Thursday, December 02, 2004
Okay - here's the cool experience I promised to relate:
Basically, I have some hope for the future of English, though not a whole lot.
In class we were discussing our seminar papers, and several students were writing papers on "post-colonial" topics. One of them was looking at a school set up by a Western government in one of its conquered provinces.
This fellow student of mine mentioned that the "party line" in post-colonial studies is that these schools were horrid, imperialist enterprises that the native students hated and that, in the end, damaged the natives rather than helping them. This was something she believed as well, going into her project.
But, she said, as she examined the evidence - letters written by the students, journal entries and even the school assignments completed by the students, she was coming to the conclusion that in fact, the native students benefited from this schooling and rather enjoyed the opportunities it provided for them.
So, this gives me hope - because some students (and future faculty) are still, despite their liberalism, willing to look past the "party line" and form their own conclusions.
But my hope is tempered by her later comments: "There are so many theorists invested in this idea of imperialism, that if I try to violate the party line, I will never get published and/or receive tenure." Our professor agreed. He added that the important theorists in the field have "good, solid political reasons" for making the arguments they do, and they won't take kindly to someone who says they are all wrong.
[Maybe conservatives are scare in English departments because the gatekeepers won't let them in?]
Basically, I have some hope for the future of English, though not a whole lot.
In class we were discussing our seminar papers, and several students were writing papers on "post-colonial" topics. One of them was looking at a school set up by a Western government in one of its conquered provinces.
This fellow student of mine mentioned that the "party line" in post-colonial studies is that these schools were horrid, imperialist enterprises that the native students hated and that, in the end, damaged the natives rather than helping them. This was something she believed as well, going into her project.
But, she said, as she examined the evidence - letters written by the students, journal entries and even the school assignments completed by the students, she was coming to the conclusion that in fact, the native students benefited from this schooling and rather enjoyed the opportunities it provided for them.
So, this gives me hope - because some students (and future faculty) are still, despite their liberalism, willing to look past the "party line" and form their own conclusions.
But my hope is tempered by her later comments: "There are so many theorists invested in this idea of imperialism, that if I try to violate the party line, I will never get published and/or receive tenure." Our professor agreed. He added that the important theorists in the field have "good, solid political reasons" for making the arguments they do, and they won't take kindly to someone who says they are all wrong.
[Maybe conservatives are scare in English departments because the gatekeepers won't let them in?]
