Week Three Responses

How should a literary class at universities held? What should be taught? And why is one author considered to be more important than others? There is not only one irrefutable answer to these questions; there are many (and very disputable ones, too). The core issue, however, that lays at the center of all the response papers is an answer to the question how different backgrounds, class, gender and ethnicity can enter the classroom and make it more diverse. Why is the canon predominantly white? How can marginalizing be challenged? Can the reader extend a text due to his own background? What are the problems of pairing texts? And which role plays the instructor's origin? The answers to all those questions have one thing in common: one can only expand the horizon of literary studies by bringing texts from all kind of authors together; inclusion instead of exclusion so that the canon of tomorrow will be more diverse.

"Of the three articles, John Schilb's "'Text,' 'Reader,' 'Author,' 'History,' in Introduction to Literature Courses," and Phillipa Kafka's "A Multicultural Introduction to Literature," articulate a hypocrisy in academia. Our foundations of Western literature, both creatively and theoretically, marginalize readers based on a scale that includes gender, race, and economics. However, we still consider Homer, Virgil, Dante, Chaucer, and Shakespeare as fathers of Western literature. Our class touched upon this last week, which I found interesting. Students can concentrate on contemporary texts, but without some kind of introduction to these canonical writers, layers of meaning can be missed." -Peter.

"I do agree with [Phillipa Kafka's] criticism that traditional view and material choice in introductory classes to literature are unequal in terms that they erase and marginalize women and non-whites. This has become unconscious; suggesting that what is socially constructed is believed to be natural. When people talk about "ethnic" writing, they imply the existence of "mainstream" (self) literature and "other," which is outside that mainstream ... Students in introductory classes, therefore, should be encouraged to consider literary vs. class, race, gender; literary vs. contemporary world; and literary vs. students' own values. Class should be organized to take on the qualities of a visit to a mammoth new multicultural supermarket in which a diverse and conflicting array of cultural values is spread out before students (p.180)." -Dono.


“John Schilb also focuses on a classroom that emphasizes on the student. He introduces “text,” “reader,” “author,” and “history” as categories that are accessible to the student. At the same time, they serve as an experimental ground on which literary theory can be investigated. For example, when he writes that the reader is himself an extension of the text (62) that needs to be interpreted, it can be implied that the diversity (also: multiple communal belonging) of the readers will result in various text interpretations. To Schilb, the classroom’s demographic range enriches the perspectives upon literature as well as the four terms on which he focuses. This approach ties in with Bleich’s concept of diverse communal belonging as well as Phillipa Kafka’s arguments that favor classroom focus on “explorations of diversity” (188).” –Johannes.

“Though purporting objectivity, both the “ideal” reader and the notion of universal literary meaning in a Candide-esque “best of all possible words” ultimately prove subjective as their “fixed” approaches are born of specific, defined worldviews. The claim of a literary “universal” instead stands as a means to structure the point of view of upcoming scholars and to perpetuate an idealized discourse. John Schilb notes that readers are texts in themselves, therefore reincorporating the reader into criticism and analytical processes is a crucial step; even when approaching a literary work from a socio-cultural or historical background, one’s own varying frame of reference, community values and life experiences shape the choice of theoretical application and methods of examination. Indeed, such an approach cannot be discounted, for if interpretation varies by experience, literary contexts broaden with each individual connection and specialized areas of study expand within their field and across disciplines.” –Veronica.

"Phillipa Kafka's distinctly feminist perspective on pedagogical strategies interested me - I feel that Kafka was a little more subtle about identity issues and subtly pernicious academic strategies than Schilb or Bleich. In fact, I found Schilb's Great White Male vs. black female syllabus had (at least for me) some problematic implications - though Schilb was obviously making an effort at expanding students' notions of the canon and their conceptions of racial identity, socio-cultural conventions, etc. I found that the way his course was structured was potentially alienating - and wrote at length about the assumptions Schilb aligns himself with ever so subtly. Then I deleted what I had written on the grounds that it was both intuitive and incendiary. And then I reread what Kafka had written (or rather quoted from Sandra Harding) about theories of "difference" in the classroom and the value of their expression. I do not know where this leaves me, working through my white guilt and yet trying to claim a voice in a cultural, and yes, sometimes even academic setting that devalues white women's writing and even late-twentieth century movements on the grouns that they are solipsistic; indulgent - white women talking endlessly about imaginary problems." -Sarah.

"David Bleich, in his essay, is supporting the idea that topics regarding race, class, and gender should transgress the ethnic and social borders so that students can related different topics to others. However, Bleich’s argument is that he equates his Jewish experience with that of African Americans. The first problem arising is that both scholars and students of African American literature, and African Americans can oppose this equation by arguing that their “immigrant experience”, the circumstances under which they came to the US and the situation they were facing are different. In addition to that, the process of emancipation is progressing in different speed. In that sense, different group are facing similar obstacles but the outline and perspective of their situation differ as well." -Thorsten.

"[Bleich's] method makes me very uneasy. He raises important points about psychological identification with various "communities," racial and cultural, but his logic feels restrictive and somewhat reductive rather than expansive and open like Schilb and Kafka. His anecdotes about identifying with the perspectives of Kafka (the author) and Toni Morrison make sense due to the linguistic similarities that he mentions, but his implications through his analysis of his students' responses that the vast majority of them are incapable of relating to Morrison's literature because they are from different cultural background (in most cases I suspect mainstream white) strike me as laden with isolationist intention and quite exclusive. In my view, while it is important to recognize the various cultural communities that exist, it is erroneous to build walls between each of these groups and posit that only certain members of certain communities can comprehend certain discourses. This excludes human experience to too great an extent for my comfort. I would much prefer to explore these various communities and, using the approaches of Kafka (the scholar) and Schilb, endeavor to create understanding rather than indicate that no such connection is possible." -Keen.