It occurs to me as I sit down to write this post, that all of my posts bare little resemblance to the title of this blog. The catalyst for my posts are conversations with classmates, discussions in class, and the reading. There is actually very little discussed about early national periodicals in this blog, but I can't make myself change the awesome design of this blog. Oh well, onward and upward. I seem to harp on change and the humanities (or something like it) in almost every post, so why should this time be different? As I read for my classes, plan lessons, and interact with students it becomes more evident that George Santayana is right: "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained ... infancy is perpetual." Ahh, yes. Everyone likes this quote. If you don't, your un-American. Just kidding, but only a little.
As we have discussed in class many times, the younger generations read differently than we do; they are capable of reading like us, but their literacy has adapted to their social needs. It seems that the early Republic went through something similar: "[T]he novel threatened not just to coexist with elite literature but to replace it, and its critics knew full well that changes in the primary reading of an increasingly greater number of people presaged far more than a faddish redeployment of leisure time" (Davidson 105). This new type of literacy threatens our discipline and with it the type of critical thinking we do about culture and the arts that gives depth to society and enables us to better understand who we are as a people.
Davidson goes on to discuss the quality of early Republic novels that (I think) corresponds to the new literacy emerging today: "[T]he early novel spoke to those not included in the established power structures of the early Republic and welcomed into the republic of letters citizens who had previously been invited, implicitly and explicitly, to stay out" (150). We are partly to blame for our current situation, in that we compartmentalized our discipline to such an extent that our knowledge was perceived by the outside world as esoteric. Esoteric is fine, but when your discipline acquires a label like that, it becomes difficult to survive. This misconception of our discipline keeps those new-literate generations at arms length. With our knowledge base out of reach, the new-literate will find the path of least resistance and most inclusion.
As literacy changes, we have refused to change with it. I'm not saying that we all have to stop reading Moby Dick and tweet ourselves to death; rather, I believe we need to become literate in the same way as our students. This is where Santayana comes in: retentiveness. If we allow a new type of literacy to completely supplant literacy as we knew it, then how can we hope to leave the world in a better position than when we found it? We must become multiliterate in order to transmit the knowledge (and the means to acquire it) to future generations. If we remain stubborn and stagnant, then all is lost and we leave future generations the grim prospect of rediscovering what we already know. We can get angry when someone calls into question the existence of our discipline and tell them that we're valuable; however, the time will come when we must justify our existence and simply telling someone won't do. We'll have to show them.
Hi Peter, I love your blog graphics, so please keep them. Also, congratulations on your creation! I think that after a couple of years you'll get over the sleep deprivation. I think you're right that the changes we are experiencing now reflect in fascinating ways against those of the early national period, but I hate to perceive myself as one of those early national "critics" decrying the novel. Change is not good or bad; it simply is. I don't lament the loss of the book, since in one way or form it will always be around, and students will always be reading, in one way or form. I am lucky, though, that I probably will not have to adapt too much to the new ways and forms, thanks to age and tenure. I enjoyed the Santayana quotes. thanks for the good post. dw
ReplyDeleteYou identify the problem-- getting students to learn to read in multiple genres. As graduate students we seem much more open to change in our conversations and reading. But students seems less willing to embrace these changes and to converse in multiple venues. Many students have told me that they would rather just do everything on Facebook. And they -- well, many of them -- don't want to read long texts. They seem to want everything homogenized; one internet interface (Facebook)and one way of communicating (texting). I must say I worry about our students because they seem so resistant to change even though they are supposed to be "digital natives." Does this make them un-American? Or are they just in danger of being perpetual infants?
ReplyDelete