I only agree with two statements in Gopnik’s piece: 1) the - TopicsExpress



          

I only agree with two statements in Gopnik’s piece: 1) the democratization of reading [and writing] practices 2) the work of time travel. I fundamentally disagree with the banal content in these kinds of essays due to the nonsensical forwarding of a series of vague, weak, populous notions about the lack of persuasive argument for the discipline of English without the mobilization of any evidence for the question except to say the “subject is in every mouth” (Gopnik). Of course, it is.... people think, speak, read, and write. But these ubiquitous acts alone do not define what the study of English is for or about—and should not.... Let’s re-situate the same weak logic across disciplines, and we could come up with a plethora of fodder to argue against the study of maths —or let’s pick another random discipline. The “dismantling” of the discipline of English has more to do with a lack of stewardship by those who work in institutions wherein the discipline of English is researched and taught—it is their job and in their best interest to situate the discipline beyond the popular notion of “studying the world for a better understanding or to become a better person”...Both rather weak, moral, and erroneous when actually applied to a rigorous program in the training of the discipline of English. The generalized, persistent attack of the discipline of English has occurred because when its programs are taught well and with rigorous research methodologies (and this goes beyond archival work, Gopnik), English has the power to change national, linguistic, political, economic, and other forms of discourse. There is a reason why artists, writers, and intellectuals are often the first in the firing line when sociocultural and economic systems are under scrutiny and pressure for reform or “nations” are at war: it is because they often understand at a fundamental level how these systems are navigated and DEPLOYED through LANGUAGE, which begets DISCOURSE. When the “aristocratic, bourgeois classes and their means of monopolization of power over those they oppress are at risk, the humanities become the target. While the study of the discipline of English literature may not produce better people, a distinction must be made between the study of the human condition, its systems and models, and the banal view of “just reading books” as the work of students, professors, and departments of English. I completely disagree with this unimaginative nonsense about English literature as a service department and/or just about reading books. The discipline of English like that of Science is about being trained to hypothesize, recognize, unravel, critique, and forward substantial evidence for various systems of thought and practice (across a magnitude of histories, cultures, literatures, and forms/genres) through the intense study of specific frameworks: textual, graphic, aural, oral, theoretical, linguistic, political, philosophical, historical, religious, gendered, racial, national, digital, artistic and yes, even scientific. All of these modes produce particular systems and systemic modes and traces that reveal different forms of evidence in various fields of knowledge. How we read and write is not a singular logic or training or practice. In fact, the study of reading and writing systems allows for a vigorous assessment of how, to name a few, speech, graphics, visuality, orality, and aurality, are constructed and what this MEANS (yes, how the evaluation contributes to a variety of fields) for specific groups, cultures, ecologies etc. Different reading and writing practices produce different perspectives. Perspective is not an opinion. Perspective is the systemic way you have been trained (or not trained) to think, speak, and write. Those of us highly trained in the discipline of English have the ability to parse out what system(s) of thought/ideas, history, and rhetoric/discourse etc., a specific piece of writing, speech, or other form has within it. The study of English is very adaptable to studies of mapping, encoding, and other scriptings. But, perhaps, this is a well-kept secret. Perhaps, there are English majors and then there are English majors. And maybe, this is why there hasn’t been a “persuasive mounting of defense”... Of course, every individual is entitled to their opinion and practice as long as it does no harm to others. Does this banal conversation about the discipline of English do harm? I think the loss of the discipline of English transculturally and transnationally would do great harm to “civilization”... I, for one, would regret the loss of knowledges, and the study of how to think differently and beyond the usual standard, conformist practices and perspectives, which have in fact changed the course of my life, my children’s lives, and more. The study of English is hard work. It is not a luxury especially if you are a student in a working class, agrarian or industrial environment. But I am not sure what you might say about that Gopnik given your history. I do know that we need more professors of English, more graduate, and undergraduate students, and more cross-disciplinary divesting of the imitative, popular notions propagated in the New Yorker’s recent essay on “Why Teach English?”... Again, who has the privilege and so power and place to think, speak, and write about English in an accurate, experienced fashion that is of significance. Propogating fallacious thinking against the study of English while a popular writer is disingenuous at best, and at worst, conformist.
Posted on: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 22:19:51 +0000

Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015