< previous page | page_29 | next page > |
Page 29 the outside world and secure their survival. In sum, if (1) “value” is not inherent in works of literature (but is a product of their transmission), if (2) value is not grounded in literary criticism (because “[c]riticism is not an institution but a disciplinary discourse inhabiting a historically specific educational institution” [Guillory 1993:56]), and if (3) educational institutions are inclined first and foremost to reproduce themselves, then, clearly, Kernan and company are trying to dispose of the wrong corpse when, in a misguided effort to ‘‘save” literature and society, they try to bury scholars who are committed to finding a different sort of value in the texts they study. Literature will continue to have value as long as new generations of critics produce that value. But this is not entirely up to the academic community, or to the editorial boards of journals and university presses who publish criticism. It should be pointed out that if in the future literature is to occupy a privileged space in society, then English professors must be perceived as possessing and safeguarding what society recognizes as cultural capital. In the long run, arguments like Guillory’s about the origins of literary value and the constitution of literary capital are not going to hold water if conservative pundits are successful in persuading the politicians and the general public that the leftists, feminists, and poststructuralists are killing literature and destroying the very fabric of our society. This should give us pause. If the demonization of the current recontextualization and politicization of literary classics removes their aura of cultural capital in the minds of parents, students, and politicians—if the consumer comes to believe fearmongers like George Will—then although this may take years, we can all start digging our graves.12 Note that the danger lies with the pundits and not with the students. The danger to literary value lies with the pundits because students are not easily swayed from their core beliefs by what goes on in the classroom. I just finished teaching Paradise Lost to a class of undergraduate English majors. I did my utmost to emphasize the controversial elements in Milton’s theology and the problem, noted by many critics, of Milton’s God. I suggested that the poem supports a reading of Milton’s God as petty, vindictive, needy, uncaring, undramatic, illogical, violent, cruel, and boring. After the term, many students told me, or wrote in their evaluations, that our discussion of Paradise Lost had caused them to question aspects of their own Christian beliefs. But— and this is the point—to a person, they all insisted that our discussions ultimately reaffirmed and strengthened their Christian faith. If, as |
||
< previous page | page_29 | next page > |