I was interested in the way the readings this week described the foundational process of English not only as a course of study worthy of its own department in Universities, but also as a legitimate language to communicate “high” ideas within. This historical look at the evolution of English study was useful in framing where composition is currently headed in the face of an increasingly globalized and technological environment.
Looking specifically at the British Academy’s relationship to German as English was developing, described in the Parker article, was reflected in the opening chapters of Sartor Resartus (1833) by Thomas Carlyle, which I am reading for another class. Carlyle provided a literary account of the same sentiment- the opening chapters depict and editor introducing a groundbreaking work written by a German author on the philosophy of clothes, being translated into English in their publication. The claim is that only the German culture and language could have created these brilliant (and overlooked in British writing) conclusions and that it is then the job of the English to translate the work, essentially act as the mouthpiece of this brilliance to the rest of the western world. Among heavy satire, this idea reflects the philosophy that English is useful and powerful for getting ideas out to a growing literate population, but is not producing those ideas on its own in such a way that would completely break the tie with German. Therefore it seems that when English does reach the legitimacy of studying texts and writing them exclusively in English, it signals the widespread legitimacy not just of a language, but also the ideas being communicated by that language.
Which brings me to what I see as the contemporary “application”: technological forums of communication and digital media, which can in many ways be understood to function like its own language (within a system of particular codes of mitigated meaning) is currently tied to English composition as a less legitimate and less academic form. However, composition programs will have to incorporate digital composition as a meaningful and socially important method of communicating as digital information becomes ever more a legitimate part of the social consciousness and exchange of ideas. It will then be the job of composition programs to create instruction that will help students make intentional communication choices and develop critical thinking within digital environments.
If this is pursued, a mutually legitimizing process can occur- where digital media gains professional credence by having knowledgeable and intentional writers and recipients, and where English departments maintain the public and academic belief in the need for composition within the scope of English study. Horner described how Aytoun altered his classes to accommodate changing circumstance to include local literature and British criticism, and in return had students paying him directly to attend his lectures. This adaptation seems like a good model for English departments.
I find it so interesting that English as a language has evolved into the global voice of economics, business, and multiple other disciplines nationwide. I think I mentioned the 3/1 ratio of non-native to native English speakers in class. How is it that, though many view English as a globalized language, so few native English speakers comprehend the constructs of grammar? How is it that non-native speakers value the language so much more than those of us who have spoken it from infancy? The adaptational model you suggest is a necessary tool for English departments, but also for native speakers as a whole. If we are not able to adapt to the changing times, we will be left stagnantly behind. We will be thrown off in much the same way as Oratory and Linguistics. I think that is the very point Parker aims at in his essay.
ReplyDeleteGood thinking about how the articles ultimately can or could be extended into today's paradigms of globalization and technology-rich compositions. It's interesting to think about the extensions. For instance, the Brits were different than the Scotts. How are we different, right now, than Europe in terms of educational delivery, in terms of value of tropes or genre with or without digital technologies? Excellent work, Megan, bringing in other readings like Carlyle. I'd like to hear more about your last few sentences--how can this adaption of what you're describing and discovering be useful for English departments? I must say--if you want a job in the academy, knowing answers and having ideas there will serve you well.
ReplyDeleteHow far should a program like English go to accommodate for changes in culture and technology? A level of technology should be incorporated into the English curriculum, but professors still need to be able to say, "You can't write your paper in text-message speak." I just get afraid English and composition will be wiped away by podcasts and 160 character messages, but I guess each generation feels the same way about whatever technology is new and developing.
ReplyDeleteI haven't started Sartor Resartus, but your comments make me wonder whether Carlyle was criticizing the critical thinking ability of English speakers. Sounds like we, as composition teachers, have our work cut out for us.
ReplyDelete