Friday, December 10, 2004
English Department Elitism
As a former Humanities student and B.A. in English recipient. I was always amazed and appalled at the elitist attitudes within English depatments. The Professors within these departments have the attitude that they are the only ones that have true insight into Literature. Yet, Terry Eagleton, in Literary Theory: An introduction, points to the fact that:
"English, as an academic subject was first institutionalized not in the Universities, but in the Mechanics' Institutes, working men's colleges and extension lecture circuits. English was literally the poor man's Classics-a way of providing a cheapish 'liberal' education for those beyond the charmed circles of public school and Oxbridge". (23)
How is that for a confidence crusher. I recall mentioning this to a professor during a conversation and he literally stuttered saying, "I, I, I didn't know that". Well he does now. Eagleton provides an excellents point of foci for us in working toward understanding the function of English Departments. This golden nugget of truth has been intentionally kept from aspiring Englishman and women. The Professors strut and pose in an effort to make students and colleagues believe that they are doing something "important".
What is worse is that men who enter into the profession of being an English Professor are seen as lacking any masculine qualities. Eagleton also points to the early view that "English literature, reflected a Royal Commission witness in 1877, might be considered a suitable subject for women. . . and the second- and third rate men who. . .become schoolmasters"(24). The perception that the study of English is a feminine quality is silently held today. I have had many a female professor tell me that men in English Departments are viewed as feminine and that the men themselves are aware of this fact.
The elitist attitudes are simply overcompensation for the knowledge that the study of English is a sham much like the study of history.
"English, as an academic subject was first institutionalized not in the Universities, but in the Mechanics' Institutes, working men's colleges and extension lecture circuits. English was literally the poor man's Classics-a way of providing a cheapish 'liberal' education for those beyond the charmed circles of public school and Oxbridge". (23)
How is that for a confidence crusher. I recall mentioning this to a professor during a conversation and he literally stuttered saying, "I, I, I didn't know that". Well he does now. Eagleton provides an excellents point of foci for us in working toward understanding the function of English Departments. This golden nugget of truth has been intentionally kept from aspiring Englishman and women. The Professors strut and pose in an effort to make students and colleagues believe that they are doing something "important".
What is worse is that men who enter into the profession of being an English Professor are seen as lacking any masculine qualities. Eagleton also points to the early view that "English literature, reflected a Royal Commission witness in 1877, might be considered a suitable subject for women. . . and the second- and third rate men who. . .become schoolmasters"(24). The perception that the study of English is a feminine quality is silently held today. I have had many a female professor tell me that men in English Departments are viewed as feminine and that the men themselves are aware of this fact.
The elitist attitudes are simply overcompensation for the knowledge that the study of English is a sham much like the study of history.
