What Happened To "English"?

College Life
1

<p>Okay, I posed this question in another thread, but I want to bring it to a wider audience because I'd really like to get some perspective on this. I'm not just trolling or trying to provoke, so the more answers (especially from English majors and university-level English teachers) the better.</p>

<p>It seems to me that "English" has evolved (or devolved?) from a study of literature and grammar and so forth into a broader kind of all-purpose liberal arts degree, a watered-down sociology (without any scientific rigor). I understand that reading and analyzing a text requires more than just reading skills, but what made English evolve along these lines to the point where many English majors and English teachers see actual English proficiency as secondary (indeed, many of them cannot spell correctly or use proper grammar in their correspondence). Is it the ultra-politicization of the major? The enormous number of 60s radicals who went to college to avoid the draft and wound up becoming tenured faculty?</p>

<p>I know for a fact that "English" is where many of the most radical, ultra-communist professors on a campus are typically found, and that Leninist teaching requires that education be used as a tool of propaganda. While I'm certain that is part of the explanation, it's hard for me to believe that it's the <em>entire</em> explanation. Is it the desire of English teachers to stay relevant, so they keeping adding stuff to the curriculum in hopes of attracting people who would otherwise major in economics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, or any of the other things English seems to want to be these days?</p>

2

<p>My experience as an English major at a California university has been nothing like what you described. In fact, if you look at our course catalog there are very few classes pertaining to “watered-down sociology” or “liberal arts.” The Humanities and English obviously have a fundamentally intertwined relationship and it’s very easy to see overlap between the two fields. However–and my experience at a state school may be different than the experience at a LAC or private university–when I look at the English Degree requirement I see numerous classes on linguistics, theory of grammatical evolution, British literature analysis, Greco-Roman literature analysis, and criticism of philosophical texts in both the Western and Eastern canon.</p>

<p>Obviously this is a different experience than say, the English program at Berkeley or Amherst, where it would seem much more likely that the major is politicized. It would be interesting to compare experiences of English majors at campuses across the country, and see what common ground they share and where they part ways.</p>

3

<p>You’re either colossally stupid or this is a very bad joke.</p>

4

<p>^Agreed. I have taken tons of English classes and they’re nothing like that.</p>

5

<p>I mean, this post is clearly hilarious hyperbole. Case in point: “I know for a fact that “English” is where many of the most radical, ultra-communist professors on a campus are typically found, and that Leninist teaching requires that education be used as a tool of propaganda.”</p>

<p>BUT, I think we would do ourselves a disservice (as English majors) if we completely dismiss what the OP is saying. </p>

<p>At Maryland, the English requirements are ASTOUNDINGLY loose. There’s no required courses in grammar, linguistics, or any of that - though they are offered through the department. It’s a real topic of debate whether English has gotten watered down or not. Certainly I’ve taken my fair share of English classes that seemed to prefer students talk about historical events that relate to the text rather than encourage a formal study of the prose. And nowadays you can definitely finish your degree with a course or less that actually focuses on the “classics” and the “greats.” You can be an English major at Maryland and not have read a single Shakespeare play.</p>

<p>I don’t consider this less rigorous. In fact, I’m very interested in the intersection of literature and historical/cultural analysis and historical movements and trends. But it does call into question what we mean by “the study of literature” these days.</p>

<p>I would say most students are also expected to know how to spell and write and there’s definitely an emphasis (at my school) on writing and the like. And if your class is like some watered down sociological intro course, your teacher/class really sucks. English students certainly come out of the major with verifiable skills but it’s not the same field as it was 50 years ago…</p>

6

<p>^ to constructively add, we should be thankful for probing questions like these. It makes us think and defend what we do.</p>

<p>I guess I’m not familiar with the euphemism “water’d down intro soc. course.” I loved my intro to soc course and learned lots, but I think I understand what you mean.</p>

<p>Such a threat really does exist! There’s a constant battle for departments to obtain more students. Perhaps in such circumstances, some material becomes less focused - standards drop and enrollment increases. Perhaps… This is just one weak, ill-defended notion.</p>

<p>However, an English degree SHOULD (i mean to italicize but i dont know how to) impart its disciples with broader knowledge. In fact, the university system has failed if an engineering student ONLY learns engineering stuff. Egineering, nursing, and geology students SHOULD learn outside their discipline. Yes, they MUST learn how to egineer, nurse, and do geology stuff (that’s why they came to X university), but one should never be confined to one localized type of knowledge. that is very dangerous if everyone knows one thing really well.</p>

<p>To answer your question OP, I still expect to be taught the same critical English related stuff WHILE learning about the continuum and spectrum of the liberal arts.</p>

7

<p>“I know for a fact that “English” is where many of the most radical, ultra-communist professors on a campus are typically found, and that Leninist teaching requires that education be used as a tool of propaganda.”</p>

<p>…Jesus Tom, I didn’t make the hard cider I’m drinking THAT hard… In the immortal words of Hubert Farnsworth… “what the HELL are you talking about?”</p>

8

<p>

</p>

<p>What are you saying, that many English professors <em>aren’t</em> self-described communists, Marxists, and socialists? I mean, it’s almost a cliche, and for a reason.</p>

<p>Next some person will confuse “many” with “most,” and make the assumption that I was making an accusation about all English teachers or some broad swipe at the English-industrial complex. I wasn’t. Anybody trying to argue that English hasn’t become politicized on many campuses or has become a somewhat unfocused discipline is making a losing argument, the phenomenon is quite well-documented.</p>

<p>Some posters have already replied that my description of English as a major conflicts with their experience. All well and good. Doesn’t disprove my point. I never said that ALL English departments EVERYWHERE were politicized and unfocused. If your experience differs, great. Your input is exactly the kind I was hoping for.</p>

9

<p>

</p>

<p>Thank you for your sane reply and not getting all defensive and angry.</p>

<p>But I never understood this point of view. Isn’t it up to the student to decide whether the university has failed to teach them what they want? I mean, if I was a chemistry major, and the university didn’t teach me any quantum mechanics at all, I’d feel cheated, because that’s an important part of chemistry. If they failed to teach me about Vermeer, I wouldn’t feel cheated, because I didn’t ask them to do that in the first place.</p>

<p>Do you buy a dozen eggs and say “these eggs are nice, but they have FAILED because they didn’t provide me with chocolate bars.” No, you bought eggs cuz you wanted eggs. Same goes for an education. Many people would like to major in just their discipline, some want a well-rounded group of general studies class to back up their major. It makes no sense for all schools to require general studies, it’s antiquated. It made sense a long time ago when books were scarce and expensive, and knowledge wasn’t so easily accumulated. These days, if I want to learn about Dostoevsky or Kubrick I can do so from home for a lot less money than tuition. And if I feel inclined, I can join discussion groups and clubs to further my education. For those who want a <em>formal</em> education in such things, fine and dandy, don’t let me stop you. But A) why force it on anyone and B) why assume that they will never learn about literature or the arts or history or culture if they don’t do it in their early twenties in a college classroom?</p>

<p>If you went to McDonald’s, asked for a Big Mac, and they forced you to buy the meal with it and you only wanted the sandwich, you’d feel like they were trying to extort money out of you, no matter how much that they were protesting that they merely wanted you to have a well-rounded meal.</p>

10

<p>

</p>

<p>I had no idea that a simple statement of fact would be so controversial, and I can’t understand the reaction here. Is it that this is the first time you are hearing about the undeniable leftist bent of college faculties in general, the humanities in particular? Or is it that you think I’m trying to make the case that all English professors are communists and that English curriculum is purposefully designed to propagandize?</p>

<p>Let me break it down. The first point I made is that many of the self-described communists on college faculties tend to be English professors. I don’t know why this is, I just know that any time I’m reading about a far-left professor, most of the time they teach English. I really don’t feel the need to cite specific examples when they are so abundant to an astute Googler.</p>

<p>Is it what I said about Leninism? That is also true, that is the teaching of Lenin and plenty of other communist leaders and activists, that education ought to be used as a means of shaping society and indoctrination. The New Left movement of the 60s was explicitly communist, and it was they who went from taking campus buildings hostage as students to actually teaching in them. This too is well-known history to anybody who’s read about that movement. Bill Ayers is the perfect example of this, he’s one among many who use education (especially higher education) as a propaganda tool. You don’t have to take my word for all of this.</p>

<p>Now, I have no idea to what extent the Bill Ayers’s’s’s of the world have succeeded in shaping college curriculum, but there’s no doubt that their ideas have become part of the higher ed cultural zeitgeist, even if most people are unaware of their source. Many English classes are definitely taught with an unmistakable political message, “labor literature” and so forth. I was curious if this politicization was responsible for how unfocused English has become on many campuses, or what other forces were at work.</p>

<p>There’s this term “economic imperialism,” which despite its name actually has to do with economists using economic analysis and economic principles to understand such things as criminology, anthropology, sociology, law, etc., things that are often seen as having nothing to do with economics. This is actually a misunderstanding of what economics was always all about. So another good question is, am I misunderstanding what English was supposed to be? Has it been the case for centuries that to study “English” in a university setting was to study sociology and various other things?</p>

11

<p>

Does it take a ■■■■■ to know one?</p>

12

<p>^^What are you expected to get out of literature if you don’t study the context the literature is coming from at all?</p>

13

<p>hey noimagination your name really suits you</p>

14

<p>“Is it that this is the first time you are hearing about the undeniable leftist bent of college faculties in general, the humanities in particular?”</p>

<p>When did “communist, Marxist, Leninist” become “leftist?” Those are different schools of thought, although I’ll admit to us owning Marx. Unlike you, I’ve actually read some of his work in a philosophy class and he brings up a VERY valid point about capitalism and the state of the worker.</p>

15

<p>Before I reply Tom, I just want to address the others who have posted thus far.</p>

<p>Tom is NOT a ■■■■■. I do not understand how you can come to this conclusion. Tom himself asserts that he had “no idea that a simple statement of fact would be so controversial.” ■■■■■■ don’t do that. ■■■■■■ let words fester and people assault each other with acusations. By posting again, he is clearly trying to stop misunderstanding and wants this question to actually be explored. </p>

<p>Furthermore, I really think Itachirumon and noimagination and JanofLeiden are the real ■■■■■■ by foregoing any sort of discussion and jumping to conclusions. JanofLedien, it is counterproductive to simply say he is being “colossally stupid.” The fact that you posted in this thread in the first place tells me that you really do care about this discussion; however, please explain why you think Tom is telling “a very bad joke.” The same goes for you, Itachirumon and noimagination.</p>

16

<p>Well, Tom, it’s a long and complex story…</p>

<p>Read this article that appeared in the American Scholar for a better understanding of what happened:
[The</a> Decline of the English Department: An article by William M. Chace about how it happened and what can be done to reverse it | The American Scholar](<a href=“http://www.theamericanscholar.org/the-decline-of-the-english-department/]The”>The American Scholar: The Decline of the English Department - <a href='https://theamericanscholar.org/author/william-m-chace/'>William M. Chace</a>)</p>

17

<p>Alright, now…I will start by quoting your first paragraph. I feel you may have misconstrued some of my points. Hopefully I can clarify.</p>

<p>“…if I was a chemistry major, and the university didn’t teach me any quantum mechanics at all, I’d feel cheated, because that’s an important part of chemistry. If they failed to teach me about Vermeer, I wouldn’t feel cheated, because I didn’t ask them to do that in the first place.” </p>

<p>I agree on both accounts. As a speculative chem major, you should and must be taught subject matter pertinent to the study of chemistry. Just as you mentioned, chemistry majors should not be required to study Vermeer. I too wouldn’t feel cheated if I never he existed. I therefore agree with you that indeed it is “up to the student to decide whether the university has failed to teach them what they want.” I would be ****ed too if I didn’t learn the one subject I wanted from a university</p>

<p>Chemistry majors will become versed in the field of chemistry. In addition, they shall learn other things. These “other things” will not take away from their chemistry studies: they can only benefit the individual.</p>

<p>Next I will quote your allegory and aim to fix any misinterpretation:</p>

<p>“‘Do you buy a dozen eggs and say "these eggs are nice, but they have FAILED because they didn’t provide me with chocolate bars.’ No, you bought eggs cuz you wanted eggs. Same goes for an education.”</p>

<p>I see what you are getting at. Those eggs represent the chemistry degree and those chocolate bars represents side material not applicable to chemisty. You are claiming that it is ridiculous to buy eggs and be furious that chocolate bars don’t come with it, right? To accompany this analogy, I will pressume to be the store owner.</p>

<p>"No no no, don’t you see? The chocolate bars come with the eggs: they are free - my treat! Here you go! Now do what you want with them!! Wait…you want to throw away perfectly good chocolate bars??? Ok ok ok, I know you came JUST for the eggs, but the chocolate bars are exquisite! They were made delicately with organic milk. The almonds were imported from an exotic location. And it was hand wrapped!! The bars are awfully expensive, and it would be a waste to throw them away. But if you want to throw those free chocolate bars away, I will let you because they are yours.</p>

<p>“These days, if I want to learn about Dostoevsky or Kubrick I can do so from home for a lot less money than tuition. And if I feel inclined, I can join discussion groups and clubs to further my education.”</p>

<p>Awesome! Continuing education! I approve.</p>

<p>“For those who want a <em>formal</em> education in such things, fine and dandy, don’t let me stop you. But A) why force it on anyone and B) why assume that they will never learn about literature or the arts or history or culture if they don’t do it in their early twenties in a college classroom?”</p>

<p>For the “A” question: To answer this question, I am inclined to cite sources to strengthen my arguement. However, I will not. This question is very basic and easily understood worded otherwise: “Why learn more than what I need?” Education is precious. Althought I love people, I have little faith people will continue to learn without someone to spurn them.</p>

<p>For the “B” question: (see answer to “A”) and because the government would rather see the general population (in college) studying other disciplines rather than hoping they do sometime in their life. And I have little faith a 40 year old man will want to start studying sociology or sartre. The earlier the exposure the better. People might actually change majors!!</p>

<p>If college only teaches what the person thinks they want and nothing else, people will never learn to quesiton themselves. An architect would continue his study and maybe miss his true calling as an editor. Or a would-be teacher might not have the chance to explore intro to the arts. People may be sure of themselves, but something better might be out there. They are just too unwilling and set in their ways to experiment.</p>

<p>“If you went to McDonald’s, asked for a Big Mac, and they forced you to buy the meal with it and you only wanted the sandwich, you’d feel like they were trying to extort money out of you, no matter how much that they were protesting that they merely wanted you to have a well-rounded meal.”</p>

<p>Again, Big Mac costs money (like always), and meal comes with it, free.</p>

18

<p>

Only a finite quantity of education is possible. Each student has a finite amount of time to devote to his or her studies. Therefore, any increase in unrelated material necessarily implies a decrease in related material.</p>

<p>The egg metaphor only works if several eggs have been removed and replaced with chocolate eggs.

Yes, because a single introductory-level course provides a completely accurate perspective of what it is like to work in a field. Especially a course in the liberal arts, which by definition are designed not to provide preparation for a specific professional career. [/sarcasm]</p>

<p>Also, turn: being forced to study material destroys interest.
<a href=“Sign in - Google Accounts”>Sign in - Google Accounts;
Kohn, 2K

[/size]</p>

19

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t know what kind of McDonald’s you go to, but at mine they charge extra for the meal.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In a lot of ways, this is a very valid point. Unfortunately, there is much more to the situation than this metaphor can encompass. If you’re buying eggs, the grocery store doesn’t care what you do with your eggs–you can egg someone’s house or you can eat them. They just want your money.</p>

<p>A university though, has its reputation partially based on the competency of its graduates. If they graduate an engineer that can’t read and only speaks pig latin, it’s not going to reflect well on them. Out of this self-interest, you get core requirements and the like.</p>

<p>If you take the issue back to its very core, it also becomes a political debate: what should they be allowed to require? You have the fun parent (Brown) that says, “Hey, kids, would you like ice cream, cupcakes, or bacon for dinner tonight? Or all three?” Then you have the hard-ass parent (Columbia) that says,“**** that. You’ll eat your spinach, and when you’re done, you can have a piece of hard candy and some tonic water.”</p>

<p>Which is better? Neither. The question becomes more, “Which is better for me?”</p>

20

<p>

Depending on the university, I don’t think it’s necessarily hyperbole at all.</p>

<p>Taking the school I know best, Duke draws a sharp distinction between the departments of English (which utilizes traditional methodologies) and Literature (which is fond of various theoretical frameworks). I think the OP would approve of the English department, which is quite rigorous with a set core of classes. The Literature department, on the other hand, is notoriously politicized and quite often deals with texts as something merely to be crammed into an existing theoretical construct. </p>

<p>As for Marxism, Duke was proud to be home to a thriving Marxist Studies department. For better or worse, it has gradually dwindled into a shadow of its former self and is now only a certificate (hosted, naturally, in Literature).</p>