Lit programs that have not succumbed to postmodernism/cultural studies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with OP.

One LAC offers a course titled Queer Feminist Environmental Studies (Hamilton College).

Is it required?

Required or not, it’s still ludicrous.

You know, I looked this up because I was curious. Seems to not be a real class at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the OP and that's ridiculous.

I think there's really a two-front war in defending the integrity of the university.

On the right, you have those who want to teach sanitized history or creationism.

Then there's the woke left who want think the proper teaching of the humanities should be replaced by faddish identity politics.

I reject both.

Answer these two questions regarding your bolded statement, Comrade:

- What is the "proper" teaching of literature, precisely.

- Who in academia believes that. Please focus on your word "replace" and provide evidence. Academics write papers for a living so it should not be hard for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a serious “literature” education only values English langauge writers who have been dead for at least 150 years. Nothing else is of value. That’s not studying literature

This response is a huge part of the problem. We live in the USA. Our culture, politics, customs, etc. are products of the Western World. There are undoubtedly fantastic works of literature in China and India (for example) that have been hugely influential in Asia. But regardless of your feelings, they’re not relevant here.

Furthermore, stating that authors like Shakespeare and Dickens “have value” does not mean they are the ONLY authors who have value. What are you even talking about?

What century are you writing from? How did you figure out time travel?

The US is a western society.

And a Christian nation.

LOL no.

You can laugh but I agree with the PP (and with atheist Richard Dawkins) that countries like the UK and US *are* nations with heavy socially Christian traditions.
Obviously it isn’t the officially religion, but even with fewer churchgoers and professed “believers” than there were 30 years ago, it is still a nation based on Christian norms.

Also the PP who dismissed concerns as “mad just because the emphasis is no longer on western, capitalist view as a positive”—or something like that…yes, I’d say that’s a pretty huge problem when American society is built on the free market and the liberal free-thinking philosophy of seeking truth and exploring and debating ideas in search of it as pretty much the basis of our shared American values and what we all want to promote in higher education.
So yes—when we see that our American institutions of “higher learning” have been ideologically captured by individuals who are pushing an anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-western dogma onto students and passing it off as enlightenment, it is very concerning.

Incidentally, this is not exactly surprising given that ex-KGB agents literally spelled out this exact plan when being interviewed by Phil Donahue in the late 1970s. But I think many boomers and GenXers dismissed that as laughable—and just didn’t buy that they could pull that off HERE on our own soil. It sounded like a crazy conspiracist plot, honestly.

Until suddenly it isn’t.

Speaking of conspiracist plots, have you looked at what you wrote?

[Anonymous]

None of you appear to understand the study of literature. At all.

-- someone with an graduate degree in it

[Anonymous]

I don’t understand why OP is saying that things like feminism or Marxism are faddish. These ideologies have been around for hundreds of years if not more … at what point do they stop being a fad? Does OP also think that women wearing pants is a passing fad? Or representative democracy?

I posted above about the podcast talking about the feminist and radical political messages in Canterbury tales. These themes have been in literature forever. And talking about them makes old stuff more relevant to readers of today. I’m a huge Tolstoy fan and studied it in college — even then we talked about tolstory’s really complicated and troublesome attitudes towards women. I don’t see how you can read Tolstoy or Austin or Dickinson without talking about feminism or how you can read dickens or Shakespeare without talking about class politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why OP is saying that things like feminism or Marxism are faddish. These ideologies have been around for hundreds of years if not more … at what point do they stop being a fad? Does OP also think that women wearing pants is a passing fad? Or representative democracy?

I posted above about the podcast talking about the feminist and radical political messages in Canterbury tales. These themes have been in literature forever. And talking about them makes old stuff more relevant to readers of today. I’m a huge Tolstoy fan and studied it in college — even then we talked about tolstory’s really complicated and troublesome attitudes towards women. I don’t see how you can read Tolstoy or Austin or Dickinson without talking about feminism or how you can read dickens or Shakespeare without talking about class politics.

But in today’s climate you wouldn’t read Shakespeare or Dickens or Tolstoy, because they’re just dead white men. And you most likely wouldn’t read Austin or Dickinson because they’re dead white women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why OP is saying that things like feminism or Marxism are faddish. These ideologies have been around for hundreds of years if not more … at what point do they stop being a fad? Does OP also think that women wearing pants is a passing fad? Or representative democracy?

I posted above about the podcast talking about the feminist and radical political messages in Canterbury tales. These themes have been in literature forever. And talking about them makes old stuff more relevant to readers of today. I’m a huge Tolstoy fan and studied it in college — even then we talked about tolstory’s really complicated and troublesome attitudes towards women. I don’t see how you can read Tolstoy or Austin or Dickinson without talking about feminism or how you can read dickens or Shakespeare without talking about class politics.

But in today’s climate you wouldn’t read Shakespeare or Dickens or Tolstoy, because they’re just dead white men. And you most likely wouldn’t read Austin or Dickinson because they’re dead white women.

DP - More platitudes, Comrade, that advance your agenda but completely avoid PP's informed and reasonable position.

Fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why OP is saying that things like feminism or Marxism are faddish. These ideologies have been around for hundreds of years if not more … at what point do they stop being a fad? Does OP also think that women wearing pants is a passing fad? Or representative democracy?

I posted above about the podcast talking about the feminist and radical political messages in Canterbury tales. These themes have been in literature forever. And talking about them makes old stuff more relevant to readers of today. I’m a huge Tolstoy fan and studied it in college — even then we talked about tolstory’s really complicated and troublesome attitudes towards women. I don’t see how you can read Tolstoy or Austin or Dickinson without talking about feminism or how you can read dickens or Shakespeare without talking about class politics.

The problem isn't talking about women or class. Scholars have been talking about these things long before the woke ideologues came along.

What's happening now is very different. The main problem is identity politics where mediocre writers are promoted as literary greats in the name of diversity, and students either avoid the canon altogether or are taught to dismiss it as racist dead white males.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why OP is saying that things like feminism or Marxism are faddish. These ideologies have been around for hundreds of years if not more … at what point do they stop being a fad? Does OP also think that women wearing pants is a passing fad? Or representative democracy?

I posted above about the podcast talking about the feminist and radical political messages in Canterbury tales. These themes have been in literature forever. And talking about them makes old stuff more relevant to readers of today. I’m a huge Tolstoy fan and studied it in college — even then we talked about tolstory’s really complicated and troublesome attitudes towards women. I don’t see how you can read Tolstoy or Austin or Dickinson without talking about feminism or how you can read dickens or Shakespeare without talking about class politics.

The problem isn't talking about women or class. Scholars have been talking about these things long before the woke ideologues came along.

What's happening now is very different. The main problem is identity politics where mediocre writers are promoted as literary greats in the name of diversity, and students either avoid the canon altogether or are taught to dismiss it as racist dead white males.

You keep typing the BS, and when asked for evidence do not provide any.

Name a top college that doesn't teach Shakespeare, Chaucer, Dickens, Ibsen, Tolstoy, or the like. None? OK, name a lesser one that doesn't teach those. None AGAIN?

Well then maybe your post is bullsh*t, Comrade Snowflake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why OP is saying that things like feminism or Marxism are faddish. These ideologies have been around for hundreds of years if not more … at what point do they stop being a fad? Does OP also think that women wearing pants is a passing fad? Or representative democracy?

I posted above about the podcast talking about the feminist and radical political messages in Canterbury tales. These themes have been in literature forever. And talking about them makes old stuff more relevant to readers of today. I’m a huge Tolstoy fan and studied it in college — even then we talked about tolstory’s really complicated and troublesome attitudes towards women. I don’t see how you can read Tolstoy or Austin or Dickinson without talking about feminism or how you can read dickens or Shakespeare without talking about class politics.

But in today’s climate you wouldn’t read Shakespeare or Dickens or Tolstoy, because they’re just dead white men. And you most likely wouldn’t read Austin or Dickinson because they’re dead white women.

Of course you would. Moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of you appear to understand the study of literature. At all.

-- someone with an graduate degree in it

If this is how you express your thoughts, then you are not well educated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of you appear to understand the study of literature. At all.

-- someone with an graduate degree in it

If this is how you express your thoughts, then you are not well educated.

And, I wrote this because I am genuinely interested in reading your thoughts on this thread topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the canon

cAnOn

[Anonymous]

One of the great fallacies in the study of the literary and historical past is the assumption that what we have - even if we admire it - is the best version of anything. Just because something is old and famous doesn't actually make it good or even correct. That's why the inclusion of writers you haven't heard of already in an attempt to learn more about any given culture is so important. It's the sum total of the evidence that matters, coupled with the humility required to admit that the evidence is never going to give a full picture even when it is approached from every possible angle.

This doesn't mean that the entire human race is lost in a sea of moral relativism. It just means that all assumptions at the outset shape the conclusions at the end. And the assumption that a canon of western texts are all trending towards the same narrowly defined value set is a modern superimposition. You can use those texts that way if you want to. Just don't pretend that that was their original (homogeneous) message within the cultures that created them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why OP is saying that things like feminism or Marxism are faddish. These ideologies have been around for hundreds of years if not more … at what point do they stop being a fad? Does OP also think that women wearing pants is a passing fad? Or representative democracy?

I posted above about the podcast talking about the feminist and radical political messages in Canterbury tales. These themes have been in literature forever. And talking about them makes old stuff more relevant to readers of today. I’m a huge Tolstoy fan and studied it in college — even then we talked about tolstory’s really complicated and troublesome attitudes towards women. I don’t see how you can read Tolstoy or Austin or Dickinson without talking about feminism or how you can read dickens or Shakespeare without talking about class politics.

The problem isn't talking about women or class. Scholars have been talking about these things long before the woke ideologues came along.

What's happening now is very different. The main problem is identity politics where mediocre writers are promoted as literary greats in the name of diversity, and students either avoid the canon altogether or are taught to dismiss it as racist dead white males.

You keep typing the BS, and when asked for evidence do not provide any.

Name a top college that doesn't teach Shakespeare, Chaucer, Dickens, Ibsen, Tolstoy, or the like. None? OK, name a lesser one that doesn't teach those. None AGAIN?

Well then maybe your post is bullsh*t, Comrade Snowflake.

The fact that she did not provide web links upon your command is not proof that what she said is inaccurate. Your thinking so is a logical fallacy, and your confidence in it is telling.

On web forums, people have discussions assuming the ones they are engaging with have a level of familiarity with topic at hand, enough to day I've seen that in person or have experienced it or have read about it, and agree or disagree with the perspective. Yelling show me proof means you are not able to engage on the topic in this way.

Lastly, your visceral outrage is something we are supposed to care about. Why is that?