Re: comPelling the classics

The Other Fran wrote:
> Will wrote:
> > The Other Fran wrote:
> > [...]
> > > On the one hand he complains that students are being turned into agents
> > > of social change and on the other that the syllabuses would leave
> > > students morally rudderless.
> >
> > Why are these on opposing hands? I see no dichotomy here.
>
> Can one be able to effect change in a specific direction while having
> no specific direction (i.e. being "rudderless"?

Of course. The students are being turned into agents of change, the
change being from a directed society to an undirected one ("morally
rudderless").

> > When I was at school in the late '60s and early '70s, I wasn't aware of
> > any of my peers "thinking".
>
> That sounds terrible. An obvious question arises however. Is it
> possible that you weren't "aware" of others thinking because, (how can
> I put this delicately?) at the time it was you, rather than others, who
> weren't thinking?

What I meant was what I said - I wasn't aware of any thinking. We
didn't discuss high concepts as a rule; we were more interested in
boyish pursuits such as football (AmE = "soccer"), girls (AmE =
"broads") and pop music. Of course we were "thinking" as expressed by
measurable cerebral activity - quite a number of us obtained suitable
qualifications and went on to higher education. I don't know that I'd
call it "thinking", in the sense of anything very worthwhile occurring.
As for myself, I was regarded as something of a Bluestocking (or
Bluesock, I suppose) since I actually read good literature for fun. I
daresay I even thought about it. But those thoughts are thankfully not
recorded for posterity.

> > We invariably had opinions, I suppose, but
> > no-one in authority took them seriously.
>
> That's still true of most adults, but does that disqualify it as
> thinking?

No, but it tends not to appear on anyone's radar.

> > Consequently, I tend to laugh
> > when teenagers try to tell me what they think, as if their opinions
> > have any heft at all, and it's worse when they try to enjoin adults to
> > "respect their opinions", as is often heard when TV vox pops are
> > conducted at the school gates.
> >
>
> Oh, I always make an effort to listen. Sometimes I'm there when
> something like an epiphany takes place -- and let me assure you, it's
> an exciting moment -- not one to be missed if it's at all possible.

Would you care to back this up with some sort of example?

> Often the effort goes unrewarded of course, but I fancy it's these
> moments establishing my standing that make the others possible.

What standing is it to which you refer?

> > Surely the point is that a child needs to be given the tools to fashion
> > her critical apparatus, not given the critical apparatus wholesale?
> > Teach a man to fish, and all that.
>
> I agree with that. I'm just not sure it's always things described as
> "classics" that supply these tools.

I never said it was.

> And certainly, it's my view that
> when a continuing dialog between students and critical concepts is
> established and maintained, the basis for intellectual discrimination
> and autonomy is created. The question is not how old or venerated the
> text is, but whether there's anything in there worth considering.

Well, a text that's stood the test of time generally does so for some
arguably good reason that might loosely be associated with
"veneration".

> "Classics" were all new once. There was a time when Twain and Bronte
> would have been seen as representing a decline in public culture. Plato
> apparently expressed the view that writing things down was destructive
> of thought.

Well, it certainly interrupts thought. Now, where was I...?

> > That's why the "classics" matter -
> > because they help to fashion useful neural pathways, not to mention
> > that they expose the "Eminem" generation to genuine beauty.

> Now there's a piece of self-indulgence if ever I saw one. Eminem seems
> as repellant to me, as Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd was to my parents.

I wouldn't seek to ascribe beauty to either Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd
(though I happen to like the latter). If you're seeking examples of
unalloyed beauty in music you need look no further than J S Bach.

> > And your problem with empiricism is what, precisely?
>
> Well there's a whole paper in that answer. Briefly though, ignoring the
> role of context and perspective in meaning, treating ideas as universal
> truths and so forth is intellectually dubious. In literature, seeing
> the key determinant of the "meaning" of a text as being about arguments
> over authorial intent is, at best, facile. Do I really care what Hitler
> was thinking of when he wrote Mein Kampf, or what Bush meant when he
> declared "Victory!" on that ship? Isn't the role it played in the wider
> world of ideas at least as important? Doesn't the audience matter as
> much as the author, in determining the value of a piece of writing?

I'm sorry but that is such a muddled argument that I don't know that I
can pick the bones out of it to argue with you. In any case, today's
intellectual dubiety (as expressed in academe) is often as not
tomorrow's sacred cow, and vice versa. If you really don't care what
Hitler was thinking when he wrote Mein Kampf, then I hope you never
presume to pronounce upon it. Not that I'm playing down the role of
the audience in determining the value of a piece of writing (though I
prefer readership over audience when referring to writing) - quite the
opposite, in fact. An author cannot determine a book's value. Only
posterity can do that with anything approaching reliability.

> > In answer to your
> > question, classic literature is defined by history, but then I suspect
> > you already know that.
> >
>
> That's a bit vague. What does that mean?

Don't be obtuse.

> > > In a speech in Canberra yesterday, the Catholic archbishop said some
> > > schools were placing too much focus on texts that normalised "moral and
> > > social disorder".
> > >
> > > "While parents wonder why their children have never heard of the
> > > Romantic poets, Yeats or the Great War poets, and never ploughed
> > > through a Bronte, Orwell or Dickens novel, their children are engaged
> > > in analysing a variety of 'texts', including films, magazines,
> > > advertisements and even road signs as part of critical literacy,"
> > > Cardinal Pell declared.
> >
> > How could any right-thinking person disagree with this,
>
> Plainly. Pell is a *right*-thinking person. That's why he said it.
> Others might demur.

Well, in that case they'd be *wrong*-thinking.

> > assuming that
> > the speaker's correct. Of course, it's a shame to suggest that one
> > needs to "plough" through Bronte, Orwell or Dickens
>
> But that's just it you see. For Pell, worthiness comes through
> suffering. No pain no gain. This earthly life is a veil of tears -- a
> trial to be endured but which, if passed, will earn us a spot in
> heaven.

Anything worth achieving takes hard work. Can you point to any
valuable human endeavour that does not?

> > (I do agree,
> > though, that Orwell is somewhat out of place in that company, though I
> > am currently re-reading "Down and Out.." and enjoying it hugely).
>
> It is a very fine piece of writing.

Glad we agree.

> > I
> > find that I glide effortlessly through Bronte, Dickens, George Eliot et
> > al. What I find catastrophically indigestible is the sort of Playdoh
> > pap that DE781 occasionally sees fit to reproduce here - song lyrics
> > for the most part, I imagine, though he rarely if ever credits them, or
> > if he does I don't understand his lingo.
>
> I don't bother.

Neither do I, to be honest.

> > Any curriculum or teaching
> > method that automatically thinks that classic literature is
> > "irrelevant",
>
> Pell is wrong on that. That's not the view at all.

Good. There is hope.

> > or that modern pop culture is more "relevant",
>
> It's not scaled. A range of texts is chosen that reflect the demands of
> the contemporary world. The "classics" remain, but other texts are
> there as well.

That is as it should be. We don't want to pretend that no work worthy
of consideration has been created post-1920, or some other arbitrary
date. I've read many modern novels, and heard many modern musical
works, and seen much modern art, that I feel are worthy of becoming
part of the Canon. Luckily for the rest of you, this is not in my
gift.

> > is
> > intellectually and emotionally moribund. But I suspect that a large
> > part of this stems from the feeble thinking of many modern parents -
>
> Well if you thought them intellectually indolent when they were your
> peers, it's a fair bet you'll assume they're asleep at the wheel as
> parents.

A frighteningly large number of them are asleep at the wheel. I have a
number of boomer-generation friends whose children are complete
wasters, which having seen at close quarters how they were brought up
(or in some cases, not brought up at all, since bring is a transitive
verb) does not surprise me one jot.

> > that it is more important to be friends with your children than to
> > bring them up correctly.
>
> I can't say I'm seeing a lot of this around my way.

I see precious little else, to be honest. Try watching "Supernanny"
(British TV programme where a trained nanny brings hitherto untrained
children under the general heading of "civilised").

> > We *are* morally rudderless, since practically no-one does any more
> > than pay lip service to any moral code any more.
>
> You've missed all that right-wing heckling over "PC" then?

What's that got to do with a moral rudder (or compass, or any other
navigational aid)?

> > Germaine Greer, for
> > example, argues that female circumcision is not objectionable, since it
> > takes place in a different cultural context.
>
> And yet, this practice, when undertaken, is an attempt to buttress the
> kind of traditional moral code Pell would approve of.

Possibly, but don't make the mistake of presuming that because he might
endorse the ends that he would necessarily also endorse the means.

> Now of course,
> there is a framework not only for each of us to object loudly to such
> ideas, but for the intended victims to do so as well.

So why does it continue, even in a sophisticated Western country like
Britain?

> > When an otherwise highly
> > intelligent person starts arguing that torture and mutilation are ok
> > because they're cultural norms, rather than condemning the cultural
> > practices, you know it's time to reach for the curriculum and the red
> > pen.
> >
>
> Not at all. In Year 9 PE, we have discussed just this issue and many
> related issues, as part of the curriculum.

When you discussed it, did you also condemn it? If not, why not?

> > When I was growing up, and even today, my aversion to serious
> > wrong-doing sprang not from fear of police or judicial retribution, but
> > from fear for my immortal soul.
>
> The boogie man?

Huh? Read The Bible.

> > When this sort of deep-seated, primal
> > fear is removed or lost, then most people adopt a pick 'n' mix attitude
> > to right and wrong, and whence should they pick 'n' mix?
>
> They need to understand who they are, and the frontiers between them
> and others.

And who's going to tell them? Remember, they're not getting it from
the old Book of instruction (vide supra).

> > From
> > narratives that show, in profound ways, full of insight, the
> > consequences of actions, such as are found in Dickens, Brontes et al?
> > Or from the pages of "Bliss", "Sugar" and the "novels" of Julie
> > Burchill?
> >
>
> >From a whole variety of texts and other experiences.

Of what substance? If you are *really* attempting to argue that
there's any sort of equivalence between, say, George Eliot and Julie
Burchill, or Dickens and Melvin Burgess, then I'd have to say that you
need to see someone.

Please note that I'm NOT saying that "a whole variety of texts and
other experiences" cannot give some intellectual or spiritual
nourishment, just as a strawberry jam sandwich on white bread will keep
the wolf from the door momentarily. But for genuine, long-term mental
and spiritual health you need something with a little bit of fibre - in
this case, moral fibre.

> > There you have it in a nutshell. If you don't expose people to beauty,
> > but keep them mired instead in images of brutality and nihilism, don't
> > be surprised if you spawn a generation of brutal nihilists.
> >
>
> That's your declaration, but beauty is the most subjective of all
> things, and what you or I might regard as banal or even repellant is
> not a guide to how others will see it. Children are no more inclined to
> nihilism than the broader community. Indeed, if anything, they tend to
> be rather more optimistic about the world.

But if you persist in bombarding them, when they are at their most
impressionable, with brutal, nihilistic images, they cannot but absorb
these, in the same way that they cannot but absorb background radiation
or pesticides from non-organic apples.

May I be permitted a highly subjective example? When I was at boarding
school, aged around 14 , I was allowed to watch a film called "The
Wages Of Fear". Towards the end there is a scene where a lorry is
stuck in a swamp, and so the co-driver gets out to try to ease its
passage. Unfortunately for him, the wheels "bite" at just the wrong
moment, and the lorry runs over his leg. The driver jumps out to help
him, but you can see when he is dragged from the swamp that his lower
leg is dangling uselessly, the bone completely snapped in two. This is
not filmed explicitly, but from some distance, and yet this single
image gave me terrible nightmares for weeks.

Skip forward 34 years to last Saturday. My son, just 9, went to a
friend's house for a sleepover. The friend's mother was away, and the
father is as useless as a chocolate fireguard. As a result my son came
home having slept not a wink. However, he did say that all the boys
had stayed up (unsupervised) and watched a film called "Sean of the
Dead", an utterly abject, dismal, *** little British so-called comedy
about flesh-eating zombies, that I had had the misfortune to waste two
hours of my life sitting in front of only a week or two before. It
contained some scenes of bloody dismemberment that made my "Wages of
Fear" scene seem like something out of Janet and John, yet my son was
hardly moved by it at all. At the same sleepover, he and his friends
had also watched a soft core porno movie (he described it as "ladies in
their pants rubbing their bosoms together").

It is tempting to conclude that his comparative equanimity at the
zombie-fest has at least something to do with my wife and I having been
unable to shield him entirely from the brutally nihilistic sub-culture
that brings something like "Sean of the Dead" into being. My son has no
unsupervised access to a TV, we don't have cable or satellite and never
will, and he is only allowed supervised access to the Internet. The
trouble is, his friends' parents aren't quite as assiduous as we are in
policing their children's cultural diet. He is still a very happy,
optimistic chap, full of the joys etc. But somewhere within him,
whether he knows it or not, and whether he likes it or not, are the
seeds of squalour sown that night. They may not sprout, and they may
not amount to much if they do, but they're there.

Don't get me wrong. It's a cruel world out there, crueller for some
than for others. And you've got to learn about it sometime. Slowly
and gradually seem to be the best way to me.

Will.

.

Loading