Just another point of clarification for those that have to post this week; I would recommend writing your blog post in a text editor and then transferring it into the comment box on the page. Especially if you are trying to keep track of length and if you don't want to write a lot of text in a cramped space. Good luck, and if you have any questions on formatting lemme know.
Literature must be approached with one simple question in mind: what is the point? Why do we care about this work? It may be because it has influenced philosophers and politicians, and thus changed the course of history. It may be because it gives a glimpse into a culture long past. Or perhaps it reveals something about humanity. Something universal, something that deserves deeper thought. It may be a flaw or a virtue, but to understand literature is to more deeply understand ourselves. So how does one understand literature? When I read a book written today, I am in little danger of not understanding one of the words on its pages. As long as it is in English, its contents will most likely fall within my vocabulary. With works typically considered ‘literature,’ this is not necessarily true. I do not know many of the words in Shakespeare’s works, even though they are English. Antiquated English, to be sure, but English nonetheless. Naturally, this ignorance is an impediment to understanding the story. If I do not know what Hamlet is saying, how can I know what is happening? How can I find the point? Another vital part of a story is the setting. Every modern story has a setting, and the great works of days past are no different. The newest bestseller and the ancient classic both address physical locations, events of the day, and cultural norms. When reading a novel set in modern times, I almost subconsciously understand the setting. References to landmarks, cities, politics, or common habits are understood in almost less time than it takes to read them. Not being a citizen of ancient Greece, however, “The Odyssey” is a little more obscure for me. Just as visiting a different country in modern times requires research into cultural norms and customs, so visiting the past through the written word requires at least a basic knowledge of that time. Imagine how difficult it would be to read “Les Miserables” if you had never heard of the French revolution. The events in the past influence the works created, whether by being a major theme or merely by being the background against which the story is cast. Just as vital is an understanding of the culture of the time. Descriptions of a character’s clothing, for example, may seem superfluous to us. Just as today, though, the costume of a person can tell much about them: their social standing, wealth, even marital status might all be revealed through their dress. Reading literature requires some understanding of history, then, and it also requires some geography. Written works have a setting in time, and they also have a physical setting. Attempting to read a Grecian epic while picturing the foggy streets of London will produce nothing but confusion. To fully understand literature, then, one must understand four things: the relevant history, the culture of the day, the physical location, and--once the final page has been absorbed—the purpose behind the words. --Charlene Fritz
I like your analysis of what it means to truly understand literature. I think your point holds strong with the idea that there is a necessary background knowledge that can help you understand what the words mean exactly. I think you have touched upon a lot of really good ideas, but you didn't mention the obvious point that we must study the life of an author just as much as the culture that he was writing in. We may come to an understanding of the diction of Shakespeare, but if we did not know that Shakespeare did not live in London, but outside of London, and that he wrote during the 16th century. It is important for us to understand the lifestyles and the cultural contexts of an author before we can start to pick apart the diction. As you mentioned, you must know about the French Revolution before you can truly appreciate and understand Les Miserables as a profound text within French literature. This was a good post, I just want you to think about how authors interacted with their culture, just as much as you are thinking about what the culture consisted of.
I agree with you that to truly understand a work of literature one must go deeper than the surface to grasp its meaning. But in addition to the relevant history behind the work, the cultural influence of the times and even the author’s background, we must also take into account the culture and background of the people who are reading it. We must ask ourselves what the point of a given work is, but we must also ask ourselves why other people cared/care about this work and why we were selected to be exposed to it now. Literature is not just about the underlying meaning of ITS contents and the culture of ITS day, it is also reveals so much about the people who are being exposed to it. I think that in the context of this class especially we must understand that it is important to understand the implications of the literature in its time, but it is also imperative to analyze how our environment and our culture play a role in our understanding of the literature.
I also agree that one must look into a work of literature deeply in order to truly understand it rather than looking at it just on the surface. Furthermore, whenever a work of literature, especially from another location, is read, it is important to take into account the cultural surroundings the author is immersed in, as well as the location where the author lives. One also must ask themselves when the work was written so that work of literature can be read with the mindset of someone from the time period it was written. For example, with the Tale of Genji and the Epic of Gilgamesh, the time frame in which these works were both written, which cultures the authors were immersed in, and where the authors are from must all be considered so that these works can be read in the way the authors intended. Another thing to take into account to add to Greg's point is that if we read literature from a different culture from our own cultural lens, our understanding of the literature might turn out to be inaccurate.
Thank you all for the replies! I appreciate the new points and ideas, such as examining the life of the author and keeping in mind the way our culture influences how we interpret things. All good things to keep in mind as we begin diving in to the great writings of this semester. --Charlene
I liked how you began this; "Why do we care about this work?" The history of education and drawn out interpretations and analyses that comprise the latter article can be summed up with a statement like "The question of what to study is important, and knowing the context of what your studying is important." I don't really have the patience to get caught up on the overly complex sentiments that frequently allude in passing to pieces of literature that I know nothing about, and that I will forget after finishing the very next sentence (maybe that's just me) . I agree with professor Beyazit's assertion that the course is much to short to give proper attention to each facet of "The West". I was expecting to be reading something about Western Civilization, but instead was trudging through what just seemed like page filler. The meaning of 'exoticism' took two minutes to elaborate upon in class, but will stick with me for life, while the rest of those numerous pages I'll have to face once again come the midterm, but will subsequently be forgotten do to lack of relevance, were, for me at least, a waste of time. I personally feel that prestigious schools that squabble over how to get more "intellectualizing" mandatory humanities classes have set an example that other universities adopt, which wastes public finance. The best way to structure these not so irrelevant but monetarily wasteful classes in my opinion would be for the school to simply have "required reading" that students complete in their own time, and are tested on monthly.
1. Why is it important to have an education designed to prepare students for democracy?
One section of Allardyce’s article reflects on the time directly following World War I in which a main priority was to “create a citizen who shall be safe for democracy” (p. 707). This was done through a common education of European history in order to grasp America’s history and emergence as a nation. Although the author argues that a general education is no longer necessary, my own experiences have led me to believe it is important for some sort of common history course to be offered. I attended an extremely diverse high school where a significant portion of the students were immigrants, mainly from Latin American countries. For them, the United States was an entirely different and unknown place and thus, classes such as American and Global history which teach the evolution of the United States’ and its role in the world were beneficial because they allowed them a greater understanding of their new country. I can recall one of my closest friends, who was born in Guatemala, telling me that he felt more American than Guatemalan because he knew more about United States’ history and culture than his native country. This sentiment inspired him to strive to officially become an American and he eventually took and passed his citizenship test. This demonstrates the vital role of general education in preparing students to become active and aware citizens of America’s democracy by providing them with a greater knowledge of it.
2. Will the idea that general, interdisciplinary Western Civilization courses are outdated persevere?
I found “How to Read World Literature” and “Rise and Fall of Western Civilization Course” had an interesting parallel in that both indicate there is a cycle in the way that humans view ideas. Allardyce portrays the rise of Western Civ as a course all students were required to take to obtain a greater understanding of European and American history and how various disciplines contributed to it. He then argues that it is a “dying” course and that the new method is to be “limited in discipline” because “small is beautiful” (p. 724). “How to Read World Literature” similarly reflects constant change in thought over time periods, claiming “literary tradition may not develop in a linear fashion…but advances and returns” (p. 34). Humans tend to develop practices or ideas that they eventually disprove and replace, then find the replacement to also be wrong and return to old ways. If this is true, then there very well could be a return to the prevalence of a standard Western Civ course.
I really like your insights from your own personal experiences and how they relate to the texts. I prefer your answer to the first one than the second one. That is an interesting idea, that public education could influence a Latin American student so much so that he gives up his identity and decides that he would rather be an American. There is nothing wrong with that fact, but I sure hope that he didn't renounce his roots as a Guatemalan. I do agree that it is important that we must educate American citizens, especially in colleges and universities, about the nature of democracy and our political atmosphere.
I can agree to many aspects from your first response. My high school was also extremely diverse mostly middle eastern and Asian. A lot of what is learned about the history of this country (leaning towards "pro- United States") gave a lot of friends wanting to get their citizenship and/or permanent residence. However, I also feel that because of how we were taught to only see the "pros" of the US and "Western World", an education such as ours which looks at the global aspect -- talking more than just about the "pros" of the Western world, better prepares students to understand the "politics" and "democracy" that they are living in, thus gaining more knowledge than what is just the "good".
I found your first question to be very interesting... and it actually related to an article I just read before stumbling upon your post. The article/ discussion compared problems within the American educational system to the thriving Finnish schools. Though the article was comparing pre-collegiate schooling, the global differences are still relatable to this class. In Finland diving students into sets based on abilities is illegal and students are also not allowed more than 30 minutes of homework per night. In Finland there is a representative democracy. American schools have the goal to train children to have a specific mindset that will enable them to work in a factory or an industrial job, while increasing dependence on a higher power or system whilst decreasing individual thought. I think that the Western Civilization course is somewhat beneficial, but is it even possible to have a "system" that prepares students for democracy? I believe that instead of designing an education system that preps students for a certain kind of government, we should be taught to be tolerant. I am for the idea of having an introductive history course to the western and eastern world but not for this course to be in any way shape or form uniform.
I do find what you spoke about interesting. Coming from a very diverse background I do feel that to an extent what we learn in school about American history can change the way we view specific areas of our world such as democracy which will eventually help us understand the workings and our role in the government. Despite this, I believe the role of humanities goes beyond democracy in the United States and in other countries. Not only is it important for students to be prepared for democracy but to also be prepared for any other form of government. The more we learn about the types of governments the more knowledge we will have about basics of governmental policies and therefor able to recognize what works better for a specific group of people, or how we can adjust to regulations that are made up in a democratic government. This is also important because we are able to better understand how to interact with people of other countries or how as a whole the United States interacts with foreign countries either through economic exchange or political involvement.
In the document “How to Read World Literature” by Damrosch, a major issue that is addressed is about whether translation of great foreign works should be translated as is, “metaphrased”, translated with interpretation, “imitation”, or an in between that is not quite as extreme, “paraphrasing.” (pg. 66-67) Each one considered, I believe that works should only be translated through the method of “metaphrasing,” for both of the others take away the accuracy of the literary work. If you think of one of your favorite books, for instance mine is “Jane Eyre” by Charlotte Bronte, then imagine what it would read like if someone changed into there own words. Would the wife still be insane, would Jane still be so intelligent but plain? It would not, essentially, be the same book! “Paraphrasing,” although it does not allow for much interpretation still tries to keep the colorful language and writing schemes but changes some of the ideas in the process of making the translation flow. “Imitation” takes the work and entirely flips it around to convey to the reader whatever the translator thought that the writer was trying to say, and if the words do not flow, no worries, they will just have to be changed. There are many reasons why I believe “metaphrasing” is the best way to translate a work. First, since it is translated word for word the work will never lose the points that the author is trying to get across to the reader. After many translations it may be hard to tell which is the most precise version, thus causing confusion among the reading world. Also, any other way of translation takes away the traditions of the society in which it was written in turn taking away from the readers cultural experience. As a result the reader, will get a distorted view of that particular culture and will be on the wrong track to getting more familiar with the culture. The time era can also be distorted if the translation is not accurate, giving the reader a false impression of a later time. Furthermore, as I have encountered, some readers will just struggle through reading the original work, in its original language, rather than read some interpretation of the text. Personally, I think that not translating a work word for word ruins it, because it ruins the whole idea/ideas of the work. Also, taking someone’s book etc. and putting your own twist on it is like stealing, even if the translator has the license to do it. It is no longer an original idea, which makes it almost a stolen idea. I know that if I really wanted to read a book that was written in a foreign language I would definitely want it word for word because that is what defines the work of literature, even if it is not in the prettiest of words or flows the best. Every book should carry original information and should not be modified for the pleasure of the audience. Every work of literature was written to convey the information it possesses and too serve a specific purpose. Not only to captivate the reader. Don’t you want to know exactly what the author was saying, in his own interpretation?
I agree with your opinion that "metaphrasing" would be the most ideal method of translation. However, I believe that there could be some circumstances where other options would be better. There are some things that lose meaning through translation so it is the translators job to figure out the best way to keep the full meaning. But I do agree with you that it is wrong for the translator to change it in a way that makes it their own. The original message of the literature should definitely be preserved. Also, many authors will write something that they don't intend to have one specific meaning. Sometimes they write something that is meant to be interpreted in different ways depending on how the reader wants to interpret it. So if a piece of literature is translated in different ways it can result in different meanings. I think it's pretty neat that one piece of literature could have multiple meanings that effect people in different ways.
I also agree that the use of metaphrasing is the best for translation, however I still believe that it takes away from the authors effect. For example; when reading a poem from an Italian author in Italian the poems meaning can be portrait through the sounds of the words, the rhyme, and the meter. Once someone translates that poem into another language it loses those rhetorics and could make that poem dull. Although it sounds like I am arguing against metaphrasing,I don’t agree with paraphrasing and imitation. Recalling the part of the reading where there was the dilemma among the translators of A Thousand and One Nights, the ideas of paraphrasing and imitation seemed to destroy the text as a whole. Some left out many stories, another put too much description into certain scenes to engage the audience. Personally I wish we didn’t have to translate texts, but that would be in a utopian society where everyone could speak every language.
In this article Damrosch addresses many issues in the context of cross-cultural interpretation. How do you go about looking at a work written in a different time and understand its true meaning without understanding the genesis of the authors thought. We cannot be culturally and historically ignorant while “reading across time” which is the title of his second chapter. We must allow ourselves to alter our perspective and understand what it is about our own outlook that causes that very perception. Another important point that is brought up is the continuity and evolution of literature over time. Stories that have been an oral tradition in various cultures and have evolved into written texts and passed down to new cultures and generations. With that being said how do these stories become varied but yet are all in a way broadly connected in the same tradition. Damrosch explains this with the connected between Greece and Homer and the traditional oral poetry of ancient Mesopotamia. We can see how many of the same devices are used and have been transformed in two distinct cultures. It becomes challenging to separate and respect cultural backgrounds that influence and generate these works, while trying to find a commonality between all that has allowed for such a diverse perception of the world through literature.
After reading the article “How to Read World Literature,” I would agree with the guidelines Damrosch lays out for the reader in the first chapter. I need to be more aware of the differences between world literatures and be more open towards “different literary norms and expectations.” I know I occasionally struggle with understanding literature from other cultures. When I encounter a piece of literature I cannot relate to, I typically reject it. An example would be Shakespeare’s works; I always struggle with understanding the language he uses. As stated by the author, “We can learn much about a culture from its art and its architecture, but we learn immeasurably more when we have written records as well.” Even though I struggle here and there, I have learned so much about different cultures from works of literature. By taking this class, there will be ample opportunities to explore more cultures through the many works we plan to read. To do so, understanding the history and the culture of the work is the first step. This aspect of Damrosch’s article ties into some of the key points of Allardyce’s article “The Rise and Fall of Western Civilization Course.” Learning about different cultures through reading world literature is an important way to get in touch with our past. Even though it may not be a subject everyone is interested in, I think Geneseo and other universities are right to include it in the general education requirement. I agree with Allardyce when he states “… Western Civ not only expressed this particular ideal of America’s place in history but educated youth of the period to see the world in these terms.” It is essential to understand what your roots are and how this country started since our lives were influenced by history in countless ways. When we read The Bible, for example, it will provide us with insight of the time period and how religion was/is such a major facet to Western Civilization. The first step, however, is appreciating the culture of which this work was written in.
I like how you share your personal struggles with relating to some forms of literature such as Shakespeare. I also share this trait and often times I cannot fully understand or appreciate a piece of literature because I do not know the culture or history behind it. I agree that the way to overcome this is by opening our minds to another way of viewing the world. I think that this problem of viewing the world in one set way is becoming a big issue. Most of us reject other forms of culture because it is foreign to us and we have no way to relate to it. As a whole, I think our generation would greatly benefit by following Damrosch’s guidelines to open our minds and ways of thinking about other cultures. This would decrease exoticism while reading all forms of literature. I also agree with your statement that Geneseo and other universities are right to include Western Civ in the general education requirements. Although it is a very challenging course, all who take it benefit in numerous ways. Learning and understanding the past is the only way to move forward. This is such a unique class because we are exposed to such a variety of literature and history that otherwise we would not learn about. I am also looking forward to learning and appreciating history to better understand the world we live in now.
In Damrosch’s work, “How to Read World Literature,” he brings up two very important ideas of assimilation and exoticism within the first chapter. People generally tend to have an opinion about literature to one extreme or another and put off literature from other cultures because of this. They either assume that the lives of others are exactly the same, or that their lives are completely different and there’s no point in trying to relate. I will completely agree with Damrosch’s argument from my own experiences as well as observation of others. When reading a work of literature written by an author of U.S. origin it can be more easily understood and it will be more enjoyable because most of the terms and ideas will be familiar. Because of this, it becomes intimidating to read a piece of work from another culture or time period. I often believe that because I do not share the same culture with the author, I will not understand their experiences and thoughts on a matter. When coming to an idea I do not fully understand I tend to just stop trying to comprehend, where as if the same situation were to occur with literature written from an American perspective, I’d be more interested to understand it. On the other hand, it is common for people to try to read a piece of literature that is from another culture as if it is from their own. As human beings we tend to try to make reasons for occurrences. We wish to believe that we know or that we can at least figure out why something happens or why someone believes what they do. We like to think that everything that has happened to another person, has happened to us, or to someone we know. We want to be able to relate with others so we generalize certain aspects of other cultures and displace them as being the same as some of our own. These ideas of exoticism and assimilation are what makes reading literature so hard. If readers are able to find that balance between the two extremes, they will be able to enjoy and understand the literature as well as the other cultures that are represented much more easily.
I like the way you have paraphrased and articulated the ideas of the authors, but I think you could add a bit more of a personal touch to this. You elaborated their ideas nicely, but I still don't seem to know what you think exactly. I get that you're interested, but what I don't see is why. This post could also benefit from having some ideas on how to solve these problems that you've pointed out, or at least to ponder something relative to an answer to the question that this begs to bring up: How do we strike balance between assimilation and exoticism?
Think about this as you post to the blog in the future.
Why is it difficult, but also important to read world literature?
Reading is something that many people are used to doing on a daily basis. We must read signs on the road when we’re driving, we must read labels on the food items to make sure we’re buying elbow pasta instead of rigatoni, and we must be able to read to learn more about the world around us. In a world where everyone speaks the same language and shares the same culture, one would not worry about keeping up with what is happening in a book or story; they would simply understand. Fortunately, this is not the case. Reading world literature presents its readers with a challenge. Readers must not only focus on when and where a story takes place, the reader should also focus on the writing style, the word choices, and what the author is trying to portray to his or her audience. As Damrosch states, word choice can completely change or add so much meaning to any phrase and can just as easily go unnoticed. A short haiku about something as simple as a leaf can hold so much meaning if the haiku is properly understood by the reader. Two main problems for reading and understanding world literature include the time periods where these works take place and translations of the text. As readers, we will never know exactly what it was like to live in medieval times, in fact, some of us don’t even know what it was like to have lived in the 70’s or 80’s. With this in mind, we must hold no expectations on what we think it would have been, erase any stereotypes, and try to understand a time different from our own, all while keeping our minds in modern times. We cannot expect to transform and completely understand and agree with events and feelings of the past, and I’m sure if those from the past were able to read current literary works, they’d be equally confused, and even shocked at times. Damrosch stresses that we must keep a balance between feeling completely separate from the culture and feeling they are just like us. The second problem with reading world literature is translations from one language to another. The way a story or poem is read and interpreted in its original language is never going to be the same as when it is translated into another. Although for the most part we are able to get a good translation of different literary works, there are many words that cannot be translated in the perfect way. This can be difficult for readers in another country to completely grasp the original intent of the author. Some examples of words in different countries with no direct translation can be seen here: (http://www.buzzfeed.com/jonnym5/11-untranslatable-words-from-other-cultures-edzv). These words can seem abstract to those who do not understand what they mean, but they make a difference in conveying a certain feeling or emotion. It is important to understand the important role that word choice plays in different literary works. We must make due with the translations offered to us and try to interpret what we are reading with the culture, time period, and word choice in mind. Culture and perception can impact writing and understanding, but if a reader digs deep, reads, and interprets a work in the best way they can with the knowledge of where and when it’s coming from in mind, there is usually a common or relatable theme to the story. Reading an Italian love story can be relatable to anyone, and at the same time it can teach so much about Italian values and customs that one may not have realized existed. There are countless literary works on the internet, in libraries, and bookstores, but the human experience does not change. All humans, at one point, will experience feelings of sadness, heartbreak, joy, and several others. Works from all over the world can be relatable to all in some way and therefore should be explored. A differing perspective and view from what one culture is used to can be an eye opening and exciting experience gained from simply reading world literature.
I really liked how you explained the importance of understanding foreign literature. Although the literature may be something that we are not used to, it is still essential to understand the origin to completely grasp what the author is trying to get across to their readers. I remember when I was younger and I was forced to read books that was not interested in, it was really difficult for me to understand the message that was being presented to me. When I finally understood why the readings where important, I began to think deeper and I became an active reader.
Without understanding the culture and meaning behind a text, it would be extremely difficult to try to understand the message that the author is trying to convey. I think that reading world literature will allow individuals to become more open minded to different cultures traditions and customs.
In “The Rise and Fall of Western Civilization Course,” Gilbert Allardyce writes extensively about one of the reasons that Western Civ. was created: the perceived need for a class that would bring together all types of students into one course that would fill them with the knowledge they would need to become well-rounded, educated citizens. While I agree with the idea that students should be educated in “the ways of the world,” so to speak, I think that it is possible that Western Civ. courses are not the most effective way to do that. One educator quoted in Allardyce’s essay was William McNeill, who said that, in order to defend against the failure of their profession, educators must “find something worth teaching to undergraduates en masse, something all educated persons should know…” I completely agree with this statement. However, we face the problem of deciding what, exactly, is worth teaching to all undergraduates. How do we decide what to teach to everyone? We briefly discussed this in class on Thursday, and it seemed that the consensus was that educators and institutions have a very hard time with this question. In the past, according to Allardyce, Western Civ. has been a jumble of books, professors, and teaching styles, with no standardization on how it should be taught or what the students should read. It is so difficult for institutions to decide what should be taught to all students that the practice of requiring Western Civ. courses is dwindling, and the courses that are still there are beginning to fail. Another problem that arises with Western Civ. courses lies in the course itself. In attempting to decide what should be taught to all students, institutions left out most of the world. In class we talked about what “western” means, and how it is really not a distinction that anyone can make. However, in most Western Civ. courses, the only literature and history that is taught is what we think of as “western”: European and American. But what about the rest of the world? If this is a course made up of information that “all educated persons should know,” does that mean that there is nothing of merit to teach from China? Russia? South America? Why have institutions decided that the only recognizable literature is European and American? I believe that we cannot say we are making well-rounded citizens if we are only teaching them a small fraction of merit-worthy literature. By posting this, I am not attempting to attack the whole idea of Western Civ. courses. I am, however, trying to raise questions about it: How can we possibly decide what is worthy to teach to everyone? And why have we decided that only “western” literature is worthy? I am truly glad that the Humanities course that we are all in takes a “global approach,” because I think that is a step in the right direction for Western Civ. courses.
What does culture bring to the diversity of literature?
Different cultures around the world bring different ideas and perspectives to the world of literature. There is a definite divide between what many define as 'Western' culture versus what is defined as 'Eastern' culture. Many different ideas, exaggerations, and falsehoods that are typically used to describe how one culture differs from another can lead to a lack of understanding, comprehension, and overall knowledge of that culture. Certain attributes, such as independence, a semblance of equality, and certain values or issues that, from an American perspective, may be considered to be the standard for society, are typically associated with works from what is 'Western' culture, namely Europe and North America. The rest of the world, or the 'Eastern' culture, is often juxtaposed with Western literature to provide pieces of work that are somehow different from the norm according to Western culture, display different values than those that would typically be promoted, and this overall has the potential to isolate these works of literature as something different that cannot be understood. This brings forth the idea of exoticism, where a culture seems too foreign or too different from the reader's perspective for them to acutely understand the literature, when, in fact, different cultures help one to see a situation from a certain perspective, and understanding the history behind the literature will help in analyzing text and better recognizing differences and similarities amongst cultures. It is important to question works that do not make sense to us. I agree that we need to have a better understanding of the different cultures that cultivate this literature in order to be able to properly analyze the literature. We have to take our perspective into consideration, while also acknowledging other perspectives and how that literature may be seen differently to someone else. This is a major part about why taking a Humanities course is so beneficial and important. We are learning how to analyze different texts and put a time and place to many of the different perspectives. Humanities gives us a snapshot of the different kinds of perspectives of different cultures, and helps us to have a better understanding of different cultures in general. Mary Ieraci
I like that you said Humanities and the literature we read are important in having a better understanding of the different cultures and I absolutely agree. I think that goes for any piece of literature we might read for any class. Any work that we read (to a certain extent) has some significance in better understanding the history from which we came.
Looking back through the history of the Western Civilization course, it is interesting to see the motivations behind the course. However as "Rise and Fall of the Western Civilization Course" points out, the motivation for the course could also be frightening. By examining the time period where the course originated and the points in time where it experienced major change, one can tell that nationalism was a huge factor in the creation of the Western Civilization course. This being said, that same nationalism is the same reason the motivations for the course can be unsettling. One of the passages from the reading that really stood out was about the “Contemporary Civilizations” era of the course saying that the course was meant to create, “a citizen who shall be safe for democracy.” While perhaps an innocent statement, the connotations that come with it are that the American collegiate system is trying, not to educate its students, but to create generations that are not a threat to the current institutions. While it is obvious from the article that the course did not impede students from challenging established institutions, the desire is none the less a frightening one, especially as a student. Furthermore the piece goes on to say that the purpose of the course was to, “make sure that every student…has a common starting point and a single point of vantage from which to study.” Again a seemingly innocuous statement, it is pointing out the part manipulation has in the Western Civilization course and how it is trying to bias the students to have certain beliefs. While the idea of manipulating the thoughts of students to share the same views is huge improbability, the fact that it was an acceptable idea is disheartening. It makes one think of the idea of school as a whole and how easy it is for professors to manipulate students’ views across the board, not just in a Western Civilization course. Admittedly a very “conspiracy theory” view on the collegiate system, "Rise and Fall of the Western Civilization Course" makes readers reanalyze the entire schooling system and the bias that rub off on students. While initially a course built on patriotism and acknowledging American roots in Europe, the real result of the Western Civilization course and underlining of the “superiority” of the “western civilization” and encouraged bias against “other”. And that is the really scary thing.
I like your writing. I find the ideas you've expounded upon as evocative. This is the right way to be thinking about this. As you heard in our Islamic Literature class as well, it is imperative for us to investigate why the systems in place are structured the way they are. Keep up the good work on finding connections between texts and classes this semester.
The motivation behind Western Civilization courses is indeed frightening. You raised a good point: professors have the ability to manipulate their students beliefs in order to not upset our culture and establishments. Students are molded into the American Collegiate system and usually do not have the opportunity to learn other perspectives; teachers provide the books, allocate the time spent on each topic and create the discussion topics. Therefore the system enables students to make the same “safe” assumption of the world. We have to remember that there is no right way of looking at the world, everyone comes from a different reality.
I found your post extremely interesting, particularly your analysis of the American collegiate system. I found the concept of the collegiate system attempting to create generations that will not pose a threat to current institutions, rather than critical thinkers especially thought-provoking. I think it is important to consider the structure of educational institutions when examining courses such as Western Civilization. For instance, administrators who dictated the curriculum for Western Civilizations at the courses’ inception were likely white males, which has undoubtedly shaped our perception of what constitutes “Western” culture. Although this bias does not entirely detract from the importance of Humanities in the college curriculum, I do think it is important to keep this in mind to avoid the bias against the other Danielle outlined in her post.
In Damrosch’s “How to Read World Literature”, you are introduced to the many topics that have an effect on world literature. There are endless numbers of factors that contribute to the way we read and analyze literature today. Damrosch discusses that with the passing of time, different works lose their value and sometimes their meaning. As time passes and new generations of people arise, certain customs and traditions change and are forgotten. Although there may be many commonalities, unless you lived in the time period the work was written or have done extensive research on the time, you may not grasp the full meaning and themes of the work. Damrosch continues by discussing how translating works can cause much confusion and in some cases change the work of literature completely. The final factor he discusses is culture and its effect on world literature. I believe this to be the toughest part about world literature. No one culture is alike and no one person is the same. Although it is very hard to sit down and read a piece of literature written by someone of a different background or culture, you must try to understand that what they are writing may be moral, correct, or allowed in their eyes. This is why people spend so much time studying not only the lives of the authors, but also the culture that surrounds the author and piece of work. If you take two works from different cultures, you can definitely find similarities if you look for them. Damrosch explains taking dramas from different cultures and comparing them using “similarities in genre, in character and plot, in themes and imagery, and in parallel cultural patterns or social settings.” (pg 47) I realize that in almost anything you read, no matter the culture, you will be able to find commonalities, but it the comprehension of all details in the work that are lost through cultures. For one to understand the importance of theater in ancient Greece and how deeply the people viewed theater in my opinion, you had to have been there to experience it, or do extensive research over a long period of time. This creates a problem for reading world literature. It is impossible to have lived in every culture or do research on every culture. We are limited as humans this way and this is what makes the study of world literature such a difficult task. The best you can do is to just try to understand that everyone has their own way of life and world literature proves that. Mike Downs
I agree with you that it is very difficult to understand a certain piece of literature when it is not coming from the time period or culture that is our own. However, even with this difficulty, I still think it is possible to find importance and meaning in literature even if it is foreign to us. The many different writers from all time periods and cultures have a firm grasp on the topics they write about. With effort, you can understand any piece of literature you set your mind to. We have almost unlimited resources at our fingertips today, with use of these tools, we can try and better understand world literature and culture.
In the reading about the rise and fall of the western civilization course it talks about the many reasons this course even came to be. It appears that it was very difficult to actually get this course to stick and actually have people taking it. There were many discussions on what course should be taught as a general education class for freshmen.There were several approaches to how this course should be taught. The reason they taught this class was because freshmen should have a general knowledge of history. They came into college with only american history fresh in their minds. I think it was a great idea because otherwise no student would have this knowledge about history and the different literature. They now learn about the literature from other cultures and how each may have had an effect on how the world is today. They now become more well rounded when it comes to the other cultures of the world. I think it is good to have that so that it is easier to relate to the other cultures and have a better understanding of why other cultures do the things that they do. One of the approaches was the Harvard approach that had one teacher lecturing for three hours every week with a new topic and then having the teaching assistants get together with the students and discuss what was lectured. The Harvard approach was a difficult one because it is hard to find a professor that has so much knowledge on the topic and can talk for three hours week after week. It seems like a good idea in theory, but it is not practical. No one is going to be able to continuously talk about a different topic. At other schools they realized that as the amount of students in the lecture halls grew and grew, they then spoke less and less. When a student does not have to actually speak in class it is likely that they will end up not paying attention and do not end up learning much. There then were teaching assistants assigned to discuss the lecture with the students outside class, but I don't believe students were too fond of that because they don't want to talk about the class outside of class. It wasn't a great idea to do that, but the idea of making sure there is some sort of discussion was great. Students need to discuss and actually talk about the material to help them learn it and reinforce their knowledge on it.
You made some great points in your post and I agree with your stance on the importance of having students take this course. Not to say that certain students entering into college don’t have a diverse view of other cultures throughout the world, but I would say that the average student starting college does not. You mentioned how it would be beneficial to have students be able to relate to other cultures and understand why those cultures act in the way they do. I believe this is your best point and I could not agree more. Especially because we live in a world today that connects everyone with just a click of the mouse. In my opinion there has never been a more vital time for people to have the understanding of other cultures and not just the perception they’ve obtained through their high school education.
As mentioned above, if Contemporary Civilizations courses looked to “create a citizen safe for democracy,” what exactly does that entail? Does this mean a citizen sticking to the tenets laid out by the constitution, or something else? I say this, because there exists a broad spectrum of ideas on what constitutes a democracy. To draw a more concrete example, imagine a Pennsylvanian blacksmith during the civil war who has a different notion of what preserving ‘the republic’ means than a slaveowner in South Carolina. The division of opinions toward slavery between the North and the South helped fission the United States into a bloody battleground that ought to never have happened. This highlights the sensitivity of deciding what core values define a proper, democratic citizen. How can teachers use general education to relay common sense and virtuous democratic ideals, when stark disagreements over the very nature of a democracy can turn brother against brother in bitter conflict? This very incongruence of purpose for general education curricula may have been responsible for the growing pains the movement had during the 60’s. Personally, I agree with the professors and scholars who argued for a centralized history course like Contemporary Civilizations. This is not because I espouse democratic principles and want to see them ‘defended.’ Rather, I think a diverse knowledge base is vital to create an educated and humane citizen, and that is exactly what a course like Western Humanities provides. However with today’s internet, the general education class has evolved into more of a supplement. A curious student can readily find any information that is relevant to their interests online. Connectivity to the web gives the immediate reward of knowledge to those with a mind to grab it. General education classes should therefore be directed toward providing students with the tools to act appropriately and responsibly under the many different circumstances that arise in daily life. In this way, general education occupies its own niche. I mention this, because the modern professor for this class type carries the luxury of loosening the grip of any preconceived ideas the students have, thereby allowing the student to better familiarize themselves with the multifaceted and blurred world in which we live. It places the professor in a unique position to open students’ eyes; to enlighten students that the world is not as cleanly cut as they might have previously thought. I believe this is what makes all mentors, regardless of their occupation, a vital component in educating today’s youth.
I agree with you 100% that a diverse knowledge base is vital to create an educated society. If everyone always learns the same information then there will be no advancements in society at all. No one would be able to learn from one another and nothing new would be created. It is almost like having a monopoly of information. If one set of information controls all of education then there is no chance of competition and therefore, no chance of moving forward. I also liked what you said about mentors and educating today's youth. Just the other day in my SPED class we were discussing the definition of education and the main thing we discussed was the necessity of educators to enlighten their students.
While I agree with you that a diverse knowledge base is important, I don’t think a centralized history course is able to give any sort of diverse knowledge. It instead specifies a single history that the entire country will learn, instead of sharing the whole picture. I don’t disagree with the idea of a Western Humanities course, but I don’t think it should be “The History”, only a part of it. Either way, I think the very fact that they’re trying to "create" a citizen is more totalitarian than democratic, which undermines the entire system.
The Rise and Fall Of the Western Civilization Course flourishes the idea that courses progressively started forming during the era in which faculties sought to create not just a "common knowledge" but on the side of that also an interactive environment where those students accustom to not partaking in discussions are forced to do activities out of their comfort zone such an group projects. It is interesting to see how the general education courses came about in this reading. It shows that not only is the education system trying to assimilate different courses but also not just have focus on their particular major. This excerpt helped me understand that particular course are meant to just test a student mind, hence the different environment set-up in the classroom. Whether in a lecture or a small classroom it serves a purpose. I believe that courses that were formally introduce for freshmen as a core requirement carries on to today as students get to choose from a variety of courses and even for those certain courses there would be numerous topics to choose from. From my personal experience I went to a big high school and you weren't force to participate, it wasn’t a requirement, you would easily still get a good grade. Meanwhile when you come to college there are larger classroom and as a student not participating tends to get you overshadowed, not only that but you also lose those participation points. In my opinion due to the fact that not all universities require their scholar to take courses such as Western Humanities gives them less of an advantage when they go out into the real world While reading the excerpt it came to my attention that as a result of the diverse courses that are given in universities whether freshmen or sophomore, students are able to explore different career opportunities. Me myself as a sophomore who was not entirely sure about what her major will be getting to Geneseo, I've enjoyed selecting different general education courses to find out what major I might be. It is also good in the way that many different students with a variety or majors are in the class sitting with you. Also opening up the opportunity to get a student's perspective about a major the two share interest in, and not just the professor's or reading online. I also agree with what some of my other peers have been saying, there is no way we as college students can become culturalized in one semester, but I stand with the idea that we should take gen. ed. course.
In response to “How to Read World Literature,” I would like to say that I agree with many of the points explained in the text. Firstly, on the difference between reflection and refraction, there is an incredibly important concept. World literature, as mentioned in the text, can be transcendent, passing beyond the boundaries of the culture that produced it, and should be approached with this knowledge and also knowledge of the culture and context. Each individual author possesses his own viewpoint on the culture from which he originates, and therefore will produce works which twist and bend, or refract, culture in unique ways, instead of simply reflecting it. Works are never a simple reflection of reality, but they are based on the creators’ perception of reality and what they feel is important within the world around them. It is also important to have knowledge of common uses of allusion to other works in foreign texts. As an example, without knowledge of the Qur'an, one could miss references to it which may cause a fundamental misunderstanding of an Arabic work of literature. Understanding the refraction of culture in literary works leads to then questioning your own perspective while reading world literature. The text mentions two extremes, the exotic view and assimilation. Both extremes prevent one from understanding the work as it is meant to be read, but it is possible to attempt to reach a middle ground. Instead of being put off by the text’s foreign concepts or forcing foreign works into a familiar lens by making assumptions about the culture in order to create similarity, one must learn about the historical context of the work. To understand literature written in 18th century Spain, one must first learn about Spanish culture, and then about the author. Where was he/she from? How did they live? What was their place in society? How would a person of their social class perceive other people of different social classes? Questions like this must be asked in order to further understand what the author of a literary work was trying to portray. Assuming an 18th century Spaniard is just like a 21st century American is foolish, as is considering 18th century Spain so foreign that it is impossible to understand works from that time period and location. This can help one to understand how the text refracts the culture from which it came.
According to many, literature is simply the combination of letters in words. Therefore, my blog post deserves to be in a library and studied. Obviously, we don’t focus on every word ever formed by everyone in literature courses. Instead, as Professor Akman pointed out, literature refers to things written beautifully. Although beauty is subjective, many works, including this blog post, are thus left out of the equation of world literature. There still remain quite a few beautiful works however. And what is beautiful to the Chinese reader, very well differs from what is beautiful to the Bengali reader. Because very few people can speak Bengali, Mandarin, and English, works for these readers must be translated. In How to Read World Literature, Damrosch says “ “Translators are betrayers” may convey the general sense, but the English paraphrase loses the pithy playfulness of the Italian original”. Ironically, even translating a quote about translation gets lost in translation. Certainly, not all words can be translated, and even more certainly, not all ideas can be translated. Language controls the way one thinks and thus, how is it possible to imagine a certain idea if there was no word for it? And as such, there are thousands of idioms across the modern tongues today, let alone in past times. Idioms are combinations of words that are particularly difficult to translate because they have a different meaning than that of the literal words. When translating, the devil is in the details, an idiom itself. I am somewhat in accord with Dryden’s opinions on translating works. Damrosch highlights Dryden’s opinion that translators have an obligation to translate a text the way the author intended it, yet should find a middle ground to help foreign readers understand it under their terms. Finding that balance between imitation and metaphrase, Dryden points out, is what makes paraphrasing the most effective way to translate world literature. Although it is effective, I lean a little more to the metaphrasing technique as I feel it not only preserves the original text, but it creates a little mystery and confusion in the foreign reader which may be healthy if it is enough to make the reader do some outside research to fully comprehend the work. This may involve the reader to read up on small things that differentiate the two languages, or the editor could simply include footnotes. Either way, more responsibility lies on several readers to understand than does for one translator to cater to hundreds, thousands, or even millions of different readers.
Just another point of clarification for those that have to post this week; I would recommend writing your blog post in a text editor and then transferring it into the comment box on the page. Especially if you are trying to keep track of length and if you don't want to write a lot of text in a cramped space. Good luck, and if you have any questions on formatting lemme know.
ReplyDeleteYour TA, Greg Stewart
Literature must be approached with one simple question in mind: what is the point? Why do we care about this work? It may be because it has influenced philosophers and politicians, and thus changed the course of history. It may be because it gives a glimpse into a culture long past. Or perhaps it reveals something about humanity. Something universal, something that deserves deeper thought. It may be a flaw or a virtue, but to understand literature is to more deeply understand ourselves. So how does one understand literature?
ReplyDeleteWhen I read a book written today, I am in little danger of not understanding one of the words on its pages. As long as it is in English, its contents will most likely fall within my vocabulary. With works typically considered ‘literature,’ this is not necessarily true. I do not know many of the words in Shakespeare’s works, even though they are English. Antiquated English, to be sure, but English nonetheless. Naturally, this ignorance is an impediment to understanding the story. If I do not know what Hamlet is saying, how can I know what is happening? How can I find the point?
Another vital part of a story is the setting. Every modern story has a setting, and the great works of days past are no different. The newest bestseller and the ancient classic both address physical locations, events of the day, and cultural norms. When reading a novel set in modern times, I almost subconsciously understand the setting. References to landmarks, cities, politics, or common habits are understood in almost less time than it takes to read them. Not being a citizen of ancient Greece, however, “The Odyssey” is a little more obscure for me. Just as visiting a different country in modern times requires research into cultural norms and customs, so visiting the past through the written word requires at least a basic knowledge of that time. Imagine how difficult it would be to read “Les Miserables” if you had never heard of the French revolution. The events in the past influence the works created, whether by being a major theme or merely by being the background against which the story is cast. Just as vital is an understanding of the culture of the time. Descriptions of a character’s clothing, for example, may seem superfluous to us. Just as today, though, the costume of a person can tell much about them: their social standing, wealth, even marital status might all be revealed through their dress. Reading literature requires some understanding of history, then, and it also requires some geography. Written works have a setting in time, and they also have a physical setting. Attempting to read a Grecian epic while picturing the foggy streets of London will produce nothing but confusion.
To fully understand literature, then, one must understand four things: the relevant history, the culture of the day, the physical location, and--once the final page has been absorbed—the purpose behind the words.
--Charlene Fritz
I like your analysis of what it means to truly understand literature. I think your point holds strong with the idea that there is a necessary background knowledge that can help you understand what the words mean exactly. I think you have touched upon a lot of really good ideas, but you didn't mention the obvious point that we must study the life of an author just as much as the culture that he was writing in. We may come to an understanding of the diction of Shakespeare, but if we did not know that Shakespeare did not live in London, but outside of London, and that he wrote during the 16th century. It is important for us to understand the lifestyles and the cultural contexts of an author before we can start to pick apart the diction. As you mentioned, you must know about the French Revolution before you can truly appreciate and understand Les Miserables as a profound text within French literature. This was a good post, I just want you to think about how authors interacted with their culture, just as much as you are thinking about what the culture consisted of.
DeleteI agree with you that to truly understand a work of literature one must go deeper than the surface to grasp its meaning. But in addition to the relevant history behind the work, the cultural influence of the times and even the author’s background, we must also take into account the culture and background of the people who are reading it. We must ask ourselves what the point of a given work is, but we must also ask ourselves why other people cared/care about this work and why we were selected to be exposed to it now. Literature is not just about the underlying meaning of ITS contents and the culture of ITS day, it is also reveals so much about the people who are being exposed to it. I think that in the context of this class especially we must understand that it is important to understand the implications of the literature in its time, but it is also imperative to analyze how our environment and our culture play a role in our understanding of the literature.
DeleteI also agree that one must look into a work of literature deeply in order to truly understand it rather than looking at it just on the surface. Furthermore, whenever a work of literature, especially from another location, is read, it is important to take into account the cultural surroundings the author is immersed in, as well as the location where the author lives. One also must ask themselves when the work was written so that work of literature can be read with the mindset of someone from the time period it was written. For example, with the Tale of Genji and the Epic of Gilgamesh, the time frame in which these works were both written, which cultures the authors were immersed in, and where the authors are from must all be considered so that these works can be read in the way the authors intended. Another thing to take into account to add to Greg's point is that if we read literature from a different culture from our own cultural lens, our understanding of the literature might turn out to be inaccurate.
DeleteThank you all for the replies! I appreciate the new points and ideas, such as examining the life of the author and keeping in mind the way our culture influences how we interpret things. All good things to keep in mind as we begin diving in to the great writings of this semester. --Charlene
DeleteI liked how you began this; "Why do we care about this work?" The history of education and drawn out interpretations and analyses that comprise the latter article can be summed up with a statement like "The question of what to study is important, and knowing the context of what your studying is important." I don't really have the patience to get caught up on the overly complex sentiments that frequently allude in passing to pieces of literature that I know nothing about, and that I will forget after finishing the very next sentence (maybe that's just me) . I agree with professor Beyazit's assertion that the course is much to short to give proper attention to each facet of "The West". I was expecting to be reading something about Western Civilization, but instead was trudging through what just seemed like page filler. The meaning of 'exoticism' took two minutes to elaborate upon in class, but will stick with me for life, while the rest of those numerous pages I'll have to face once again come the midterm, but will subsequently be forgotten do to lack of relevance, were, for me at least, a waste of time.
DeleteI personally feel that prestigious schools that squabble over how to get more "intellectualizing" mandatory humanities classes have set an example that other universities adopt, which wastes public finance. The best way to structure these not so irrelevant but monetarily wasteful classes in my opinion would be for the school to simply have "required reading" that students complete in their own time, and are tested on monthly.
1. Why is it important to have an education designed to prepare students for democracy?
ReplyDeleteOne section of Allardyce’s article reflects on the time directly following World War I in which a main priority was to “create a citizen who shall be safe for democracy” (p. 707). This was done through a common education of European history in order to grasp America’s history and emergence as a nation. Although the author argues that a general education is no longer necessary, my own experiences have led me to believe it is important for some sort of common history course to be offered. I attended an extremely diverse high school where a significant portion of the students were immigrants, mainly from Latin American countries. For them, the United States was an entirely different and unknown place and thus, classes such as American and Global history which teach the evolution of the United States’ and its role in the world were beneficial because they allowed them a greater understanding of their new country. I can recall one of my closest friends, who was born in Guatemala, telling me that he felt more American than Guatemalan because he knew more about United States’ history and culture than his native country. This sentiment inspired him to strive to officially become an American and he eventually took and passed his citizenship test. This demonstrates the vital role of general education in preparing students to become active and aware citizens of America’s democracy by providing them with a greater knowledge of it.
2. Will the idea that general, interdisciplinary Western Civilization courses are outdated persevere?
I found “How to Read World Literature” and “Rise and Fall of Western Civilization Course” had an interesting parallel in that both indicate there is a cycle in the way that humans view ideas. Allardyce portrays the rise of Western Civ as a course all students were required to take to obtain a greater understanding of European and American history and how various disciplines contributed to it. He then argues that it is a “dying” course and that the new method is to be “limited in discipline” because “small is beautiful” (p. 724). “How to Read World Literature” similarly reflects constant change in thought over time periods, claiming “literary tradition may not develop in a linear fashion…but advances and returns” (p. 34). Humans tend to develop practices or ideas that they eventually disprove and replace, then find the replacement to also be wrong and return to old ways. If this is true, then there very well could be a return to the prevalence of a standard Western Civ course.
I really like your insights from your own personal experiences and how they relate to the texts. I prefer your answer to the first one than the second one. That is an interesting idea, that public education could influence a Latin American student so much so that he gives up his identity and decides that he would rather be an American. There is nothing wrong with that fact, but I sure hope that he didn't renounce his roots as a Guatemalan. I do agree that it is important that we must educate American citizens, especially in colleges and universities, about the nature of democracy and our political atmosphere.
DeleteI can agree to many aspects from your first response. My high school was also extremely diverse mostly middle eastern and Asian. A lot of what is learned about the history of this country (leaning towards "pro- United States") gave a lot of friends wanting to get their citizenship and/or permanent residence. However, I also feel that because of how we were taught to only see the "pros" of the US and "Western World", an education such as ours which looks at the global aspect -- talking more than just about the "pros" of the Western world, better prepares students to understand the "politics" and "democracy" that they are living in, thus gaining more knowledge than what is just the "good".
DeleteI found your first question to be very interesting... and it actually related to an article I just read before stumbling upon your post. The article/ discussion compared problems within the American educational system to the thriving Finnish schools. Though the article was comparing pre-collegiate schooling, the global differences are still relatable to this class. In Finland diving students into sets based on abilities is illegal and students are also not allowed more than 30 minutes of homework per night. In Finland there is a representative democracy. American schools have the goal to train children to have a specific mindset that will enable them to work in a factory or an industrial job, while increasing dependence on a higher power or system whilst decreasing individual thought. I think that the Western Civilization course is somewhat beneficial, but is it even possible to have a "system" that prepares students for democracy? I believe that instead of designing an education system that preps students for a certain kind of government, we should be taught to be tolerant. I am for the idea of having an introductive history course to the western and eastern world but not for this course to be in any way shape or form uniform.
DeleteI do find what you spoke about interesting. Coming from a very diverse background I do feel that to an extent what we learn in school about American history can change the way we view specific areas of our world such as democracy which will eventually help us understand the workings and our role in the government. Despite this, I believe the role of humanities goes beyond democracy in the United States and in other countries. Not only is it important for students to be prepared for democracy but to also be prepared for any other form of government. The more we learn about the types of governments the more knowledge we will have about basics of governmental policies and therefor able to recognize what works better for a specific group of people, or how we can adjust to regulations that are made up in a democratic government. This is also important because we are able to better understand how to interact with people of other countries or how as a whole the United States interacts with foreign countries either through economic exchange or political involvement.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the document “How to Read World Literature” by Damrosch, a major issue that is addressed is about whether translation of great foreign works should be translated as is, “metaphrased”, translated with interpretation, “imitation”, or an in between that is not quite as extreme, “paraphrasing.” (pg. 66-67) Each one considered, I believe that works should only be translated through the method of “metaphrasing,” for both of the others take away the accuracy of the literary work. If you think of one of your favorite books, for instance mine is “Jane Eyre” by Charlotte Bronte, then imagine what it would read like if someone changed into there own words. Would the wife still be insane, would Jane still be so intelligent but plain? It would not, essentially, be the same book! “Paraphrasing,” although it does not allow for much interpretation still tries to keep the colorful language and writing schemes but changes some of the ideas in the process of making the translation flow. “Imitation” takes the work and entirely flips it around to convey to the reader whatever the translator thought that the writer was trying to say, and if the words do not flow, no worries, they will just have to be changed.
ReplyDeleteThere are many reasons why I believe “metaphrasing” is the best way to translate a work. First, since it is translated word for word the work will never lose the points that the author is trying to get across to the reader. After many translations it may be hard to tell which is the most precise version, thus causing confusion among the reading world. Also, any other way of translation takes away the traditions of the society in which it was written in turn taking away from the readers cultural experience. As a result the reader, will get a distorted view of that particular culture and will be on the wrong track to getting more familiar with the culture. The time era can also be distorted if the translation is not accurate, giving the reader a false impression of a later time. Furthermore, as I have encountered, some readers will just struggle through reading the original work, in its original language, rather than read some interpretation of the text.
Personally, I think that not translating a work word for word ruins it, because it ruins the whole idea/ideas of the work. Also, taking someone’s book etc. and putting your own twist on it is like stealing, even if the translator has the license to do it. It is no longer an original idea, which makes it almost a stolen idea. I know that if I really wanted to read a book that was written in a foreign language I would definitely want it word for word because that is what defines the work of literature, even if it is not in the prettiest of words or flows the best. Every book should carry original information and should not be modified for the pleasure of the audience. Every work of literature was written to convey the information it possesses and too serve a specific purpose. Not only to captivate the reader. Don’t you want to know exactly what the author was saying, in his own interpretation?
I agree with your opinion that "metaphrasing" would be the most ideal method of translation. However, I believe that there could be some circumstances where other options would be better. There are some things that lose meaning through translation so it is the translators job to figure out the best way to keep the full meaning. But I do agree with you that it is wrong for the translator to change it in a way that makes it their own. The original message of the literature should definitely be preserved. Also, many authors will write something that they don't intend to have one specific meaning. Sometimes they write something that is meant to be interpreted in different ways depending on how the reader wants to interpret it. So if a piece of literature is translated in different ways it can result in different meanings. I think it's pretty neat that one piece of literature could have multiple meanings that effect people in different ways.
DeleteI also agree that the use of metaphrasing is the best for translation, however I still believe that it takes away from the authors effect. For example; when reading a poem from an Italian author in Italian the poems meaning can be portrait through the sounds of the words, the rhyme, and the meter. Once someone translates that poem into another language it loses those rhetorics and could make that poem dull. Although it sounds like I am arguing against metaphrasing,I don’t agree with paraphrasing and imitation. Recalling the part of the reading where there was the dilemma among the translators of A Thousand and One Nights, the ideas of paraphrasing and imitation seemed to destroy the text as a whole. Some left out many stories, another put too much description into certain scenes to engage the audience. Personally I wish we didn’t have to translate texts, but that would be in a utopian society where everyone could speak every language.
DeleteIn this article Damrosch addresses many issues in the context of cross-cultural interpretation. How do you go about looking at a work written in a different time and understand its true meaning without understanding the genesis of the authors thought. We cannot be culturally and historically ignorant while “reading across time” which is the title of his second chapter. We must allow ourselves to alter our perspective and understand what it is about our own outlook that causes that very perception. Another important point that is brought up is the continuity and evolution of literature over time. Stories that have been an oral tradition in various cultures and have evolved into written texts and passed down to new cultures and generations. With that being said how do these stories become varied but yet are all in a way broadly connected in the same tradition. Damrosch explains this with the connected between Greece and Homer and the traditional oral poetry of ancient Mesopotamia. We can see how many of the same devices are used and have been transformed in two distinct cultures. It becomes challenging to separate and respect cultural backgrounds that influence and generate these works, while trying to find a commonality between all that has allowed for such a diverse perception of the world through literature.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article “How to Read World Literature,” I would agree with the guidelines Damrosch lays out for the reader in the first chapter. I need to be more aware of the differences between world literatures and be more open towards “different literary norms and expectations.” I know I occasionally struggle with understanding literature from other cultures. When I encounter a piece of literature I cannot relate to, I typically reject it. An example would be Shakespeare’s works; I always struggle with understanding the language he uses. As stated by the author, “We can learn much about a culture from its art and its architecture, but we learn immeasurably more when we have written records as well.” Even though I struggle here and there, I have learned so much about different cultures from works of literature. By taking this class, there will be ample opportunities to explore more cultures through the many works we plan to read. To do so, understanding the history and the culture of the work is the first step.
ReplyDeleteThis aspect of Damrosch’s article ties into some of the key points of Allardyce’s article “The Rise and Fall of Western Civilization Course.” Learning about different cultures through reading world literature is an important way to get in touch with our past. Even though it may not be a subject everyone is interested in, I think Geneseo and other universities are right to include it in the general education requirement. I agree with Allardyce when he states “… Western Civ not only expressed this particular ideal of America’s place in history but educated youth of the period to see the world in these terms.” It is essential to understand what your roots are and how this country started since our lives were influenced by history in countless ways. When we read The Bible, for example, it will provide us with insight of the time period and how religion was/is such a major facet to Western Civilization. The first step, however, is appreciating the culture of which this work was written in.
I like how you share your personal struggles with relating to some forms of literature such as Shakespeare. I also share this trait and often times I cannot fully understand or appreciate a piece of literature because I do not know the culture or history behind it. I agree that the way to overcome this is by opening our minds to another way of viewing the world. I think that this problem of viewing the world in one set way is becoming a big issue. Most of us reject other forms of culture because it is foreign to us and we have no way to relate to it. As a whole, I think our generation would greatly benefit by following Damrosch’s guidelines to open our minds and ways of thinking about other cultures. This would decrease exoticism while reading all forms of literature. I also agree with your statement that Geneseo and other universities are right to include Western Civ in the general education requirements. Although it is a very challenging course, all who take it benefit in numerous ways. Learning and understanding the past is the only way to move forward. This is such a unique class because we are exposed to such a variety of literature and history that otherwise we would not learn about. I am also looking forward to learning and appreciating history to better understand the world we live in now.
DeleteIn Damrosch’s work, “How to Read World Literature,” he brings up two very important ideas of assimilation and exoticism within the first chapter. People generally tend to have an opinion about literature to one extreme or another and put off literature from other cultures because of this. They either assume that the lives of others are exactly the same, or that their lives are completely different and there’s no point in trying to relate.
ReplyDeleteI will completely agree with Damrosch’s argument from my own experiences as well as observation of others. When reading a work of literature written by an author of U.S. origin it can be more easily understood and it will be more enjoyable because most of the terms and ideas will be familiar. Because of this, it becomes intimidating to read a piece of work from another culture or time period. I often believe that because I do not share the same culture with the author, I will not understand their experiences and thoughts on a matter. When coming to an idea I do not fully understand I tend to just stop trying to comprehend, where as if the same situation were to occur with literature written from an American perspective, I’d be more interested to understand it.
On the other hand, it is common for people to try to read a piece of literature that is from another culture as if it is from their own. As human beings we tend to try to make reasons for occurrences. We wish to believe that we know or that we can at least figure out why something happens or why someone believes what they do. We like to think that everything that has happened to another person, has happened to us, or to someone we know. We want to be able to relate with others so we generalize certain aspects of other cultures and displace them as being the same as some of our own.
These ideas of exoticism and assimilation are what makes reading literature so hard. If readers are able to find that balance between the two extremes, they will be able to enjoy and understand the literature as well as the other cultures that are represented much more easily.
I like the way you have paraphrased and articulated the ideas of the authors, but I think you could add a bit more of a personal touch to this. You elaborated their ideas nicely, but I still don't seem to know what you think exactly. I get that you're interested, but what I don't see is why. This post could also benefit from having some ideas on how to solve these problems that you've pointed out, or at least to ponder something relative to an answer to the question that this begs to bring up: How do we strike balance between assimilation and exoticism?
DeleteThink about this as you post to the blog in the future.
Why is it difficult, but also important to read world literature?
ReplyDeleteReading is something that many people are used to doing on a daily basis. We must read signs on the road when we’re driving, we must read labels on the food items to make sure we’re buying elbow pasta instead of rigatoni, and we must be able to read to learn more about the world around us. In a world where everyone speaks the same language and shares the same culture, one would not worry about keeping up with what is happening in a book or story; they would simply understand. Fortunately, this is not the case. Reading world literature presents its readers with a challenge. Readers must not only focus on when and where a story takes place, the reader should also focus on the writing style, the word choices, and what the author is trying to portray to his or her audience. As Damrosch states, word choice can completely change or add so much meaning to any phrase and can just as easily go unnoticed. A short haiku about something as simple as a leaf can hold so much meaning if the haiku is properly understood by the reader.
Two main problems for reading and understanding world literature include the time periods where these works take place and translations of the text. As readers, we will never know exactly what it was like to live in medieval times, in fact, some of us don’t even know what it was like to have lived in the 70’s or 80’s. With this in mind, we must hold no expectations on what we think it would have been, erase any stereotypes, and try to understand a time different from our own, all while keeping our minds in modern times. We cannot expect to transform and completely understand and agree with events and feelings of the past, and I’m sure if those from the past were able to read current literary works, they’d be equally confused, and even shocked at times. Damrosch stresses that we must keep a balance between feeling completely separate from the culture and feeling they are just like us.
The second problem with reading world literature is translations from one language to another. The way a story or poem is read and interpreted in its original language is never going to be the same as when it is translated into another. Although for the most part we are able to get a good translation of different literary works, there are many words that cannot be translated in the perfect way. This can be difficult for readers in another country to completely grasp the original intent of the author. Some examples of words in different countries with no direct translation can be seen here: (http://www.buzzfeed.com/jonnym5/11-untranslatable-words-from-other-cultures-edzv). These words can seem abstract to those who do not understand what they mean, but they make a difference in conveying a certain feeling or emotion. It is important to understand the important role that word choice plays in different literary works.
We must make due with the translations offered to us and try to interpret what we are reading with the culture, time period, and word choice in mind. Culture and perception can impact writing and understanding, but if a reader digs deep, reads, and interprets a work in the best way they can with the knowledge of where and when it’s coming from in mind, there is usually a common or relatable theme to the story. Reading an Italian love story can be relatable to anyone, and at the same time it can teach so much about Italian values and customs that one may not have realized existed. There are countless literary works on the internet, in libraries, and bookstores, but the human experience does not change. All humans, at one point, will experience feelings of sadness, heartbreak, joy, and several others. Works from all over the world can be relatable to all in some way and therefore should be explored. A differing perspective and view from what one culture is used to can be an eye opening and exciting experience gained from simply reading world literature.
I really liked how you explained the importance of understanding foreign literature. Although the literature may be something that we are not used to, it is still essential to understand the origin to completely grasp what the author is trying to get across to their readers. I remember when I was younger and I was forced to read books that was not interested in, it was really difficult for me to understand the message that was being presented to me. When I finally understood why the readings where important, I began to think deeper and I became an active reader.
DeleteWithout understanding the culture and meaning behind a text, it would be extremely difficult to try to understand the message that the author is trying to convey. I think that reading world literature will allow individuals to become more open minded to different cultures traditions and customs.
In “The Rise and Fall of Western Civilization Course,” Gilbert Allardyce writes extensively about one of the reasons that Western Civ. was created: the perceived need for a class that would bring together all types of students into one course that would fill them with the knowledge they would need to become well-rounded, educated citizens. While I agree with the idea that students should be educated in “the ways of the world,” so to speak, I think that it is possible that Western Civ. courses are not the most effective way to do that.
ReplyDeleteOne educator quoted in Allardyce’s essay was William McNeill, who said that, in order to defend against the failure of their profession, educators must “find something worth teaching to undergraduates en masse, something all educated persons should know…” I completely agree with this statement. However, we face the problem of deciding what, exactly, is worth teaching to all undergraduates. How do we decide what to teach to everyone? We briefly discussed this in class on Thursday, and it seemed that the consensus was that educators and institutions have a very hard time with this question. In the past, according to Allardyce, Western Civ. has been a jumble of books, professors, and teaching styles, with no standardization on how it should be taught or what the students should read. It is so difficult for institutions to decide what should be taught to all students that the practice of requiring Western Civ. courses is dwindling, and the courses that are still there are beginning to fail.
Another problem that arises with Western Civ. courses lies in the course itself. In attempting to decide what should be taught to all students, institutions left out most of the world. In class we talked about what “western” means, and how it is really not a distinction that anyone can make. However, in most Western Civ. courses, the only literature and history that is taught is what we think of as “western”: European and American. But what about the rest of the world? If this is a course made up of information that “all educated persons should know,” does that mean that there is nothing of merit to teach from China? Russia? South America? Why have institutions decided that the only recognizable literature is European and American? I believe that we cannot say we are making well-rounded citizens if we are only teaching them a small fraction of merit-worthy literature.
By posting this, I am not attempting to attack the whole idea of Western Civ. courses. I am, however, trying to raise questions about it: How can we possibly decide what is worthy to teach to everyone? And why have we decided that only “western” literature is worthy? I am truly glad that the Humanities course that we are all in takes a “global approach,” because I think that is a step in the right direction for Western Civ. courses.
ReplyDeleteWhat does culture bring to the diversity of literature?
Different cultures around the world bring different ideas and perspectives to the world of literature. There is a definite divide between what many define as 'Western' culture versus what is defined as 'Eastern' culture. Many different ideas, exaggerations, and falsehoods that are typically used to describe how one culture differs from another can lead to a lack of understanding, comprehension, and overall knowledge of that culture. Certain attributes, such as independence, a semblance of equality, and certain values or issues that, from an American perspective, may be considered to be the standard for society, are typically associated with works from what is 'Western' culture, namely Europe and North America. The rest of the world, or the 'Eastern' culture, is often juxtaposed with Western literature to provide pieces of work that are somehow different from the norm according to Western culture, display different values than those that would typically be promoted, and this overall has the potential to isolate these works of literature as something different that cannot be understood. This brings forth the idea of exoticism, where a culture seems too foreign or too different from the reader's perspective for them to acutely understand the literature, when, in fact, different cultures help one to see a situation from a certain perspective, and understanding the history behind the literature will help in analyzing text and better recognizing differences and similarities amongst cultures. It is important to question works that do not make sense to us. I agree that we need to have a better understanding of the different cultures that cultivate this literature in order to be able to properly analyze the literature. We have to take our perspective into consideration, while also acknowledging other perspectives and how that literature may be seen differently to someone else. This is a major part about why taking a Humanities course is so beneficial and important. We are learning how to analyze different texts and put a time and place to many of the different perspectives. Humanities gives us a snapshot of the different kinds of perspectives of different cultures, and helps us to have a better understanding of different cultures in general.
Mary Ieraci
I like that you said Humanities and the literature we read are important in having a better understanding of the different cultures and I absolutely agree. I think that goes for any piece of literature we might read for any class. Any work that we read (to a certain extent) has some significance in better understanding the history from which we came.
DeleteLooking back through the history of the Western Civilization course, it is interesting to see the motivations behind the course. However as "Rise and Fall of the Western Civilization Course" points out, the motivation for the course could also be frightening. By examining the time period where the course originated and the points in time where it experienced major change, one can tell that nationalism was a huge factor in the creation of the Western Civilization course. This being said, that same nationalism is the same reason the motivations for the course can be unsettling.
ReplyDeleteOne of the passages from the reading that really stood out was about the “Contemporary Civilizations” era of the course saying that the course was meant to create, “a citizen who shall be safe for democracy.” While perhaps an innocent statement, the connotations that come with it are that the American collegiate system is trying, not to educate its students, but to create generations that are not a threat to the current institutions. While it is obvious from the article that the course did not impede students from challenging established institutions, the desire is none the less a frightening one, especially as a student. Furthermore the piece goes on to say that the purpose of the course was to, “make sure that every student…has a common starting point and a single point of vantage from which to study.” Again a seemingly innocuous statement, it is pointing out the part manipulation has in the Western Civilization course and how it is trying to bias the students to have certain beliefs. While the idea of manipulating the thoughts of students to share the same views is huge improbability, the fact that it was an acceptable idea is disheartening. It makes one think of the idea of school as a whole and how easy it is for professors to manipulate students’ views across the board, not just in a Western Civilization course.
Admittedly a very “conspiracy theory” view on the collegiate system, "Rise and Fall of the Western Civilization Course" makes readers reanalyze the entire schooling system and the bias that rub off on students. While initially a course built on patriotism and acknowledging American roots in Europe, the real result of the Western Civilization course and underlining of the “superiority” of the “western civilization” and encouraged bias against “other”. And that is the really scary thing.
I like your writing. I find the ideas you've expounded upon as evocative. This is the right way to be thinking about this. As you heard in our Islamic Literature class as well, it is imperative for us to investigate why the systems in place are structured the way they are. Keep up the good work on finding connections between texts and classes this semester.
DeleteThe motivation behind Western Civilization courses is indeed frightening. You raised a good point: professors have the ability to manipulate their students beliefs in order to not upset our culture and establishments. Students are molded into the American Collegiate system and usually do not have the opportunity to learn other perspectives; teachers provide the books, allocate the time spent on each topic and create the discussion topics. Therefore the system enables students to make the same “safe” assumption of the world. We have to remember that there is no right way of looking at the world, everyone comes from a different reality.
DeleteI found your post extremely interesting, particularly your analysis of the American collegiate system. I found the concept of the collegiate system attempting to create generations that will not pose a threat to current institutions, rather than critical thinkers especially thought-provoking. I think it is important to consider the structure of educational institutions when examining courses such as Western Civilization. For instance, administrators who dictated the curriculum for Western Civilizations at the courses’ inception were likely white males, which has undoubtedly shaped our perception of what constitutes “Western” culture. Although this bias does not entirely detract from the importance of Humanities in the college curriculum, I do think it is important to keep this in mind to avoid the bias against the other Danielle outlined in her post.
DeleteIn Damrosch’s “How to Read World Literature”, you are introduced to the many topics that have an effect on world literature. There are endless numbers of factors that contribute to the way we read and analyze literature today. Damrosch discusses that with the passing of time, different works lose their value and sometimes their meaning. As time passes and new generations of people arise, certain customs and traditions change and are forgotten. Although there may be many commonalities, unless you lived in the time period the work was written or have done extensive research on the time, you may not grasp the full meaning and themes of the work. Damrosch continues by discussing how translating works can cause much confusion and in some cases change the work of literature completely. The final factor he discusses is culture and its effect on world literature. I believe this to be the toughest part about world literature. No one culture is alike and no one person is the same. Although it is very hard to sit down and read a piece of literature written by someone of a different background or culture, you must try to understand that what they are writing may be moral, correct, or allowed in their eyes. This is why people spend so much time studying not only the lives of the authors, but also the culture that surrounds the author and piece of work.
ReplyDeleteIf you take two works from different cultures, you can definitely find similarities if you look for them. Damrosch explains taking dramas from different cultures and comparing them using “similarities in genre, in character and plot, in themes and imagery, and in parallel cultural patterns or social settings.” (pg 47) I realize that in almost anything you read, no matter the culture, you will be able to find commonalities, but it the comprehension of all details in the work that are lost through cultures. For one to understand the importance of theater in ancient Greece and how deeply the people viewed theater in my opinion, you had to have been there to experience it, or do extensive research over a long period of time. This creates a problem for reading world literature. It is impossible to have lived in every culture or do research on every culture. We are limited as humans this way and this is what makes the study of world literature such a difficult task. The best you can do is to just try to understand that everyone has their own way of life and world literature proves that.
Mike Downs
I agree with you that it is very difficult to understand a certain piece of literature when it is not coming from the time period or culture that is our own. However, even with this difficulty, I still think it is possible to find importance and meaning in literature even if it is foreign to us. The many different writers from all time periods and cultures have a firm grasp on the topics they write about. With effort, you can understand any piece of literature you set your mind to. We have almost unlimited resources at our fingertips today, with use of these tools, we can try and better understand world literature and culture.
DeleteIn the reading about the rise and fall of the western civilization course it talks about the many reasons this course even came to be. It appears that it was very difficult to actually get this course to stick and actually have people taking it. There were many discussions on what course should be taught as a general education class for freshmen.There were several approaches to how this course should be taught.
ReplyDeleteThe reason they taught this class was because freshmen should have a general knowledge of history. They came into college with only american history fresh in their minds. I think it was a great idea because otherwise no student would have this knowledge about history and the different literature. They now learn about the literature from other cultures and how each may have had an effect on how the world is today. They now become more well rounded when it comes to the other cultures of the world. I think it is good to have that so that it is easier to relate to the other cultures and have a better understanding of why other cultures do the things that they do.
One of the approaches was the Harvard approach that had one teacher lecturing for three hours every week with a new topic and then having the teaching assistants get together with the students and discuss what was lectured. The Harvard approach was a difficult one because it is hard to find a professor that has so much knowledge on the topic and can talk for three hours week after week. It seems like a good idea in theory, but it is not practical. No one is going to be able to continuously talk about a different topic. At other schools they realized that as the amount of students in the lecture halls grew and grew, they then spoke less and less. When a student does not have to actually speak in class it is likely that they will end up not paying attention and do not end up learning much. There then were teaching assistants assigned to discuss the lecture with the students outside class, but I don't believe students were too fond of that because they don't want to talk about the class outside of class. It wasn't a great idea to do that, but the idea of making sure there is some sort of discussion was great. Students need to discuss and actually talk about the material to help them learn it and reinforce their knowledge on it.
You made some great points in your post and I agree with your stance on the importance of having students take this course. Not to say that certain students entering into college don’t have a diverse view of other cultures throughout the world, but I would say that the average student starting college does not. You mentioned how it would be beneficial to have students be able to relate to other cultures and understand why those cultures act in the way they do. I believe this is your best point and I could not agree more. Especially because we live in a world today that connects everyone with just a click of the mouse. In my opinion there has never been a more vital time for people to have the understanding of other cultures and not just the perception they’ve obtained through their high school education.
DeleteAs mentioned above, if Contemporary Civilizations courses looked to “create a citizen safe for democracy,” what exactly does that entail? Does this mean a citizen sticking to the tenets laid out by the constitution, or something else? I say this, because there exists a broad spectrum of ideas on what constitutes a democracy. To draw a more concrete example, imagine a Pennsylvanian blacksmith during the civil war who has a different notion of what preserving ‘the republic’ means than a slaveowner in South Carolina. The division of opinions toward slavery between the North and the South helped fission the United States into a bloody battleground that ought to never have happened. This highlights the sensitivity of deciding what core values define a proper, democratic citizen.
ReplyDeleteHow can teachers use general education to relay common sense and virtuous democratic ideals, when stark disagreements over the very nature of a democracy can turn brother against brother in bitter conflict? This very incongruence of purpose for general education curricula may have been responsible for the growing pains the movement had during the 60’s.
Personally, I agree with the professors and scholars who argued for a centralized history course like Contemporary Civilizations. This is not because I espouse democratic principles and want to see them ‘defended.’ Rather, I think a diverse knowledge base is vital to create an educated and humane citizen, and that is exactly what a course like Western Humanities provides.
However with today’s internet, the general education class has evolved into more of a supplement. A curious student can readily find any information that is relevant to their interests online. Connectivity to the web gives the immediate reward of knowledge to those with a mind to grab it. General education classes should therefore be directed toward providing students with the tools to act appropriately and responsibly under the many different circumstances that arise in daily life. In this way, general education occupies its own niche. I mention this, because the modern professor for this class type carries the luxury of loosening the grip of any preconceived ideas the students have, thereby allowing the student to better familiarize themselves with the multifaceted and blurred world in which we live. It places the professor in a unique position to open students’ eyes; to enlighten students that the world is not as cleanly cut as they might have previously thought. I believe this is what makes all mentors, regardless of their occupation, a vital component in educating today’s youth.
I agree with you 100% that a diverse knowledge base is vital to create an educated society. If everyone always learns the same information then there will be no advancements in society at all. No one would be able to learn from one another and nothing new would be created. It is almost like having a monopoly of information. If one set of information controls all of education then there is no chance of competition and therefore, no chance of moving forward.
DeleteI also liked what you said about mentors and educating today's youth. Just the other day in my SPED class we were discussing the definition of education and the main thing we discussed was the necessity of educators to enlighten their students.
While I agree with you that a diverse knowledge base is important, I don’t think a centralized history course is able to give any sort of diverse knowledge. It instead specifies a single history that the entire country will learn, instead of sharing the whole picture. I don’t disagree with the idea of a Western Humanities course, but I don’t think it should be “The History”, only a part of it. Either way, I think the very fact that they’re trying to "create" a citizen is more totalitarian than democratic, which undermines the entire system.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe Rise and Fall Of the Western Civilization Course flourishes the idea that courses progressively started forming during the era in which faculties sought to create not just a "common knowledge" but on the side of that also an interactive environment where those students accustom to not partaking in discussions are forced to do activities out of their comfort zone such an group projects. It is interesting to see how the general education courses came about in this reading. It shows that not only is the education system trying to assimilate different courses but also not just have focus on their particular major. This excerpt helped me understand that particular course are meant to just test a student mind, hence the different environment set-up in the classroom. Whether in a lecture or a small classroom it serves a purpose.
ReplyDeleteI believe that courses that were formally introduce for freshmen as a core requirement carries on to today as students get to choose from a variety of courses and even for those certain courses there would be numerous topics to choose from. From my personal experience I went to a big high school and you weren't force to participate, it wasn’t a requirement, you would easily still get a good grade. Meanwhile when you come to college there are larger classroom and as a student not participating tends to get you overshadowed, not only that but you also lose those participation points. In my opinion due to the fact that not all universities require their scholar to take courses such as Western Humanities gives them less of an advantage when they go out into the real world
While reading the excerpt it came to my attention that as a result of the diverse courses that are given in universities whether freshmen or sophomore, students are able to explore different career opportunities. Me myself as a sophomore who was not entirely sure about what her major will be getting to Geneseo, I've enjoyed selecting different general education courses to find out what major I might be. It is also good in the way that many different students with a variety or majors are in the class sitting with you. Also opening up the opportunity to get a student's perspective about a major the two share interest in, and not just the professor's or reading online.
I also agree with what some of my other peers have been saying, there is no way we as college students can become culturalized in one semester, but I stand with the idea that we should take gen. ed. course.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to “How to Read World Literature,” I would like to say that I agree with many of the points explained in the text. Firstly, on the difference between reflection and refraction, there is an incredibly important concept. World literature, as mentioned in the text, can be transcendent, passing beyond the boundaries of the culture that produced it, and should be approached with this knowledge and also knowledge of the culture and context. Each individual author possesses his own viewpoint on the culture from which he originates, and therefore will produce works which twist and bend, or refract, culture in unique ways, instead of simply reflecting it. Works are never a simple reflection of reality, but they are based on the creators’ perception of reality and what they feel is important within the world around them. It is also important to have knowledge of common uses of allusion to other works in foreign texts. As an example, without knowledge of the Qur'an, one could miss references to it which may cause a fundamental misunderstanding of an Arabic work of literature.
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding the refraction of culture in literary works leads to then questioning your own perspective while reading world literature. The text mentions two extremes, the exotic view and assimilation. Both extremes prevent one from understanding the work as it is meant to be read, but it is possible to attempt to reach a middle ground. Instead of being put off by the text’s foreign concepts or forcing foreign works into a familiar lens by making assumptions about the culture in order to create similarity, one must learn about the historical context of the work. To understand literature written in 18th century Spain, one must first learn about Spanish culture, and then about the author. Where was he/she from? How did they live? What was their place in society? How would a person of their social class perceive other people of different social classes? Questions like this must be asked in order to further understand what the author of a literary work was trying to portray. Assuming an 18th century Spaniard is just like a 21st century American is foolish, as is considering 18th century Spain so foreign that it is impossible to understand works from that time period and location. This can help one to understand how the text refracts the culture from which it came.
According to many, literature is simply the combination of letters in words. Therefore, my blog post deserves to be in a library and studied. Obviously, we don’t focus on every word ever formed by everyone in literature courses. Instead, as Professor Akman pointed out, literature refers to things written beautifully. Although beauty is subjective, many works, including this blog post, are thus left out of the equation of world literature. There still remain quite a few beautiful works however. And what is beautiful to the Chinese reader, very well differs from what is beautiful to the Bengali reader. Because very few people can speak Bengali, Mandarin, and English, works for these readers must be translated. In How to Read World Literature, Damrosch says “ “Translators are betrayers” may convey the general sense, but the English paraphrase loses the pithy playfulness of the Italian original”. Ironically, even translating a quote about translation gets lost in translation. Certainly, not all words can be translated, and even more certainly, not all ideas can be translated. Language controls the way one thinks and thus, how is it possible to imagine a certain idea if there was no word for it? And as such, there are thousands of idioms across the modern tongues today, let alone in past times. Idioms are combinations of words that are particularly difficult to translate because they have a different meaning than that of the literal words. When translating, the devil is in the details, an idiom itself. I am somewhat in accord with Dryden’s opinions on translating works. Damrosch highlights Dryden’s opinion that translators have an obligation to translate a text the way the author intended it, yet should find a middle ground to help foreign readers understand it under their terms. Finding that balance between imitation and metaphrase, Dryden points out, is what makes paraphrasing the most effective way to translate world literature. Although it is effective, I lean a little more to the metaphrasing technique as I feel it not only preserves the original text, but it creates a little mystery and confusion in the foreign reader which may be healthy if it is enough to make the reader do some outside research to fully comprehend the work. This may involve the reader to read up on small things that differentiate the two languages, or the editor could simply include footnotes. Either way, more responsibility lies on several readers to understand than does for one translator to cater to hundreds, thousands, or even millions of different readers.
ReplyDelete-Qadar