Firing the Canon

Monday, September 22, 1997 Firing the Canon POLITICS:
Shakespeare and other traditional works may be shelved as interest
groups at UCLA fight for a piece of the literature-curriculum
pie.

By George Sweeney

Daily Bruin Contributor

There is only a finite amount of classroom time that can be
allocated for the literature curriculum. Imagine that time as a
pie, and each and every interest group at UCLA grasping for a
piece.

The traditional works that make up the original canon, as a body
for a prescribed English curriculum, are being challenged by
American, feminist and multicultural critics.

The canon is a set of guidelines regarding what works were to be
taught in English classes in more archaic times.

These guidelines were based on common colonial taste. Because
the canon was a product of a British colonial culture, to many of
today’s readers, the idea of a canon stinks of cultural tyranny and
imperialism. For others it is just plain old-fashioned.

"The English canon was not invented for England," said UCLA
professor of post-colonial studies Ali Behdad. "It was invented as
part of colonization, in order to shape and form a certain colonial
culture in India and other British colonies."

The canon, traditionally exclusive to Western European
literature, has resisted the influx of multicultural literature. As
a result, the two forces of traditional literature and
new-20th-century literature have been trying to find a balance.

"The expansion of English literature in the 20th century means
that more works are being included," said Thomas Wortham, chair of
the English department. "It is all a balancing act."

Some students feel similarly. "It is important to find a balance
between historically, underrepresented groups and the traditional
canon," said Sean Astin, a senior English student.

The sheer size of UCLA’s English department, the largest in the
country at 1,500 students, allows for greater curricular diversity
within the department. The pie is larger, so each division can have
a bigger piece and each student the opportunity for a taste.

The two forces in the canon and curriculum debate still contend
with what to teach within the larger pie. Some feel that the idea
of a canon can still give some structure to this decision.

One division finds it impossible for canonical authors to be
completely eliminated from the curriculum. If the pie is all of
literature, the argument goes, then these foundational authors are
the tin in which the pie sits. Remove the pie tin, and the pie
loses its structure.

"To be teaching too broadly or too vertically is a mistake"
Wortham said. "It is always going to be a conflict. We prevent that
through the retention of requirements."

UCLA requires two quarters of Shakespeare, a quarter of Milton,
and a quarter of Chaucer of each of its English majors and two
quarters of these authors for American-literature majors.

This still does not answer the question of why even these
luminaries are considered essential and foundational.

"We keep on reading Shakespeare in order to understand the
original texts better," Behdad said. As Behdad and his colleagues
feel, the influence of these writers has had a profound effect on
those that followed them, meaning that an understanding of these
writers is essential to understanding current authors.

And while the argument seems focused on English authorship, even
the American literature is dependent upon these foundational
authors.

"As an Americanist, it is important to read Shakespeare and
Milton." Wortham said. "I call Milton the first American author.
The first people to come to America were of his same political
ideology."

Although the past’s influence is inescapable, the curriculum of
today cannot dwell entirely on the past. The voices of contemporary
literature must be heard.

This time the pie is being struggled over by all of the interest
groups in contemporary literature. Getting equal time is a power
struggle, and multicultural forces, traditionally underrepresented
in the canon, have tried to show the necessity for a shift in
literary worth.

"Not that white men in the English departments have gotten
together and said, ‘We’ll only teach these works because it will
help keep them down,’" said Richard Creese, a UCLA professor in the
honors collegium. "But by announcing that only the works that have
lasted (i.e. those by white men) have merit; the effect is almost
the same."

Students say that the most underrepresented of these groups are
the female and American voices.

"I think the English curriculum is not focused enough on
American literature," said Marjorie Young, a senior English
student. "As well there isn’t enough representation of woman
authors."

In order to give a complete educational experience and balance
the needs and desires of those students, the curriculum is
constantly changing.

There are changes to the curriculum in the way that
multicultural viewpoints are represented and included. This plays
out in an effort to represent different ideas of worth,as defined
by more than one culture.

"If the issue is a matter of aesthetic taste, than that taste is
subjective to the desires of the community represented," Creese
said.

The addition of new texts forces new considerations as well. An
expanding variety of literature makes a constant and exclusive
canon obsolete.

"The truth of the matter is that a canon is not necessarily
constant," Creese continued. "New concerns force new texts to enter
the arena."

If the curriculum remains static, those texts may not receive
their fair voice. The canon today is still an assertion of
political power on the part of those who have control of
curriculum, opponents argue.

"I think the important point here is that the canon be
recognized for what it is: a social and political statement of what
is important," Creece said. "It is not innocent of politics. It is
not essential. The canon is always politically correct for those
who have political power."

The political aspect of the canon idea, and of choosing a
curriculum, means that politics and social forces can be included
as a part of a curriculum.

"We should not just teach literature," Behdad said. "I would
include certain works that deal thematically with the texts
examined."

The thematic concerns involved in the debate are political and
cultural. They add to further understanding of the works in
question, regardless of the aesthetic viability of the texts.

If the pie is made up of so many disparate ideas and groups, and
the traditional lines that have made up the canon are in conflict
with a greater English curriculum, then some feel that perhaps it
is time that the canon be relegated to history.

"I do not believe in the canon," Wortham said. "It is a myth. It
is in constant flux."

"Canons are not natural or neutral," Behdad said. "They are
human constructions. We have invented them."

The canon denies the dynamic nature of culture in present
society. As originally developed, the canon was a product of the
need for a common education, and not a universal ideal of worth. It
was made by human minds and institutions as a teaching tool.
Unfortunately, teaching today needs a newer invention to set
curriculum.

If this is true, then like any other invention, when it becomes
outdated the canon can be replaced by a more just and modern way of
decision-making. The problem facing the standard-bearers of
curriculum today is that there is just so much one person can
read.

"I think we have to read everything, which is bound to fail, but
we should still try," Wortham said.