Criticism challenges/re-imagines the status quo (existing state of affairs)

I was inspired by the conversation in class yesterday, but particularly Bo’s comment about the rejection of Chinese theorists due to their inaccessibility to western audiences, to take a closer look at the Norton Anthology. After graduating with a Masters in German literature, I’d been asked to teach a freshmen elective course in World Literature. Being sorely underprepared to teach such a course, I was relieved to have a volume of texts with explanations that could serve as a foundation. As the semester wore on, and as I further researched the texts my co-teacher and I would be teaching, some inadequacies in the text became apparent. For example, if we were to look at Genesis and the story of Job as profoundly Hebrew texts, why were we reading them in King James’ English? These translations were replaced in the third volume with a more recent translation by Robert Alter, which makes efforts to remain faithful to the poetic rhythms of the original. But what brought about this change?

Interested more specifically in the volume of Theory and Criticism that was the subject of yesterday’s conversation, I turned to Samaa Gamie’s review of the Theory and Criticism Anthology, which I heartily recommend. In this review, Gamie deconstructs Norton’s introductory statements about generously including women, people of color and post-colonial critics within their volume. Gamie reveals this generous account to be no greater than 7 non-white critics to a whopping 131 white critics. Further, rather than integrating these authors into the Anthology by virtue of the function of these texts within their respective literature, they are chosen merely by virtue of the author’s identity. Although being included in a canon of texts (albeit, a canon that changes with each edition) lends authority to these texts, isolated texts, removed from context and situated by virtue of identity will do little to restore the unique literary, linguistic and cultural identity to these marginalized communities. In fact, Gamie’s collective critical arguments with this recent anthology reflect those issues we’ve been talking about directly in class.

This is a perplexing situation. In the reading this week, Spivak showed us how to look at widely read texts with new eyes. Jane Eyre can no longer be seen as merely a feminist text, but one that reveals the perceived hellish result of imperial conquest (an animal-like Creole and her proper English husband). Should Jane Eyre or any of the other texts deconstructed by Spivak be dismissed? For that matter, should Norton’s Anthologies? We’re living in a world in which Oprah and Ellen DeGeneres can host talk shows and even the Oscars; a world in which Barack Obama could be elected President of the United States and Angela Merkel chancellor of Germany. Things are changing; can this be due to a critical attitude towards the status quo? Although far from perfect, the Norton Anthologies are making changes and adjustments. Although Spivak’s interpretation of Jane Eyre dampens the ardor of youthful reading, unlocking this text revitalizes its cultural importance, providing substance to critical statements towards reimagining the status quo. Spivak’s chapter on literature makes strides towards imagining a new status quo, as does Gamie’s book review, and Shu-Mei’s defense of Taiwan’s cultural wealth. But who will imagine this status quo? This will be decided by the persuasive capabilities of the critics.