Op-Ed: How fetishizing old classics can go hand-in-hand with book banning



Too often we forget that arguments about what not to read are also battles about what to read. should Lily. And every time someone tries to ban Toni Morrison or Ta-Nehisi Coatesthey also try to bring our children back to Hawthorne and Hemingway, Dante and Dickens.

It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that in the midst of a deluge of book bans we are also seeing a new effort to rally our forces in defense of the classics. Thereby, an article in the National Review says the ledgers need a “massive rescue operation”. A recent piece in the Federalist calls for a renewed effort to “reclaim our Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian heritage and reenter the Great Conversation”. And, as if to respond to a Florida politician worrying last year that the Athens gadfly would be cancelled, a professor from Columbia University gave us “Save Socrates.”

Reading all of this, you’d be forgiven if you thought the western canon was out of steam. Let me assure you not.

I’m a professor of humanities and I teach great investigative classes that were (and sometimes still are) filled exclusively with dead, white, pious men from Europe. And even as I try to diversify my own backgrounds, to make room for other voices, I remain flabbergasted at how much these authors still fill and structure the national conversation.

The best evidence comes from large and prestigious publications, which to this day give an incredible amount of space – or pixels, I guess – to Western authors we’ve been writing about for centuries. Thus, the latest issue of Harper’s ask that we rethink Casanova. (Another article in the same magazine in the spring urge us to see WH Auden “in a new light”.) Last week, the New York Times reported breathlessly recent news of the field of Chaucer’s studies. And the October issue of The New Yorker complaints that 400-year-old John Donne is “more contemporary than ever”. And all of this is only from the last month.

And we don’t just see the media’s preference for canon in the content they cover. We see it in the way Canon structures its cover.

It struck me most forcefully when I read an otherwise provocative article article on the literature produced by artificial intelligence. It concludes with a series of pieces written by the AI ​​at the author’s request in the style of a variety of well-known writers. But almost all come straight from an introductory English course taught in 1970: Homer, William Shakespeare, Philip Larkin, Sylvia Plath, Robert Frost, Emily Dickinson and George Orwell. Oh, and symbolically, Langston Hughes.

We can also detect this trend in what cultural writers assume their audiences know. So a thought characteristic article in the New York Times Magazine this month on contemporary poet Sharon Olds begins by comparing her to TS Eliot, Dickinson (again) and Wallace Stevens. That’s it. Again, the frame of reference is predominantly European, predominantly male, and all-white. And the implication is crystal clear: these are the poets you have to know if you want to know poetry. (It’s easy to find analogous examples in art, music, and film.)

By continuing to privilege old classics, journalists make it easier to dismiss other voices as less important, more disposable — all playing into the book banning movement. And even without the book ban, the vigils we’ve always read still take up too much space. If we keep centering the old barrel, what should go into a new barrel can die of asphyxiation.

So let’s stop trying to save Socrates. And Shakespeare, Chaucer, Homer and Proust. Believe me: they are doing very well.

Joshua Pederson is an associate professor of humanities at Boston University and author of “Sin Sick: Moral Injury in War and Literature.” @joshua_pederson

Source link


Comments are closed.