It's fun to mock college professers. We all know this. Useless do-nothings who sit around learning have always been fair game in America, and why not.
Still, there's something more in Suzanne Fields latest. Take this paragraph. "My favorite example is a freshman English course at Williams College entitled "Green World," which deals with the environment and explores "ways in which literature has constructed and interpreted the green-written word."
Environmental exploitation is illustrated with the identification of "the archetypal symbol of man's desire to transform chaos into civilization and art - to tame, order, idealize and copy nature's bounty while humanizing plundering and destroying the environment." (Italics [bold] mine.)
The young scholars will no doubt expose Wordsworth for the devastation he brought to the landscape by daring to dance with the daffodils. MacBeth might be alive today if his enemies hadn't cut down all those trees in Birnam Wood."
Notice what is there; an attitude of mocking. Notice what is missing; any explanation whatsoever of why this is a bad thing. It's clear that there have been environmental disasters in the past, and its clear that attitudes towards nature have changed since, say the 1700s. It's also true, although Ms. Fields may not be aware of it, that literature is a reflection of the world around which it is written. So using nature or the environment as a framing device to discuss literature, well I'm just not sure it's such a terrible thing.
She later on accuses Amherst college of being flawed. "Amherst's history department, for example, offers "Race and Nation in the U.S.-Mexican Borderland," an overview of pre-1600 Japan, the Middle East from 600 to 1800, and "Women's History, America: 1607-1865." But there's not a single freshman overview course to examine the fundamental events of Western civilization." Well, first of all, Ms. Fields needs to explain why it's wrong to teach women's history or Japanese history.
I guess she's mostly upset that there is no Western Civilization or World History class. Now, be aware, there are classes in American History and Europeon history galore, but not a simple dull overview of every important event since 1610 or whenever the cut off point is for modern history. I can think of a pretty good reason this might be the case--such courses are dreadfully dull and don't really teach anything. So why not focus the class a bit more, give the teachers a chance to teach what they know rather than trying to hit "the 150 most important events, people, places and ides of the last 400 years."
Something to think about, at any rate.
No comments:
Post a Comment