I agree with the general argument on the value of a literary education. I do think that there is a problem when there is too much of any political ideology in higher education, as it will inevitably lead to extremes - and the problem as it stands on the lack of vision in the English departments today. If people (professors and students alike) are not exposed to all the arguments on all sides, then how would they have all the necessary information to make any sort of informed decision? And if they can't do that, and they all lean on one side of the aisle, then they are bound to see authors and books in one specific light, oblivious to the complexity in the works themselves.
As John Stuart Mill stated, "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form."
I'm surrounded by people mis-teaching literature as "proof" that the United States is a terrible place, that women shouldn't get married ("The Story of an Hour" was manipulated into this thesis), that men are evil ("Black Venus") -- I could go on and on....and let's not forget that Jo in "Little Women" was trans...OH! and being an immigrant in the US is to be surrounded by people who DON'T LOOK LIKE YOU.
This is LOW IQ teaching. The sooner the identity garbage ends in the teaching of literature, the better.
This article in my view was much too long and could’ve been written much more succinctly and concisely. It was so long I had to skim it to look for the important and key points because there are so many irrelevant details in it. But it is nonetheless, a good article though it has its flaws. Joshua rightly points out that across the political spectrum people are loosing faith in academia especially the Humanities and rightly so. The purpose of a literary education has become one of two things: to get the person learning it ready for their job or to be a good progressive activist. But this is NOT the point of literary education! The point is to put us in touch with our common humanity and to ponder ideas and perspectives on the world we never previously considered. That is literary education is so valuable!
Joshua astutely uses the examples of intellectuals Matthew Arnold, Lionel Tilling and Northrop Frye and their arguments to make his case. He also shows how literary departments and associations are using literature as a way to bash western civilization and all its stands for, to vilify capitalism and promote identity politics and race essentialism. We don’t need any of this! This is NOT what literature is about as Liza has explained like a billion times now! Nor is it an excuse to tell people how their evil for celebrating holidays like Thanksgiving, Columbus Day, Christmas, Halloween, Easter, New Year’s, etc. NONE of this is what geniuses like William Shakespeare, Geoffrey Chaucer, John Milton, Charles Dickens, Henry James, D.H. Lawrence, James Joyce, Charlotte Brontë, Emily Dickinson, Jane Austen, Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Mark Twain, Stephen Crane, Sylvia Plath, William Faulkner, and T.S. Eliot had in mind when they wrote their books or poems!
Nobody reads Crime and Punishment or A Christmas Carol in order to learn about how evil free-market capitalism is or about anti-colonialism. No one in the history of the world has ever read Treasure Island, The Invisible Man or Robinson Crusoe in order to understand the Asian Trans women who is sex worker’s experience. Classic works of literature like Romeo and Juliet, To Kill A Mockingbird, The Great Gatsby, The Old Man and the Sea, The Merchant of Venice, The Cat in the Hat, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Beowulf, Up from Slavery, the Souls of Black Folk, War and Peace, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Frankenstein, Dracula, Danny: Champion of the World, and A Midnight Summer’s Dream have become timeless and have been read by people for decades if not centuries because they have universal moral messages and themes we can all relate to.
That being said, this article does have some problems. The first thing I notice is he includes Sally Rooney as an author to read. This is total nonsense. Sally Rooney’s books are awful and never catch my eye when I am at Barnes and Noble. She is also antisemitic and anti-Israel. He also contradicts himself at points. First he claims that “Republican charges that literature departments are extremely leftist and obsessed with activism and social justice are often made carelessly and recklessly.” But then proceeds to completely obliterate the point he just made by admitting “but they are difficult to dismiss because well, they are clearly leftist and obsessed with activism.” Another example, he claims the literary department’s progressive leanings are “often admirable.” But then goes on to talk about why that’s a problem. Lastly, he refers to Climate Change is an injustice which is an odd way to refer to weather patterns.
So according to Arnold, the point of literature is to broaden one’s perspective and identify both universal human emotions and the attitudes that are particular to a time or place? This means we should be reading across time periods and cultures, so for example both Beowulf and “Beloved” by Toni Morrison. Would any English professor or student really be against reading these?
We read so we can better understand ourselves … and our world. Reading Dickens, for instance, reveals powerful beings who create danger in our way through the world; at the same time, reading Dickens introduces us to amiable humorists, humble and loving despite their flaws. Reading literature armors us as we wend our way through the world. It sounds like the Columbia Department has lost its way, has lost its power to love. As so many universities have. It is curious to me that only the studies of Old English have escaped the depredations of English postmodernism, and such. It has been horrifying to discover.
I overwhelmingly agree with this argument, and I can't say how thrilled I am to see other people reference Arnold and Trilling. I discovered Arnold through Trilling back in the day and he's been my North Star ever since. Well done.
I agree with the general argument on the value of a literary education. I do think that there is a problem when there is too much of any political ideology in higher education, as it will inevitably lead to extremes - and the problem as it stands on the lack of vision in the English departments today. If people (professors and students alike) are not exposed to all the arguments on all sides, then how would they have all the necessary information to make any sort of informed decision? And if they can't do that, and they all lean on one side of the aisle, then they are bound to see authors and books in one specific light, oblivious to the complexity in the works themselves.
As John Stuart Mill stated, "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form."
I'm surrounded by people mis-teaching literature as "proof" that the United States is a terrible place, that women shouldn't get married ("The Story of an Hour" was manipulated into this thesis), that men are evil ("Black Venus") -- I could go on and on....and let's not forget that Jo in "Little Women" was trans...OH! and being an immigrant in the US is to be surrounded by people who DON'T LOOK LIKE YOU.
This is LOW IQ teaching. The sooner the identity garbage ends in the teaching of literature, the better.
This article in my view was much too long and could’ve been written much more succinctly and concisely. It was so long I had to skim it to look for the important and key points because there are so many irrelevant details in it. But it is nonetheless, a good article though it has its flaws. Joshua rightly points out that across the political spectrum people are loosing faith in academia especially the Humanities and rightly so. The purpose of a literary education has become one of two things: to get the person learning it ready for their job or to be a good progressive activist. But this is NOT the point of literary education! The point is to put us in touch with our common humanity and to ponder ideas and perspectives on the world we never previously considered. That is literary education is so valuable!
Joshua astutely uses the examples of intellectuals Matthew Arnold, Lionel Tilling and Northrop Frye and their arguments to make his case. He also shows how literary departments and associations are using literature as a way to bash western civilization and all its stands for, to vilify capitalism and promote identity politics and race essentialism. We don’t need any of this! This is NOT what literature is about as Liza has explained like a billion times now! Nor is it an excuse to tell people how their evil for celebrating holidays like Thanksgiving, Columbus Day, Christmas, Halloween, Easter, New Year’s, etc. NONE of this is what geniuses like William Shakespeare, Geoffrey Chaucer, John Milton, Charles Dickens, Henry James, D.H. Lawrence, James Joyce, Charlotte Brontë, Emily Dickinson, Jane Austen, Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Mark Twain, Stephen Crane, Sylvia Plath, William Faulkner, and T.S. Eliot had in mind when they wrote their books or poems!
Nobody reads Crime and Punishment or A Christmas Carol in order to learn about how evil free-market capitalism is or about anti-colonialism. No one in the history of the world has ever read Treasure Island, The Invisible Man or Robinson Crusoe in order to understand the Asian Trans women who is sex worker’s experience. Classic works of literature like Romeo and Juliet, To Kill A Mockingbird, The Great Gatsby, The Old Man and the Sea, The Merchant of Venice, The Cat in the Hat, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Beowulf, Up from Slavery, the Souls of Black Folk, War and Peace, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Frankenstein, Dracula, Danny: Champion of the World, and A Midnight Summer’s Dream have become timeless and have been read by people for decades if not centuries because they have universal moral messages and themes we can all relate to.
That being said, this article does have some problems. The first thing I notice is he includes Sally Rooney as an author to read. This is total nonsense. Sally Rooney’s books are awful and never catch my eye when I am at Barnes and Noble. She is also antisemitic and anti-Israel. He also contradicts himself at points. First he claims that “Republican charges that literature departments are extremely leftist and obsessed with activism and social justice are often made carelessly and recklessly.” But then proceeds to completely obliterate the point he just made by admitting “but they are difficult to dismiss because well, they are clearly leftist and obsessed with activism.” Another example, he claims the literary department’s progressive leanings are “often admirable.” But then goes on to talk about why that’s a problem. Lastly, he refers to Climate Change is an injustice which is an odd way to refer to weather patterns.
So according to Arnold, the point of literature is to broaden one’s perspective and identify both universal human emotions and the attitudes that are particular to a time or place? This means we should be reading across time periods and cultures, so for example both Beowulf and “Beloved” by Toni Morrison. Would any English professor or student really be against reading these?
We read so we can better understand ourselves … and our world. Reading Dickens, for instance, reveals powerful beings who create danger in our way through the world; at the same time, reading Dickens introduces us to amiable humorists, humble and loving despite their flaws. Reading literature armors us as we wend our way through the world. It sounds like the Columbia Department has lost its way, has lost its power to love. As so many universities have. It is curious to me that only the studies of Old English have escaped the depredations of English postmodernism, and such. It has been horrifying to discover.
Being totally consumed with the idea of power is very Voldemort-esque.
I overwhelmingly agree with this argument, and I can't say how thrilled I am to see other people reference Arnold and Trilling. I discovered Arnold through Trilling back in the day and he's been my North Star ever since. Well done.