Group contributions {shown thus}: Dan, Lola, Jordan, Michael, John
Dislike of literature and history in particular, no application to life (41)
{Parents saw education as of value even though it may be
ostracized}
Would have been ostracized if seen as a bookworm (41)
College education in literature, but he cannot understand what to say about
texts (42)
{Does not reflect on what he didn't like reading}
Only productive aspect appeared to be critical debate (42)
[so doesn't allow for direct experience of literary text,
unless through debate (see end)]
Huckleberry Finn controversy engages him, gives him issues for watch for in
reading book (43)
[as if reading not possible unless in relation to an issue]
Chooses his vocation, but not according to the usual myth of love of literature
(44)
{Why did he choose to study English? He didn't like it}
His choice subject to critique of current scholarship, its "sickly fascination"
with critical debate (44)
Connects with loss of innocence, lose touch with childhood, etc. (44)
{Reading a story after reading the critiques, will/may
adjust the reader beforehand}
Primary experience supposed to be of innocent absorption, vs. his need for issues
(45)
Reading well depends on being able to talk well; we forget origin of our ability
(45)
[note he generalizes here, supposing all readers first
learned extrinsically]
Only seems as if a great work teaches itself - as if no need for classes (45)
[but is this because we don't know how to let a book speak
for itself?]
Primary reading claim of Allan Bloom, let text dictate questions; intrinsic
approach vs. Freudian, etc. (46)
But Bloom actively takes from the great works he discusses (46)
[but Bloom not showing us his primary reading; nor do most
commentators]
Rorty on bringing questions to our reading (46)
[but is it possible for reading to change our views of
anything?]
That to teach a text is to teach an interpretation of it (47)
{Interpretation?}
[but other approaches also possible, e.g., appreciation
of language, imagery]
How are students supposed to acquire critical vocabulary? (47)
Screening students from critical debate, prevents or limits their contributions
(47)
{Debate must involve students}
Debate is a social activity, entering a conversation (47)
Effective discussion means knowing what others are saying; leads to intimacy
of literary experience (48)
[but hasn't said how this leads to intimacy]
Conclusions: for Institution
What debate does an author think he/she is engaging? Do we care?
That debate and conflict constitute the literary institution
But what is debate? Is it undecidable? Are Freud and Marx, et al. incommensurable?
What is the aim of debate; does it rule out definitive conclusions?
Graff makes the history of literature into the history of criticism
How far compatible with dialogical approach of Bahktin?
Controversy is not the only social feature of literature
Group contributions {shown thus}: Darren, Eric, Matthew, Michelle
[to notice Eagleton's often ironic, even mocking tone,
e.g., 'cosmic' 51]
Literature is an ideology (49)
[what is an ideology: men's imaginary relations to the
real conditions of existence - Althusser]
By 'ideology' I mean, roughly, the ways in which what we say and believe connects with the power-structure and power-relations of the society we live in. . . . I do not mean by 'ideology' simply the deeply entrenched, often unconscious beliefs which people hold; I mean more particularly those modes of feeling, valuing, perceiving and believing which have some kind of relation to the maintenance and reproduction of social power. (Literary Theory (1983), 14-15)
Literature arises to replace religion in the 19th C; pacifying influence of
religion (49)
[glosses over deep divisions in religion since Reformation;
religion rather a cause of strife in Britain; Miall disestablishment movement]
{Does literature have the same social cement as religion?
Can literature even extend further than national pride?
Arnold on the need to civilize the middle class (50)
Arnold's comments on eagerness of working class for cultivation, danger of neglecting
them (50)
[cf. Rose's historical research (link on website)]
Literature offers universal values, cosmic perspective (51)
{"Timeless truths": ironical?}
[not really: also civil wars, oppression of women, and
dispossession of peasantry - cf. Lorna Doone, Tess of the D'Urbervilles,
Clare's poetry, respectively]
civilizing influence of literature, avoid disruptive political action (51)
{How effective can literature be as 'social control'?}
[this view largely a myth; working class readers more likely
to be activist - Rose again]
Literature deals in emotion and experience, i.e., thoughtless (51)
[emotion a major incentive to thought; hasn't studied ordinary
readers]
Experience is the homeland of ideology (52)
[like a fish can't see the water; supposedly; but not all
experience conformist]
English studies developed first for working class (52) and for women (53)
[note earlier dissenting tradition, back to Priestley et
al.]
Literature becomes moral ideology (52)
[had been well before Leavis, e.g., Milton, Dickens]
Sense of a national mission, English identity; transmitted to colonies (53)
Difficulty of English studies winning a place at the old universities (53)
{English not 'unpleasant enough' to qualify as a proper
academic pursuit. Does this snide comment hold validity?}
Replaces (Germanic) philology (54)
New lower-middle class fostering English at university after World War I (55)
English established as the central subject by the early 1930s (55)
The Leavis heritage that still imbues English studies (55)
Literature important, against commercialism and philistinism of culture (55)
Value of organicist society, living sensibility (56)
[cf. myth of Golden Age, Peacock's Four Ages of Poetry;
Gothicism; D. H. Lawrence, e.g., The Rainbow on farm vs. industrialism]
Leavisite discrimination of works that "made for life" (56)
Scrutiny project as purely educational, no actual social change envisaged
(57)
{Does the Scrutiny moment have as much pull as Eagleton
suggests?}
{Interesting suggestion to alert schoolchildren to the
'manipulations of advertisements"}
Elitism of Scrutiny disregarding ordinary people (58)
That reading literature doesn't necessarily make you morally better: Germans?
(58)
Illusion of organic society; this always in the past (59)
Privileging of literary language that was rich and concrete (59)
Conclusions: for Institution Literature primarily seen as an agent for social control Liberal humanist educational values incompatible with liberal capitalist society
(90) Conclusions: for Institution Document prepared January 20th 2005
How to read is under the control of the literary elite
That the most absorbed reader is the most subject to ideology
The literature of the nation is at the heart of national identity
Literary ethical values don't necessarily transfer to readers
Ohmann (1990)
Hegemony of ruling class enlists all in its aims including literature teachers
(91)
English studies has contributed to discipline, illusion of opportunity (91)
Critical theory should not ignore the institutions where literature is taught;
how literary experience has been colonized (92)
Enrolments in English have declined 50% (92)
Meaning of our work not the same as in a society that is only interested in
grades (93)
Privileged institutions still teach literature to students protected by class
(94)
Marxist critical theory isolated from real social movements (95)
That literary education is complicit with capitalist institution
Literary experience has itself been institutionalized by education
That high literature is reserved for higher class readers
That critical theory has become attenuated, isolated from real social movements