The Rise and Fall of English: Reconstructing English As a Discipline

Rating:
Summary: English Now
Review: TEXTUALISING WITH A DIFFERENCE

Himansu S. Mohapatra

The Rise and Fall of English : Reconstructing English as a Discipline. By Robert Scholes. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1998. pp. 203. $ 16.50.

Scholes's book about the rise of English, its fall and its possible re-rise as a vastly augmented domain of textuality is quite simply the best book to have been written on the subject till date. Where the earlier accounts, especially the ones by the English Left named above, had stopped short at detecting the crisis and suggesting, in the name of a cure, a wholesale dissolution of such an ideologically tainted project, Scholes charts out a `militant middle position', firmly convinced that the extremes of traditionalism and iconoclasm are no help. Another aspect of the book's goodness is that it is addressed to the actual teacher of English, who, like Scholes, loves language, but who is lying dormant, if not dead, at the moment, and, who must rise phoenix-like from her ashes in the reconfigured domain of textuality.

The empowering concepts that Scholes has used throughout are those of the `text', `textuality' and `intertext'. Although a slight concession to `hypocriticism' (which in Scholes's usage designates a surrender to critical fashions) cannot be ruled out, Scholes is certainly no Barthesian glorifier of textuality as pure difference. This is despite the fact that he defines text, a la semiotic and deconstructive writers, as the `fabric of culture itself, in which we and our students find ourselves already woven' (73). For one thing, his notion of textuality does not exclude concepts like truth ad reality. Thus, if his version of text has an ideology, it is certainly not the pernicious non-cognitivist ideology of the poststructuralist and postmodernist text that Fredric Jameson and Satya P. Mohanty have chosen to criticise. For another thing, Scholes's position on the subject of textuality seems to be an echo of I.A. Richards's 1924 prefatorial claim in The Principles of Literary Criticism to `reweave on the loom of Literature some of the tattered sleeves of civilization'.

It is all too apparent that Scholes shares Richards's concern with truth, reality and with the well-being of civilization. Furthermore, both of them find themselves driven to the metaphors of weaving and textuality to express their sense of the worth of written compositions. The only difference between them is where Richards spoke of Literature with a capital `L', Scholes speaks of verbal and written texts, that is, textuality in its unrestricted sense, something that would include both poems and bumper stickers. It should be noted, however, that Scholes has both retained the Richardsian moment and gone beyond it.

Scholes himself traces the roots of such an attitude to the evangelical fervour of his former Yale colleague Billy Phelps. The rise of English to a place of prominence in the curriculum of Yale and Brown at the turn of the nineteenth century intersects with the career of Phelps. Classics and philology were on their way out, and, the full professionalization literary studies, signalled by the New Criticism, was yet to begin. Phelps, who studied at Yale from 1883 to 1887 and later taught there from 1892 to 1933, represented a moment of poise between philology and New Criticism. What this particular location implied was the synthesis of teaching and preaching, of reading and writing. Ironically this unity was broken during the period of full professionalization, first under the New Criticism, and, then under `theory'. This was the period when rhetoric yielded place to the speculative bias of literature, turning the earlier `actant', who did things, to the present `patient', to whom things were done. Scholes resurrects the past with such ardour in his opening chapter only in order to highlight its contrast with the doggy plight of the present-day teacher of English.

The rest of Scholes's story is soon told. He embarks in his last two chapters on a full-blown reconstructive programme. First of all he puts forward a `a trivial proposal'. This is an attempt to revive the medieval trivium of grammar, dialectic and rhetoric. Scholes's innovation is to rewrite these categories in modern and contemporary terms. For example, rhetoric gets redefined as `persuasion and mediation'. Scholes moves on to outline a proposal for a modern quadrivium. If English is to be a discipline proper, then it must be organized around a `canon of methods' rather a canon of texts. This quadrivium of theory, history, production and consumption is the best guarantee of a paradigm shift in English studies. It is our best bet for recapturing the earlier Phelpsian unity of theory and practice, but in a modern context of difference, diversity and a pervasive intertextuality.

There is just one missing strand in this otherwise superbly-woven fabric. It is to do with the whole discourse of the colonial rise of English. Scholes has, at two places in the book, conceded its central importance. There is no attempt, however, to go into the matter of the colonial origins of English at any length and to draw out its implications. It does not matter to the reader that this ground has been covered in earlier studies such as Gauri Viswanathan's Masks of Conquest (1989), Sara Suleri's The Rhetoric of English India (1991) and Harish Trivedi's Colonial Transactions: English Literature and India (1993). What the reader would like to know is how a consideration of the colonial underpinnings of English can be accommodated within Scholes's textuality paradigm without at the same time punching a gaping hole in it. As postcolonial critics have reminded us, English as a subject was forged `in the smithy of empire'. Scholes's textuality paradigm is conceived within the framework of the national culture. It will perhaps not survive a bracing encounter with the imperial formations. But that is no reason for us not to salute this bracing, witty, candid and infinitely charming book that sets out to textualise with a difference.

Rating:
Summary: English Now
Review: TEXTUALISING WITH A DIFFERENCE

Himansu S. Mohapatra

The Rise and Fall of English : Reconstructing English as a Discipline. By Robert Scholes. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1998. pp. 203. $ 16.50.

Scholes's book about the rise of English, its fall and its possible re-rise as a vastly augmented domain of textuality is quite simply the best book to have been written on the subject till date. Where the earlier accounts, especially the ones by the English Left named above, had stopped short at detecting the crisis and suggesting, in the name of a cure, a wholesale dissolution of such an ideologically tainted project, Scholes charts out a 'militant middle position', firmly convinced that the extremes of traditionalism and iconoclasm are no help. Another aspect of the book's goodness is that it is addressed to the actual teacher of English, who, like Scholes, loves language, but who is lying dormant, if not dead, at the moment, and, who must rise phoenix-like from her ashes in the reconfigured domain of textuality.

The empowering concepts that Scholes has used throughout are those of the 'text', 'textuality' and 'intertext'. Although a slight concession to 'hypocriticism' (which in Scholes's usage designates a surrender to critical fashions) cannot be ruled out, Scholes is certainly no Barthesian glorifier of textuality as pure difference. This is despite the fact that he defines text, a la semiotic and deconstructive writers, as the 'fabric of culture itself, in which we and our students find ourselves already woven' (73). For one thing, his notion of textuality does not exclude concepts like truth ad reality. Thus, if his version of text has an ideology, it is certainly not the pernicious non-cognitivist ideology of the poststructuralist and postmodernist text that Fredric Jameson and Satya P. Mohanty have chosen to criticise. For another thing, Scholes's position on the subject of textuality seems to be an echo of I.A. Richards's 1924 prefatorial claim in The Principles of Literary Criticism to 'reweave on the loom of Literature some of the tattered sleeves of civilization'.

It is all too apparent that Scholes shares Richards's concern with truth, reality and with the well-being of civilization. Furthermore, both of them find themselves driven to the metaphors of weaving and textuality to express their sense of the worth of written compositions. The only difference between them is where Richards spoke of Literature with a capital 'L', Scholes speaks of verbal and written texts, that is, textuality in its unrestricted sense, something that would include both poems and bumper stickers. It should be noted, however, that Scholes has both retained the Richardsian moment and gone beyond it.

Scholes himself traces the roots of such an attitude to the evangelical fervour of his former Yale colleague Billy Phelps. The rise of English to a place of prominence in the curriculum of Yale and Brown at the turn of the nineteenth century intersects with the career of Phelps. Classics and philology were on their way out, and, the full professionalization literary studies, signalled by the New Criticism, was yet to begin. Phelps, who studied at Yale from 1883 to 1887 and later taught there from 1892 to 1933, represented a moment of poise between philology and New Criticism. What this particular location implied was the synthesis of teaching and preaching, of reading and writing. Ironically this unity was broken during the period of full professionalization, first under the New Criticism, and, then under 'theory'. This was the period when rhetoric yielded place to the speculative bias of literature, turning the earlier 'actant', who did things, to the present 'patient', to whom things were done. Scholes resurrects the past with such ardour in his opening chapter only in order to highlight its contrast with the doggy plight of the present-day teacher of English.

The rest of Scholes's story is soon told. He embarks in his last two chapters on a full-blown reconstructive programme. First of all he puts forward a 'a trivial proposal'. This is an attempt to revive the medieval trivium of grammar, dialectic and rhetoric. Scholes's innovation is to rewrite these categories in modern and contemporary terms. For example, rhetoric gets redefined as 'persuasion and mediation'. Scholes moves on to outline a proposal for a modern quadrivium. If English is to be a discipline proper, then it must be organized around a 'canon of methods' rather a canon of texts. This quadrivium of theory, history, production and consumption is the best guarantee of a paradigm shift in English studies. It is our best bet for recapturing the earlier Phelpsian unity of theory and practice, but in a modern context of difference, diversity and a pervasive intertextuality.

There is just one missing strand in this otherwise superbly-woven fabric. It is to do with the whole discourse of the colonial rise of English. Scholes has, at two places in the book, conceded its central importance. There is no attempt, however, to go into the matter of the colonial origins of English at any length and to draw out its implications. It does not matter to the reader that this ground has been covered in earlier studies such as Gauri Viswanathan's Masks of Conquest (1989), Sara Suleri's The Rhetoric of English India (1991) and Harish Trivedi's Colonial Transactions: English Literature and India (1993). What the reader would like to know is how a consideration of the colonial underpinnings of English can be accommodated within Scholes's textuality paradigm without at the same time punching a gaping hole in it. As postcolonial critics have reminded us, English as a subject was forged 'in the smithy of empire'. Scholes's textuality paradigm is conceived within the framework of the national culture. It will perhaps not survive a bracing encounter with the imperial formations. But that is no reason for us not to salute this bracing, witty, candid and infinitely charming book that sets out to textualise with a difference.

Rating:
Summary: Practical & inspiring proposals for lit studies
Review: This book will probably never make the NYTimes Bestseller list, but for its intended audience of literature and English composition instructors, this is a thought-provoking text which provides a much-needed jab in the ribs to English departments everywhere.

This is not a dry critical review, but a practical, specific and inspirational text regarding the declining status of English studies in the U.S. Scholes doesn't just whine about what's wrong, but shows readers some ways to make English a useful and necessary component of a university education.

As an English graduate student, I was particularly intrigued by Scholes' ideas of making English composition courses more than just a dumping ground for underpaid instructors and unenthusiastic students. Scholes expanded my own conceptions about what English composition should do, and how it can be made more relevant to today's attention-challenged students.

Scholes has renewed my faith in English studies. Anyone who has taken or taught a college-level English course and wondered what the hell they were doing should read this intelligent and challenging book (or text, if you prefer).

Rating:
Summary: Loved it
Review: Tired of eggghead profs and "scholards" (scholar + dullard)? Does Barthes make you barf? Will you blow up your university libary if one more person mentions words like "discourse," "interpellaton," "the signified," or "technologies of self"? Ah, then you must be in "grad skool"! My deepest condolences.

I found many of his insights to be refreshing and right on the mark. Some scholars will disagree with Scholes and criticize his strategies (that's why they're dull eggheads after all), but he identitifies a very real problem in English and humanities departments today (and academia in general). He attempts to address it in simple, highly readable prose--and with humor as well--while avoiding the jargon and the pretentiousness that plagues most scholary writing. I found myself staying up until the wee hours of the night to finish the book in one sitting. It was a wonderful respite for me during my first year in grad school, and it lifted my spirits considerably. As many of you already know, graduate school is an experience that basically chews you up and spits you out, destroying your self-esteem, dignity and health in the process. While it may not prevent you from throwing your Foucault and de Certeau books out the window, it may give you back your sanity--remember, it's not you, it's the system's power structure and its discursive effects!