Teaching American Literature

Cathy Davidson's perspective, or perspective(s) on American literature definitely contrasts so much with Starr's that I was wondering if I was reading about the same nation's history. While Starr attributes the success of print culture to the unique structure of America's government that encouraged free speech and open thought, culminating in documents like the Constitution, which represented the the country's collaborative efforts to ensure political freedom, Davidson sees the novel as a genre that acted as various types of counterargument to the selective, exclusive documents of the fledgling country. She believes that by uncovering the novel and the way
the novel was disseminated and read, we may get greater insight into the voices that have been erased or excluded from the standard narrative history of our country.

As I think back on my own introductions to American history and American literature, I tried to remember what narrative I learned in school. It seems so long ago now, and I wasn't thinking very critically about the information I was processing to get an "A" on my tests. However, certain points that Davidson raised reminded me of various truisms I had heard in my own education. Yes, Cooper's Leatherstocking Tales were the definitive novels of the time. We learned that not only did they capture the spirit of America, but they also showed how the true American could assimilate well into a land once controlled by Native Americans. Natty Bumpo or Deerslayer was the ultimate expression of an true wilderness man, proving that Americans did indeed value the land and were perfectly capable of being friends with the Native Americans. The "bad guys," though white, are found out to be both European Americans and pirates, so their evilness is explained because they do not understand the true American spirit. However, the real lesson learned from Deerslayer was that early Americans loved dense description because it reminded them of the dense forests they had yet to search through. Every word was a little discovery. We even wrote a descriptive essay based on the book. These are the lessons I remember from reading only the snippets of Deerslayer we were assigned in ninth grade.

I also vaguely remember a picture of the Boston massacre from our history textbooks which I believe looked something similar to the one I found for this blog post, in which the heroes look strangely upper class and white, which is far different than Cathy Davidson's reminder that John Adams described them as "negroes and mulattoes, Irish teagues and outlandish jacktars." I never really thought about her point, until reading this introduction that once the Boston massacre became a symbolic moment of patriotism, the event was "whitened up."

I also remember talking to my dad about pride in being an American. I still like to talk to him about this issue, because he would proudly say that, though American has had it's problems, it is the greatest nation on earth which is why everyone wants to immigrate to our country. He's not anti-intellectual either. He was a history buff growing up and still is--soaking in any documentary from any perspective he can find. It makes me realize that it is easier to critique American exceptionalism within the context of Academia, yet outside of academia, a sustained critique of our country and its history will often agitate people like my dad, who sees that type of analysis as "un-American" or unappreciative of the many blessings we have been given, despite the problems (like slavery) we've had along the way. It might be interesting to invoke some Rogerian argument in these discussions--try to understand both sides of the issue to come to a better understanding of what being "American" means.

However, Davidson is talking to academics in American literature, primarily. Yet, even in her experience, she is seeing resistance to new discoveries about the novel because it breaks down the facade of stability many see in the canon and narrative of American literature that has already been established. Not being an Americanist, in the field of literature, I remember being handed a Norton Anthology of American literature when I was teaching at a community college and being told: "Go." While the anthology seemed more inclusive of diverse perspectives I had never discovered myself, I found myself drawn to the traditional authors when creating my syllabus. I sprinkled the course schedule with some settlers, puritans, founding fathers, a little Hawthorne, a little Poe, a little Dickinson, and of course everyone's favorite--Emerson. However, I did give one project in which the students could pick any author in the entire anthology, do a little research and present information to the class. I was shocked at what I was missing out on and amazed at student's response to authors like Fanny Fern (sadly a figure I had not been introduced to before that class) and Jane Johnston Schoolcraft, and Obijway poetess. In fact, I remember specifically my student, a retired military officer, who had lived in a small town where the Schoolcraft lived, grow completely enamored with her life story and the history of the Obijway people after doing that project, even looking in to present day problems.

Since then, I haven't returned to early American literature, but I agree with Davidson. There is a rich field to explore, a field of voices that will give us a better picture of what being American means, what it meant to many people in the past, and how we can affect current policies when we better understand our diverse history.
Category: 0 comments

0 comments:

Post a Comment