"I concluded . . . that the best way to rescue poems like 'Dover Beach' was not to try to protect them from the critical controversies about their value, but to use those controversies to give them new life"
-Gerry Graff, quoted in Appleman
I think Mr. Graff makes a good point with his paradoxical embrace of the challenges brought on by Marxist and Feminist Theories. Good literature was never really in danger, nor was the study of good literature, he claims. Sometimes controversy and condemnation can revive an old classic, or even bring out new layers of richness and complexity–actually highlighting the author's skill. In other cases, controversy can be part of the democratically-driven re-envisioning of the literary canon, pointing out the failings of works that may have been too highly praised.
Of course, it is the tyranny of that democracy which we all fear when it challenges one of our beloved classics, one of the books that has shaped us, challenged us, simply entertained us. Even more, it is the tyranny of the present that we must fear, as notions of progress validate the judgment and condemnation of the voices of the past according to the criteria of political correctness. In some Feminist circles, for example, or so I've heard, Shakespeare and Plato, among others, have been ignored or exiled, while self-censorship has gained a power that the inquisition never had. At least when books are banned, the result is often a heightened curiosity. Sometimes, for better or worse, the banning of books even leads to an increased readership. In this way, I think that Graff is mostly right. If someone tells you not to think about black cats, their bad luck is that one is guaranteed at least to cross your mind. Oftentimes, the Marxist and Feminist controversy around particular titles piques our interest in a similar way. And as concerns literary theory, we may even be lead to appreciate those texts in new ways. However, when theory gives way to dogmatism, and classics are left to lie in the dust, we lose a chance to learn from the past. Controversy is good, but its benefits require a delicate balance of power.
At the same time, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of a thought-police; I mean we are supposed to be challenging students, are we not? Socrates wasn't opposed to the idea either, though I think he might drink the hemlock all over again if he knew which side of it he was coming out on.
 |
| Jaques-Louis David - The Death of Socrates |
"And if the student finds that [the reading] is not to his taste? Well, that is regrettable. His taste should not be consulted; it is being formed."
-Flannery O'Connor
"Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about."
-G. K. Chesterton
I find it interesting that feminists would censor Plato. In his masterwork, Republic, Plato famously advocates for women as soldiers and rulers. He insists that in these matters women must be given the same role as men.
ReplyDeleteIt is puzzling then that women would criticize a philosopher who is 2500 years ahead of his time regarding gender roles. After reading your post, I did some brief research on feminist critiques of Plato and found some interesting results.
These critiques rest on some particular side of the delicate balance you mentioned. One might ask if it is fair to criticize a two-and-a-half millennia-old text for not being up to current standards of critical feminist standards. I consider myself a feminist and I would never stand to be accused of attacking feminism on the whole, but I agree with you that there is a balance to be struck between unique critical readings and placing the text within its canonical context.