Transcript Historicizing Modernity

Rob Tomei:
A week or so ago I asked Dr. Strickland to tell us what our departments ranking was in comparison to
all of the other English Departments across the land. Throughout my experience in this department I
firmly expected to here a fairly decent number, at least in the top 50. I was astounded to here his
answer, "Somewhere in the 90's" he said.
In her section entitled "The Historical, Sociological, and Political Turns" starting on page 45 Klein
discusses expectations and acceptability in academia pertaining to blending of multi-cultural societal
rules and norms.
The part that I found particularly interesting was when she began discussing new developments and its
critics saying that it is too far "grounded in ideology". The counter-argument to this of course was that
the "traditional claims of disinterestedness carried unacknowledged ideologies" (Klein 47).
In other words, sticking to tradition has its roots in certain ideologies of what literature should be
perceived as, taught as and understood as. Switching this tradition to more contemporary moods of
thought, such as what our English Department has done so successfully, rooted in the ideologies of
literature and theory should not be chastised.
So many instances in our society we are trained to fault those who are different blaming them for falling
short when they have done nothing but set a higher standard. I believe if I had gone through a
"traditional" English department in accordance to what is expected to stand high among the prestigious
universities of this nation in rankings I would have missed out on so much. I am grateful to be apart of
such a pioneering department. I only wish we would receive the appreciation and acclamation we so
deeply deserve.
Literature’s Extra-literariness: John Laker
One passage that stood out to me in the Klein text reads "R. S. Crane of the Chicago Critics warned
against treating literature as psychology, history, sociology, ethics, or autobiography" (84-5). It's hard to
imagine what's left of literature without those subjects. I'm still a neophyte when it comes to theory, but
perhaps opening the those channels to the study of literature contradicts the New Criticist view of the
text as self-evidently great.
One of the main reasons why I decided to pursue English Studies as a major is because of its blending
of disciplines. When reading a text, it is important to understand its historical context. The importance of
Dickens' writing is realized with an understanding of the Industrial Revolution, for example.
Psychology crops up in literature when understanding the character's motives, like Raskolnikov's
justification in axing the old pawn broker lady to death. Even if a particular text utilizes "bad"
psychology, arguing why it's flawed is still connecting psychology with literature.
Without psychology, history, sociology, or ethics involved in literature, it ceases to be literature at all, but
rather a collection of events and thoughts that are restricted from referencing aspects of human life.
Literature’s Extra-literariness: Emily Mate
Klein states that “literature’s extra-literary ties are brought into a world in which literature is ‘the hub of
the wheel of knowledge’ and the ‘logical locus’ for integration” (87). It is interesting to me how in this
same paragraph Klein says that things such as sociology, law, politics, science, etc. all tie in with
literature; that at the base of each of these subjects literature can be found. I had mentioned in my first
response on Berlin that the English program teaches students to look at the world through analytical
eyes. It does this by encouraging the study of rhetoric, not only in a rhetoric class but throughout. It was
mentioned in class how some people’s rhetoric class changed their lives and the way they looked at the
world. In this rhetoric class we were taught that nothing should be taken at face value, but at the same
time how it is possible to persuade others to see the world as you do. It is with these analytical skills
taught through literature and writing that other subjects fall in. When studying law, one must be able to
interpret the words written because at times things are not always clear. It is this same way that one
would be able to persuade a group of people to see in favor of oneself or a client.
It is also through literature that we are able to learn about the outside world, even in our classrooms.
When studying the literature, we do not just sit around reading novels from over 200 years ago that
pertain to only the people of that time. We are getting a history lesson through these novels. In the
same way, I know I have been able to take numerous Women’s Literature classes here at ISU that have
taught me not only about American women, but the struggles of women from Poland, Iran, and Africa.
Currently I am taking a course that focuses on Women of Africa. It is here that I am learning not only
the culture and history of certain countries, but the politics of them as well (and this is and English
course).
The study of literature does not involve just reading a book and writing a book report on it; much like it
was in junior high. Studying literature also means studying history, politics, and all the others that Klein
had discussed. It is learning these and analyzing the information given to us.
Candice Smith:
I think that it is true. The study of "English" seems to infer that we are only studying writing, grammar,
and reading in our language. If I am understanding Klein correctly, English Studies requires much more
than the basics from its students. Our major involves analyzing,rhetoric, history, anthropology, and
those are only to name a few. Yes, a couple of those sound "englishy" but some definitely sound like a
discipline all on their own. I guess that is because they do have distinct departments for history and
anthropology.
In my own experience I wanted to be a history teacher before I wanted to teach English. However, it did
not take me long to realize that what I liked about History was really what I liked about English. I like
analyzing a situation, discussing it, writing about it, and learning from it. I did those things in history but I
could not take them in the direction I wanted without studying English. In short, I became an English
major because I did not want to look at a sequence of events and how they led to one thing or another.
I wanted to be able to look at the individual aspect of it all, to be part the the emotion, and analyze what
it all means. I guess I figured out that yeah the History channel was fun to watch, reading out of a text
book was not exactly engaging, and that studying literature that deals with historical and cultural topics
were the things that I was actually interested in.
The word "English" makes our major look like we are not studying more than the inner workings of our
language. I have come to realize that through analyzing language, reading, and writing we are really
studying the inner workings of our society.
Blurring Genres: Nick Kaminsky
Klein describes one argument which is essential to the new forms of humanities present today. She
discusses the importance of “specializations of differences,” and “blurring of the genres.” Klein writes
that specialization of differences is what gives us so many different facets of study in today’s
curriculum. It creates new fields that explore things like feminism, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.
Gay and feminist theories have become two of the many fields that people study in literature now. In
several of my literature classes at ISU I have been subjected to these new and different kinds of theory
and I have greatly enjoyed studying them through different novels. I think it gives fresh perspective on
literature, and makes me think of the issues concerning women and gays in a way I never have. It
definitely seems like the more progressive way to teach humanities.
Blurring of the genres is also an extremely interesting way to approach the humanities. Klein writes,
“The disaggregation of disciplines brought humanities into new importance as they broke away, bled, or
blurred, into other disciplines and sectors. Scholars moved out of their usual space into new and shared
territories,” (39). Many of my other literature classes have been very successful in their ability to discuss
and research different schools of thought.
I’d say a great deal of the classes I have taken have combined different subjects like, literature,
rhetoric, current events, and even historical occurrences to get the full picture of what we are studying.
There are many different important themes in every aspect of the humanities, and by blurring aspects
together in education, we can learn about more and more subjects and ideas than before.
Interdisciplinarity and Multidisciplinarity: Veronica Solomon
I don't know why but I keep wrapping my brain around these two concepts, and I start to wonder how
many curriculums think that they have an interdisciplinary approach to teaching, when in all reality they
have a multidisciplinary approach. I can see how one can confuse the two. I then go on to ponder how
many high schools have an interdisciplinary approach to their curriculum. As a soon-to-be
teacher(hopefully), I think this is important to include in all content areas. Just in the past few weeks I've
been introduced to a million new ways to teach students how to write, and within these new ways, there
have been many methods brought in from other disciplines. For instance, in one reading, I learned
different strategies of organizing and generating text of which I could use in my classroom. One
particular way dealt with using rhetorical proof cards. when I thought about proofs, my mind
immediately went to Geometry, and the idea of solving math problems with proofs. This idea transition
from Math to English is genius. I think that teaching students that they can intermingle tools from
different disciplines shows them just how connected and necessary each discipline is, and it gives them
this huge toolbox of strategies that they can carry on to college. If I use Klein's definition of
interdisciplinary approaches, I could say that my proof model, brings both students to a common
understanding of a math problem, or a writing problem.
I guess because the definitions given in Klein's book between Multi and interdisciplinary seem rather
similar to me, I had to use my own example to make it clear to me. My example wouldn't be
multidisciplinary, because the idea of the proof does not create a separate voice for Math and English.
It is simply a tool that can be used to solve a common problem.
Politics, Access and Humanities Education: Rebecca Ringelspaugh
I'm not sure my posting fits well here, but there isn't a good place for it. I realized that I mentioned The
Humanities and Their Boundaries here (which is next weeks reading, but i think that my thoughts could
very well apply to the article, Gender, Class and the Humanities.
As I was reading The Humanities and Their Boundaries, I realized that I hadn’t considered the
correlation between government politics and the cost of universities in The States, or at least in this
context. When I was in France, I saw how politics influenced education, which in turn dramatically
effected the host family students I got to know. Since France is socialist, from what I understand, going
on to higher education at a university after high school is paid for by the government. But, this also
means that not just anyone can get a college degree. French students in high school very seriously
study and sacrifice all four years for the Bac exam at the end of their senior year. Only those who do
very well are allowed to go to college. The test determines their future-very literally.
I know it may seem like I’m delineating from what was discussed in the readings, but with everything
that is happening economically in our nation, my thoughts and reactions to the reading naturally flowed
toward my previous experience in France.
What will happen if universities become too expensive for anyone not in the upper class? How might
the public respond to the government offering to help out so that there is “equal opportunity”? (and I
don’t mean like scholarships) I’m afraid that we already are going down that road. (I hope that I’m not
coming across as confrontational or sarcastic. I certainly don’t have the solutions, and I genuinely am
concerned.)
A Rant: Ben Goodin
What people hear when I say English degree amounts to “I want to get paid to read and spell check!”
My point being, it seems like a lot of the work that English majors do and skills they acquire are either
outright exempted or severely undervalued as “real work”. Perhaps the gap persists merely because of
stereotypes or maybe it is because Theory (with a capital T) rarely translates into profit. . . . When do
we see professional distinguished by the scope of their study and breadth of subject knowledge, the
way someone might distinguish an accomplished surgeon, within the humanities? The common answer
seems to be as a school teacher or professor.
Yet, how could I describe the full diversity of skills and knowledge, the mental agility and conceptual
framework that I’ve integrated in the study of English? Klein does a very thorough job of refracting the
spectrum of learning that is often overlooked in the white light of the English discipline. I wish that I
could take this book to every boss that ever raised an eyebrow at the copious profitability of English. I
wish I could brandish Klein at everyone who chuckled after I named my area of study. In an age that is
hallmarked by the rapid spread and wide proliferation of publicly accessible knowledge and in a culture
that is saturated by a wash of images and rhetoric, it seems that we need English majors even more.
We deal in literacy and fluency and examine text in all its forms from, literally, dozens of viewpoints at
once, considering context, relevance, and intertextual relationships. We can construct and deconstruct
literature, speech, and communication in general and, considering the value of literature (in all its
forms) to every political revolution since the middle ages, we have the power to move borders. Why
then, can we not get jobs, aside from teaching, where we can practice our multi and interdisciplinarity?
Why is English still considered a “soft” academic subject when it draws on the strength of so many
other founded disciplines? Why can the sciences draw on our work to fuel proofs while our doing the
same with science is generally considered to be the equivalent of landing jetliner with no previous
training? We can do so much, yet are regarded so little. It may be my Fordist/Taylorist fears acting up,
but it seems to be impossible to be respected societally without be legitimized in the market first.
Shared Practices: Mitzi Fracasso
Reading Klein, there is a lot to take into consideration. There are many different ways in which we can
look at interdisciplinary studies. There are many characteristics involved as well. Klein describes this on
page 77, stating that “life experience was a major category, as well as black studies, women’s studies,
and ethnic studies” (78). Klein also stated that “Interdisciplinary topics often emerge from problem
areas such as crime and the environment” (the topics I just listed) and this I would have to agree (77). I
think it is quite amazing that so many departments have branched off and became a study/field of their
own. I think it is important for this to keep happening. What is better than more choice in what field you
want to study??
Page 103 explains the shift of “teaching texts as literature, not grammar” (however grammar is still
important). This interests me because I am a prospect teacher and it surprised me that much of the
early English literature was called “British texts.” Today, here at ISU and I am sure other universities,
there are multiple Literature courses that you can take, all covering a certain time period in our history
which I think is very valuable and effective. There are just too many good writers and novels to cover in
one “survey” class of American or British literature.
On page 63 Klein is discussing shared practices and being a prospect teacher, this idea is very
relevant. Teaching any type of literature is more than just teaching the text, it is about learning the
history and looking at certain issues in that literature critically. I know that in my high school
experiences, this was not the case. There was not much critically thinking or analyzing being
incorporated with the literature I was taught. Students need to utilize their critically thinking skills in the
classroom daily and we, as prospect teachers, need to make sure we are setting high expectations for
our students. If more teachers are well-grounded in other disciplines, such as women studies or ethnic
studies, ideas from these disciplines can be brought to the literature we teach.