Literary Canon and Its Relation to Social and Political Movements in the United States

Originally published in Essais Spring 2021 by Katherine Santana

Educator and philosopher Paulo Freire’s notable “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” declared that the current state of teaching is one in which “knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing” (Freire 72). The present overwhelmingly Anglicized literary canon taught in schools throughout the United States speaks to this idea. Literature taught in schools today is highly tailored around the White experience, perpetuating ideals of White supremacy, or what Freire calls the oppressor. Freire contends that the oppressor uses a “banking concept of education,” which treats students as depositories of information, as a tool for keeping its subjects in a state of oppression and compliance (71). By occupying students’ minds with [programmed] information, they are kept from true investigation, true learning. Investigation, according to Freire, is the ultimate demonstration of a person’s humanity. When kept from it, individuals are dehumanized. 

Consequently, the banking concept of education is detrimental for all students who engage with it, but it is especially damaging to the ‘marginalized’ student who is at a higher propensity (by the nature of being more distanced from the White experience) to higher docility and disengagement from critical co-investigation of our collective history. Moreover, Freire asserts that “the oppressed are not ‘marginals,’ are not living ‘outside’ society. They have always been ‘inside’ the structure which made them ‘beings for others’” (Freire 73). As such, their voices should be included in the examination of literature. Not only are their voices necessary in the telling of our collective history, but by virtue of being human, they are bestowed critical consciousness—the ability to deeply and proactively analyze systems of inequality and disrupt them. Critical consciousness is the ontological vocation of students of color and all humans in pursuit of being more fully human (Freire 73).

The literary canon of academia in the United States moves at a painstakingly slower rate than that of social happenings, specifically civil and human rights movements. The publishing world, although not perfectly diverse itself, does reflect social movements and provides some means of diversifying literature. However, these have not penetrated the literary canon taught in our schools. This refusal of the literary canon to let people of color narrate their own stories, in turn, attests to modern-day practices of White supremacy and colonization. It perpetuates the erasure of the cultures and identities of non-White people. The stakes, although seemingly higher for those who are oppressed, are high for all of us. By creating opportunities for students of color to connect and see themselves authentically represented in literature, social change and transformation are accomplished to better all. This is, as Rick A. Breault summarizes in “Dewey, Freire, and a pedagogy for the oppressor,” the realization of a true democracy.

Contemporary politicians and academics alike have denied that White writers overwhelmingly dominate curriculum across the nation. In July 2009, the Tucson Unified School District expanded its current non-inclusive, monocultural curriculum to include various ethnic classes. Tom Horn, former Arizona State Attorney General, vehemently opposed the inclusive courses, arguing that ethnic courses spread anti-American sentiment (“Bill History”). I would like to extend this conversation to highlight the limiting and damaging effect a dominant White canonized literary curriculum has on students of color, students who need and desire to see themselves represented in meaningful and authentic ways in the literature they read. Social movements of the 1900s, such as the Black Panther Party and the Chicano Movement, created a rise in books published by authors of color. However, opportunities to diversify the literary canon were missed or overlooked. Only a couple of these have made it into the literary canon and fewer into the standard curriculum. 

After the controversial debate between Tucson Unified School District and Tom Horn, Arizona state passed a law that prohibits school districts from teaching purely ethnic courses—securing the position of students of colors as information receptacles of the state (“Bill History”). The current Anglocentric monocultural literature that statesmen like Tom Horn, and other lawmakers defend, commits the very thing they claim ethnic literature perpetrates—it spreads inequality, which is an anti-democratic sentiment, and isolates students of color. The current literary curriculum hyper focuses on the White or Anglo experience, only speaking to this unique identity. Furthermore, it isolates, limits, and essentially indoctrinates an ever-increasing diverse student body into believing it is the standard of human experience and the epitome of literary excellence. Freire maintains that it is this approach to learning that turns students into a depository of information, void of “creativity, transformation, and knowledge” of what it means to be “truly human” (Freire 72). This counteraction toward critical consciousness that the oppressor seeks to normalize in our schools is the perfect system for indoctrination.

In “Is Teaching the Literature of Western Culture Inconsistent with Valuing Diversity?” Lori Schroeder Haslem argues that students of color should learn to find their identities in any book, even those written by White authors,

I wish someone had encouraged you to try reading—Shakespeare or anyone—not to find yourself faithfully replicated in and by the text but rather to explore otherness in it and, where necessary, to take issue with the portions of the text that misrepresent you as a woman, as someone of non-Western heritage, as a human being. (121) 

Here, Haslem is not only assuming that students of color are not already reading these texts with a critical or analytical lens—this essay is evidence that indeed I, a student of color, am doing this very thing—but she is also insensitive to the fact that texts by Shakespeare and other White authors are already standardized readings. Students of color are required to read, study, and analyze these in many classrooms throughout the nation, whether we want to or not. Moreover, by virtue of being an experience not our own, we are inevitably bound to regard differences. Furthermore, the position of students of color is not a radical one. Students of color do not seek the erasure of White literature, rather an integration and representative literary canon of all human experiences.

Historically, when oppressed individuals can connect and identify with one another or see themselves faithfully represented in a meaningful cause, leader, or art form, they can promote positive and transformational change for themselves and society. Take, for example, the Civil Rights Movement, which occurred due to an overwhelming consensus amongst the Black community that the common Black experience in the U.S. was one of brutality and injustice. As more Black Americans shared their experience in media and demonstrations, Black Americans were able to fight for the betterment of their lives and the lives of all of us. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s-60s provided a road map for other underrepresented groups seeking equal rights and equal representation. It also reminded the U.S. and its representatives—federal, state, and local—of its sacred role as protector of individual rights and liberties.  

         In James Baldwin’s 1963 “The Fire Next Time” essays, he declares, 

You [speaking to Black Americans] were born into a society which spelled out with brutal clarity, and in as many ways as possible, that you were a worthless human being. You were not expected to aspire to excellence: you were expected to make peace with mediocrity. (7)  

It is interesting to note that Baldwin uses the words “spelled out” because it is in the very vocabulary and idiomatic expressions in history and literature books where students of color are dehumanized. This is where they are taught from a young age to think of themselves and their cultural heritage as inferior and inadequate. Here is where they are taught to view the world in terms of a White paradigm. 

         Martin Sean Arce, Mexican American Studies scholar and co-author of “White” Washing American Education, asserts that “public schools traditionally and currently do not provide safe and healthy spaces for [Xicana/o youth’s] development; culturally responsive curricula and/or pedagogy . . . where youth can cultivate a sense of honor and dignity for themselves . . .” (Sandoval et al. 11). A child cannot cultivate a sense of dignity or cultural esteem if all they read about is their ancestors’ devastation, victimization, and eradication. Instead, this perpetuates the idea that there is inherently an oppressor and oppressed, a superior race and an inferior one. This is not to say that the realities of the brutality and injustices perpetrated against people of color should not be learned. They should be learned, but from the perspectives of the oppressed; so that the oppressed can recount it from an authentic and dignified point of view. 

“It’s time to diversify and decolonise our schools’ reading lists” by Anjali Enjeti articulates the problems with the literary canon present in our schools. A literary canon that professes to be inclusive of diverse experiences, but in reality, perpetuates negative formulaic “black and brown characters in the predominantly white-authored literary canon, [that] are flat and grossly stereotypical” (Enjeti). Classic literary books Enjeti mentions are, To Kill A Mockingbird and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, still used in curriculums throughout the United States today. This preoccupying of the minds of historically oppressed students with stereotypical versions of themselves ensures that they are less concerned with “develop[ing] the critical consciousness which would result from their intervention in the world as transformers of that world” (Freire 72); further securing the dominant position of the oppressor and perpetuating racist ideologies. 

My examination of the relationship between social movements and book publications by authors of color revealed that the 1960’s-70’s Chicano Movement, which “Championed Mexican-American Identity and Fought for Change” (Carrillo), facilitated a large rise in memoir and realistic fiction published during the same time. Sadly, books published during this time, portraying authentic Latinx experiences, have not made it to the standard, widespread and streamlined literary curriculum. Books published later, in the ‘80s and ‘90s, such as The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros or How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents by Julia Alvarez, are only taught in specialty classes or limited to predominantly geographical Latinx communities. However, they are not taught in White communities, which would benefit more immensely from literary diversification. 

Breault argues that the present literary canon should merge democratic ideals of equality, which should inevitably translate into diversity. He argues that if we were to achieve true “democracy [then it] becomes more a mode of living and working than an understanding of a political system” (Breault 4). In other words, if we were to implement the ideals of equality and democracy truly, then diversity in our society and academia would be a practical matter and not a theoretical one. Similar to this concept is Michel Foucault’s examination of normalized discipline, wherein an idea, in this case, equality, becomes so ingrained in our society that it is no longer a question of theory but total normalization. 

As a student of color, having attended public schools for most of my life, I have witnessed first-hand what an Anglo-focused monocultural curriculum and literary canon can do to the self-esteem and intellect of a person of color. For many years, I questioned the people’s intellectual capabilities from my ethnic and cultural background compared to White people. In my classes, I was only exposed to White authors, poets, scientists, scholars, entrepreneurs, and other academic professions. The only context with which I encountered people of color was in powerless, stereotypical roles or fighting for their lives in the form of social activism. Gradually, as I sought out literature, ideas, and people that represented me—through Native American and Latinx courses and other educational sources—I realized that I had been taught to believe that people of color were inferior. I, as Freire says, had been indoctrinated to believe this. Like many members of underrepresented groups in the United States, I had been effectively kept in a state of oppression and compliance. 

Breault proposes solutions to the problem of equal representation in academia’s curriculum. He says, “One way of doing so is to help students become convergent thinkers. Instead of seeing a situation as a competition between conflicting options, students would see the potential for the merging, compromise, or interplay of ideas” (Breault 4). This reasoning is important because it helps break the propensity for dominating groups to think in dualistic ways. Instead of thinking autonomously, they can begin to think in an interconnected fashion. Another insightful thought by Breault is his solution for individuals who live in ethnically un-diversified communities. He suggests that “the emphasis can be on diversity of gender, social class, religion, political perspective or geography.” (5). The ideas of patience, inclusivity, and appreciation for other viewpoints will be an integral part of creating productive and interdependent citizens. He goes on to assert that not teaching students to be convergent thinkers “encourages dichotomous thinking and sends the message that democracy is something you practice only after you leave school” (5). Instead it should be a process learned very early on.  

One reason why dominant groups refuse to commit to diversification and inclusion is fear–the “fear and resentment that perpetuates. . . ” ideas of White superiority (3). The oppressor fearing subjugation or “any restriction on their current way of life. . . ” (3) chooses to ignore the issues of racial or cultural discrepancies. Is fear the reason why academics refuse to adopt diverse voices in their classrooms? Do White academics and authors fear that their voices will be shut out from literary discussions?

Aside from the political and social benefits I have outlined above, allowing individuals to bond within (and consequently outside) their cultural heritage and experience also have educational implications. To be human is to create. We endlessly create foods, stories, relationships, ideas, and structures. Reducing both White and non-White students to a set of limited ideologies and paradigms through the banking system “inhibits creativity and domesticates (although it cannot completely destroy) the intentionality of consciousness by isolating consciousness from the world” (Freire 80). How much further would we be technologically and creatively speaking if we had nourished and cultivated true inclusivity? If we had allowed every human to reach their highest human potential of creativity instead of dehumanizing them into knowledge or fact receptacles? Freire asserts, “Problem-posing education is revolutionary futurity . . . Hence it corresponds to the historical nature of humankind” (Freire 80). In other words, humankind’s historical nature directly relates to the extent to which humans are able and willing to problem-pose to transform the future. I contend, therefore, that one of two statements is true. Either we are living in the present, with an antiquated idea of what our literary canon should be. In which case, if we claim to be a nation of equality, we must seek to remedy it immediately. Not doing so presents a threat to our ability to transform our future. Alternatively, we are stuck in the past, believing our literary canon to be sufficiently representative of all people—a past where oppression and racism still exist. 

Being complicit in either of these realities presents a future that will hinder, even endanger, society’s growth. Without diversity [in classrooms and literature] our communities do not flourish. Furthermore, as we evolve into a more globally connected community, the representation of people of color becomes increasingly important. It is important because seeing diverse, creative, and successful examples leads to individuals contributing to society in meaningful ways. When individuals feel represented and see successful examples of themselves, they are more likely to contribute their voices, resources, and talents to our communities. This in turn ensures that all groups have a voice and our government and political leaders are willing to advocate for more inclusivity, passing laws that benefit all. Equal representation also contributes to innovation and alternative solutions that can make life easier for all humans. Consider inventors of color such as Garrett Morgan and Frederick Mckinley Jones, who, respectively, invented the three-light traffic light and the refrigerated truck securing the safe transport of goods across the country and nations (Morgan). The consequence of maintaining the status quo is a stagnated future, a future where problems are not being solved, and people continue to feel discounted, undermined, and depreciated. 

Works Cited

Baldwin, James. The Fire Next Time. Vintage International, 1993. 

“Bill History for HB2281,” Bill Status Inquiry, 2010, apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/?BillNumber=HB2281. 

Breault, Rick A. “Dewey, Freire, and a pedagogy for the oppressor,” Multicultural Education, vol. 10, no. 3,2003, pp. 2-6. EBSCOhost. 

Carrillo, Karen Juanita. “How the Chicano Movement Championed Mexican-American Identity and Fought for Change,” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 18 Sept. 2020, http://www.history.com/news/chicano-movement.

Enjeti, Anjali. “It’s time to diversify and decolonise our schools’ reading lists.” US & Canada18 Mar. 2018, http://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/3/18/its-time-to-diversify-and-decolonise-our-schools-reading-lists/.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books, 1995.

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy Of The Oppressed. Continuum Books, 1993.

Haslem, Lori Schroeder. “Is Teaching the Literature of Western Culture Inconsistent with Valuing Diversity?” Profession, 1998, pp. 117-130. JSTOR.

Morgan, Thad. “8 Black Inventors Who Made Daily Life Easier.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 20 Feb. 2019, http://www.history.com/news/8-black-inventors-african-american.

Sandoval, Denise M., et al., editors. “‘White’” Washing American Education: the New Culture Wars in Ethnic Studies. Praeger, an Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC, 2016.