What makes great literature? Are the most "important" books those taught perennially in high schools and universities nationwide — those canonical texts constantly revisited and analyzed by scholars? Perhaps this question should be rephrased: Who makes literature great?
It should not be news that our education is largely informed by the primacy of the "Western canon" — those texts selected and subjectively defined as the greatest written works in Western culture. However, it is essential that we do not accept these lists as definitive. We must constantly question the authority of the compilers, and ask who, historically, has had the power to include and omit certain voices and to create core curriculums that have influenced the multitudes who have entered institutions of higher education.
We must understand that these decision makers are products of the sociopolitical climates of their time. Further, the ideologies reflected in this compendium of high art extol certain works at the exclusion of others, thus erasing some voices from the public and academic consciousness.
Argument about canonical lists and curricula has not only generated heated political debate among critics, but has also prompted scholars to engage in literary recovery work which attempts to locate voices and histories from the past that have been forgotten or simply lost. The process involves searching for alternative narratives even when there is no historical record of their existence. It is a rigorous process in which scholars must sift through archives around the world for often−forgotten, out−of−print books, memoirs and letters that might exist in fragile condition. The scholar must work with clues and passing mentions of such forgotten texts in order to seek them out and introduce their potentially valuable perspectives on culture, politics and art to the world.
There is tremendous educational value in disrupting the canonized literary tradition: Uncovered voices offer an essential counterpoint that challenges the hegemony of literary history.
In his article "The Storm Over the University," John Searle, defender of the Western canon and professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, asserts the canon once "served to demythologize the conventional pieties of the American bourgeoisie" and "the texts once served an unmasking function; now we are told it is the texts which must be unmasked." Though he makes a fair claim that the canon was once a positive, critical reinterpretation of the prior presentation of literary and cultural history, he fails to acknowledge that any scholastic syllabus must undergo constant revision and critique. To remain static and permanent is to present the canon as an absolute history and ignore the inherent changes in human opinion. The introduction of the canon was just that — a fresh step in a different direction for cultural critique.
Additionally, is it not the purpose of literary critique to "unmask" texts? Should scholars and students not penetrate the superficial representations of such writings and be constantly analytical about their influence on and presentation of culture? In this light, literary recovery works to create a dialogue between voices that represent different societal locations. In particular, books with political indictments should not stand alone and speak to students as the singular voices; rather, they are the conversations, or sometimes the arguments, between opposing texts that come closer to holistic accounts worth analyzing.
For instance, Harriet Wilson's 1859 novel "Our Nig," the first novel written by an African−American woman, was only rediscovered and published by Penguin Classics in the 1980s after being forgotten for nearly 120 years. This novel skillfully comments on slavery's grip, even in the abolitionist settings of the North, while upsetting the favorable notion of domestic feminism with its descriptions of white mothers torturing supposedly "freed" black children. Harriet Wilson's voice offers an essential revision of U.S. history, problematizing the benevolence of Northern abolitionists that has gone unquestioned in classrooms. Books such as "Our Nig" need to be taught alongside the established texts in order to break down the homogeneous and normative literary canon.
Literary recovery and the disruption of the canon are not about tarnishing the merits of books that are conventionally studied; rather, they are about diminishing the absolute precedence of the works that make up the canon.
The issue surrounding "important" literature also relates to the demographics of university professors. Greater faculty diversity brings about change in what texts are considered important. In many of my own English courses at Tufts, I am constantly confronting non−canonical literature and works that sometimes have only been rediscovered or made available in the past couple of decades. Yet reading lists instituted by many universities as well as canonical lists such as the Harvard Classics tend not to acknowledge the diversity of both academia and Western culture at large.
Scholars, who commit themselves to locating these voices and introducing literature with multicultural perspectives and traditions, recognize the need to challenge the singular voices too often expected to provide us with a holistic account.
--
Clinton Oxford is a junior majoring in English and American studies.
