Will vs. Greenblatt

Both authors, George Will and Stephen Greenblatt, give two different sides on one topic. Each stating their own opinions on how politics and ideology are affecting academic studies in literature and more closely related to us, Shakespear and The Tempest. Although, I found it very confusing to first read, then understand, and finally write what both articles were portraying. Very unsure that I understood them correctly, I got that George Will was against the Modern Language Association (MLA). At first it was confusing to figure out why, but I found that Will was actually against the MLA's reasoning for not accepting the nomination of Carol Iannone. Even though the MLA was "shocked.. that people suspect it of politcal motives" Will says right after that "the MLA is saturated with the ideology that politics permeates everything." So, apparantly Will is against having politics involved in literature and doesn't agree with the statement that "all literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political." And thinking that all literature is based off of assumptions that we personally have of class, race, and sex is oppressive. Will says "this ideology radically devalues authors.." which it does. This view on all literature gives no room nor the possibilty that art is free and can be its own pure thing. With this "ideology," since it keeps being repeated, the consequences are becoming more towards this social class type thing where "the result is collective amnesia and deculturation." So, by this point I have been pretty confused, so many words!! But on to Stephen Greenblatt, who is responding to George Will's article, says in response to Will's "nation's social cement" that "the art that matters, is not cement," but rather "mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing." If anything individualism should not be repressed but expressed. Literature is all a form of expression and should not be succumb to politicals views or based off of the views of the ones before us. Greenblatt's resolution would be "to kill our literary inheritance [by turning] it into a decorous liturgical celebration of the new world order." This way people, such as, the poets can have the ability to be free with whatever they wish to expression without having to be tied down to this "social cement."
Not fully conprehending both articles fully is limiting me in writing and choosing which side I personally agree with. From what I understood, I agree with Greenblatt's idea that art should not be tied down and allowed the opportunity to change and fluctuate. But I didn't fully agree with teachers continuously teaching the same thing over and over, thus the social heritage, without tossing in times for students to process things on their own. For instance, students should learn to interpret things on their own accord and come to their own conclusions, not always what is said in the textbooks and/or has been repeated by the teacher.

The Tempest and Colonialism

After reading the first three Acts of The Tempest by Shakespeare and Literarcy Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice by Charles Bressler, I have seen a few similarities with how Caliban is treated and colonialism. When Prospero and Miranda landed on the same island as Caliban, Prospero had his own hegemony, "that is dominant values, sense of right and wrong, and sense of personal self-worth," that he forced onto Caliban (234 Bressler). Meaning when Prospero first found Caliban living his own life on his island, both Prospero and Miranda thought they were helping Caliban when they "took pains to make [Caliban] speak" and "taught [Caliban] each hour one thing or another" (Act 1, Scene2, Lines 356-357). They saw him as a subhuman that was not up to par with what they were. Thus, they saw it fit to colonize Caliban to  become closer to their level of equality.

When Trinculo and Stephano come across Caliban, who was trying to receive firewood for Prospero, they share wine and thoughts that lead to Stephano wanting to keep Caliban around. As Trinculo said, "...he's not much of a monster" yet, "...a poor, gullible monster" (Act 2, Scene 2, Lines 120-122). These words have the same meanign as calling other races subhumans or "savages", a topic discussed in Bressler's article. This leads to "a philosophical concept called alternity whereby 'the others' are excluded from positions of power and viewed as different and inferior" (236). This is exactly where Trinculo and Stephano put Caliban as they call him "servant monster." They see his monstorous looks and savage ways of physical behavior as something underneath them meaning they just have to take Caliban under their wings and teach him anew. Add in their hopes to rule the island, this is colonization happening. So far they've taken over the people inhabiting the island, check; brough in alternity to see them as inferior, check; began to force labor on them, check; imposed their personal hegemony, check. The next step would be to spread more people under their rule throughout the island. With that I think there is evidence showing Caliban as the native people.

Shakespeare does portray the white man as being superior to others around him, in reference to how Caliban is treated so far. From Prospero in the beginning to Trinculo and Stephano now, all have attempted to take advantage of Caliban's gullibility and "savage-ness" to colonialize the native peoples on that island.

Errrrm, Act 1!!

Prospero is able to manipulate the few people around him by telling historical narratives. He goes to tell Miranda, his daughter, of how they both came to be there on the island. Since, Miranda cannot remember much from 12 years ago Prospero is able to give Miranda the only version of a story which she will take as the truth. They live with no one like them and because of their bond she will most likely take the side of her father. He sends an emotional appeal when stating that "he whom next thyself of all the world I loved..." just to trigger how close Prospero was to Antonio.

With Caliban, who was living on the island before Prospero arrived with Miranda, he tells him how he and Miranda helped him pick his self up. But, when Caliban starts to talk back Prospero responds with, "I must once in a month recount what thou hast been, which thou forget'st." Meaning Prospero will, every month, remind Caliban of how he was just a servant with no mother, thankfully rescued by Prospero. Just recalling this story every month to one person to "put them in his place" shows just how hard Prospero is trying to guilt Caliban into not retailiating in any way. Then bring in Prospero's magic that thoroughly scares Caliban gives more leverage to Prospero to make, well more so force, Caliban into doing whatever  he says to do.

As for manipulated the spirit Ariel, Prospero is able to use the fact that he rescued him from a hollow pine tree in which he was locked in for twelve years. He would have stayed there if it were not for Prospero. So, in a way Prospero did help Ariel get freedom. It was just freedom from being locked up in a tree. Although, he now must act as a slave from Prospero. Again, Prospero is able to guilt Ariel into to staying around and doing things for him, because without him he would not be allowed or even capable to do anything.

Prospero will not let any of the people he has control over to let out of his grasp. Nor, will he ever let them forgot how they came to be where they are, apparantly, saved by him to live a better life than before even if it is under his orders.

Balanced?

Last week in our socratic circle several different fiews and ideas were shared amongst one another. While there was a moment of heatedness, people who had something to say were able to voice their own comments and concerns.

While the controversy of the textbook coninuous on, hearing things like it may become (more) biased through race or political backgrounds and/or unbalanced in the way it retells our history really raised concerns in the classroom. Several people commented on what seemed borderline racism in the books. By this I am referring to the way and what the board in Texas wants to have put into the textbooks. For instance, one guy wanted to really the push the violence of the Black Panthers during the Civil Rights Movement. While other people on that board thought it better to leave out the "little details" such as women roles in industrial and militarial jobs during WWII. These are miniorities being pushed out of history. They were and still our important in their own way to our development in this country. Say that these "little details" of how every group in American was dealing with its situation was taken out and the studens only learned about this one group or that one over there, wouldn't that be a bias? What the students should learn about is how every group dealt with it, not what a few people on a board in Texas are opinionated with teaching their views.

That part seems unfair to where the issue of a balanced textbook came about. But, I'll be honest this did confuse me. The way I see a balanced book is that of having equal amounts of each side in every situation in all of history. Now, personally that seems a bit extreme or hard. Having already taken U.S. History (go 6th period!!) I look back and see that not every event that happened was balanced. There were times when one group prevailed and there was no other group of people to stand up against them. Well isn't that unbalanced? How would the fact that there was nothing to "balance out" a time period fit into this idea of a balanced textbook? That is one thing I didn't fully understand.

Ad just to say, if anyone or group of people should be editing textbooks books, those people should definitely all be majors in that subject. Just like you wouldn't want some expert in mechanics being the vet for your dog, I dount you'd want anyone outside the field of history writing the history students will learn about this country for years to come.