English 300: First Response

What is English Studies?

—Benjamin Goodin: Literary education in higher learning is considered to be a novelty of dubious social benefit. There is an expectation that those who pursue literature at the college level will either become teachers or low-level professionals in an unrelated field of corporate work. The underlying assumption seems to be that, for adults, literature is good for little else than a hobby. Professional work environments do little to value an education in humanities other than appreciating the writing skills that develop alongside reading in a university. The explicit notion transmitted is that the humanities are not marketable. Workplaces and common stereotypes, however, seem to ignore that a modern university education in literature develops critical and writing faculties that are favored and popular in mass media, as evidenced by the proliferation of independent blogs, publications, websites and electronic social networks that produce vast bodies of criticism and reviews of corporate mass media productions. In an age where publicity can “make or break” a film, record, or product, and mass media production is becoming more readily affordable and available to non-corporate producers, the corporation controlled economy is still curiously ambivalent to English-Language Arts training. Until corporations find a way to integrate or appreciate a literary education, society will continue to view a higher education in humanities as a fool’s pursuit when compared to other market-friendly professions that generate more material wealth, the ultimate measure of social acceptance and success.

English 300: First Response

What is English Studies?--Ron McCutchan: Berlin's final section on the continuity of the curriculum calls to mind my own double-visioned experience of higher education: an undergrad liberal arts/humanities curriculum in the early 80s and the past two years in the English ed curriculum at ISU. As a humanities major, I was atypical at University of Illinois (amid the engineering students), so maybe I wasn't experiencing the fragmented curriculum that Berlin describes. (And this was after the general ed reforms of the 70s--but my one general ed class, having tested out of everything else, was a large lecture astronomy class--the rest of my coursework was small seminar classes in fairly specialized subject areas.) The biggest difference I'm noting between that curriculum and my current studies is one of permeability. Especially this semester, my classes seem to be sloshing together in terms of focus: the role of rhetoric in and out of the classroom, the application of the concept of adolescence and adolescent development on instruction, and the goal/purpose of education--what exactly are we trying to teach? I'm certainly asking myself deeper questions than I did as a 20 year old undergrad. But I also sense a definite corralling effect--I need to think about these things AS A PROSPECTIVE TEACHER, not necessarily as a successful, liberally educated person--though there is an underlying assumption that these questions are ones that all educated persons SHOULD ask.

English 300: First Response

What is English Studies?

—Ryan Henneberry: As Graff writes, “From the point of view of subsequent literary criticism, the old college's conception of literary study as an extension of grammar, rhetoric, and elocution was merely an evidence of hopeless provincialism,” it is obvious that English Studies bring more to the table than reading books. Therefore, it can be easily argued that perhaps the best service literary studies provides its students is that it may create more well-rounded students than most other fields of education. Initially, as Graff states, literary studies combines grammar, rhetoric, and criticism. The benefit to uncovering such a magnitude of studies in one field is clear: it promotes that its students (and hence, future educators) are enveloping a large information base to act on later. To put it more simply, the literary studies student’s toolbox is larger, deeper, and has a wider range of tools.

Further, literary studies, specifically in terms of rhetoric and literary criticism, continues to set the bar in academia for social critique, research, and exploring injustices. In many circles (but perhaps just those literary studies circles) literature is acknowledged as a powerful medium to understanding a society, because life is mostly effectively reflected in ones art. Therefore, because so many literary studies programs attempt to seek social justice for all people through artifacts different than in any other field, we can posit that literary studies is attempting to produce some of the most forward thinking and socially aware students at a university. Ergo, the benefit is simple: literary studies in a way becomes a state of mind, analyzing what happens around us, using rhetoric to enhance change. It is no longer just a study.

English 300: First Response

Literacy vs “Literature”--Jeff Hyde: I find myself fascinated by Graff’s account of Hugh Blair’s Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. Blair’s assertion that a poem’s didacticism lay in the realm of “pleasing and moving” speaks to the heart of the issue Graff is detailing. The sentiment is echoed by Hiram Corson’s notion that literature attempted to express man’s spiritual inner-being, and therefore should only be studied as such. It’s just this sort of esoteric assignation to literature of all kinds that seems to be the root of popular perceptions about English studies. I think this perception lingers in some insidious ways. . . . One way in which such perceptions continue to damage the serious study of literature is illustrated by standardized testing in high schools and the standards-based pedagogy employed therein. As future educators we are trained to teach “literacy,” not literature. Literature is secondary to the ability to read it. Maybe this is as it should be, but it’s to the detriment of a well-rounded education (in my opinion).

English 300: First Response

Rhetoric--Nick Kaminsky: Berlin quotes the famous English professor, William Parker, about the reasons for English departments. Parker simply writes, “English departments exist because literary texts exist.” I do think this is an important aspect of the study of English. I believe that even if the original authors of our classic English language authors did not know the importance of their work, they shaped the way that our language progressed. Studying classic works like Beowulf not only give us insight on how the language was formed (from other languages) but also how it is changing (in present day). Literary texts give us specific examples into the meaning and formation of language. We can see it breathe and live throughout these works, and I think that it is an extremely helpful and important look into our societies. However, I think there is much more to it than that. And my main point: Rhetoric. I think rhetoric is one of the most absolute essential subjects to be taught, not just within the realm of English studies, but throughout your entire educational career. Being able to manipulate and play with language in a way that creates power and persuades is the ultimate goal of using language. We all want people to believe and understand the things we say and believe, and effectively utilizing rhetoric is the best way to do it.

English 300: First Response

Rhetoric —Emily Mate: I am often asked if I plan on going into Education with my English degree. When I respond ‘No, I have no desire to ever teach’ I am often met with a quizzical expression followed by ‘Oh, well what on earth can you do with that degree?’ It is not uncommon for people to hear I am an English major, and not take me seriously. It is assumed that all English majors go into this study because we do not have a clue what else we would like to do with our lives, or that we are looking for an easy way through our four years in college. However, I disagree with these thoughts. While I know many English majors may choose this study because they are unsure what to do with their lives post-graduation, many choose it because they feel that they are being taught skills that will be more useful in a broader sense. In the English major we are taught how to look at things analytically, not take things at face value, and to interpret our own opinions and arguments. Through the use of rhetoric we are able to use language as a tool in a way students in other fields will never understand. So very often I hear how employers are disappointed in the University (this is a general University and not specific to Illinois State) and its preparation for students in the work force. I am not writing this to dismiss other fields of study, but to merely shed light on their flaws as well. In certain majors students memorize facts and formulas, spew them out, and then never think of them again as they continue in their studies until required. In the English major it is not so much the information that is coming out of discussions on specific pieces that is most important, but the skills taken away from those discussions.

English 300: First Response

Gender Issues —Michelle Lepka: The topic regarding gender and English studies is a very interesting subject. Thinking back to my earlier years attending elementary school, I never had the pleasure of having a male teacher for anything more than a simple spelling and handwriting lesson. This gave my principle, Mr. Musser, an extreme amount of authoritative edge that I have never realized till contemplating this subject. Once I entered junior high and high school my teachers were still dominantly female and the male teachers maintained very stereotypical masculine roles in the course subjects of math and science. I graduated from high school with twenty-two classmates, nine of which were girls, from my extremely small private school. I obviously became used to having very male dominated classes where they naturally overpowered the females in the “masculine” subjects and the females were more likely to be vocal in subjects like English. This could very much have been the result of why I enjoyed English as much as I obviously have and felt that English was an area that shown through for myself.

English 300: First Response

Gender Issues —Candice Smith: While reading Thelin I was reminded of some of my own experiences of being a female student and also all the "facts" I was reminded of about the performance of women in school. The reason I bring up "facts" is because I went to an all girl private high school where teachers would dedicate a large part of a few scattered days here and there reminding us that, "If you were in a co-ed school and you and a male student raised your hands, chances are the male would get called on" or "If you were in a co-ed school you would be less likely to participate in class." As a high school student, I felt my school was modern in the sense that it separated boys from girls. I felt my school was helping to liberate and empower women. As I read Thelin, although I still believe my high school does try to stay true to their mission, I realize all girl institutions are derived from old tradition-- one that my school wanted to hold on to and fights to sustain. . . . Why does my high school feel so strongly about keeping the school all women? I suppose it has to do with how some schools objectify their female students. I heard of schools having beauty contest, as Thelin talks about on page 229 at U of I. An example that I remember while in high school was the all boy school next door to my school would hold a beauty contest for the boys' homecoming dates. I remember my high school being infuriated with this aspect. . . . I think that women have had to work rigorously (and still do) to be valued as intellectuals. Thelin says on page 231 that parents of female college students worried that their daughters would be unappealing. Today women are definitely respected for their opinions and academics but remain segregated in areas of study. Are we concentrated in different areas because our interests are innately different or are they a legacy of past "womanly" studies?

English 300: First Response

Gender Issues —Andrea Bickness: The Graff essay mentions that "since the modern languages and literatures were considered more social accomplishments, they were looked upon as feminine preoccupations." It was also mentioned by Thelin that English courses were given for women because it was believed that they could not handle the same curricular load as men, what with their much inferior intellect... When I think about the English major today I do notice that retained stereotype of femininity within the subject. There seems to be the belief that if a man does study English literature he must be slightly feminine, or else homosexual. I, of course, know this to not be true. But I do believe that most of the men in the English program do differ from men in other majors in the sense that these men think with a different side of their brain. They are more intellectual and moral, with humanistic cares due to more reading and literature exposure.

English 300: First Response

Gender Issues —Terry Eagleton: It is significant, then, that 'English' as an academic subject was first institutionalized not in the Universities, but in the Mechanics' Institutes, working men's colleges anti extension lecturing circuits." English was literally the poor man's classics - a way of providing a cheapish 'liberal' education for those beyond the charmed circles of public school and Oxbridge frorn the outset, in the work of 'English' pioneers like F. D. Maurice and Charles Kingsley, the emphasis was on solidarity between the social classes, the cultivation of 'larger sympathies', the instillation of national pride and the transmission of'moral' values. This last concern - still the distinctive hallmark of literary studies in England, and a frequent source of. bemusement to intellectuals from other cultures - was an essential part of the ideological project; indeed the rise of'English' is more or less concomitant with an historic shift in the very meaning of the term 'moral', of which Arnold, Henry James and F. R. Leavis are the major critical exponents. Morality is no longer to he grasped as a formulated code or explicit ethical system: it is rather a sensitive preoccupation with the whole quality of life itself, with the oblique, nuanced particulars of human experience. Somewhat rephrased, this can be taken as meaning that the old religious ideologies have lost their force, and that a more subtle communication of moral values, one which works by 'dramatic enactment' rather than rebarbative abstraction, is thus in order. Since such values are nowhere more vividly dramatized than in literature, brought home to 'felt experience' with all the unquestionable reality of a blow on the head, literature becomes more than just a handmaiden of moral ideology: it is moral ideology for the modern age, as the work of F. R. Leavis was most graphically to evince.

from

Literary Theory: An Introduction

, p. 23-4

English 300: First Response

Gender Issues —Terry Eagleton: The working class was not the only oppressed layer of Victorian society at whom 'English' was specifically beamed. English literature, reflected a Royal Commission witness in 1877, might be considered a suitable subject for 'women ... and the second- and third-rate men who ... become schoolmasters.'" The 'softening' and 'humanizing' effects of English, terms recurrently used by its early proponents, are within the existing ideological stereotypes of gender clearly feminine. The rise of English in England ran parallel to the gradual, grudging admission of women to the institutions of higher education; and since English was an untaxing sort of affair, concerned with the finer feelings rather than with the more virile topics of bona fide academic 'disciplines', it seemed a convenient sort of non subject to palm off on the ladies, who were in any case excluded from science and the professions. Sir Arthur Quiller Couch, first Professor of English at Cambridge University, would open with the word 'Gentlemen' lectures addressed to a hall filled largely with women. Though modern male lecturers may have changed their manners, the ideological conditions which make English a popular University subject for women to read have not.

If English had its feminine aspect, however, it also acquired a masculine one as the century drew on. The era of the academic establishment of English is also the era of high imperialism in England. As British capitalism became threatened and progressively outstripped by its younger German and American rivals, the squalid, undignified scramble of too much capital chasing too few overseas territories, which was to culminate in 1914 in the first imperialist world war, created the urgent need for a sense of national mission and identity. What was at stake in English studies was less English literature than English literature: our great 'national poets' Shakespeare and Milton, the sense of an 'organic' national tradition and identity to which new recruits could be admitted by the study of humane letters. from

Literary Theory: An Introduction

, p. 24