'Klanderud's List'

[Tony Qualin]

SEELangs has once again shown itself to be remarkably and admirably flame
resistant.  Having read Bob Beard's posting, however, I cannot allow some
of his statements to go unchallenged.  I apologize in advance for the long
posting.

We must thank Beard for revealing the extent to which anti-intellectualism
is ingrained in our culture.  As for his letter being a sign of self-hatred
(as a subsequent poster implied): it seems that his hatred is not for
himself but rather for a great many of his colleagues who have chosen a
field of specialization that he does not respect.

>
>I've always marveled at the complete lack of logic in the study of
>literature.  Literary criticism is something only literary critics
>(dilletante and professional) do.

Some of us think critically a great deal of the time.  Universities have
traditionally used literature courses--in combination with other courses in
the humanities--to develop this skill in their students.  Maybe there are
better ways to teach critical thinking.  Do you have any positive
suggestions?

The only practical purpose of graduate
>programs in literature is to produce more literary critics.  For every
>deserving writer in the world there are probably 10,000 literary critics.
>Is every one of them essential to the functioning of society?
>

Is _every_ doctor, butcher, farmer, etc. essential to the functioning of
society?  How do we determine who is inessential?  What should we do with
these inessential members of society?

>Of course, one can get glimpses of the culture of a nation reading
>contemporary literature but certainly no consistent, comprehensive view.

Where soes one get a "consistent, comprehensive view" of any nation's
culture?  Perhaps you have culture reduced to some "scientific" formula
that is far too complex for those of us who have taken leave of reality.  I
have always felt that the study of literature was an excellent approach to
understanding the inconsistency and unencompassibility of real life and
real culture.

>There are better ways of doing that--right, Genevra?

I am sure Ms. Gerhart would be the first to emphasize the importance of
literature in Russian culture.  I do not think she would suggest that we
cut back on the amount of Russian literature that our students read.  As it
is, even the best-read American student is likely to feel inadequate while
discussing literature with Russian biologists and physicists who do not
share their American counterparts' "disdain" for literature. Of course we
have buried Russia in the Cold War and have proven the superiority of our
"logical" disdain for literature.  Da zdravstvuet amerikanskoe nevezhestvo!

The worship of
>writers,

Forgive me for intruding in mid-sentence, but this reveals a somewhat
skewed vision of the "literary critic." I guess it is your straw man,
though, so have at it.

 something else carried out by literary critics, is best left to
>the religion department (another questionable enterprise of universities).

Do you include comparative religion here?  Is information about other
people's beliefs useless?  On a grander scale, what is questionable about
metaphysics and theology?  God forbid (if I may be permitted to use the
term) we grapple with any of the "eternal questions" in a university.

>
>Compare for example that biologists not only produce biologists, who do
>useful research for the benefit of all upon graduation, but also doctors,
>veterinarians, ultimately a few psychiatrists.  Political scientists and
>historians funnel their graduates into law school as well as graduate school.
>

I have former students working in Russian law firms, in private business
and in various NGOs.  I have yet to produce a literary critic.

>The reason literary critics have thrived so long is that they have been
>teaching language--something for which they have absolutely no credentials.
> Most gradute schools of my time forced them to take 2-3 linguistics
>courses--I helped many of them through what was obviously a painful
>exercise.

This seems to be the source of your hostility and it is extremely
ill-founded.  You seem to feel that literary specialists are unqualified to
teach language and are taking jobs from those who are qualified.  This is
absurd.  There are surely poor teachers among literary scholars.  It is
unlikely, however, that the percentage of poor teachers among literary
scholars is any higher than that among any other specialization in any
other university department.

I never found linguistics courses to be painful.  I always did well in them
and I recognize their value.  What I learned about the language in them,
however, was neither more or less valuable than the command of the language
I acquired through constant reading in Russian.  The statement that
literary scholars have no credentials for language teaching is offensive
and arrogant.  I would apologize if I were you.

 Can you imagine a biology department in which a biological
>historian with a degree essentially in the history and philosophy, is
>given two lab courses to teach in addition to one course in the history of
>biology? Or, indeed, a sociologist.

Your analogy is ill-conceived and poorly executed.  Language is the
material from which literature is crafted and literary scholars have
extensive contact with language as it is actually used.  Moreover, we are
trained as language teachers in graduate school (we are almost never given
the opportunity to teach literature in grad. school).  Finally, it is
likely that well over half of the "literary critics" produced in our
country began studying literature out of a love of the foreign language
they were studying.  Only for a very small minority of them is language and
language teaching secondary.

This logic becomes very vulnerable at
>times of low enrollment and it makes the Cornell department even more
>vulnerable, since it can't justify its existence by arguing that the
>language courses depend on it.  We can still argue that the Russian
>language and knowledge of its culture and society is important for US
>government, business, and science.  But note literature doesn't fit in
>anywhere here due the the long-standing disdain of literary criticism of
>these occupations.

Have you never seen a State Department Exam?  They are full of questions
about literature.  Apparently somebody values general knowledge and the
ability to discuss literature and other cultural matters.  As for the
threat of "literary criticism" (a term that you use nearly as pejoratively
as Bush and his fellow conservatives use "liberal") being taught to
undergraduates, you can rest easy.  I'm sure if you were to tour literature
classes throughout the land you would encounter Derrida in no more than a
handful of undergraduate lectures.

What is more, literature classes help build enrollments in language
courses. Well attended undergraduate literature classes that fulfill
general ed. requirements can be a source of interest in the language and
culture and can help stem flagging enrollments.  The important thing is to
design literature classes that appeal to students who aren't yet majors.
Courses entitled "Survey of Russian Literature: 1900-1950" don't do well on
the market.  The more that undecided majors learn about Russia (be it in a
lit. course or in a culture course), the more likely they are to take
language classes.  Without literature courses our enrollments would drop
even further.

>
>It seems inevitable that the issue of tenure will come up in a very serious
>way in the near future.  We should be thinking critically of justification
>of it while adjusting our universities to a more nearly rational mode of
>operation.


"We" should think twice before calling for the liquidation of a subject
"we" find to be esoteric and even "illogical."  Others may find our
subjects to be equally illogical and just as loosely connected to language
instruction as we have deemed the lit. crits to be.


The waste involved in current practices is very expensive and
>parents are having greater difficulty coming up with the financial
>wherewithal to see their children through university.  We haven't even
>began examining the effect of cyberuniversities looming just over the
>horizon.  They are already on line and when all the PhD's we are producing
>and then throwing away begin to see opportunities with them, they will
>begin to grow rapidly.  They offer flexible hours, a very rich array of
>technological tools and, at 25% of the cost of a private education,
>fabulous profits for the guys who finally succeed in putting one together.
>University of Phoenix is on its way, Syracuse University extension service
>is going on line with serious language courses, and Western Governers
>University has serious financial backing at the state level.  Yet the vast
>majority of Slavicists are not even on line yet and have no idea what the
>issues are.
>
>Time to wake up, boys and girls.
>

If waking up means recognizing the threat to our ideals and opposing it, I
think we are already awake.  If waking up means abandoning the traditional
ideals of academia and forfeiting the human value of a liberal education, I
shall continue to slumber. My dreams are more precious to me than any
reality that calls for running universities like Wal-marts.  I take pride
in teaching my students to speak Russian well and to read, write, think and
participate in discussions critically.


>--Bob
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>Robert Beard                            Bucknell University
>Russian & Linguistics Programs          Lewisburg, PA 17837
>rbeard at bucknell.edu                            717-524-1336
>Russian Program http://www.bucknell.edu/departments/russian
>Dictionaries   http://www.bucknell.edu/~rbeard/diction.html
>-----------------------------------------------------------

Sincerely

Anthony Qualin