This article summarizes the opposing perspectives that George Will and Stephen Greenblatt have on the emphasis of politics and ideology in the study of literature, particularly Shakespearean literature. Debate was sparked in 1991 after Lynne Cheney, a chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), nominated Carol Iannone to join the board as well. The Executive Council of Modern Language Association (MLA) opposed the nomination, saying that she didn't have "scholarly credentials," but its criticized that the real reason had to do with her conservative political background. So? Who cares, right? Well the NEH has the wallet to fund academic humanities research, and if they're choosing members based on politics, someone is bound to get the short end of the stick. To add to the issue even more, the NEH/MLA dispute isn't the first; similarly, The National Endowment for the Arts has had conflicts on whether to fund "controversial or offensive" art.
Will, a Pulitzer-prize winning political commentator, and Greenblatt, a Cogan University Professor of the Humanities at Harvard University, both claim to "speak for no one but themselves;" however, they each make a convincing argument on the debate that just about any other individual could take a "side" on.
Will understands the Average Joes out there in the world. Basically, he thinks that analyzing literature, Shakespeare or not, through a post colonialist or feminist "lens," for example, is unnecessary, being that most people don't. He says that doing so is "rendering the plays unrecognizable to the ordinary reader and playgoer." Will clearly shows what side of the fence he falls on in the NEH issue, saying that "all literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political." He uses The Tempest as a prime example of the "imperialist rape of the Third World," in which a "literary canon" is used as an "instrument of domination...which is, by definition, irreducibly political." He parallels the analysis of literature through those lenses with "political decoding," which "[strips] literature of its authority." Will argues that this "decoding" creates a snow-ball effect, resulting in "amnesia and deculturation," which, he says, achieves the "political goal."
Greenblatt counters Will's argument, saying that "these preoccupations with political power" are something that Shakespeare and audience that his works were written for know well. He elaborates, saying that examining literary works through lenses like post colonialism or feminism will deepen "the ordinary reader's pleasure rather than undermine it." He doesn't deny Will's claim of The Tempest being about imperialism, since it is "very difficult to argue that [it isn't] about imperialism." Greenblatt says that "a love of literature...is a community founded on freedom...and scholarly honesty," but the best way "to kill literary inheritance" is the "celebration of new world order." He's saying that things like politics, religion, and history will influence a written work regardless and should therefore be analyzed to determine what the author was trying to portray. "Literary inheritance," according to Greenblatt, can be kept alive through the analysis of literary works through those different lenses, a "risk" that is necessary to take.
I'm sitting on the fence right now. I think that both Will and Greenblatt make valid points on how literature is emphasized when studied. Yeah, maybe most people don't analyze every piece of literature through a lens, but it doesn't mean that others who WANT to find a deeper meaning to those said pieces shouldn't be able to analyze through whatever lens they please. While one could "politically decode" that piece of literature, one could just as easily avoid "deculturation" by focusing on another aspect of that work. Greenblatt summarizes this concept well, mentioning that while The Tempest does focus on imperialism, "forgiveness, wisdom, and social atonement" are also recognizable attributes of the play. I do agree that literature can reflect political ideology, but I also think that that one can read a book or watch one of Shakespeare's plays without having to touch on that issue. I don't think that there is a specific right or wrong way to analyze literature and each person's perspective is going to be different as is. With that being said, I agree with points that both Will and Greenblatt make.
Night!
Monday, September 27, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
I love No Fear Shakespeare...
It's true. NFS has my heart now. Okay. I'm done putting the pro in procrastination now, so here's my response.
After reading Acts II and III of Shakespeare's The Tempest and Bressler's Literacy Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice, I've noticed parallels between Caliban and postcolonialism, or post-colonialism - whatever suits your fancy. I don't really care, but I'm going to go with postcolonialism, because it's just easier to type one word.
In Bressler's "Historical Development of Postcolonialism," it is clear that "the colonialist ideology that all races other than white were inferior or subhuman,... [and these] subhumans or 'savages' quickly became the inferior and equally "evil" Others." Similarly, Caliban, referred to as a "slave," is seen as inferior to all that inhabit the island. The most apparent way being the way that Prospero threateningly told Caliban that he would "rack thee with old cramps, fill all thy bones with aches, make thee roar that beasts shall tremble at thy din" if his will was not done (Act 1, Scene 2, Lines 374 - 376); despite Caliban's willingness to "kiss [Stephano's] foot [as his] subject," both Stephano and Trinculo are similar to Prospero in their desire to colonize the island, in order to acquire power (Act 2, Scene 2, Lines 65-66). All three men are able to dominate and manipulate Caliban in order to do their bidding, which then enables them to colonize the island.
Caliban is on his own with regard to having a say in his own fate on the island, since he is so easily manipulated by Prospero, Stephano and Trinculo. You'd think that over the past 12 years, Caliban would have learned to not put his trust in the hand's of someone who is already planning to "inherit" the island, but clearly, he hasn't made the connection (Act 2, Scene 2, Line 167). In his analysis of colonization and the resulting hegemony, Bressler proposed the question, "What happens... when one's ideas, thinking, or personal background does not conform?" Answering himself, he explained how "the traditional answer has already been articulated by the dominant class and its accompanying hegemony: silence...Conform and be quiet; deny yourself, and all will be well." Though Caliban has tried to break his "silence," he doesn't hold a candle on the island. Control is easily maintained, enabling one central idea to be acknowledged and implemented. Bressler summarizes that idea well, being that "the colonized became the Other,...and for that reason deserve to be ruled."
So yes, there is a clear representation of Caliban and the native peoples in The Tempest. That being said, I think Shakespeare has portrayed the superiority of the white man and therefore the necessity of colonization. Caliban is illustrated in such a way that paints an image of the need for colonization. He is ignorant and gullible, as is seen in his willingness to trust Stephano and Trinculo, believing that they have his best interest in mind, when just a short time before, he believed them to be spirits of Prospero's. Since Caliban is native to the island, he is a representation of all native peoples to that island, who are then portrayed as being in need of a higher authority to rule over them as well.
Postcolonialists believe that "their past and their present are intricately interwoven." Examining the connection between postcolonialism and Caliban, there are apparent similarities between Caliban and the native peoples of today. Both Caliban's portrayal and the early Hollywood images of Native Americans have a condescending tone to them. They are both negatively portrayed, and therefore negatively represented. In order to shy away from this "simplistic interpretation of human experience," Bressler advises people to "read a text in its fullest context,...questioning what part not only the text but also the reader and the author play in the interpretive process."
After reading Acts II and III of Shakespeare's The Tempest and Bressler's Literacy Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice, I've noticed parallels between Caliban and postcolonialism, or post-colonialism - whatever suits your fancy. I don't really care, but I'm going to go with postcolonialism, because it's just easier to type one word.
In Bressler's "Historical Development of Postcolonialism," it is clear that "the colonialist ideology that all races other than white were inferior or subhuman,... [and these] subhumans or 'savages' quickly became the inferior and equally "evil" Others." Similarly, Caliban, referred to as a "slave," is seen as inferior to all that inhabit the island. The most apparent way being the way that Prospero threateningly told Caliban that he would "rack thee with old cramps, fill all thy bones with aches, make thee roar that beasts shall tremble at thy din" if his will was not done (Act 1, Scene 2, Lines 374 - 376); despite Caliban's willingness to "kiss [Stephano's] foot [as his] subject," both Stephano and Trinculo are similar to Prospero in their desire to colonize the island, in order to acquire power (Act 2, Scene 2, Lines 65-66). All three men are able to dominate and manipulate Caliban in order to do their bidding, which then enables them to colonize the island.
Caliban is on his own with regard to having a say in his own fate on the island, since he is so easily manipulated by Prospero, Stephano and Trinculo. You'd think that over the past 12 years, Caliban would have learned to not put his trust in the hand's of someone who is already planning to "inherit" the island, but clearly, he hasn't made the connection (Act 2, Scene 2, Line 167). In his analysis of colonization and the resulting hegemony, Bressler proposed the question, "What happens... when one's ideas, thinking, or personal background does not conform?" Answering himself, he explained how "the traditional answer has already been articulated by the dominant class and its accompanying hegemony: silence...Conform and be quiet; deny yourself, and all will be well." Though Caliban has tried to break his "silence," he doesn't hold a candle on the island. Control is easily maintained, enabling one central idea to be acknowledged and implemented. Bressler summarizes that idea well, being that "the colonized became the Other,...and for that reason deserve to be ruled."
So yes, there is a clear representation of Caliban and the native peoples in The Tempest. That being said, I think Shakespeare has portrayed the superiority of the white man and therefore the necessity of colonization. Caliban is illustrated in such a way that paints an image of the need for colonization. He is ignorant and gullible, as is seen in his willingness to trust Stephano and Trinculo, believing that they have his best interest in mind, when just a short time before, he believed them to be spirits of Prospero's. Since Caliban is native to the island, he is a representation of all native peoples to that island, who are then portrayed as being in need of a higher authority to rule over them as well.
Postcolonialists believe that "their past and their present are intricately interwoven." Examining the connection between postcolonialism and Caliban, there are apparent similarities between Caliban and the native peoples of today. Both Caliban's portrayal and the early Hollywood images of Native Americans have a condescending tone to them. They are both negatively portrayed, and therefore negatively represented. In order to shy away from this "simplistic interpretation of human experience," Bressler advises people to "read a text in its fullest context,...questioning what part not only the text but also the reader and the author play in the interpretive process."
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Hey Prospero...a pox o' your throat, you bawling, blasphemous, incharitable dog!
In Act 1 of William Shakespeare's The Tempest, it is apparent that, through the manipulation of historical narratives, Prospero's subjects are able to be controlled; similarly, as we all know, the totalitarian Party in George Orwell's 1984 is able to control the citizens of Oceania through the distortion of reality.
Prospero, like the Party, alternates the past in his favor, enabling control to be maintained. For example, during Prospero's speech to Miranda about how she had come to arrive at their current residence, he portrayed his brother, Antonio, to have been "perfidious,...[granting] suits, [denying] them, who t' advance and who to trash for overtopping (Act 1, Scene 2, Lines 68, 79-81)." This negative description of Miranda's uncle puts Prospero in a good light, however false it may be. Since there is no other side to the story of how Miranda has arrived at her current location, this is the only side in which she can base her opinion upon, one in which is in favor of Prospero. The fact that Prospero was, as he described, "all dedicated to closeness and the bettering of [his] mind with that which, but by being so retired (Act 1, Scene 2, Lines 89-91)," further improves his "image" in the eyes of Miranda. He places himself above others that surrounded him in this description as well, making him seem more intelligent.
Intelligence is definitely something that Prospero has, being that he seems to fully understand why it is necessary for him to alter the past to his favor. By telling Miranda (one of three in this Act that are manipulated) a history that emphasizes the contrast between the good deeds that he made with the horribleness of others, Prospero looks like a saint. Those altered histories give Prospero's subjects an understanding of the past in which Prospero himself looks heroic. Because of this, he has their trust. Thus, he is able to completely exercise his authority through magic and the manipulation of history.
Put simply, as Orwell said, "He who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." Prospero's, like the Party's, continual changes upon history enable him to maintain power in the past, present, and future.
Prospero, like the Party, alternates the past in his favor, enabling control to be maintained. For example, during Prospero's speech to Miranda about how she had come to arrive at their current residence, he portrayed his brother, Antonio, to have been "perfidious,...[granting] suits, [denying] them, who t' advance and who to trash for overtopping (Act 1, Scene 2, Lines 68, 79-81)." This negative description of Miranda's uncle puts Prospero in a good light, however false it may be. Since there is no other side to the story of how Miranda has arrived at her current location, this is the only side in which she can base her opinion upon, one in which is in favor of Prospero. The fact that Prospero was, as he described, "all dedicated to closeness and the bettering of [his] mind with that which, but by being so retired (Act 1, Scene 2, Lines 89-91)," further improves his "image" in the eyes of Miranda. He places himself above others that surrounded him in this description as well, making him seem more intelligent.
Intelligence is definitely something that Prospero has, being that he seems to fully understand why it is necessary for him to alter the past to his favor. By telling Miranda (one of three in this Act that are manipulated) a history that emphasizes the contrast between the good deeds that he made with the horribleness of others, Prospero looks like a saint. Those altered histories give Prospero's subjects an understanding of the past in which Prospero himself looks heroic. Because of this, he has their trust. Thus, he is able to completely exercise his authority through magic and the manipulation of history.
Put simply, as Orwell said, "He who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." Prospero's, like the Party's, continual changes upon history enable him to maintain power in the past, present, and future.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Socratic Circle
Thursday was one of the most interesting ways I've ever spent a block period in English. When Mr. Dominguez first told our class about the concept of the socratic circle, I wasn't sure of how it would end up going for a few different reasons. Despite my skepticism, I ended up enjoying it a lot. I participated in the second inner circle group, which discussed Kirsten Gardner's article, "An Incomplete Version of the Past that Silences Important Struggles." While both conversations, or "circles," were both centered around the Texas curriculum issue, my group focused more on the way that the curriculum was taught, rather than what it included. Overall, our group was basically on the same page with how we felt about the importance of critical thinking, while still addressing the importance of learning the "basic conceptual building blocks of history."
To start off with what should be included in the textbook, there is an obvious need for an unbiased, factual book. With that, the issue of who should be able to decide what the book consists of should be a committee of balance. The committee should have an equal number of people with regard to political party members, races, to ensure a diverse, unbiased input from all areas. Of course these people need to know what they are talking about, which wasn't the case in "Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change," in which a dentist's thoughts are mentioned. "What is he doing? He's just a DENTIST!" is the best description for that, as was said by a classmate in that discussion. :) While this committee is ideal, whether it will be able to become a reality is debateable. If possible, this committee will have a hand in preventing a "limited version of the past that silences important struggles," in order to represent a "complete version of the American history." With a solid foundation on which to teach, teachers can enable students to know what happened in yesterday's history and how to prevent mistakes from happening tomorrow's future.
While what is included in the textbook has significance, I think that the way students are able to absorb that information is much, much more important. Speaking for myself, I am so much more interested in HOW these historical figures accomplished such amazing things, rather than just that they were achieved. Rather than just memorizing facts and dates, taking a test, and getting the grade that is necessary to pass a class, students who are taught by teachers who have a passion for what is being taught are able to leave the classroom with more than just that. Not only will those said students get so much more out of each daily lesson, their critical thinking will enable them to relate each historical figure, event, or date to their own lives. That relation will enable them to retain the information much better, because they will CARE about what they are learning. They will be motivated to learn, and in turn be more passionate and knowledgeable about the past and the future. The importance of critical thinking was encompassed by Dr. Gonzalez, in that it "allows us to imagine worlds beyond the one we know."
To start off with what should be included in the textbook, there is an obvious need for an unbiased, factual book. With that, the issue of who should be able to decide what the book consists of should be a committee of balance. The committee should have an equal number of people with regard to political party members, races, to ensure a diverse, unbiased input from all areas. Of course these people need to know what they are talking about, which wasn't the case in "Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change," in which a dentist's thoughts are mentioned. "What is he doing? He's just a DENTIST!" is the best description for that, as was said by a classmate in that discussion. :) While this committee is ideal, whether it will be able to become a reality is debateable. If possible, this committee will have a hand in preventing a "limited version of the past that silences important struggles," in order to represent a "complete version of the American history." With a solid foundation on which to teach, teachers can enable students to know what happened in yesterday's history and how to prevent mistakes from happening tomorrow's future.
While what is included in the textbook has significance, I think that the way students are able to absorb that information is much, much more important. Speaking for myself, I am so much more interested in HOW these historical figures accomplished such amazing things, rather than just that they were achieved. Rather than just memorizing facts and dates, taking a test, and getting the grade that is necessary to pass a class, students who are taught by teachers who have a passion for what is being taught are able to leave the classroom with more than just that. Not only will those said students get so much more out of each daily lesson, their critical thinking will enable them to relate each historical figure, event, or date to their own lives. That relation will enable them to retain the information much better, because they will CARE about what they are learning. They will be motivated to learn, and in turn be more passionate and knowledgeable about the past and the future. The importance of critical thinking was encompassed by Dr. Gonzalez, in that it "allows us to imagine worlds beyond the one we know."
:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)