I found the question of what cultural criticism is the most interesting part of this section of the book. I am guilty, when considering culture, to think of the capital C version. When someone uses the word culture, one tends to think of the highbrow pursuits of elitists, or those well endowed with wealth and free time. I immediately think of aged classical music and dusty old tomes being read aloud in vast family libraries where servants pour drinks and do their best to blend in with the gilded furniture. It is nice to think of cultural critics more as being activists rather than upholders of the status quo.
Another thing I found amusing was that the writer acknowledged universities as being the true enemies of this kind of cultural progression. He says "that is where the old definitions of culture as high culture (and as something formed, finished, and canonized) have been most vigorously preserved, defended, and reinforced." (414). The writer goes on to explain how the departmental structures within universities create artificial boundaries between the arts and those accepted areas of study, such as history, sociology, and the sciences. Sitting in a university myself, I can see how this departmental layering could get in the way of encouraging open and interpretive thought.
I do, however, think there is a danger in trying to abolish all the lines we draw between areas of study, and even areas of value. Great things inevitably get lost along the way as the arc of time takes us further and further away from our roots. I think it often proves valuable and rewarding to willfully immerse yourself in the time and place in which some product of creativity emerged, without always contrasting things with your own experience and perspective.
I do agree with the statement that universities can be the enemy of cultural progression because they often reflect the views of "academic literary critics" as the text says on page 412. I also like the way the text argues the idea of “the literary cannon" at the bottom of page 412.
ReplyDeleteIf academia refuses to accept that sometimes the world changes and what was once important may no longer be I feel you are essentially holding students back rather than moving them forward. Why is Wuthering Heights any more important to a well-rounded education than The Godfather, Harry Potter or a Batman comic book? Is it because the elite say so? I believe it is all important and if a past work has no bearing on today’s society, throw it out. Do not shrink the world students experience, expand it. Has a university expanded your education by closing doors that do not meet the standards of so called experts or has it closed of an entire world to students who will never know anything else.
There is nothing wrong with studying Shakespeare and Tom Clancy. Let’s open the door to the entire literary world so students can truly be experts in all matters of literature.
When I think of the word, "culture," the first thing that comes to mind is the image of a group of individuals, living within the same society, who share the same ideologies and beliefs. Typically, these people are of Indonesian descent of some sort, adorned in bright red garments and gold jewelry (but I'm sure this only occurs in my mind).
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, when I use the word, "culture," I tend to use it in the second way you described it in your post. Usually, I am referring to the way one behaves in public; one's grace, manners, and commonsense--or the lack there of.