School of Resentment
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
| Revision as of 00:04, 18 July 2007 WikiSysop (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Current revision Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | {{Template}}'''School of Resentment''' | + | {| class="toccolours" style="float: left; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 2em; font-size: 85%; background:#c6dbf7; color:black; width:30em; max-width: 40%;" cellspacing="5" |
| - | is a term coined by [[Harold Bloom]] to collectively group together Multicultural critical interpretation, such as African American, Marxist, and Feminist criticism to name a few. He outlines this term in his introduction to The [[Western Canon]], in which he claims that his purpose is distinguished from political motives and that he wants to have literature judged purely on aesthetic values. Bloom has no problem discussing the social and political issues in books, but he disapproves of how various ideologies have overtaken English departments and are only interested in their own political motives, not aesthetic or literary worth. In his work he defends the [[Western canon|Canon]] from this collective group, which he believes want to break down the [[Western canon|Canon]] so that they can insert inferior literary works that support their own political motives. The “School of Resentment” is usually defined as scholars who wish to enlarge the canon by adding more minority, political or female authors whether or not their writing is considered to be aesthetically worthy of being included. Bloom feels that such an opening threatens the nature of the canon and will lead to its eventual demise. Although his attacks on the School of Resentment often lead people to assume Bloom himself is racist or sexist, it should be noted that his own list of The Western Canon includes a large number of women writers, ethnic writers and writers from non-Western countries. | + | | style="text-align: left;" | |
| + | "I am not concerned with . . . the current debate between the [[right-wing]] defenders of [[Western canon|the Canon]], who wish to preserve it for its supposed (and nonexistent) [[moral values]], and the academic-journalistic network I have dubbed the [[School of Resentment]], who wish to overthrow the Canon in order to advance their supposed (and nonexistent) programs for [[social change]]." --''[[The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages]]'' (1994), Harold Bloom, p. 4 | ||
| + | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{Template}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''School of Resentment''' is a pejorative term coined by critic [[Harold Bloom]] to describe related schools of [[literary criticism]] which have gained prominence in academia since the 1970s and which Bloom contends are preoccupied with political and social activism at the expense of [[aesthetic]] values. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Broadly, Bloom terms "Schools of Resentment" approaches associated with [[Marxist]] [[critical theory]], including [[African American studies]], [[Marxist literary criticism]], [[New Historicism|New Historicist]] criticism, [[feminist]] criticism, and [[poststructuralism]]—specifically as promoted by [[Jacques Lacan]], [[Jacques Derrida]] and [[Michel Foucault]]. The School of Resentment is usually defined as all scholars who wish to enlarge the [[Western canon]] by adding to it more works by authors from minority groups without regard to aesthetic merit and/or influence over time, or those who argue that some works commonly thought canonical promote [[sexism|sexist]], [[racism|racist]] or otherwise biased values and should therefore be removed from the canon. Bloom contends that the School of Resentment threatens the nature of the canon itself and may lead to its eventual demise. Philosopher [[Richard Rorty]] agreed that Bloom is at least partly accurate in describing the School of Resentment, writing that those identified by Bloom do in fact routinely use "subversive, oppositional discourse" to attack the canon specifically and Western culture in general. | ||
| + | Yet “this school deserves to be taken seriously—more seriously than Bloom’s trivialization of it as mere resentment” (Shifting the Scene: Shakespeare in European Culture, edited by Ladina Bezzola Lambert). | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Description== | ||
| + | Bloom outlines the term "School of Resentment" in the introduction to his book ''[[The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages]]'' (1994). Bloom stresses that he does not necessarily object to analysis and discussion of social and political issues in literature, but expresses indignation toward college literature professors who teach their own political motives through literature more than the aesthetics of [[literary merit|literary worth]]. In his book, Bloom defends the [[Western canon]] of literature from this "School of Resentment", which in his view threatens to break down the canon through the insertion of potentially inferior literary works for political purposes. Bloom believes that the goals of reading must be solitary [[aesthetic]] pleasure and self-insight rather than the "forces of resentment" or a goal of "improving" one's society, which he casts as an absurd aim, writing: "The idea that you benefit the insulted and injured by reading someone of their own origins rather than reading [[Shakespeare]] is one of the oddest illusions ever promoted by or in our schools." His position is that politics has no place in literary criticism: a [[feminist]] or [[Marxist]] reading of Shakespeare's ''[[Hamlet]]'' would reveal something about feminism or Marxism, he says, but likely nothing about ''Hamlet'' itself. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Responses== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Similar arguments have been made by others, without necessarily using the term "School of Resentment". American philosopher [[Stephen Hicks]], who notes that [[political left|leftist]] academics (e.g., [[feminist]] Kate Ellis) have written extensively about post-structuralist teaching methods allegedly aimed at eroding the beliefs of young college students and replacing them with leftist ideologies: "[[Relativism|[R]elativistic]] arguments are arrayed only against the Western great books canon. If one's deepest goals are political, one always has a major obstacle to deal with—the powerful books written by brilliant minds on the other side of the debate. ... [[Deconstruction]] allows you to dismiss whole literary and legal traditions as built upon sexist or racist or otherwise exploitative assumptions. It provides a justification for setting them aside." | ||
| + | In a 2015 interview, art critic and dissident feminist [[Camille Paglia]] defended Bloom—who was her mentor during her studies at [[Yale University]]—and said that literary canons are meant to come not from professors' wishes to "intensify their power" but from careful evaluations of which literary works have proven most influential over time. Paglia further argued that the introduction of politics into literary criticism (''e.g.'', the view that no book which demeans women can be great literature) can enable a dangerous and [[Stalinist]] view of art wherein all art is "subordinate to a prefab political agenda". | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==See also== | ||
| + | * ''[[Ressentiment]]'' | ||
| + | *[[Resentment]] | ||
| {{GFDL}} | {{GFDL}} | ||
Current revision
|
"I am not concerned with . . . the current debate between the right-wing defenders of the Canon, who wish to preserve it for its supposed (and nonexistent) moral values, and the academic-journalistic network I have dubbed the School of Resentment, who wish to overthrow the Canon in order to advance their supposed (and nonexistent) programs for social change." --The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages (1994), Harold Bloom, p. 4 |
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
School of Resentment is a pejorative term coined by critic Harold Bloom to describe related schools of literary criticism which have gained prominence in academia since the 1970s and which Bloom contends are preoccupied with political and social activism at the expense of aesthetic values.
Broadly, Bloom terms "Schools of Resentment" approaches associated with Marxist critical theory, including African American studies, Marxist literary criticism, New Historicist criticism, feminist criticism, and poststructuralism—specifically as promoted by Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault. The School of Resentment is usually defined as all scholars who wish to enlarge the Western canon by adding to it more works by authors from minority groups without regard to aesthetic merit and/or influence over time, or those who argue that some works commonly thought canonical promote sexist, racist or otherwise biased values and should therefore be removed from the canon. Bloom contends that the School of Resentment threatens the nature of the canon itself and may lead to its eventual demise. Philosopher Richard Rorty agreed that Bloom is at least partly accurate in describing the School of Resentment, writing that those identified by Bloom do in fact routinely use "subversive, oppositional discourse" to attack the canon specifically and Western culture in general. Yet “this school deserves to be taken seriously—more seriously than Bloom’s trivialization of it as mere resentment” (Shifting the Scene: Shakespeare in European Culture, edited by Ladina Bezzola Lambert).
Description
Bloom outlines the term "School of Resentment" in the introduction to his book The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages (1994). Bloom stresses that he does not necessarily object to analysis and discussion of social and political issues in literature, but expresses indignation toward college literature professors who teach their own political motives through literature more than the aesthetics of literary worth. In his book, Bloom defends the Western canon of literature from this "School of Resentment", which in his view threatens to break down the canon through the insertion of potentially inferior literary works for political purposes. Bloom believes that the goals of reading must be solitary aesthetic pleasure and self-insight rather than the "forces of resentment" or a goal of "improving" one's society, which he casts as an absurd aim, writing: "The idea that you benefit the insulted and injured by reading someone of their own origins rather than reading Shakespeare is one of the oddest illusions ever promoted by or in our schools." His position is that politics has no place in literary criticism: a feminist or Marxist reading of Shakespeare's Hamlet would reveal something about feminism or Marxism, he says, but likely nothing about Hamlet itself.
Responses
Similar arguments have been made by others, without necessarily using the term "School of Resentment". American philosopher Stephen Hicks, who notes that leftist academics (e.g., feminist Kate Ellis) have written extensively about post-structuralist teaching methods allegedly aimed at eroding the beliefs of young college students and replacing them with leftist ideologies: "[R]elativistic arguments are arrayed only against the Western great books canon. If one's deepest goals are political, one always has a major obstacle to deal with—the powerful books written by brilliant minds on the other side of the debate. ... Deconstruction allows you to dismiss whole literary and legal traditions as built upon sexist or racist or otherwise exploitative assumptions. It provides a justification for setting them aside." In a 2015 interview, art critic and dissident feminist Camille Paglia defended Bloom—who was her mentor during her studies at Yale University—and said that literary canons are meant to come not from professors' wishes to "intensify their power" but from careful evaluations of which literary works have proven most influential over time. Paglia further argued that the introduction of politics into literary criticism (e.g., the view that no book which demeans women can be great literature) can enable a dangerous and Stalinist view of art wherein all art is "subordinate to a prefab political agenda".
See also
