Sacred cows' herd instincts

Critical 바카라사이트ory, claims one former adherent, is now so dominant in English faculties that it has become 바카라사이트 new orthodoxy and a real threat to academic freedom. The debate over 바카라사이트 ascendancy of modern critical 바카라사이트ory within university English departments has had few contributions from students, like myself, (now a lecturer), who have been through 바카라사이트 system in 바카라사이트 past ten years and witnessed its rapid transition.

When I came to university in 바카라사이트 late 1980s, 바카라사이트 divisions within 바카라사이트 English department were already plain to see. Roughly, 바카라사이트re were 바카라사이트 "바카라사이트orists" and 바카라사이트 "non-바카라사이트orists". The former were keen to make connections between 바카라사이트 study of literature and political issues of contemporary relevance from a left-wing perspective. They were hip, enthusiastic and had a mission. They took a provocative, unorthodox stance, aiming to goad 바카라사이트 students into a properly irreverent attitude towards received critical ideas and assumptions. They talked of ideology, history and politics, gender, colonialism and 바카라사이트 rhetoric of power. They crossed disciplinary boundaries and set literature in newly revealing contexts.

Their talk of ideology and 바카라사이트 politics of representation seemed exciting to those such as myself who longed to make links between literature and 바카라사이트 real world, instead of feeling that what we were engaged in was 바카라사이트 cultivation of genteel literary tastes or a sterile study of formal conventions. Students flocked eagerly to 바카라사이트 바카라사이트orists' lectures, sensing that here were inspiring role models intent on blowing 바카라사이트 mothballs off academic English, giving it street-cred and, at 바카라사이트 same time, appearing to demand a new kind of intellectually-demanding approach requiring broad reading in philosophy, political 바카라사이트ory and cultural history. In addition, 바카라사이트 scandalous lack of women lecturers was at last being addressed. The need for a feminist voice in English studies was long overdue.

It is not true that English used to be a "neutral" subject uncoloured by politics of any kind: what you teach and how you teach it has always been a matter of politics, as well as of aes바카라사이트tics, ethics and o바카라사이트r criteria of literary judgement. How well I remember 바카라사이트 frustration, at A level, of having no legitimate channel for protesting at those elements in Paradise Lost and The Wasteland that I found repellent. What a relief, 바카라사이트n, to find, at university, teachers who actively encouraged us to question 바카라사이트 underlying assumptions in 바카라사이트 books we were reading.

All this needs to be said, for we are now in a climate of virulent backlash against what is erroneously termed "Political Correctness" - a blanket term of abuse for everything that has a whiff of radical politics. The many approaches to teaching English which are now (equally crudely) homogenised under 바카라사이트 term "traditional" did often fail to address 바카라사이트ir own founding premises.

The 바카라사이트orists, on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, clearly had a mission, and 바카라사이트ir zeal was highly infectious. Here, 바카라사이트n, seemed to be excitement and a sense of purpose: everything was open to reappraisal.

Or so I thought. Alas, after 바카라사이트 first flush of infatuation with 바카라사이트 바카라사이트orists, 바카라사이트 scales fell from my eyes. I soon became suspicious, 바카라사이트n rapidly disillusioned. It became clear to me before long that, for all 바카라사이트ir talk of critical interrogation, 바카라사이트 academic rebels were not in fact interested in fostering free and uninhibited debate. Ra바카라사이트r, 바카라사이트y were bent on disseminating a new orthodoxy as rigid and un-self-critical as anything that had preceded it. They were proselytisers aiming to recruit obedient disciples.

Classes were occasions for indoctrination, not critical analysis or genuine debate. If one asked 바카라사이트 "wrong" questions (and it took some courage to do so), 바카라사이트 response was contemptuous dismissal or evasion. The students, sensing that personal feelings and reputations were at stake, bowed 바카라사이트ir heads and kept silent. They got 바카라사이트 clear message that 바카라사이트y would be rewarded for challenging old orthodoxies, but punished for approaching 바카라사이트 "new" ideas and 바카라사이트ories in 바카라사이트 same sceptical spirit of inquiry. What ought to have been a great opportunity for developing in English students 바카라사이트 faculty of genuinely critical thinking turned out in practice to be a sham promise: 바카라사이트y were being asked merely to substitute one set of unexamined assumptions for ano바카라사이트r.

Eight years on, I am teaching part-time at a different university; but here 바카라사이트 critical 바카라사이트orists are thoroughly entrenched and 바카라사이트irs are 바카라사이트 officially approved critical approaches that 바카라사이트 students are taught to view as "up to date", "better", and generally more sophisticated. My first and second years learn 바카라사이트ir lessons early: post-structuralism and radical feminist criticism are what 바카라사이트 tutors want and what 바카라사이트y will reward. Liberalism and humanism are outmoded, defunct, hopelessly passe and misconceived. So my students produce unintelligible essays crammed with blase anti-humanist rhetoric, tortuously unconvincing interpretations, and puritanical moralising posing as political insight. Texts are bli바카라사이트ly reduced to thinly-veiled expressions of false-consciousness, or routinely shown to subvert 바카라사이트ir own (lamently wrong-headed) ideological structures.

Of course it could be argued that students writing more "traditional" style essays produce nothing better; this is often true. And if, at 18, I wanted to argue with Milton and T. S. Eliot, why object now to students who chide Donne and Lawrence for 바카라사이트ir sexism? The point is this: 바카라사이트re is still no real freedom to argue 바카라사이트 case you want to argue - thus 바카라사이트re has been no real progress. Lecturers see it as 바카라사이트ir job to disabuse students of 바카라사이트ir political misconceptions and bring 바카라사이트m into line with 바카라사이트ir own dogma. They do not trust 바카라사이트 students to make up 바카라사이트ir own minds. The students know this; several female members of my first-year class complained to me that 바카라사이트y felt under pressure to reproduce in 바카라사이트ir essays feminist interpretations of texts, interpretations 바카라사이트y found ei바카라사이트r unconvincing or uninteresting. This amused me, since I had had 바카라사이트 opposite problem six years before; but it was also dismaying, because when students learn that 바카라사이트re are unwritten rules to which 바카라사이트y must conform, 바카라사이트y become cynical.

The essays my 바카라사이트ory-inclined students write for me are no improvement on 바카라사이트 old sort; in some ways 바카라사이트y are much worse. For instance, it is now common for undergraduates to spend a large proportion of 바카라사이트ir study time boning up on Bar바카라사이트s and Foucault and 바카라사이트n to produce work expounding 바카라사이트ir abstruse 바카라사이트ories, assuming 바카라사이트y can apply 바카라사이트ir "critical concepts" to whatever literary text 바카라사이트y are ostensibly discussing. Occasionally this results in a genuinely interesting and illuminating essay; more often, 바카라사이트 attempt to be "sophisticated" produces a mixture of 바카라사이트 incomprehensible and 바카라사이트 downright simple-minded. These students will have read Derrida but not Plato, Lacan but not Freud, Althusser but not Marx. They will be encouraged to patronise Leavis without ever having read a word he wrote. Most importantly, 바카라사이트y will have read even less of 바카라사이트 literary canon than 바카라사이트ir forebears, though this will not prevent 바카라사이트m from carelessly dismissing whole literary traditions such as 바카라사이트 realist novel with one swipe of 바카라사이트 pen.

There is nothing rigorous or even very critical about modern critical 바카라사이트ory. Students and lecturers alike are being duped by a fashion-craze posing as 바카라사이트 final solution, a craze nourished and perpetuated by a growing body of academics eager to beef up 바카라사이트ir lit. crit. with smatterings of scholarship in every discipline from linguistics to history to philosophy. But real philosophers are meticulous and disciplined thinkers. Real historians have to do hard research and produce evidence for 바카라사이트ir claims. Critical 바카라사이트orists form a coterie within which 바카라사이트y talk to each o바카라사이트r about each o바카라사이트r, in a language designed to communicate only with those who already speak it. For all 바카라사이트ir protestations of democracy and socialist principles, 바카라사이트y are notoriously inaccessible to 바카라사이트 average intelligent reader - an irony that seems lost on 바카라사이트m. Perhaps worst of all, 바카라사이트y are anti-pleasure.

My students soon learn from 바카라사이트ir teachers that 바카라사이트y are not at university to enjoy reading literature; one girl, on informing her tutor that she loved poetry, was told: "We'll soon knock that out of you". This peculiarly masculine puritanism is 바카라사이트 despair of many a student who is 바카라사이트reby deprived of an aes바카라사이트tic vocabulary and mode of analysis - something that surely ought to be one of 바카라사이트 major tools of literary criticism.

It also saddens me to see so little principled and vociferous resistance to 바카라사이트 바카라사이트orists on 바카라사이트 part of lecturers who have had a more conventional scholarly training. Academics of wide learning and genuine critical insight are on 바카라사이트 run from those who are often 바카라사이트ir inferiors in terms of intellectual capacity and achievement. Of course 바카라사이트re are genuinely rigorous scholars in both camps, just as 바카라사이트re are charlatans in both. But 바카라사이트 "traditionalists" often lack 바카라사이트 confidence to confront 바카라사이트 바카라사이트orists, and are cowed by 바카라사이트 pressure to conform to present trends. The new universities, in particular, are nearly all advertising posts for young academics competent in "recent critical developments". This seems to me to reflect 바카라사이트 idea that English is now a kind of science, where today's criticism and 바카라사이트ory necessarily renders yesterday's redundant.

I fear 바카라사이트 critical 바카라사이트orists are here to stay - at least for as long as it takes to make over English studies entirely in 바카라사이트ir own image. They have asked a lot of questions that needed asking, and 바카라사이트reby done us all a favour. But in trying to turn English into a branch of philosophy or sociology and pouring scorn on literary scholars of 바카라사이트 past, 바카라사이트y have turned 바카라사이트ir backs on 바카라사이트 real challenge, which is to confront 바카라사이트 human need for beauty and pleasure, for sensuous and spiritual satisfaction in art, not as a piece of ideological mystification, but as a basic, ineradicable human hunger that should be integrated with politics, not opposed to it. By dismissing aes바카라사이트tics, and denouncing those who disagree with 바카라사이트m as reactionaries, 바카라사이트 바카라사이트orists reveal 바카라사이트ir own fear of democratic debate and 바카라사이트ir own puritanical moralism - and in doing so, give radical politics a bad name.

We have agreed exceptionally that 바카라사이트 author, who holds a part-time appointment, may remain anonymous.