Anna Pirrello

WRIT 2
TR 11-12:50
How Should the Canon Be Taught in Schools, If It Should at All?

There has long been a debate over the literary canon, and whether or not it has merit,
which has only intensified in recent years. A major focus of this debate is whether or not the
canon should be taught in school, and if so, how? What works should be included? Should it
continuously evolve, or contain the same set of works? What are positive and negative
repercussions of teaching the literary canon? Countless authors have written on the subject, each
voicing their own unique opinions, yet the debate continues. Here is what some of the authors
who have written on the canon have to say.

Arthur N. Applebee: The majority of schools focus on white male authors. As long as these
texts continue to be taught, women and non-white authors will be excluded from the canon, and
many cultures that make up the U.S. will be excluded from the curriculum. This provides a very
narrow and unrepresentative education for students, therefore the current canon encourages a
narrow and unrepresentative education.

Paul Lauter: The canon should be changed to be more representative and accurate through
inclusion of women and non-white writers, though this is difficult because the types of works in
the canon have been entrenched since the 1920s. These works fall into a very narrow category in
that they are authored by mostly white, males, and this is reflected in their portrayals and
promoted ideals. Not only should a broader range of works be included, but also the
“institutional and intellectual arrangements that shape and perpetuate it” should change.

Adalaide Morris: Canonization propagates views held by the ruling classes/elites in society and
essentially denounces any works that do not hold these ideals or are not written by people who fit
in with them (e.g. nonwhite, nonmale, etc.). Even if the canon were to be expanded to include
views from a variety of different cultures (substantial enough to be representative of the society
we live in), as Lauter suggests, it would be too diverse to fit the definition of canon. There would
be so many different perspectives and characteristics that the canon would no longer be unified.
Therefore, using one canon to teach literature would not work; at minimum, representative
American literature consists of many different canons.

Carlin Borsheim-Black, et al.: Often texts in the canon perpetuate white, male, christian
ideologies that privilege certain groups (white and/or male) and marginalize others (non-white
and/or non-male). More traditional teaching approaches often take these ideologies as true,
without any deeper examination. Critical Literacy, however, is a teaching approach that pushes
students to read against texts and think about the ideology behind them as well as the issues with
representation, power, etc. Traditional canonical texts provide good opportunities to use Critical
Literacy because it is a chance to question the dominant ideologies from those texts, which are
 Anna Pirrello
WRIT 2
TR 11-12:50
also entrenched in society. So while the canon itself is limiting, using new teaching approaches
to analyze and study it can still prove beneficial to students.

Laura Apol Obbink: The current literary canon is almost exclusively male-centered. It focuses
on works in which main characters are overwhelmingly male, as well as the authors themselves.
This has a significant impact on interpretation and expression. Female readers will read these
texts in very different ways from male readers simply because they are not included. Works in
the current canon all promote patriarchal values and ideas, therefore teaching them promotes
those same ideas in the classroom, resulting in the exclusion of many students’ views. Not only
should the canon be expanded to include feminist and non-white works, but the way in which we
study works in it should expand to reflect the many different perspectives in society– not just the
white, male perspective.
 Anna Pirrello
WRIT 2
TR 11-12:50
Works Cited

Applebee, Arthur N. “Stability and Change in the High-School Canon.” The English Journal,

vol. 81, no. 5, Sept. 1992, p. 27, https://doi.org/10.2307/819891. Accessed 24 Mar. 2020.

Borsheim-Black, Carlin, et al. “Critical Literature Pedagogy: TEACHING CANONICAL

LITERATURE for CRITICAL LITERACY.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,

vol. 58, no. 2, 2014, pp. 123–133, www.jstor.org/stable/24034704. Accessed 15 June

2023.

Lauter, Paul. “Race and Gender in the Shaping of the American Literary Canon: A Case Study

from the Twenties.” Feminist Studies, vol. 9, no. 3, 1983, p. 435,

https://doi.org/10.2307/3177608.

Morris, Adalaide. “Dick, Jane, and American Literature: Fighting with Canons.” College

English, vol. 47, no. 5, Sept. 1985, p. 467, https://doi.org/10.2307/376878. Accessed 7

Oct. 2019.

Obbink, Laura Apol. “Feminist Theory in the Classroom: Choices, Questions, Voices.” The

English Journal, vol. 81, no. 7, Nov. 1992, p. 38, https://doi.org/10.2307/820747.

Accessed 3 Dec. 2019.