn't mean he's oblivious to all the other ones. As long as one realizes that there is more to the work, I don't see a problem with focusing on one specific topic.

[Chester]

Okay, I’m on board with the seeming consensus here that it can be helpful to examine a work from a specific perspective. But lookit, here’s a course description of an English class taught at a university in my state:

Students will learn how to apply queer theory as a theoretical framework in their examination of cultural texts and use queer theory as a mode of analysis across disciplines. Prior knowledge of queer theory is not required, however, this course will be dealing with complex theoretical concepts that will require substantial reading and analysis.

This is not a sociology class. This is not a history class interested in what people were thinking at a particular point in time. This is a higher-level English course, the purpose of which is to look at literature from one point of view.

What, exactly, is this teaching?

[curlyqlink]

See that kinda angers me though because when I read To the Lighthouse I was expecting some preachy "Females are superior" kinda thing

But Feminist theory isn't about preaching, at least not if it's done properly IMHO. Just like Marxist theory isn't supposed to be a game of "find the capitalist villain". It's about using a different perhaps unexpected approach to a work in order to explore it more fully. Reading Jane Austen, for example, there are all sorts of subtle assumptions about social class that it's easy for the reader to miss. And that Austen was likely unaware of herself, being immersed in her time and taking for granted the prevailing social structure. Her books can even be seen as less about romance than they are about achieving financial security! This actually adds a layer of meaning to her works, and I think it enhances the reader's appreciation of the novels.

Critical theories are used to open up works, they are tools to explore works in greater depth. Like any other tool, we have to learn about them before we can employ them. And we need to know which is the right tool for the job.



"Students will learn how to apply queer theory as a theoretical framework in their examination of cultural texts and use queer theory as a mode of analysis across disciplines."

Is this a class explicitly on Queer Theory? If so, I see nothing wrong with the primary focus being on the theory, and not on the texts. When I was in college, I took a course in Feminist Literature, and quite naturally it centered on the theory, not the novels we read. Just like when I took a course called The Bible as Literature, the focus was on the Bible. Now, if I had taken a Shakespeare course, and all we did was read the plays from a feminist perspective, I'd have cried foul.

[Chester]

Is this a class explicitly on Queer Theory?Well, it’s an English Literature class. As such, I would expect it ought to be about the study of English Literature. But it’s not. It’s apparently about studying English literature from the very narrow perspective of queer theory. It’s not, first and foremost, a queer theory class.

Google for various English departments. You’ll find this is not uncommon.

Now, in fairness, it appears to be an elective. But still, I wonder at why we seek to take some particular critical framework (Queer, Marxist, Feminist, or whatever) and use that as the prism by which to analyze a piece of work. Mind you, I have nothing against queer theory or feminism or what have you. I wouldn’t care if the class is about how to analyze from a white Anglo-Saxon protestant male perspective of guys whose screen identities are "Chester." It would still be the wrong way to go about analyzing literature, in my estimation. (Not to mention a divisive way to go about things in general.)

[bounty]

....that only seeks to examine a piece of literature from a specific perspective. Examples: feminist criticism, Marxist criticism, gender studies, African American studies, queer theory. These perspectives all seem to be a part of college English curricula nowadays. Not sociology, mind you. English. That is to say that pieces of literature are studied with the idea of seeing only (or mainly) what they can tell us about society in so far as the respective point of view is concerned. What can Hamlet tell us about the role of women in Shakespeare’s time? What does A Rose for Emily have to say about the role of the black man in American society?

Am I wrong to think this means of limiting oneself in one’s evaluation of a piece of literature does both a disservice to the piece as well as to the author, not to mention even to the evaluator?

Can anybody offer a justification for this kind of analysis?

chester i did the same thing with my students in the history and philosophy of sport classes. my short answer to your question is, every interpretation/analysis has a perspective to it even when we think it doesnt. while i do believe in absolute truth, to an extent i also believe theres no such thing as a "just the facts ma'am" approach to understanding the humanities.

[Chester]

Oh yes, I agree with this. The world comes to us as interpretation. I’m familiar with Kant. But my problem is when we make use of only one kind of interpretation, especially if it’s to the exclusion of others.

[JBI]

Look, it is understandable that there is a class for Queer Theory inquiry, as it is a rather new movement in thought. It is not the only viewpoint being taught however, since one needs more than one course to get a degree.

[Chester]

Setting aside for the moment that other courses may pick up the slack, should there be an English literature course (not a sociology or history course) that seeks to analyze literature (across a broad spectrum – not just, for example, literature by feminist authors about feminism, or Marxists about Marxism, or gay authors about gay/gender themes) from only one perspective? Is this an acceptable way to analyze literature?

[JBI]

Think of it this way, each class at a high level needs to be somewhat more specific. Seeing as how about 35-40% of the western canonical authors are homosexual in some way or another, means that it is actually a very wide-ranged course. When you get to the graduate level, you will eventually be applying these theories and such on specific texts to create your own thesis. For someone looking to write from this theoretical perspective, a course like this seems a good introduction. I am certain that even the professors have more viewpoints.

[Chester]

I understand specificity. But why would anybody want to analyze any piece of literature strictly from one viewpoint? I see no place for it. It does a great disservice to the piece and the author, it seems to me. The larger question in this discussion is how literature should be analyzed. Do you think Oscar Wilde hoped one day that people would analyze his stuff from the starting point that he was a gay author? "Hey Oscar, you’re gay so here’s the way I want to look at your work..."

I don’t think so.

[Kafka's Crow]

Some theorists, Robert Barthes in particular (he founded the concept I believe), disagree with the very idea of probing the author, and declare "the Death of the Author".

You mean Roland Barthes, the celebrated structuralist and author of Mythologies? A respectable, very respectable name. Structuralism was useful in its time.
I, personally abhor all 'isms' that limit perspective. Still they have their uses. I admire Queer Theory for deconstructing the dichotomy of genders and putting a great big question mark over the very foundations of feminism that this essentialist dichotomy provided. Feminism has enabled a large number of so-called scholars to complete their PhDs therefore it can't be that bad. I had to study The Return of a Soldier and Life and Death of Harriet Frean, two of the most repulsive novels, just because of the feminist themes in them. These two books could not have made into any syllabus if they were not written by women.

[JBI]

Yes, you are write Kafka's Crow, was my mistake, a slip of mind. Thank you for the correction. My memory always seems to mix up first names.

[jgweed]

I am not sure that roughly a third of literary figures could be considered gay "in some way or another," but if we consider the works of our camerado, Walt Whitman, are we not also put into a position of making a choice about which of his poems, for example, were "gay" and which were written for various other reasons? And on what basis do we make such interpretative decisions?

Granted there is current the theory that we can never know what the author really wrote, and what he wanted to say according to this theory is unimportant. We have only the text and our interpretation of it.
But even under this radically perspectivalist theory (which, by the way was not Kant's, who argued that granted everything was interpretation, it was necessarily interpreted one way through the transcendental aesthetic of space and time and through the categories of the mind)---even under the most radical of this theory, one is faced with interpretative choices:
1. Whether the text or passage admits of a particular interpretation.
2. The extent that one interpretation is "superior" to other possible interpretations.

In both cases, there seems to be an non-interpretative and prior set of rules and procedures for these choices. And even the most radical viewpoint would most probably allow that any text could be interpreted from another horizon, and that the greater number of pertinent horizons would produce something more like the "true" interpretation just as physically walking around a building would give us a clearer understand of what the building was.

[sofia82]

Art for Art's sake and Formalist or New Criticism are other ways of interpreting a literary work, if you mean we have to interpret a literary work just as a literature nothing more in an English LIterature class like the one you have. Am i right that you prefer reading literature just as literature, although you think other theories are useful?

[Chester]

I assume sofia82 your question is directed to me. For the record it's not my English Literature class. I haven't been in a classroom in 26 years. But, yes, I think all theories are useful and my objection is to the focusing on one specific theory to the exclusion of others. jgweed's walking around the building analogy is a good one. Let's get as many perspectives as we can.

[Kafka's Crow]

Asked to explain deconstruction "in a nutshell", Derrida replied that deconstruction broke "nutshell wherever it finds them." That's what I love about deconstruction. It opens different ways of looking at things and texts are liberated from 'nutshells' or isms.

[Chester]

True, but don't we also have some responsibility to the writer and his or her intent, assuming that information is available to us in some way? Deconstruction thumbs its nose at this, does it not? Almost coming out and saying, no, shut up, writer, that's not the meaning at all. Like any tool, one needs to wield it carefully. Deconstruction can render a piece meaningless if allowed to be carried to its logical extreme, no?

[curlyqlink]

Well, it’s an English Literature class. As such, I would expect it ought to be about the study of English Literature.

I'm curious, what is the title of the course? From the course description, it seems clearly intended to teach one particular theory of literary criticism. Learning various critical theories, it seems to me, is a useful part of a literary education. Most lit. courses focus on particular works, usually sorted by time period or particular authors or particular groups of authors. Some courses teach theory-- the focus is purely on theory, not the works. These various courses are all part of a mix.

I frankly don't understand your objection. No one literature course is comprehensive. Taking a course on Queer Theory is no more unbalanced than taking a course on Dickens or on the Nineteenth Century Russian Novel. At the college level, it's permissible that a course have a narrow focus, and nowhere is the intent to encourage students to read only Dickens or nineteenth century Russian novels.



why would anybody want to analyze any piece of literature strictly from one viewpoint? I see no place for it.
I doubt that is the intent. The intent would be to teach the students this one particular approach to apply as they see fit, using their judgment as educated readers. It's no different from teaching a course on calculus, which is not intended to make students try to apply calculus in solving every math problem. In physics, there is applied physics and there is theoretical physics. Well, in literature there is theory too. Hence there are classes in theory.

[Chester]

My objection is simply this: I don’t think any piece of literature should be analyzed from just one perspective. I’m very much in favor of teaching any perspective that’s out there. But to dedicate an entire course to a single perspective, to grant that much credence to one point of view (and I have no doubt the name of it is Queer Theory or some such thing – I’m not making an accusation of false advertising here), seems to me like the wrong way to go about things. By all means, let’s have classes on different theories but let’s discuss them all. Sure, the students can use their best judgment, but what signal is being sent about the value of one perspective over another when an entire course is dedicated to it?

Unlike mathematics, we have a variety of perspectives that can all be applied. The more the merrier. Calculus is for calculus. Physics is for physics. Analyzing literature is quite different. We can, and should it seems to me, use all the tools at our disposal.

I don’t mind classes that focus. If one wants to study Dickens, one should be able to study Dickens. But if one wants to study critical theory, that’s as divided as it ought to be. Literary critical theory is literary critical theory. It’s the sum of its parts. Taking one part and ignoring the rest causes the whole to collapse.

[Kafka's Crow]

True, but don't we also have some responsibility to the writer and his or her intent, assuming that information is available to us in some way? Deconstruction thumbs its nose at this, does it not? Almost coming out and saying, no, shut up, writer, that's not the meaning at all. Like any tool, one needs to wield it carefully. Deconstruction can render a piece meaningless if allowed to be carried to its logical extreme, no?

Not so much meaningless but it brings texts alive by showing different facets, diverse voices, messages and meanings in a single text. Nothing is one-dimensional. All reality is multi-dimensional and sacrificing one dimension at the expense of another can cause great injustice. Deconstruction teaches us to keep our minds and options open. This is what deconstructionists call the "future anterior" the future (or final conclusion) which is always in the making, always deferred and always anticipated without quite reaching. This is living in the state of a perpetual intellectual alert and total critical awareness, confirming nothing as the last word. Not an easy life but then some people don not like living easy lives!

[Chester]

Literature as process.

I like it.

[papayahed]

My objection is simply this: I don’t think any piece of literature should be analyzed from just one perspective. I’m very much in favor of teaching any perspective that’s out there. But to dedicate an entire course to a single perspective, to grant that much credence to one point of view (and I have no doubt the name of it is Queer Theory or some such thing – I’m not making an accusation of false advertising here), seems to me like the wrong way to go about things. By all means, let’s have classes on different theories but let’s discuss them all. Sure, the students can use their best judgment, but what signal is being sent about the value of one perspective over another when an entire course is dedicated to it?

Unlike mathematics, we have a variety of perspectives that can all be applied. The more the merrier. Calculus is for calculus. Physics is for physics. Analyzing literature is quite different. We can, and should it seems to me, use all the tools at our disposal.

I don’t mind classes that focus. If one wants to study Dickens, one should be able to study Dickens. But if one wants to study critical theory, that’s as divided as it ought to be. Literary critical theory is literary critical theory. It’s the sum of its parts. Taking one part and ignoring the rest causes the whole to collapse.

If Queer theory was the only critical theory class offered I'd agree, but it seems like it's just an elective. How is takng a more indepth look at one theory ignoring the others? Assuming of course there are required classes on general critical theory.

[JBI]

Like I said before, queer theory is relatively new, that's why it is getting so much floor. They have whole courses dedicated to one author (at my university at least) I can't really see the problem of taking a course on one viewpoint applied to many works. Like I said before, for a degree you need more than 1 course, you need 7 or 10, or 4 for a minor. For someone looking to write a Ph.D. on Whitman later in life, or on any other homosexual author, and there are very many, this course could be helpful. You still need the 100 level introduction course to the canon, and where I am from, 1 Canadian literature course, 1 American course, 3 British courses, and 1.5 contemporary literature courses (this is for the specialist). If someone wants to do their theoretical requirement on queer theory I see no objection. They just become a queer theorist a little early.

[sofia82]

Assuming of course there are required classes on general critical theory.

This is the case with basic courses. Not more than that. I had the problem with the general critical thoery. And never get any course on specific theory. I prefer the courses with a specific theory after having just one introductory course on critical theories.

[Chester]

Well, I can’t really take my argument much farther because I am now in jeopardy of repeating myself and boring even myself to death.

Let me try it this way: Would anybody here who thinks it’s fine to have entire courses in literary criticism (across the body of general literature, mind you) dedicated to narrow, specific points of view, have any objection to somebody teaching a course (an elective even, we’ll say) called "White Supremacism Theory of Literary Criticism"? Why or why not?

[jgweed]

Isn't there a problem, though, that if the text is only meaningful through interpretation (to interpret Derrida at his most strident), that the text becomes merely an occasion to interpret the interpretation---or perhaps more correctly the interpreter--- unless there is some general ground for literary research and criticism presented prior (in thought if not in time) as well?

It does seem that the more perspectives one can apply to any event, the more encompassing the understanding becomes, and the more "certain" the knowing of it.

How does one "rule out" though, a "bad" or improper perspective from within the perspective itself, and doesn't this suggest that there may be some objectivity here?

[JBI]

Why would anyone want a course on reading Shakespeare's Roman plays. Its also offered at my university, as is a course on the novels of Michael Ondaatje, and a full course on Spenser, and a course on Chaucer, and Milton. Knowledge is specific, and the more specific you get, the more accurate you get.

[Kafka's Crow]

Queer Theory is not new. I studied Judith Butler and Queer Theory back in 2000-2001. We had to study Djuna Barnes as a queer writer and Judith Butler as the theorist. I was shocked when the teacher chose a Canadian girl and I to work on Butler's Gender Trouble. After a lot of hard work I found it quite interesting and focused my presentation on deconstruction of genders and queer theory. It is not totally void of interest if queer theory is researched from this angle. Any thing that breaks essentialism can not be uninteresting.

[JBI]

It is new relative to the time, compared with other approaches. It emerged in the 1990s, relative to feminist criticism, with Virginia Woolf, but really in 1970 with Silences, and Marxist Theory, which is also far older, or Even Deconstruction, which is really from the 70s. Queer theory is very new relative to other disciplines, and has not had time to wane like New Criticism, or Structuralism have.

[Kafka's Crow]

I was told in year 2000 that "Derrida has met his future" and I should calm my enthusiasm for the theorist who's time had been and gone. I first heard of 'Post-Postmodernism' back in 1996, a vile term and I am so glad it did not gain currency. Led by Alain Badiou, the assault on Postmodernism is an old story now. Even Badiou is about to be superseded by his star-pupil, Quentin Meillassoux, as the leading European philosopher. Everything is subject to change with time. What we worship now will be yesterday's news in no time. Then there are linguistic obstacles as well. The central text in the movement called Deconstruction, Derrida's Of Grammatology was written in 1967 but it was not translated till 1976 (by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak). Badiou's first book to be translated in English, Manifeste pour la philosophie was written in 1989 but was not available to the speakers of English language till 1998. Our teacher wanted us to study L'Éthique, written in 1993, it was not available till late 2000 (we barely managed to study it before the term ended). This asymmetry in the birth of theories and their availability to the wider world gives another twist to the situation. Meillasoux is lucky in this respect as his first book is already available in English within a couple of years of its publication:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/After-Finitude-Essay-Necessity-Contingency/dp/0826496741/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211825148&sr=8-1

With the postmodern implosion of time and space and more virile connections and means of communications, this time-lapse is expected to reduce in future.

Our present academic standards demand that we present a unique point of view, specially at postgraduate level. Thus the enthusiasm for theories due to their ability to give a complete framework to read a text in a new light. Deconstruction liberated the text but in the hands of nihilists and opportunists, this became a free-for-all interpretive excuse. Where the great founding-fathers of deconstruction dreamed of a future anterior and a golden future of continuous critical appraisal and awareness, the nihilists used the same system to destroy everything. In this situation it became necessary for the universities to choose the lesser evil and embrace interpretive systems in order to avoid nihilistic, unruly misuse of deconstruction. There is another aspect to it. One of the first of the major interpretive movements, Marxism, was dangerous and was opposed as vehemently in the West as it was forced on the populace in the East. If Soviet authorities picked and prosecuted Formalists, the authorities in the West were seeing 'commies' everywhere and people like Arthur Miller suffered (read The Crucible). The Western universities were bastions of Marxism, specially in America. The only logical solution to this problem was to divide academic research, specially in the humanities, into as many diverse specialties or 'isms' as possible. This policy worked and did what McCarthyism had miserably failed to achieve. The future Marxists became Post-colonialists, feminists, queer theorists etc and chose to invest their intelligence in less dangerous pursuits.

[Chester]

I was told in year 2000 that "Derrida has met his future" and I should calm my enthusiasm for the theorist who's time had been and gone. I first heard of 'Post-Postmodernism' back in 1996, a vile term and I am so glad it did not gain currency. Led by Alain Badiou, the assault on Postmodernism is an old story now. Even Badiou is about to be superseded by his star-pupil, Quentin Meillassoux, as the leading European philosopher. Everything is subject to change with time. What we worship now will be yesterday's news in no time. Then there are linguistic obstacles as well. The central text in the movement called Deconstruction, Derrida's Of Grammatology was written in 1967 but it was not translated till 1976 (by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak). Badiou's first book to be translated in English, Manifeste pour la philosophie was written in 1989 but was not available to the speakers of English language till 1998. Our teacher wanted us to study L'Éthique, written in 1993, it was not available till late 2000 (we barely managed to study it before the term ended). This asymmetry in the birth of theories and their availability to the wider world gives another twist to the situation. Meillasoux is lucky in this respect as his first book is already available in English within a couple of years of its publication:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/After-Finitude-Essay-Necessity-Contingency/dp/0826496741/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211825148&sr=8-1

With the postmodern implosion of time and space and more virile connections and means of communications, this time-lapse is expected to reduce in future.

Our present academic standards demand that we present a unique point of view, specially at postgraduate level. Thus the enthusiasm for theories due to their ability to give a complete framework to read a text in a new light. Deconstruction liberated the text but in the hands of nihilists and opportunists, this became a free-for-all interpretive excuse. Where the great founding-fathers of deconstruction dreamed of a future anterior and a golden future of continuous critical appraisal and awareness, the nihilists used the same system to destroy everything. In this situation it became necessary for the universities to choose the lesser evil and embrace interpretive systems in order to avoid nihilistic, unruly misuse of deconstruction. There is another aspect to it. One of the first of the major interpretive movements, Marxism, was dangerous and was opposed as vehemently in the West as it was forced on the populace in the East. If Soviet authorities picked and prosecuted Formalists, the authorities in the West were seeing 'commies' everywhere and people like Arthur Miller suffered (read The Crucible). The Western universities were bastions of Marxism, specially in America. The only logical solution to this problem was to divide academic research, specially in the humanities, into as many diverse specialties or 'isms' as possible. This policy worked and did what McCarthyism had miserably failed to achieve. The future Marxists became Post-colonialists, feminists, queer theorists etc and chose to invest their intelligence in less dangerous pursuits.
Now this is extremely interesting to me. Thank you, Kafka's Crow. Somehow I suspected there were reasons behind the genesis of this great interest in diverse perspectives that go beyond what meets the eye.

[curlyqlink]

Would anybody here who thinks it’s fine to have entire courses in literary criticism (across the body of general literature, mind you) dedicated to narrow, specific points of view, have any objection to somebody teaching a course (an elective even, we’ll say) called "White Supremacism Theory of Literary Criticism"? Why or why not?

It might be useful for studying Kipling...

No, but seriously. The various critical schools, if they have legitimacy, are not about promoting a specific point of view, or promoting an agenda. They are about opening up and expanding the reader's understanding of particular works. I would object to the teaching of a "White Supremacism Theory" because I can't see how it could possibly be a useful tool for studying literature.

I do have sympathy for what I suspect is your basic objection, that is, the wrongheaded studying literature as a branch of sociology. I strongly suspect some teachers have a not-so-hidden agenda in teaching multiculturalism, feminism, etc. That is, "good" books have a politically correct message, "bad" books an incorrect message. But this has nothing to do, in my opinion, with universities devoting an entire course to a particular school of literary criticism.

It is possible to separate one's political biases from the study of writing. For example, even though I vehemently disagree with his cultural viewpoint, I think Harold Bloom is an extremely insightful critic. He's a dinosaur, a hidebound conservative, the clearest example perhaps of the "dead white men" school of poetics. But he is tremendously insightful and nothing short of brilliant. I have qualms about his notion of "pure" aesthetics, I doubt that such a thing exists, but it is a useful and interesting theory.

[Chester]

I would object to the teaching of a "White Supremacism Theory" because I can't see how it could possibly be a useful tool for studying literature.
But wouldn’t it, also, be a means of "expanding the reader’s understanding of particular works"? I’m sure many students have never had the opportunity to analyze literature through the lens of a white supremacist. Certainly if we’re going to use different, narrow perspectives, there must be room for that one, no?


I do have sympathy for what I suspect is your basic objection, that is, the wrongheaded studying literature as a branch of sociology.
And I think maybe we’ll have to accept this as our common ground.

[Kafka's Crow]

It is not a pretty sight: people bringing ready-made meanings and appropriating different texts with diverse meanings to fit their selection of meanings. Theories are like answers, your job is to find fitting questions (texts) and show how your questions fit the answers. As I said, it is as pretty a sight as any cart fitted before a horse could be!

[mortalterror]

Knowledge is specific, and the more specific you get, the more accurate you get.

In general, I believe that a close reading of a text is much preferable to a loose reading. But we must be aware that each kind of analysis leads to it's own unique kinds of errors. I've seen minute word by word readings of a text go far afield and miss the point entirely due to hair splitting, sophistry, or analytical partisanship. Sometimes less is more.

[Kafka's Crow]

Now this is extremely interesting to me. Thank you, Kafka's Crow. Somehow I suspected there were reasons behind the genesis of this great interest in diverse perspectives that go beyond what meets the eye.

Let me dilute your enthusiasm for the 'conspiracy theory' a bit. Though political reasons for the above situation were plausible, huge social changes took place during the second half of the last century. Media, specially printed and electronic media, opened up societies and liberated the multi-dimensional nature of 'realities'. Postmodernism is all about opening up and disclosure. This brought forward what Lyotard calls "the petite recites" or small stories which replaced "les grande recites" of modernism, i-e emancipation of mankind, class-struggle, even the enlightenment. Ironically it allowed the mother of all grand narratives, capitalism, to grow and evolve into the juggernaut called Globalism but it did manage to (very conveniently) kill the undesirable grand narrative of Marxism. Derrida enters the picture here: Spectres of Marx haunt us because that grand narrative never died. In The Spectres of Marx Derrida contends that unresolved problems haunt us. Even death needs a 'closure' in order for the dead to remain stay put in his grave. (he starts the book with a quotation from Hamlet I, 5 (Swear...the time is out of joint...) The basic problem of class-difference is still unresolved. Marxism is not finished yet as presence of this difference would not let its death reach its closure. Since the death is unresolved, Marx is not dead but is turned into spectre's', these spectres will haunt us as long as the basic problem persists. They have postmodernised themselves and present themselves in different shapes (the disgruntled voters in India or the angry youths in the Middle East are but two of these faces, the first more direct, the latter a bit oblique). The infestation goes on unresolved and will one day erupt. Although the little narratives (queer theory etc) will gloss over the main problem, the elephant in the room is the multi-faceted Spectre's' of Marx!

[sofia82]

Why would anyone want a course on reading Shakespeare's Roman plays. Its also offered at my university, as is a course on the novels of Michael Ondaatje, and a full course on Spenser, and a course on Chaucer, and Milton. Knowledge is specific, and the more specific you get, the more accurate you get.

I agree with you, the more specific, the more accurate. And this is the problem with my studies throughout all my studies, there were no specific course on theories or even authors and now i have to start anew


I was told in year 2000 that "Derrida has met his future" and I should calm my enthusiasm for the theorist who's time had been and gone. I first heard of 'Post-Postmodernism' back in 1996, a vile term and I am so glad it did not gain currency. Led by Alain Badiou, the assault on Postmodernism is an old story now. Even Badiou is about to be superseded by his star-pupil, Quentin Meillassoux, as the leading European philosopher. Everything is subject to change with time. What we worship now will be yesterday's news in no time. Then there are linguistic obstacles as well. The central text in the movement called Deconstruction, Derrida's Of Grammatology was written in 1967 but it was not translated till 1976 (by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak). Badiou's first book to be translated in English, Manifeste pour la philosophie was written in 1989 but was not available to the speakers of English language till 1998. Our teacher wanted us to study L'Éthique, written in 1993, it was not available till late 2000 (we barely managed to study it before the term ended). This asymmetry in the birth of theories and their availability to the wider world gives another twist to the situation. Meillasoux is lucky in this respect as his first book is already available in English within a couple of years of its publication:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/After-Finitude-Essay-Necessity-Contingency/dp/0826496741/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211825148&sr=8-1

With the postmodern implosion of time and space and more virile connections and means of communications, this time-lapse is expected to reduce in future.

Our present academic standards demand that we present a unique point of view, specially at postgraduate level. Thus the enthusiasm for theories due to their ability to give a complete framework to read a text in a new light. Deconstruction liberated the text but in the hands of nihilists and opportunists, this became a free-for-all interpretive excuse. Where the great founding-fathers of deconstruction dreamed of a future anterior and a golden future of continuous critical appraisal and awareness, the nihilists used the same system to destroy everything. In this situation it became necessary for the universities to choose the lesser evil and embrace interpretive systems in order to avoid nihilistic, unruly misuse of deconstruction. There is another aspect to it. One of the first of the major interpretive movements, Marxism, was dangerous and was opposed as vehemently in the West as it was forced on the populace in the East. If Soviet authorities picked and prosecuted Formalists, the authorities in the West were seeing 'commies' everywhere and people like Arthur Miller suffered (read The Crucible). The Western universities were bastions of Marxism, specially in America. The only logical solution to this problem was to divide academic research, specially in the humanities, into as many diverse specialties or 'isms' as possible. This policy worked and did what McCarthyism had miserably failed to achieve. The future Marxists became Post-colonialists, feminists, queer theorists etc and chose to invest their intelligence in less dangerous pursuits.

I thought that there isnot such a thing in western universities. As it is the problem with some queer theory or the theories related to gay and lesbian studies, here.

[Chester]

Let me dilute your enthusiasm for the 'conspiracy theory' a bit. Though political reasons for the above situation were plausible, huge social changes took place during the second half of the last century. Media, specially printed and electronic media, opened up societies and liberated the multi-dimensional nature of 'realities'. Postmodernism is all about opening up and disclosure. This brought forward what Lyotard calls "the petite recites" or small stories which replaced "les grande recites" of modernism, i-e emancipation of mankind, class-struggle, even the enlightenment. Ironically it allowed the mother of all grand narratives, capitalism, to grow and evolve into the juggernaut called Globalism but it did manage to (very conveniently) kill the undesirable grand narrative of Marxism. Derrida enters the picture here: Spectres of Marx haunt us because that grand narrative never died. In The Spectres of Marx Derrida contends that unresolved problems haunt us. Even death needs a 'closure' in order for the dead to remain stay put in his grave. (he starts the book with a quotation from Hamlet I, 5 (Swear...the time is out of joint...) The basic problem of class-difference is still unresolved. Marxism is not finished yet as presence of this difference would not let its death reach its closure. Since the death is unresolved, Marx is not dead but is turned into spectre's', these spectres will haunt us as long as the basic problem persists. They have postmodernised themselves and present themselves in different shapes (the disgruntled voters in India or the angry youths in the Middle East are but two of these faces, the first more direct, the latter a bit oblique). The infestation goes on unresolved and will one day erupt. Although the little narratives (queer theory etc) will gloss over the main problem, the elephant in the room is the multi-faceted Spectre's' of Marx!
Did the social changes allow capitalism to "grow and evolve into....Globalism," or was it the other way round? The order seems important to me because the latter way provides an answer for Marx. Of course that won’t be sufficient to kill it off, so long as people seek power bases through political dialogues that divide. Either way, it does seem clear that Globalism, with its free flow of information, has allowed a multitude of voices. And I suppose it remains to be seen how many of those, and which ones, are ultimately going to be granted their own stages at our universities, reaching even into the upper levels of English departments, as lenses by which to analyze literature.

[Kafka's Crow]

I think the interaction was reciprocal: capitalism encouraged social changes and social changes empowered capitalism. The only things that failed to thrive were ones which were not pro-capitalism, e-g. Marxism, religion, literature (specially poetry), family, etc. Things with market or commodity value thrived. Novel thrived, poetry languished. Queer market has huge amount of possibilities. Tom Peters cried about the immense potential in products for women and 'geezers' (the Baby-boomers) in his 2003 book Re-imagine!. Gay culture has its own fashion scene which presents huge marketing opportunities. I would not be surprised if some corporation like The Queer Company sponsor certain courses at some campus. Queer cinema is thriving, so is literature. More products are attracting this group of buyers. Calvin Klein and A&F have marketing campaigns with queer undertones, even Madonna takes on a queer image in one of her many self-reincarnations. The system works in the same way. It keeps on changing itself, reincarnating itself continuously, tirelessly. This is the secret of the success that capitalism enjoys. It changes with change, instead of resisting it. As long as a system has something in it for capitalism, the latter would encourage it, groom it and then gain more strength from it. Opposing system are labeled 'grand narratives', 'dinosaurs' or 'fossils' and appropriated as such. Still behind all the fanfare and superficial change, the realities of the age-old questions of difference, justice, fruits of ones labour, exploitation and slavery remain. These are just questions, they are unanswered and they will not go away until they are answered. To me their answer does not lie in any 'ism', not even in Marxism or Socialism although they claim to possess the exclusive answers. The answer lies in common sense, general human compassion, understanding and continuous critical alertness. These things have no commercial value and, though not inimical to capitalism, they are not useful for it either. Thus the system ignores them, they are harmless inconveniences which withold within them dangerous possibilities. Actively destroying them would cause an uproar, a slow corrosion of these values through greed, and general dumbing-down of society (using print and electronic media specially) is the safer course of action. We see this mischief afoot all around us. The only answer to all human problems lies in common sense, humanism, compassion and critical alertness and healthy skepticism. All theories or 'little narratives' serve only to take our attention away from the Bigger Problem and its diverse facets.

[kelby_lake]

....that only seeks to examine a piece of literature from a specific perspective. Examples: feminist criticism, Marxist criticism, gender studies, African American studies, queer theory. These perspectives all seem to be a part of college English curricula nowadays. Not sociology, mind you. English. That is to say that pieces of literature are studied with the idea of seeing only (or mainly) what they can tell us about society in so far as the respective point of view is concerned. What can Hamlet tell us about the role of women in Shakespeare’s time? What does A Rose for Emily have to say about the role of the black man in American society?

Am I wrong to think this means of limiting oneself in one’s evaluation of a piece of literature does both a disservice to the piece as well as to the author, not to mention even to the evaluator?

Can anybody offer a justification for this kind of analysis?


Analysis like this is used in exam questions because it's quite easy to do. I dislike it as well.

[Chester]

The answer lies in common sense, general human compassion, understanding and continuous critical alertness. These things have no commercial value and, though not inimical to capitalism, they are not useful for it either. Thus the system ignores them, they are harmless inconveniences which withold within them dangerous possibilities. Actively destroying them would cause an uproar, a slow corrosion of these values through greed, and general dumbing-down of society (using print and electronic media specially) is the safer course of action. We see this mischief afoot all around us. The only answer to all human problems lies in common sense, humanism, compassion and critical alertness and healthy skepticism. All theories or 'little narratives' serve only to take our attention away from the Bigger Problem and its diverse facets.
I would definitely agree with this, although the slow corrosion "mischief" of yours has about it an air of conspiracy about which I always find myself skeptical. I know there are those who have in their minds this idea of a bunch of old white guys in suits sitting in a smoke-filled room determining the course of history and, with it, the morals and culture of society. (For some reason I am now thinking of the Simpson’s "Stonecutters" episode.)

But in any event, yes, we have a tendency to lose sight of the forest in the midst of all the "little narrative" trees. No doubt about it.


Analysis like this is used in exam questions because it's quite easy to do. I dislike it as well.
Ha! Yes indeed. Lazy teaching methods. This would actually explain a lot.

[PeterL]

It is not a pretty sight: people bringing ready-made meanings and appropriating different texts with diverse meanings to fit their selection of meanings. Theories are like answers, your job is to find fitting questions (texts) and show how your questions fit the answers. As I said, it is as pretty a sight as any cart fitted before a horse could be!

No it isn't pretty, but that's what literary theory is all about: imposing interpretation from a preselected set of possible meanings.

[JBI]

How many of you actually read lit theory? Most theorists just spend their time attacking other theorists for not including, or for deliberately excluding ideas. Queer Theory just seems like an extension of feminist studies, but with an addition of homosexual (male) additives thrown in, and an attempted removal of "heterosexism". There is no set meaning, it is just that there are set things in literature, and the universe, so that eventually if you dig deep enough, you find repetitions along multiple lines. Eventually you will find what you are looking for, if you just look deep enough.

That is why authors like Faulkner are so highly praised. No matter what angle you read them in, they seem to contain elements of every view, unbiased, and can be read by a racist as an attack on minorities, as a human rights activist as progressively denoting hatred, as a woman as feminist, as a man as misogynistic, as a queer theorist as homoerotic, or a billion other things. That is what literature is about (well good literature), different angles and perspectives. That is probably why Shakespeare is so revered, because no matter which character you look at, they all seem to be completely justifiable within their own frame of reference. Edmund becomes a sympathetic tragic hero, as does Richard III, Iago becomes a brilliant genius before our eyes, Macbeth, who is technically a terrorist, becomes a tragic hero in his own right, meanwhile we can laugh at the stern Malvolio, the rich, but stupid Aguecheek, the melancholical Jaques, or a whole lot of other noble characters.

No matter which great work you read, there will always be angles. these angles, if read in light of them, always will change the perspective of the work. I have read as much criticism declaring Iago the hero as I have Othello, and to be honest, each time I read the play I seem to draw a different conclusion.

If you read in the light of perspective, you create a different response, always. If you read Dan Brown as truth, as many ignorant people did, then you find answers, if you read him as a prose stylist, you find rubbish, if you read him as fiction, you find a plot, if you read him for setting, you get to visit many sites in Europe, either way, no matter how bad a book is, it can always be poked at from different angles.

This is where theory comes in. We must decide which angle to take when reading a book. Queer theory, and Feminist theory work, in the sense that they say we should read a book by a homosexual in light of his homosexuality, which naturally will uncover other dimensions, or a book by a woman as a female book. The author's perspective is then closer in our heads when we read the book, and we unravel things closer to the author's objective. Marxist authors try similar things as well, with reading in light of the author's class, or reading in light of the audience's class. Post-colonial critics try to create a reader point of view to represent the post-colonial author's perspective as well. These all have their merits.

The problem occurs when one has to decide which books to read. That is where guys like Harold Bloom come in (though he is more highly revered amongst the public than academic theorists) who create a list of great books. All of a sudden we have a list, and we must decide what stays and what goes. critics like Showalter create a theory about an "Atlantis" of female literature, silenced and discarded over the years, and right away feminists go through old manuscripts and archives and try to dig for female voices. Then critics come up with lesbian theories that talk about the lesbian tradition. Right away those critics go to the archives. then the post-colonialists go, then the Afrocentrists, and so on. Each person wants a book that can be read in light of their school, and no body is willing to give room for anything outside their school. You end with a tug of war, which eventually solidifies into a new canon, incorporating aspects of all the school's canons.

[ThousandthIsle]

Chester, I do not mean to come off as if I am making a rude attack, but maybe you find the thought of analysing literature from one perspective to be so outrageous because you are viewing such analyses from a limited perspective yourself. You seem to be placing the assignment of a literary analysis paper on an isolated pedastal. You are forgetting the time that passes before the paper, and after it too!

I understand your concern that all other elements of a work will be overlooked when a student is asked to focus on one element alone. However, don't forget that English Literature courses are discussion-oriented.

In my experience with college lit classes, we discuss many elements of the novels we read as we progress through them. After completing papers on particular themes, most students want to discuss the connections they've made after the due date has passed, and many profs are more than willing to accomodate further, more focused discussions.

The point is, multiple themes are almost always explored IN class, and students aren't deprived of a well-rounded vision of a work, unless the course is perhaps described to explore literature through a certain 'lens.' But when it comes to paper-writing, it really is difficult, and probably impossible (or at least very messy), to explore ALL themes of a novel in a single paper.

I've always enjoyed assignments where we were told to choose one lens to examine a piece of writing through. It doesn't even the scales, by any means, but focusing through one lens really lets you go deeply. You are given the chance to complete a full, substantial thought. There is just too much -- sticky, webby, messy -- when you try to sit down and juggle all components in a piece of writing. It's an ambitious undertaking that rarely turns out satisfactory, because it is a project that is bigger than one semester. You'll find that such essays often take the form of a book, to accomodate the large amount of ground they cover!

I imagine that focused papers with depth are more satisfying to add to a college resume anyway, rather than a collection of papers that follow a similar formula of skimming the surface of a group of generic themes that are common in a lot of literature.

[Chester]

The point is, multiple themes are almost always explored IN class, and students aren't deprived of a well-rounded vision of a work, unless the course is perhaps described to explore literature through a certain 'lens.' But when it comes to paper-writing, it really is difficult, and probably impossible (or at least very messy), to explore ALL themes of a novel in a single paper.

Well the problem I am describing is exactly one in which the entire course is dedicated to a certain ‘lens.’ There are entire courses on Queer Theory and entire courses on Feminist Criticism and Marxist Criticism and whatever other ‘isms’ I am imagining are the university flavors of the moment.

I can live with the idea of exploring a piece in a narrow way to uncover something, and it seems to me especially appropriate to explore, let’s say, a fictional short story by a Marxist with an eye towards Marxism. That makes sense. I have no argument with this. To JBI’s point, “we must decide which angle to take when reading a book.” Okay, I can live with that. But I’m wondering who’s doing the deciding on our college campuses.

I bristle when 1) an entire course is dedicated to learning how to analyze works specifically through the lens of Marxism (or whatever ‘ism’), and 2) to do so even when there is no real historical reason for it. It seems inappropriate to me to analyze “Huckleberry Finn”, for example, from a Feminist perspective, although one can certainly do so and talk about the role of gender in 19th century America. But for cripes sakes, don’t you want to just shout out, “You’re missing the point!”?

If somebody can guarantee me that kids coming out of college having studied English Literature are all given well-rounded educations on how to analyze from a bunch of different perspectives, then I’ll drop my complaint. I suspect that’s not happening. I suspect there are kids, having been educated in Feminist Criticism, for example, to the exclusion of other criticisms, coming out and seeing the whole world within the narrow confines of Feminist Criticism. This bothers me. This should bother anybody.

[JBI]

Look. There are prerequisits for degrees. It isn't the only course offered, and you don't need to take it. For someone who doesn't understand analysis, you seem to be doing a pretty thorough job at rejecting it.

[PeterL]

Well the problem I am describing is exactly one in which the entire course is dedicated to a certain ‘lens.’ There are entire courses on Queer Theory and entire courses on Feminist Criticism and Marxist Criticism and whatever other ‘isms’ I am imagining are the university flavors of the moment.

I can live with the idea of exploring a piece in a narrow way to uncover something, and it seems to me especially appropriate to explore, let’s say, a fictional short story by a Marxist with an eye towards Marxism. That makes sense. I have no argument with this. To JBI’s point, “we must decide which angle to take when reading a book.” Okay, I can live with that. But I’m wondering who’s doing the deciding on our college campuses.

I bristle when 1) an entire course is dedicated to learning how to analyze works specifically through the lens of Marxism (or whatever ‘ism’), and 2) to do so even when there is no real historical reason for it. It seems inappropriate to me to analyze “Huckleberry Finn”, for example, from a Feminist perspective, although one can certainly do so and talk about the role of gender in 19th century America. But for cripes sakes, don’t you want to just shout out, “You’re missing the point!”?

I have shouted out like that, but it didn't do any good. I'm much too lazy to use a "lens" of that ilk. I find it much easier to figure out what the book says.



If somebody can guarantee me that kids coming out of college having studied English Literature are all given well-rounded educations on how to analyze from a bunch of different perspectives, then I’ll drop my complaint. I suspect that’s not happening. I suspect there are kids, having been educated in Feminist Criticism, for example, to the exclusion of other criticisms, coming out and seeing the whole world within the narrow confines of Feminist Criticism. This bothers me. This should bother anybody.

Some are learning a reasonable amount about literature in spite to the coursework that is shoved down their throats.

[Chester]

For someone who doesn't understand analysis, you seem to be doing a pretty thorough job at rejecting it.
Yes, this is because of the narrow prism by which I am analyzing analysis. I have capitulated. I am now seeking to analyze everything by one certain set of standards. I am calling it Chesterism.

Better sign up quickly. Class size is limited....

[JBI]

Yes, this is because of the narrow prism by which I am analyzing analysis. I have capitulated. I am now seeking to analyze everything by one certain set of standards. I am calling it Chesterism.

Better sign up quickly. Class size is limited....

You probably have never read a theory book in your life, and merely are speculating. Even Kafka's Crow is narrowed in the fact that he relies on Deconstruction, which has formed itself, despite Derrida's insistence, into a movement. You have not taken the course, so you have no right to comment. You probably have no clue what Fem. Criticism, Marxist Criticism, or Queer Theory criticism is all about. It is not a narrowed view, it is a focused view. When you read from these perspectives you are looking at only certain elements on the text, not rejecting the rest.

If I didn't know any better, I would assume that you are a Bloom critic, that is, a pseudo critic who read the Western Canon, and thereby thinks they understand Bloom, and that all culture critics are "evil". Bloom is strong on many points, and is a great critic, but he is so misinterpreted it is ridiculous. He even anthologizes some of these "culture critics" into his anthologies, which proves that even he sees the value of what some of them say.

[Chester]

Apparently I have struck a nerve with you, JBI. Okay. You can call it focused. I'm calling it narrow.

I imagine, then, that this would probably be a good time for you to give up on me.

[JBI]

Apparently I have struck a nerve with you, JBI. Okay. You can call it focused. I'm calling it narrow.

I imagine, then, that this would probably be a good time for you to give up on me.

It makes no difference, if you are a student, than chances are you are required to study theory at least at a basic level. Just out of curiosity, are you an English major?

[Scheherazade]

Further posts with personal/inflammatory remarks will be deleted without any further notice.

If you feel unable to carry on without personalising your arguments, please feel free not to take part in the discussion.

[Chester]

For the record I didn't take anything JBI said personally, Scheherazade, nor did I find anything he said especially inflammatory. We simply came to what I perceived to be a logical stopping off place in our discussion. I understand his point and perhaps he understands mine, I don't know. Certainly I have made it a number of different ways throughout the course of this thread and me repeating myself one more time isn't going to add anything.

I appreciate that you're trying to dutifully moderate. I just don't think it's necessary here.

[curlyqlink]

If somebody can guarantee me that kids coming out of college having studied English Literature are all given well-rounded educations on how to analyze from a bunch of different perspectives, then I’ll drop my complaint. I suspect that’s not happening. I suspect there are kids, having been educated in Feminist Criticism, for example, to the exclusion of other criticisms, coming out and seeing the whole world within the narrow confines of Feminist Criticism.

You can't teach people to think for themselves. I'm sure there are some students who will find a particular "-ism" comfortable, decide this is the one for them, and never look further. It's their loss, and I'm cynical enough to write such students off as hopeless anyway.

In my own experience-- years ago-- humanities courses were grounds for discussion. I took a Feminist Lit. course (in which I was one of only two males) and objected roundly to a lot of the assumptions that were being made. I took a Bible as Literature course, and challenged the idea that the Bible is full of beautiful poetic language imbued with deep meaning. (I find much of the Bible arbitrary, clumsily written, and silly.) Contrary to what one might think, the professors teaching these courses did not flunk me, but instead seemed to welcome the discussion. I suppose it beats having a classroom full of somnolent drones dutifully reciting back whatever it is they're being told.

College humanities courses are not about indoctrination, and they are not about brain-washing. On the contrary, they are about asking questions and challenging assumptions. At least they were back in the 70s.

[bounty]

Oh yes, I agree with this. The world comes to us as interpretation. I’m familiar with Kant. But my problem is when we make use of only one kind of interpretation, especially if it’s to the exclusion of others.

a colleague and i in grad school were fond of pointing out that if you were a critical theorist, you were a hammer and everything in life looked like a nail (or vice versa).