A serious issue I have been considering lately is the problem of canonization in University programs; this regimentation of exactly what content students must absorb for satisfactory completion of a subject area creates many difficulties in terms of credentialling and academic sovereignty.

If a learner is to be sovereign over their own education, the school must not supremely dictate the course materials or graduation requirements. Certainly, students must obtain expertise and some degree of knowledge mapping must occur in their learning process; I am most concerned with the specific content. The study of literature (with which I am most familiar) is, quite literally, the most canonized of all fields. The first issue is likely with the name of the traditional degree: English.
An English literature student’s program begins with Caedmon and Beowulf, moves onward to Homer, Shakespeare, the Victorians and Romantics, and, finally, the American writers (Twain, Melville, Hawthorne, etc.) Now, do not get me wrong, I understand and agree with the canonization of particular books due to their timeless excellence. The wealth of literature, however, and the limited time of students requires that we offer more diverse subjects so that, perhaps, we graduate a student whose literary experiences are different than that of the other thousands of literature students.

Where is the social value of having all students study the same set of authors? Again, these authors are excellent, but–aside from obvious conversational ease with the rest of literature majors–the creation of a literary monoculture is unhelpful and destructive.

I say “destructive” because I believe this canonization fails the student. It inhibits their knowledge of non-English narratives and contemporary literature. The lack of foreign literature is, sadly, an obvious oversight; when I say “foreign” I mean, non-western. Has anyone read the classics of China or Japan or India? Three countries that have long, serious literary histories. Certainly, this is part due to a problem in translation, but that has not stopped us from adopting Tolstoy, Doestoevsky, and Solzhenitsyn. St. John’s College must be lauded for their creation of an Eastern Classics program, likely the only graduate program of its kind in the entire country. St. John’s however is also the college who has best institutionalized canonization, its entire curriculum being made up of the reading and discussing of a “great books” reading list that is set in stone.

Again, I agree that all of the books they are having students read are “great” and, in their case, are frankly more diverse and important than much of the literature that would be read in a traditional English literature program. Despite the greatness, however, I think that new themes, eras, geographies, and histories ought to be available for students to choose from. At the Saxifrage School we will make this possible by enabling students to be actively involved in the creation of new courses and by requiring a number of independent studies for which the content will be their individual responsibility (with the help of a professor).

While the failure of a more diversely foreign literature is regrettable, I would argue that the lack of engagement with contemporary literature is disastrous. This lack of new content is likely due, in part, to the creation of standardized testing for literature majors. The SAT II and GRE Subject tests have required teachers, both secondary and higher, to focus their subject matter within the boundaries of the canon in order for their students to have a hope of passing these exams. The subject tests, if you have not seen one, are essentially a lengthy pop quiz attempting to decipher which books you have read, and which books you have really read. Of course I recall many fellow students just memorizing the synopsis and key passages from certain books in order to pass, but that is another point entirely.

If a student is required to have fluency in Thomas Gray, B-Sides of Melville, and 15 Shakespeare plays, they will have little time to read the newest Jonathan Franzen, let alone engage with it critically. Here is the main statement, that led to be write this entire post:

What good is a degree in English Literature if it does not prepare you to engage with today’s literature?

The best currency is knowledge and skill with contemporary relevance; intelligence that can work right now and even see into the future. Now, a fluency with the past is a key element of this intelligence, but must be connected to the present. We need to read Franzen in conversation with Salinger in conversation with Hawthorne in conversation with Shelley in conversation with Cervantes in conversation with Homer… and throw in some non-western classics I’m not familiar with… and then write your own response.

As I realized in my own study on the purpose of poetry, any valuable inquiry into a subject requires a deep understanding of its history to establish a context for your broad understanding of its current situation. Frankly, the current situation is what is most important in your critique as your response must respond to the most current counterpoint or ally with the contemporarily like-minded. The history, however, provides you with the frame, the language, the supporting research, and–in many cases–the answers to the most difficult problems.

Perhaps the most obvious and valuable way to address this issue, at least in terms of literature, is to focus learning thematically with an integrated curriculum emphasizing a certain current problem:
A course could address the current upheavals in Libya/Egypt/Bahrain/Yemen etc. by reading relevant contextual literature from histories and current sociological texts, segue into dystopian literature, revolutionary/anarchist literatures, and writings concerning the creation of new governments. The reading list for this course could/should involve a broad range: geography, religion, comic, fiction, journalism, and history. Likely, the professor would have very experience with much of the content, but would learn alongside the students.

I will discuss this idea of problem-solving/integrated curriculum in a later post.
To extrapolate: these ideas of non-canonization should run into any subject, especially those where contemporary knowledge is of highest important (computer science) or where the best solutions might be found in non-traditional sources (build:design, organic agriculture).

A student should be credentialled as “well-read” not if they have read X,Y, and Z, but if they have read closely and relevantly.

If a student is to maintain interest and passion in their studies, canonization must be discouraged so as to encourage engagement with today’s problems and the potential solutions for the future. A sovereign student may not direct their studies in a way as to pass the GRE Literature test, but they might come to truly understand unrest, revolution, and the difficulty of citizenship across the globe.