Anyone who follows the Review pages of The Australian will be familiar with ongoing debates over the role literature should play in the teaching of English in our schools. On one side of this debate sits conservative opinion, spearheaded by the likes of Imre Salusinszky and Kevin Donnelly, who both believe that "enduring classics associated with the Western tradition must be given pre-eminent status" in the classroom. On the other side sits post-modern argument, voiced by the likes of Mark Howie (Australian Association for the Teaching of English), who sees immense value in studying other forms of text that fall outside traditional definitions of literature.
In the past month this debate has come to a head as the National Curriculum Board takes its final submissions for the development of a "rigorous, world class national curriculum” to be implemented in 2011. To discuss the finer points of the submissions, ABC Radio National’s Ramona Koval brought together both Donnelly and Howie on the Book Show. It is this discussion in particular that sparked my interest in the matter. Previously, I thought Donelly was just another elitist cultural defender, incapable of recognising the value of studying various forms of popular culture, such as film and television, in the classroom. Now, after listening to his interview with Koval, I’ve found his views on the humanising dimension of literature compelling, and not dissimilar to my own. I now realise that we both think literature can strengthen our ability to find connections between ourselves and others, and we both believe this enlargement of sympathy can have a positive social impact that starts first in the classroom. In short, Koval’s interview fleshed out Donnelly’s overall concern about the potential “reduction in literature in the [new] curriculum”, and now I find myself sharing in Donnelly's concern.
An interesting debate and one that seems to be wrapped up in the struggle between high vs low culture. For example, the traditional
ReplyDeleteArnoldian view only considers those cultural contributions which perfect the moral self and have been the 'best that has been thought and said'. On the other hand, according to Raymond Williams, culture is a way of life and includes all things, for example, from recipes to graffiti.
It occurs to me, however, that in this debate access to education also needs to be considered. For example in choosing to study Jane Austen vs Stephanie Meyer access is a contributing factor to how texts are received. For the Arnolidian view to be true, everyone would have to have equal access to equal education. Not everyone has the opportunity to experience 'the best that has been thought and said'. Whilst we live in a liberal democracy there are significant differences between qualities of education.
Whilst I agree with your comment regarding the humanising potential of literature, if we close off the curriculum to the classics only, there is a necessary exclusion of those who are unable to access literature, either voluntarily or involuntarily, due to education levels or cultural reasons. Whilst it would be wonderful to think that all students could extract a higher moral condition from literature, at the end of the day, some students are simply not open to it. By including objects for study from popular culture, the student is still able to gain some sense of cultural awareness.
Tim said "Whilst I agree with your comment regarding the humanising potential of literature, if we close off the curriculum to the classics only, there is a necessary exclusion of those who are unable to access literature, either voluntarily or involuntarily, due to education levels or cultural reasons".
ReplyDeleteNo one is proposing to "close off the curriculum to classics only". As per the penultimate line in my blog entry, I'm more concerned that there will be a "reduction" in the literature component. I believe other "artefacts" from popular culture are already being studied at secondary school level.
Oh yeah, speaking of access to "the best that has been thought and said". I picked up a new copy of The Great Gatsby for $10 the other day. Of course, all of this talk about access will change once ebook readers become more affordable in about five years time.
Picking up on something Tim said, I had no trouble with physically accessing The Great Gatsby in school. They gave me a copy, they made me read it, they made me write something about it. What they couldn't do for me was to help me access it personally and emotionally. I had no idea whether it was "literature" or not 'cos I was just a middle class boy who rode his bike to the river on the weekend. Fast cars, fancy parties and affairs were just too removed from my world. Noone tried to "find out where I was at and bring me along". Poor me.
ReplyDelete