Mark Twain, Plato, Charles Dickens, John Stuart Mill, Voltaire, Ralph Waldo Emerson. For years, these names were thought necessary components of higher education. Without understanding these authors and their “great books,” so the story went, our students would lack in critical thinking skills and intelligence. Yet, in the wake of the 1960s and challenges to white male dominance, students and educators begin to demand a more well-rounded and inclusive canon. University curriculums constituted almost entirely by dead, white, male, European writers, were slowly accompanied by a few token “others.”
In the 1980s and ‘90s, the debate over what constituted a proper and effective “canon” reached a fevered pitch. The supposed decline of American knowledge and intelligence was blamed on the multiculturalism’s rise in the Ivory Tower. For example, University of Chicago philosophy professor Allan Bloom’s book The Closing of the American Mind (1987) vigorously argued for a return to the traditional canon. In addressing this tension, sociologist Bethany Bryson wrote:
Two decades of heated battle would ensue between members of what would become known as the Cultural Left and the Cultural Right—academics and public intellectuals who engaged the debate in the national media. Despite the appearance of an epic battle between opposing forces, however, the two “sides” shared an extraordinary premise: that every time an English teacher put together a reading list, the future of a nation hung in the balance.*
Years later, most agree that the “Cultural Left” won the canon wars. It is generally assumed that today’s university curriculums and bookstores are repositories of diverse writers and viewpoints.
So, what does this cornucopia of diversity look like? We don’t have to look far to answer the question. A trip down the aisles of today’s college bookstores serve as off-hand metrics for what is “legitimate knowledge.” Moreover, these bookstores decorate their store walls with uniform and corporate–approved book covers and authors’ likenesses. By way of example, I headed over to the bookstore at Mississippi State University.
Throughout this bookstore, 3’ x 5’ posters of notable books are displayed above the shelves and sitting areas. In total, thirty-three different book covers grace the walls, however, John Steinbeck’s Cup of Gold is displayed twice to bring the total to thirty-four. Nine of these thirty-four (26%) titles were produced by nonwhite, female, and/or gay/lesbian writers: Rosario Castellanos’ The Book of Lamentations, Pablo Neruda’s Fully Empowered, James Baldwin’s Go Tell It On The Mountain, Maria Edgeworth’s The Absentee, Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, Sylvia Plath’s The Bell Jar, Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women, and Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man.
In addition to the posters, on a wrap-around,mural above the café, 23 authors sit in a restaurant, smoking, drinking, eating, and enjoying one another’s conversation and company. As shown below, the authors displayed are: Shelley, Whitman, Melville, Trollope [spelled as “Troilope” here], Kipling, [George] Eliot, James, Wilde, Twain, Shaw, Hardy, Dickenson, Orwell, Nabakov, Joyce, Parker, Faulkner, Steinbeck, [T. S.] Eliot, Singer, Kafka, Neruda, and Hughes.
Out of the twenty-three authors displayed, four (17%) are women, two (9%) are people of color ( literally marginalized to the far right of the mural as it curls behind a support beam), and two (9%) are considered to have been gay. Withstanding the overlap of Hughes in two categories (gay and nonwhite), we are left with only six out of twenty-three (26%) authors that do not conform to the white, male, straight demographic thought characteristic of traditional canon authors.
The twenty-six percent of book covers and paintings are the height of LGBT, female, and nonwhite author representation in this store. While the shelves certainly carry more than nine books and six authors of this ilk, I’d wager that the total percentage does not come close to a quarter of their total inventory. If these numbers and framing together epitomize the great victory of the Canon Wars by the Cultural Left, then it is certainly an unfinished battle.
* Bryson, Bethany. 2005. Making Multiculturalism: Boundaries and Meaning in U.S. English Departments. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, p 2.
Matthew W. Hughey is a recent graduate of the University of Virginia (2009) and is currently an assistant professor of Sociology at Mississippi State University. He is co-editor (with Dr. Gregory Parks) of The Obamas as a (Post) Racial America?, 12 Angry Men: True Stories of Being a Black Man in America Today, and Black Greek-Letter Organizations, 2.0: New Directions in the Study of African American Fraternities and Sororities. He is also author of the forthcoming White Bound: White Nationalists, White Antiracists, and the Shared Meanings of Race. Please feel free to visit his website or contact him at MHughey@soc.msstate.edu.
Comments 38
J — April 8, 2011
This is the same wallpaper border that lined the upper walls of Barnes and Noble in the 90s. The school probably scored it cheap, somehow. It doesn't really say much about the state of higher learning.
Hunter — April 8, 2011
This is the same wallpaper border at the Barnes and Noble in Holyoke, Massachusetts! I remember having similar thoughts about the whiteness and maleness of it all when I had coffee there last week. Glad I'm not the only one who noticed this...
Molly W. — April 8, 2011
Many college bookstores are operated by B&N, I'm guessing this is one of them.
larrycwilson — April 8, 2011
I just wish college freshmen read anything.
Nemo — April 8, 2011
I find this posting quite interesting on many levels, so I thank you for sharing your thoughts. I also, and quite respectfully think the article has several weak spots.
Firstly in a sense of cultural representation. Without knowing the figures for
a) how the US is made up demographically e.g. in regard to the populations you mention*
b) how many books are published from members of these respective groups
I find it very hard to interpret the data on the books you present conclusively.
This may common knowledge in the US, but is not for me.
That is not to say that one has to represent all ethnicities/social groups according to census data, but that knowing the socio-structural makeup of the population and/or that of the published authors is needed to put things into some kind of perspective.**
Also the number of books published by group could serve as an indicator for disadvantage in education and/or disadvantage in access to publishing houses.
What startles me also is, that of the names you explicitly mention (not those on the mural) there is only a single European (in a geographical sense) writer in there. On the other hand the majority of those you regard as the "old canons" are actually European. (An explicit definition of what kind of Canon this is supposed to be would also help I guess. I gather it is supposed to be the "what–one–has–to–read" to be counted as educated and not the things covered in an American Literature class.) Albeit there is only a single writer of non-Anglophone heritage on this list also. (Voltaire)
This brings me to my second point. When you say "dead, white, male, European" this, I think, has to be extended to include "European Anglophone". There is neither a Herta Müller, nor a Orhan Pamuk (two more recent Nobel laureates in Literature) on your list, who would fall under the minority category. There is also no Goethe nor a Tolstoy, both falling under the D-W-M category. All of them have written great and important literary works.
(Kafka gets an honorary mention for actually being included.)
This, I think, could be interpreted as a kind of Ethnocentrism within the "European" group again, showing that actually what is favored are people from the anglo-cultural sphere and not from one of the other cultures that make up what people call "European".
*not every reader of SI is a US-Citizen. Also this would be interesting in regard to your recent Census Data. Looking it up I found about ~72% of all Americans are white. If I got the right data that is.
** For all I know (and for humors sake) there are only 2% of Men/Women/Whatever in the US and therefore they are thoroughly overrepresented in your argument.
abitha — April 8, 2011
I'm not saying that this makes it ok, but if you exclude books from say the last 40 years (and it's kind of difficult to consider anything much more recent than that a 'classic' or part of a 'canon'), I wonder how much literature is actually out there that is written by the minority groups mentioned?
I mean, historically (in the US and Europe at least), women and people of colour would have received significantly less education than white men, were less likely to have the financial stability to devote time to writing without the guarantee of it ever generating any money, and were less likely taken seriously by publishers. I have no data to back this up, but I suspect that these societal barriers would mean that there simply wasn't the same volume of literary output by these groups as there was from white men. Naturally some exceptional individuals overcame the barriers, but relatively few.
With this in mind, I don't think you'd expect a list of 'classics' to comprise a representative proportion of women or people of colour, even if those who were doing the choosing were completely blind to race or gender, because there is a much larger pool of white male authors to choose from than female or nonwhite authors. Hopefully if you looked at modern books and authors, the imbalance in output would be starting to correct. But we won't really be able to see the difference in the 'canon' for another generation or two, because it takes that long for a book to prove itself a classic. I'm not sure it's entirely fair to blame Barnes & Noble (or other compilers of such lists) for the gender or race inequalities of the past - that said, it would be great if we did see a wider variety than we currently do.
Shreen — April 8, 2011
Couldn't someone argue that, since the the largest number of books has been written by white males, the sample might be representative of books in print, if not of the population? Does anyone know if people have tried to figure this out?
Shreen — April 8, 2011
Ah. Someone just did argue that. Heh.
Marianne — April 8, 2011
Wasn't George Eliot the pen name of a lady writer???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Eliot
Samantha C — April 8, 2011
While I think the point about diversity in what people are exposed to stands, I think there's one very reasonable justification that should be at least taken into consideration, and that's precedent. In my college career, I didn't read Plato because Plato was all-knowing and you couldn't be educated without him - I read Plato so that when I went on to read other works that made reference back to Plato, I would understand what was going on. I read Augustine so I could understand the way characters behaved in later works of literature. I read Homer so I could understand Virgil, and Virgil so I could understand Dante and Shakespeare and Milton and the entirety of Western Renaissance fiction.
It is not by far the only trajectory that literature has ever taken. But I don't think that it's fair to dismiss a curriculum that includes a majority of classic texts as just being non-progressive and Culturally Right. There are some works that are precedents to a great many other works. The same way that you have to know addition and multiplication to do algebra or calculus or physics, you need a background in "classics" to study many other works, even those written to this day - many of which are likely to be more Culturally Left and more diverse, and many others that can be deconstructed.
Basiorana — April 8, 2011
To be considered among "great books" of literature to Americans, a book must be:
1. Written in English, or have a lot of excellent translations that work very well. Tolstoy, while a great writer, loses something in translation and the linguistic style is not great for American readers. Thus, Anglophone-- Voltaire is an exception because his humor crosses the language barrier and he is SO referenced in Anglophone lit.
2. Have staying power and be loved and respected by many generations, not just contemporaries. This rules out most recent writers, which by default will rule out the majority of popular openly LGBT writers and a big chunk of popular non-white writers (as until the last 50 years or so, there were few non-white writers published in Anglophone countries due to their lack of education and oppression in Anglophone (ie, majority white or under colonial rule) countries. It would also significantly reduce the number of female writers available.
3. Be referenced by later writers and in popular culture, and thus make a significant impact on the world's cultural experience so that one should read them not because they are great so much as because they are necessary. This is the big thing. Modern authors haven't had time to do this (except Rowling, who should be included at this point in the canon, but is still white and Anglophone). And because we are only now rediscovering the great female and non-white writers of pre-1960s, as their works were minimized and shoved aside for generations, they haven't had the chance to properly influence our culture.
I hope those numbers will change in 50 years or so.
Elena — April 8, 2011
Nine of these thirty-four (26%) titles were produced by nonwhite, female, and/or gay/lesbian writers: [...] Pablo Neruda’s Fully Empowered
Just because he was Chilean it doesn't mean Neruda wasn't as Caucasian as any other person descended mostly from Spaniards. Erm.
m — April 8, 2011
To be honest, this kind of thing has severely cut down my patience for the arts overall. We do live in a globalized world, and even before that reached the extent it has today, people of different cultures came together and it was rather obvious that none of these so called classical authors are so universally. Neruda and Trollop, for example, says absolutely nothing to me, and of course some would see that as a sign of being tragically uneducated. But I very much doubt that the same person who view me as intellectually inferior for lack of knowlege in North American litterature would have any idea what names like Boye, Södergran, Moberg, Strindberg or Lagerlöf means to me or why they are honored with libraries, halls and bills by my countrymen.
All the evidence points to literary canon being completely arbitrary. But still so many people put up such resistance to expanding it and increasing the number of viewpoints, in spite of the eternal chorus of "more is better" when it comes to experience with the high arts. That the drive to stand above others trumps the values that these fields ar supposedly built on time and time again makes them rather hard to take seriously.
Elena — April 8, 2011
As shown below, the authors displayed are: Shelley, Whitman, Melville, Trollope [spelled as “Troilope” here], Kipling, [George] Eliot, James, Wilde, Twain, Shaw, Hardy, Dickenson, Orwell, Nabakov, Joyce, Parker, Faulkner, Steinbeck, [T. S.] Eliot, Singer, Kafka, Neruda, and Hughes.
What I see is that everyone is primarily English-speaking or (in the case of Nabokov, who wrote Lolita in English and afterwards translated the novel to Russian) extremely competent in English with Kafka and Neruda as the only exceptions. It isn't even a wide collection of European writers.
--
Side note: I wonder how many people know that Alexandre Dumas père (of The Three Musketeers, The Count of Monte Cristo and more) had a Black grandmother and looked like this.
Mike — April 8, 2011
Without detracting from the points made in the post, I wonder what the contents of a college / university bookstore can be said to represent or reflect in the contemporary context. Do the contents of such a store reflect what is being taught at the university? In my experience, this has not really been the case. I order my textbooks through independent book shops for a variety of reasons. When I wander through these shops at the start of a semester, I see a greater diversity of texts than I see at the university bookstore.
I would be interested to read a study that compared bookstore contents *and* assigned readings (based on a selection of syllabi for core courses) over time.
My suspicion is that the diversification of university bookstore contents lags behind the diversification of reading lists. It may be the case that there is little correlation between what a faculty considers to be canon and what is sold at the university (read: corporate) bookstore.
Katelyn — April 9, 2011
Actually three of the authors pictures are considered to have been gay: Hughes, Wilde, and Whitman.
Carlo — April 9, 2011
While the bookstore is a "college" bookstore, and we can argue about the cannon of literature in wider society, there is really no connection between this mural and the college curriculum. As was noted in the first few posts, this mural is standard in every Barnes and Nobel bookstore. It is not updated and is not meant to reflect the current understanding of who is important in literature. My guess is that those authors were chosen because most customers in a B&N would recognize the names of most of those people. This might be a reflection on the historical canonization of a handful of people, but I hardly think it is the kind of data that should underline the discussion about the college cannon.
Finnegan — April 9, 2011
Missing the point entirely here, I know, but I'm just astonished that Rand makes it into the American literary canon. In Europe, to the extent that anyone knows her at all, both she and her work are considered irrelevant at best...
Estella — April 10, 2011
While I would certainly like to see a greater diversity of authors represented - as many have already pointed out, this isn't even a representative sample of white and/or male Western writers, but largely of anglophones - I find it interesting that the content of these authors' writings is never addressed. I don't have a problem with Kipling, for example, because he's white, but because he's racist. Now, there is a good argument to be made for his being a product of his time, which would allow us to understand but not condone this fact, but it does make one question whether we should be glorifying him. On the other hand, there are several authors in the "canon" as represented by this mural who are politically far more subversive than the label "cultural conservatism" credits them with. Contrary to popular belief, even white men are not always upholders of conservatism, cultural or otherwise.
I'd also like to see more acknowledgment for older works, of all different cultures. This is a problem both sides of the debate suffer from. In the mural there are no pre-19th century authors. In the list you provide, only two authors are pre-19th century. And those on the other side of the debate are often no better, only choosing "diverse" authors if they are also American or at least British, and again, frequently only from the 19th century on - or even just from the 20th century, the argument being that people apparently are incapable of relating to older literature, which is nonsense. And it exists, too, all over the world: pick any century from antiquity onward and you will find good literature somewhere in the world.
I was assigned several books in high school about the experience of Chinese immigrants to the US in the 20th century. I'm not sorry I was assigned those books, but I am sorry that I was never assigned any Chinese literature. If I were as inclined as some people to calling things racist, I would say that the curriculum seemed designed to make me think that the Chinese had no literature worth reading until they came into contact with white people. So please, diversify the canon, but do so in every sense of the word.
Andrew — April 11, 2011
One detail that is more particular to each culture and generation than we tend to realize is which criteria get singled out in examinations of "diversity."
This really struck me when looking at Hughey's decision to count the number of writers here whom he believed to be "gay." Now, there's an enormous value in highlighting literature that actually deals with the complexities of human sexuality and in examining how writers have navigated their respective periods' censorship around the topic. The problem with the "gay" designation, though, is that while homosexuality has always existed, "gay" as a feature of public identity and as a recognized social group is a primarily modern and culturally specific concept.
Would we have reason to value Shakespeare or Melville differently if we learned that they had male lovers? And conversely, do readers who are unaware of Oscar Wilde's personal life gain any real insight into the LGBT experience purely from his fictional work?
Since I lean toward 'no' on both counts, I'm for rethinking the diversity criteria we use when looking at the supposed Canon. Race, gender, and sexuality are certainly contemporary obsessions, but they're not the only sociological factors that shape an author's worldview, and often they're not even among as relevant to the content as class, religion, ideology, region, ancestry, age, and so forth. Additionally, since I'm halfway there anyway, what's actually between the covers would seem to be a more compelling focal point for what we celebrate in literature than the demographics of the authors.
Garrek — April 15, 2011
I think Universities should be less concerned about trying to force diversity into the classroom and less concerned about teaching canon and decide what their goal is in teaching. What skills do they want students to come out with? What will students do with what they have learned outside of school? The texts should reflect the purpose of their teaching. I think there just as many contemporary works that can be useful to students as their are canon works.
If a teacher is conducting a college-level American English class she (and the administration) needs to ask herself, "What am I going to emphasize?" "What of the American greats am I going to showcase and why am I spending time on them?" "What knowledge do I want my students to come out with?" What time period is the class covering? What were some of the major issues at that time?
I don't think "How can I make my curriculum multicultural?" adds much to the discussion unless cultural identity, or related topic, is a theme of the class.
I do agree that there are a lot of writers in the past who's works were shoved aside because the author was not male and white. These works probably are underrepresented and deserve more attention in those settings where the content is relevant.
Alastair — April 24, 2011
Given the percentage of gay people within the general population, wouldn't 9% (or 13%) be an over-representation of them?