Multiculturalisms

In the September 2005 issue of College English, Marilyn Edelstein’s article, “Multiculturalisms, Past Present and Future” analyzes the history of dissenting viewpoints on multiculturalism in the college classroom. She recognizes how writers such as Allan Bloom, William Bennett and Dnisesh D’Souza argue for a mono-culturalism, which imply Everett V. Stonequist’s description of the marginalized assimilating to the implied standard with the intentions of perpetuating a standard culture. Additionally, Edelstein refers to Lillian S. Robinson’s, Treason Our Text: Feminist Challenges to the Literary Canon in which Robinson highlights the monoculturalist critique of multiculturalism as a demarcation for political inclusiveness, which neglects the ideas of universal aesthetic merit. To my mind, the very nature of the monocultural critique perpetuates binary oppositions of race, at the same time, does not advance the possibilities of what one can learn from Edelstein’s observation of “effective multiculturalism.”

For Edelstein, “effective multiculturalism needs to be based on a more radically ethical idea of acknowledging and respecting alterity” (Edelstein 35). Edelstein connects her use of alterity here to Julia Kristeva’s idea of the “stranger” and the “foreigner,” in which Kristeva assumes that all people are foreigners within themselves. One is not made aware of her foreignness until she becomes aware of her otherness through a confrontation with the Other. In this case, the process of multiculturalism goes beyond the act of mere tolerance of difference, but rather, forces the subject to participate in a reflexive process that requires the perpetual interrogation of the self by inhabiting the space of the Other.

Within the same issue of College English, Beth McCoy and Jacqueline M. Jones’ article, “Between Spaces,” addresses issues related to whiteness and the confrontation of foreignness when reading Toni Morrison’s, critical analysis Playing in the Dark. Morrison’s concept of “American Africanisms” shifts the conversation about the black body as an object of oppression to the white body as an object of oppression. To my mind, the rhetorical moves that Morrison makes in articulating a concept of American Africanisms forces white readers to objectify whiteness. The recognition of this objectivity from the point of view of an African American woman would explain the resistance that McCoy encountered while teaching this text. Jacqueline M. Jones points out the challenges of interrogating whiteness as a normative culture when multicultural practices are attempted in the classroom. She writes:

If a class discussing multicultural issues spends significant time achieving positive white identities for its white participants (however warranted), such activities nevertheless do reassert whiteness as the center, and this process can prevent inclusive, multiple, and diverse perspectives from flourishing in meaningful ways. (Jones 59)

Here, Jones describes her experience as an African American student in McCoy’s predominantly white class. She mentions Ian Marshall and Wendy Ryden’s article, “Interrogating the Monologue: Making Whiteness Visible,” which was published in the December 2000 issue of College Composition and Communication. Marshall and Ryden suggest that the mere interrogation of racism interrogates whiteness, which interrogates the subjectivity of white students. As a result of this interrogative discourse, Jones illustrates how much of the class was spent on simultaneously interrogating white subjectivity at the same time constructing a positive self-image of whiteness. Seemingly, in the process of deconstructing whiteness as a universal signifier of humanity, the attempt to reconstruct positive images to prevent resistance from white students, in Jones’ mind, recentered whiteness while compromising the possibilities of what Edelstein would describe as "effective multiculturalism."

            McCoy and Jones' experiences are small illustrations of how scholars are aware of and address the paradoxical function of multiculturalism in the college classroom. The function of multiculturalism is paradoxical because while there has been some attempt to address the varying cultural needs of students, the overall structure of this learning is oppressive, which perpetuates racial binary oppositions premised on ethnic and biological absolutes.

          These observations lead me to question, is it time that we begin to reconstitute how we teach literature? Are we perpetuating ideas of dominance and power, by labeling literature in terms of culture and by teaching the "great" works as universal literature and “other” literatures as specializations? What are we trying to gain in this ideological separation? Considering the New Historicists' supposition that history is subjective, I wonder if the current teaching of literature under these constructed historical contextual frameworks threatens the relevancy of literature in an increasingly diversified American culture? Is it possible to explode these boundaries and teach literature through themes? Is it possible to reconstitute literature so that we are teaching a course on the limitations of human ethics, and death through the works of Aeschylus’ Agamemnon, and Faulkner's Absalom, Absalom! to Euripides’ Medea and Morrison’s Beloved all in one introductory literature course? 

            It is also important to consider how subjectivity plays a role in the process of defining and canonizing literature. For instance, how do particular cannons affirm racial, biological, gender, and cultural identities? When considering this subjectivity, one needs to consider how the decision and impulse to canonize affirms or negates the identity of the student reading the text. This consideration opens the possibility for a discussion on who is included and excluded in the field of literature. This discussion is timely, considering the humanities is constantly defending its relevancy in contemporary culture. How can we ague the relevancy of humanities, in particular, literature when the current framework to teaching literature functions as a mechanism to affirm a small portion of the polis?

Final Project Ideas: Revisiting "Special Topoi"

My research questions about literature pedagogy are focused on best practices related to writing about and evaluating literature. I want to understand how the subjectivity of a student would help or hinder a student from learning how to write about and evaluate literature. As a rhetorician, I believe that the literary text can function as a form of rhetorical intervention thus causing the reader to re-conceptualize the world in which they live. 

Over the course of the semester, I have encountered two articles that have helped me develop my initial pedagogical questions. Joanna Wolfe’s "A Method for Teaching Invention in the Gateway Literature Class" along with Wolfe and Laura Wilder’s "Sharing Tacit Rhetorical Knowledge of the Literary Scholar" take a rhetorical approach to teaching literature in the college classroom. These articles focus on the act of inventing the literary argument while making the case that teaching special topoi within the literature discipline (and any other discipline) will help students understand how to write within that discipline.

For instance, in "Sharing the Tacit Rhetorical Knowledge of the Literary Scholar," Wilder and Wolfe state,

We hoped that by making special topoi conventions explicit, it would become possible to address how such conventions change over time, how one can work (and how others have worked) within some conventions to bend or break conventions, and on the whole to discuss the writing students engage in such an introductory course as participating in a larger rhetorical context. (198)

By making what is seemingly implicit explicit, the writers of this article hope to use the conventions of research writing within the discipline as a way to teach students how to formulate and support thesis statements about literature.

I would like to probe into issues raised in these articles to understand if teaching special topoi would help students become more successful at writing and analyzing literature. I also want to know if teaching special topoi could help students evaluate literature, helping them to become more conversant on what is literature, how good literature is defined and what "literature" makes up a literature class. Furthermore, I wonder if knowing rhetorical conventions of literature could empower students to understand the subjective nature of the so-called objective selection process of canonizing literature.

Over the course of this semester, I have been working on an assignment that utilizes Wolfe’s use of special topoi.  I plan to assess the utilization of special topoi by surveying students about its usefulness during the composition of the final paper. I will gather information from students enrolled in Literature 219, which is an introduction to Literary Analysis and Literature 278, which is Modern African American Literature. Both of these courses are writing intensive courses. I plan to use the feedback from students at Delta College to design a course for a Wayne State Literature course.

I have taught Literature 219 at Delta College for 4 years and this is my second semester teaching Literature 278. In both courses, students have expressed the challenges involved with formulating concrete statements about abstract ideas. Additionally, students have a hard time suspending their subjectivity to locate a “meaning” in the text. As a result, some students rely on mere plot summary when writing about literature or feel that they cannot locate meaning unless they are in some way directly connected to the text or the author.

How I plan to execute this:

Over the course of the semester, students are assigned three papers. The first paper is a biographical essay in which I encourage students to discuss how they feel about a literary piece; at the same time, they can discuss information they researched about the author. The second paper is a New Critical essay in which students have to conduct a close reading and use only evidence in the text to support their understanding of the text. I find that students who are taught from a New Critical approach in high school usually do not have problems with this paper. On the other hand, students who were not taught from the New Critical perspective or are non-traditional students have an extremely difficult time trying to make sense of something that seems so concrete, yet so intangible. Finally, the third paper requires students to conduct a more involved and complex literary analysis. At this point of the semester, students have been introduced to and practice literary devices, schools of criticism, and conventions within a genre.

I find that contextualizing the third paper helps, but there is still a major disconnect between what students understand about the function of the literary analysis and my expectations for the literary analysis. This is where I am employing the use of special topoi. Along with the assignment sheet for the third paper, I gave my students a handout on special topoi. We had a discussion about special topoi and then I asked them a series of questions about the usefulness of this framework. Out of both Literature 219 and Literature 278 only two students responded that they did not think that special topoi would help them write their papers and that they were more confused. The majority of the students responded that they obtained a sense of clarity about their paper and that the special topoi would help them construct their thesis statements.

Since I introduced the special topoi, I have assigned a low stakes writing assignment so that I can see how students are applying special topoi to what they are reading. I plan to collect and assess these responses this week. When students turn in the third paper, they will be asked some reflective questions about the usefulness of special topoi. I plan to compare their reflective responses with their initial responses. Finally, students will develop a reading list particular to the course. In their reading list, students will have to explain their rationale for choosing particular books according to thematic and literary elements discussed over the course of the semester. Here, I want to assess their evaluative knowledge on understanding what makes literature Literature along with how this literature has influenced contemporary culture. Here, students will be encouraged to select texts from contemporary culture that work in conjunction with canonized literature selections.

With this assessment project, I plan to create a groundwork to approach my initial research questions. At the same time, I want to see if making students aware of implicit knowledge could not only enhance their critical thinking skills, but also empower them to use literature beyond mere enjoyment and interpretation, to create an understanding for along with the desire to change the world in which they live. I know that this might sound a bit naïve, but I think it is worth a try!