Dear Social Justice Warriors of Yale...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back to literary studies and student dissatisfaction with same.

Evidently what many people think is that the primary value of literary reading--at least when the reader is in school or college--is that it can be useful in two ways. (1) It may help the reader gain an enhanced sense of identity. (2) It may help the reader to appreciate some other people.

Literature may be, incidentally, useful in these ways for some readers, but that great numbers of students and teachers should, evidently, assume that this kind of usefulness is the main thing would be a sign of the decadence of literary studies. It suggests that these people want literary studies to be a kind of moralistic therapeutic religion.

Literary study as a moralistic therapeutic religion will be susceptible to the demand that coursework should emphasize reading that makes people feel the way they think they want to feel. Thus moralistic therapeutic literary religion will emphasize recent writing (easier to read, more immediately gratifying). Campuses will bring in living authors to offer their "testimonies" about their experiences. Similarly, teachers will emphasize, not lectures, but "class discussions" in which students are rewarded by the teacher and their peers for talking about what earlier generations might have thought to be private feelings and experiences and would also have thought not to be sufficiently focused on the reading.

This isn't a complete explanation of what's going on in literary studies, but I think it is an important part of it, something perhaps more often assumed, as by the Yale student, than stated explicitly.
 
I've always thought one of the core values of literature is to challenge your empathy and imagination by putting yourself in the shoes of someone who lives in a different world from your own. So in that sense, I see diversity as having a lot of value.

However, and this gets to the intellectual dishonesty and lack of rigour evident in identity politics, why on earth would anyone assume that Samuel Coleridge and I share a homogeneous worldview when the only thing we share is a chromosome and skin pigmentation? I have far less in common with Coleridge (or Hardy, or Milton) than I do with an ethnically Asian woman who grew up in Canada in the 20th century. Gender and race play far less or a role in shaping our worldviews than the advocates of identity politics would have us believe.
 
MWagner said:
Gender and race play far less or a role in shaping our worldviews than the advocates of identity politics would have us believe.
Click to expand...
The family, school, neighbours, media, society and nation we grow up in, in that order, is largely responsible for people's world views.

I can't see how our world views have anything to do with so called "Gender and race" as defined by these people. Unless they are bigots purely judging others on their flesh tone, chromosomes and sexual orientation, surely they are complaining about the behaviour of others.
Yes people are responsible for their own actions, but often people copy their peers and don't question the status quo or why they are doing something. A high proportion of behaviour is learned rather than innate from chromosomes or ethnic origin, or even conscious choice.

That's why genuinely integrated schools and communities are important and decent teachers. Reading and writing is important, to aid critical thought and communication as well as education. Actual passing of exams by regurgitating "facts" is less important than learning how to be a part of society rather than an oppressor, exploiter, bully or professional victim.
 
I tend to not read these articles on the web:: until someone here points me that way.
I have strong feelings about such activity but why should I express them when this piece of internet does such a good job.
Urban Dictionary: social justice warrior

It's difficult sometimes to weed out SJW from someone who truly wants to start a dialogue. Generally when there are no solutions offered to the problem and a lot of whininess about how some perceived abuse has to stop; that's a fair indicator that this person is out to get points and not interested in making a real change.. Count the number of solutions offered versus the number complaints and if they are equal then I'd say there is hope that that person means to start a dialogue.

But then I am a white guy so what do I know?<{not rich.}
 
MWagner said:
Gender and race play far less or a role in shaping our worldviews
Click to expand...

Ray McCarthy said:
I can't see how our world views have anything to do with so called "Gender and race"
Click to expand...

Well, easy to say if neither have never been made to be an issue for you. :)

What I find disappointing is that whenever discussions on discrimination - race, gender, and sexuality - comes up on chrons, the discussion end up apparently dominated by people with the least experience of it.

I'd love to see a little more listening from those who don't, towards those who do.
 
Sometimes it's difficult to start a true discussion with the title 'Dear Social Justice Warriors'. Specifically when by some definitions SJW is a pejorative.

To follow that with a statement about someone spending someone else money for their education compounds the confusion.

From someone who had to put themselves through college...we had a nice large Catholic family and after putting the first one through college and the rest through regular school there wasn't anything left. So not all of those protesters are using other peoples money.

Oh I could have just opted to go to war instead of college and possibly later had the service pay for my education. But I didn't. So maybe I was a draft dodger too. I could have moved to Canada. I didn't.

The point here being that as a rich white guy I really didn't have much to worry about in life.

Still: all-in-all, I'd be narrow minded to consider making such a broad statement as to suggest that gender and race have little or no role in worldviews.

But I would love to hear what someone who has experienced a different life might have to say.
 
Brian, the discussion on this thread has veered a little away from the English studies focus, but that's mostly what the thread is about. In earlier postings, I have offered several arguments in support of an earlier tradition of literary studies (a tradition, be it noted, already swept away to a considerable degree). Are you interested in discussing that topic specifically?

What ought the chief purposes of literary studies to be?

If "social justice" is the thing we are concerned about, is there good reason to believe it is something to be effected by taking out Chaucer, Spenser, et al. and substituting recent writers?

I would say that, if "social justice" really is one's great concern, one might work for it better in other venues. As I said, not entirely facetiously, the Yale English students might do better to donate the cost of their very expensive degrees to something, such as charter schools, that really does promote success among "disadvantaged" groups, and they might betake themselves from the ivy-clad walls to the rural and urban places where students are being taught by know-nothing hacks protected by teachers' unions, etc.

Making remarks such as the social justice folks make, such as my feminist colleague made last year over a list of canonical works that I share with students, that it's "white male patriarchy," is perhaps narcissistically satisfying; but her comment conveyed to me that I hardly need take anything this woman says about literature with any degree of seriousness, except insofar as one needs to understand one's opponents. Fortunately for English studies at my little university, hers was the sole voice clearly speaking out for making Shakespeare optional. I have to wonder if literature ever really happened in her life. Literary studies (as they new are) of course happened, and she seems to have assimilated them well. But literature itself?

You ask for more "listening" to the social justice warriors. I assure you that their voices are inescapable in the modern academy--its journals, its conferences, its campuses, its hiring committees, its student media, etc. It is the advocate of a traditional, substantial English degree who is the odd person, the person who questions political correctness puritanism, who is at risk of being shouted down and/or ignored. Here is one example of the listening habits of the modern Yale student and their consequences:

How the Yale Halloween Vigilantes Finally Got Their Way

It would be easy to multiply such examples.


English students should study canonical works, which (btw) they will find diverse in content and purpose even if the authors are not mathematically "balanced" with quotas for different social-Marxist categories. When English students don't do this study, don't they truly are disadvantaged. A social justice warrior reading list will seem dated in a few years.
 
Extollager said:
I assure you that their voices are inescapable in the modern academy
Click to expand...
Or on BBC R4, etc.
Not hearing them everyday trying to make anyone different to themselves, guilty for existing, that a person in some "oppressing" category might never have bullied, discriminated or oppressed anyone doesn't seem to be possible to them. I know many people of all kinds of backgrounds that would fight for justice and equality of anyone, no matter how different and would never have bullied, discriminated or oppressed anyone.
 
The literary canon is perhaps the best defense against English studies being held hostage to the passions and politics of the moment.

Right now literary studies are largely in the hands of raceclassandgender types. Some people think that's good and we need even more of the same. But what if there were a reaction against this state of affairs? How would you like it if English studies were in the hands of those who wanted an emphasis on, let's say, themes of free market trade, the virtue of thrift, distrust of the mob, etc.?

But do you all see that, if one once let in non-literary considerations, such as social-Marxist categories, dominate literary studies, there's no reason why such a scenario shouldn't come to pass if times change--as they might?

So I advocate not an exclusive focus on the literary canon, but certainly an emphasis on it, in English studies, particularly on the undergraduate level. These works should be taught by people for whom they are living works. Probably students will benefit if the teachers are not overly specialized.
 
Brian Turner said:
Well, easy to say if neither have never been made to be an issue for you. :)

What I find disappointing is that whenever discussions on discrimination - race, gender, and sexuality - comes up on chrons, the discussion end up apparently dominated by people with the least experience of it.

I'd love to see a little more listening from those who don't, towards those who do.
Click to expand...

I don't know about Scotland, but here in Canada you hear the voices of self-professed marginalized people every day on the CBC, in all the mainstream newspapers, in online media. What you rarely hear is any voices challenging the dogma underpinning identity politics.

For example, a major political leader in Canada has just announced targets of 40 per cent female representation in all provincial boards and agencies. I have not come across a single criticism of this proposal from a public figure. Perhaps it's a universally popular move? Seems unlikely. Online forum comments are full of opposition. Some of it is the kind of miserable invective you get in public forums. But some of the comments ask perfectly rational questions, such as why, if balanced gender representation is so vital in the civil services, the province has not taken steps to address egregious gender disparities in teaching and other public sector fields. But these questions are not being raised by our elected officials or our media.

The only place where 360 degree sceptics and genuine liberals such as myself can challenge the credo of identity politics is anonymous forums like this. To my knowledge, I haven't made any offensive or bigoted remarks on the Chrons. But I can say with confidence that if everything I posted here on the subject were made public and identified with me, I would have no chance of ever being elected to public office in Canada. That's how narrow the range of acceptable expression has become on these issues.

Some of us can't help but kicking against oppressive orthodoxies and irrational group-think. It's in my bones. But if you don't want this site to be the place where I do it, then I'll stop.
 
Last edited:
It reminds me of "McCarthyism."

It reminded a professor at one of these colleges of McCarthyism too.

Brown University Professor Denounces ‘McCarthy’ Witch Hunts

Does anyone seriously want to contend that this time, of over-the-top ranting and suppression of undesired speech, is a good time to make major curricular changes, such as the Yale student cited at the beginning of this thread wants? Surely it is in an atmosphere such as this that serious damage and disruption to worthwhile literary studies are likely to be made. That is, in fact, what has happened, and it seems to be getting worse. And with what real gain for humane learning? No, rather, loss to learning.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Brian G Turner Re-reading HP Lovecraft - oh, dear! H P Lovecraft 52
ctg 8.11: The Walking Dead - Dear or Alive or ... The Walking Dead 9
Cat's Cradle Oh dear God.... Critiques 24
Nick B Direct address and terms of endearment. Writing Discussion 23
Robert E. Parkin Do not send a "Dear Agent" Query? Writing Discussion 3

Similar threads


Back
Top