The Rise and Fall of English
So, I read the title and thought, “Wow! What a downer. Do I really need to read this text for my English Studies course?!” The answer of course is no. I don’t really need to read the book, but rather should and did. My own question becomes a huge question around English as a discipline, “Why should I read this book and how does it apply to my life?” I began reading with the misconception that Robert Scholes would be pointing out to his audience all of the defunct issues in regard to English as a language of study or a disciple, followed by providing the reader with all of the tools and answers; that is not quite the case. The text seems slightly dry at first, a first-hand, elitist-educated, professor’s account of all that is wrong with the system of higher education (of course through his rose-colored looking glass). However, after getting deeper into the text, great questions about the state and shape of something near and dear to my heart were raised with some pretty plausible suggestions as to how we can try to take a few steps in the right direction for the future of English, rather than demolish this educational keystone and start anew.
After trudging through his biographical web, woven early in this five chapter commentary, the reader finds refreshing perceptions regarding college English courses. A specific account of this is on page 65, “To come back to our own situation, I think we may at present be too concerned with teaching the right ideas in the classroom and not concerned enough with teaching the most effective ways of speaking, listening, reading and writing.” (Scholes, 65) Scholes states on page 18 of his work, “As I understand it, the fall of English is partly the result of cultural shifts that are beyond the power of English departments to change-though not beyond their power of creative response.” (Scholes, 18) Scholes cries for a reconstruction of English studies to be more appropriately geared to the current time and place. This does not imply that older texts are worthless, but rather, need to be read in a new way and applied to the shifts in one’s culture that are forever taking place. On several occasions, Scholes repeats his theory that in order for students to appreciate age old texts, they must be able to relate these works to their own time and culture and figure out exactly how that text speaks to them and their circumstances.
Scholes also places a significant responsibility on staff and students in his text; constantly calling upon professors and teachers alike to push for the changes that he recommends later in the book. He also offers, “It means also that we teachers must employ a pedagogical rhetoric that will earn for us the respectful attention of those we are teaching.” (Scholes, 65) Scholes is not blaming any one person or group of people for allowing English to disintegrate, rather he is advising that before the state of this subject becomes anymore dire, changes need to be instituted. I tend to agree with Scholes plan for evading the entire plunge of English Studies as a whole, in an attempt to head off English becoming much like Greek or Latin.
Scholes’ approach is very clear and concrete. He is earnest in his undertaking. On page 67 he notes, “I am suggesting that we can diminish what I call our hypocriticism by undertaking to do this job as honestly and decently as we can.” (Scholes, 67) This statement clears the air of any possible hidden political agendas as well. His examples and suggestions as to how we can overhaul the English departments seem quite prescriptive and organized, yet allow room for interpretation and adjustment. One perception of Scholes’ that should not be ignored is his adamant stance regarding social structure and its role in one’s education. “I mention our social structure because it is the key to what as become of English as well as to what is becoming of it.” (Scholes, 75)
The book is set up into five chapters, each chapter being immediately followed by an assignment that correlates to the previous chapter. These assignments were both practical and amusing. The assignments helped to shed light on the material covered in the prior chapter, as well as served to drive the point home that change is immediately needed in our system with the animation of real-life experiences. Scholes writing is easy to follow and flows nicely. He is convincing in his claims, most importantly, “…to function as a citizen of these United States one needs to be able to read, interpret, and criticize texts in a wide ranges of modes, genres, and media.” (Scholes, 84) Again in this chapter, Scholes takes on partial responsibility for himself and his peers for the current situation and encourages English instructors to avoid “inherited professionalism or personal preferences” as qualification for certain texts to be taught as literature.
Appreciation is in order for the straight-forwardness of the text and the application of assignments following each chapter, particularly Chapter 4. This assignment comes directly from tried and true practices and is perhaps not the purest test, but a good experiment for how to and where to start to make the necessary changes to the curriculum that Scholes notes has existed seemingly forever. “That English curriculum that came into being around the turn of the nineteenth century is still the English curriculum.” This definitely seems like a problem. Scholes advises, “I do not expect to solve our problems here, only to advance our discussion of them beyond the point of mutual accusations and recriminations.” (Scholes 103) Scholes makes the realization that it will require s constant dialogue from those involved in the study of English to come to some agreement as to how the current issues can be solved. However, he does contribute to this dialogue by the assignment at the end of chapter four, Pacesetter English. I believe that if this approach made it to fruition across the board, there might be more hope for the discipline as a whole. This seems plausible for a number of reasons, especially as his approach is grounded in very similar structure as the current curriculum, mainly requiring some tweaking. I can stand behind an approach that is accompanied by the disclaimer found on page 142, “…it helps to have a curriculum that both students and teachers can believe in, because they can see that it is aimed at helping students to develop better intellectual equipment for the lives they are actually living and will continue to live.” (Scholes, 142) This is perhaps the single best quote from the text to use as armor for those in opposition to a restructuring of the English discipline. Yes, it may be true that Scholes is dreaming. Maybe this change will never happen. Perhaps a better plan is out there or may come along somewhere down the line. The book isn’t a how-to, it is a start. Something that Scholes can claim is that he tried. At least he tried. Too many of us are bogged down in the current system and keep recycling the same old texts, not because they have universal meaning to us and our students alike, but because they are those same texts that we were taught in school as holding a special place in the literary world. We can’t really explain why…why we teach them…why we love them…why they are important. So, it is time for a change. We need to be experiencing and analyzing and understanding those texts that are vital to our cultural survival and longevity. Scholes made a start.
Works Cited
Scholes, Robert. The Rise and Fall of English: Reconstructing English as a
Discipline. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998.