Originally Posted by
OrphanPip
I'll repeat that I think the article they published proposed banning Dante as a deliberately provocative stance, rather than as a serious proposal. Their main point was to call attention to how these texts (like Dante's Divine Comedy), even when we take them in their historical context, can still contribute to problematic ideas in the present.
For example, the depiction of Mohammed as being mutilated in hell with his entrails hanging out is certainly understandable in the context of 14th century European attitudes to Muslims, and we shouldn't really expect anything else from Dante. However, that doesn't mean teaching such a scene in a high school setting is not capable of contributing to an already problematic public discourse of anti-Islamic sentiment.
Acknowledging this is more conductive to a learning environment than simply tip-toeing around the issue.
There is certainly a degree of cognitive dissonance at work if we as a society would condemn the propagation of contemporary literature that is highly discriminatory, but somehow say that the presence of such in older works of literature should just be assumed to be unimportant because they are established. They are legitimate questions that should be discussed. Certainly, banning Dante is not a reasonable approach, but making extreme statements is a useful way of drawing attention to a debate which might have some actual substance to it. How do we integrate these texts into the contemporary culture is a worthwhile question, and it is not a new question.
Ironically, Dante himself tries to deal with this issue in the Divine Comedy when he struggles with the integration of the Classical authors into a Christian world view. If the problems created by changing values was legitimate enough for Dante to deal with, why should we be so quick to dismiss it today? It is not as if we do not consistently re-evaluate the canon, some authors (like Dante) tend to be central and don't budge, but those on the periphery of the canon are not so secure. If the same issues were raised by these authors for the removal of a marginal text from the syllabus of secondary schools, I doubt we'd see the same outrage over "PC" nonsense.
Also, the throwing around of "PC gone mad" or whatever other media buzzwords one wants to lash onto is a lazy answer. It is not a response to the argument being made, nor is it even a usefully defined accusation. People in general have very different ideas of what counts as PC and the complaint is so over-used, and often against very reasonable complaints, that it is rendered completely vacuous.