Extollager
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2010
- Messages
- 9,224
Back to literary studies and student dissatisfaction with same.
Evidently what many people think is that the primary value of literary reading--at least when the reader is in school or college--is that it can be useful in two ways. (1) It may help the reader gain an enhanced sense of identity. (2) It may help the reader to appreciate some other people.
Literature may be, incidentally, useful in these ways for some readers, but that great numbers of students and teachers should, evidently, assume that this kind of usefulness is the main thing would be a sign of the decadence of literary studies. It suggests that these people want literary studies to be a kind of moralistic therapeutic religion.
Literary study as a moralistic therapeutic religion will be susceptible to the demand that coursework should emphasize reading that makes people feel the way they think they want to feel. Thus moralistic therapeutic literary religion will emphasize recent writing (easier to read, more immediately gratifying). Campuses will bring in living authors to offer their "testimonies" about their experiences. Similarly, teachers will emphasize, not lectures, but "class discussions" in which students are rewarded by the teacher and their peers for talking about what earlier generations might have thought to be private feelings and experiences and would also have thought not to be sufficiently focused on the reading.
This isn't a complete explanation of what's going on in literary studies, but I think it is an important part of it, something perhaps more often assumed, as by the Yale student, than stated explicitly.
Evidently what many people think is that the primary value of literary reading--at least when the reader is in school or college--is that it can be useful in two ways. (1) It may help the reader gain an enhanced sense of identity. (2) It may help the reader to appreciate some other people.
Literature may be, incidentally, useful in these ways for some readers, but that great numbers of students and teachers should, evidently, assume that this kind of usefulness is the main thing would be a sign of the decadence of literary studies. It suggests that these people want literary studies to be a kind of moralistic therapeutic religion.
Literary study as a moralistic therapeutic religion will be susceptible to the demand that coursework should emphasize reading that makes people feel the way they think they want to feel. Thus moralistic therapeutic literary religion will emphasize recent writing (easier to read, more immediately gratifying). Campuses will bring in living authors to offer their "testimonies" about their experiences. Similarly, teachers will emphasize, not lectures, but "class discussions" in which students are rewarded by the teacher and their peers for talking about what earlier generations might have thought to be private feelings and experiences and would also have thought not to be sufficiently focused on the reading.
This isn't a complete explanation of what's going on in literary studies, but I think it is an important part of it, something perhaps more often assumed, as by the Yale student, than stated explicitly.