The Primacy of Texts the Problem With Canonisation in the Secondary School English, Film and Media Studies Curriculum

7/31/2019 The Primacy of Texts the Problem With Canonisation in the Secondary School English, Film and Media Studies Cur

1/24

Claire Pollard MACME Unit 4 Major Project: Production, Validation and Defense

1

ThePrimacyoftexts:theproblemwithcanonisationin

thesecondaryschoolEnglish,MediaStudiesandFilm

Studiescurriculum.

Claire Pollard

The Centre for Excellence in Media Practice

Bournemouth University

22nd July 2012

TableofContents

1.INTRODUCTION 2

2.CONTEXT:THE PROBLEM WITH CANONS 6

3.METHODOLOGY 9

3.1EVALUATING MY METHODOLOGY 13

4.SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS FROM DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF TESFORUMS 14

5.SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS FROM INTERVIEWS WITH SUBJECT OFFICERS 15

6.CONCLUSIONS 21

7.STRATEGY FOR IMPLEMENTATION 22


2/24


2

1. Introduction

In March 2011, Michael Gove, the secretary for education, recommended that all secondary school

pupils should be reading 50 books a year. He named several authors he felt were suitable and The

Daily Telegraph reported that it is expected that the new National Curriculum Review will specify thekey authors children should study at each key stage (Paton, Graeme, March 22, 2011). This is a level

of prescription far beyond any we have seen in the secondary school curriculum in recent years.

It is not just the content of this list that needs to be called into question; the very existence of lists of

key texts and writers is problematic and may have a potentially damaging effect on students. This

single event is symbolic of wider changes in the education system under the new coalition

government as what we teach and how we teach it (be it phonic spelling or poetry recital in primary)becomes more and more prescribed and schools and teachers have less freedom to do what is best for

their students. The nature of prescription immediately devalues or invalidates that which is not

included.

In the same speech, Gove expressed outrage that more than 90% of students are studying John

Steinbecks American novella Of Mice and Men at GCSE despite the fact that the secondary English

curriculum lists a huge range of writers from Bunyan and Chaucer, to Larkin and Amis (Gove, M.,January 20, 2011). This comment suggests Gove has two complaints: firstly that it is not a British

writer who dominates, which raises important questions about the role of the curriculum in promoting

or supporting a British ideology or identity and more significantly, who decides what that should be

and secondly, that the current curriculum is not wideranging(Gove, 2011) and perhaps now that

Of Mice and Men is so popular it ceases to be perceived (by a man who attended an independent

secondary school and Oxford University) as worthy of study.

The dominance ofOf Mice and Men is an interesting phenomenon; certainly it has been a staple of the

English curriculum since the 1970s. But the reason for this is not because there hasnt been, before or

since, a better or worthier text. It is because schools are provided with a list of texts that have

been chosen by an exam board and are being taught in a system where schools are competing for


3/24


3

places on league tables. Therefore, decisions about what to teach are made not on the basis of whats

best for students but on the basis of what is perceived to be appropriate by exam board gatekeepers,

(the first stage of limitation) and what is more convenient for schools to get the best results (the

second stage of limitation).

Currently more than 60% of the school population follows the AQA syllabus for English Literature

GCSE for which students are only examined on 2 texts, a modern prose or drama text and an

exploring cultures text. These texts can be chosen from a list nine and four respectively. Of that list

of four Of Mice and Men is extremely popular for a number of reasons. Firstly it is considerably shorter

than the other choices, 128 pages compared with 336, 320 and 2401. The format of assessment is open

book examination where students are expected to select quotes in response to a question which befocused on character or theme. Of Mice and Men, has 6 clearly defined chapters some of which focus

on a specific character or issue and a cyclical narrative with clear links between the opening scene and

final scene making it easy for students to find relevant quotation for their responses. When preparing

15 and 16yearolds for a timed conditions terminal examination, often these practical considerations

have a stronger influence over what we teach than more worthy considerations. The irony is,

however, that as a result of these practical choices made by English departments nationwide, we have

inadvertently made Of Mice and Men one of the most significant novels of the 20

th

century. Ourstudents, unaware of the practical motives for choosing texts, simply accept that this is the best

example of English Literature when in reality this primacy has been achieved because it is the book

best suited to the format of the examination.

Certainly as a teacher of English, I find it frustrating to have to teach Of Mice and Men. It is not a book I

enjoyed at school, I find it overly masculine and every year I find myself having to defend Curleys wife

to boys who believe she was asking for it. In my own institution decisions are being made aboutwhat my year 11 class will study next year. Personally, I would prefer to teach a different novel but

1Purple Hibiscus, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, 336 pages

Mister Pip, Lloyd Jones, 240 pages

To Kill A Mockingbird, Harper Lee, 320 pages

Of Mice and Men, John Steinbeck, 128 pages


4/24


4

because my students are not of a high ability and because I am currently team teaching with a trainee

teacher, pressure is being put on me to teach Of Mice And Men. My heads of department perceive it to

be a better choice because resources are readily available for an inexperienced teacher.

This highlights an additional problem with canonisation: the repeated teaching and reteaching of a

text is a process of fixing and narrowing meaning; as resources, study guides and revision books are

created, the opportunities for individual critical reflection and interpretation are limited. The study of

Literature should not be about learning and reproducing taught meanings and interpretations of

Great Works. This is a stark contrast to how I run the Media Studies department where there is very

little focus on objects of study and almost no adherence to a canon of significant texts and students

own interpretations are highly valued. A2 Media students often struggle to believe that they areallowed to express their own opinions a skill not encouraged in other subjects at this level.

In contrast, to the narrowing of the curriculum in English Literature, current debates in Media Studies

explore the notion that in a web 2.0 world a Media Studies curriculum should focus less on study of big

media institutions and more how people attribute meaning to media, reinterpret (and in some cases

remix) media and map media exchanges and meanings into their everyday lives(McDougall 2012).

So, a curriculum based more on process than content. Under this model, any text that studentsencounter, be it an obscure Russian documentary or an Internet meme, is worthy of scrutiny and

analysis. Some argue that this approach devalues and delegitimises what is already seen as a non

academic subject and in uncertain times for A levels in general, academic legitimacy is the only way

to save a subject as poorly regarded as Media Studies from being pushed down a vocational route.

Perhaps the subjects close relationship, in schools at least, with English is what accounts for this crisis

of identity: teachers want to make Media Studies more like English to legitimise their teaching of asoft subject and protect their own cultural capital (Bourdieu, 2010). Although more than 50% of

my teaching timetable is Media Studies, I am guilty of referring to myself as an English Teacher in

certain situations to project a more intellectual image to people who would be disparaging of the

study of popular texts. Teaching and learning Othello, Great Expectations and Emily Dickinson sounds


5/24


5

better than teaching and learning East is East, Attack the Block and Make Bradford British. But my

Media students are actively engaged in critical reflection and analysis; they students will be attacking

or defending these texts whereas my English class will be learning to appreciate texts that have

been appreciated by people before them.

At the heart of this debate is a question about the schools role in providing students with cultural

capital. In Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (2010), Pierre Bourdieu uses the

phrase cultural capital to refer to a set of competences or assets that an individual possesses that

influence social mobility. He noticed that often cultural capital was linked to educational and

economic capital and that this was also linked to taste. People from lower socioeconomic groups

preferred different types of music, books and food than their upper class counterparts. This suggeststhen that personal taste something most individuals feel that they control or is unique to them is

actually a construct. Although his theory was criticised for being too deterministic and granting too

much power to social structure over individual agency, his research is important when considering the

role of schools in selecting what students should read. Would we be doing our young people a

disservice by teaching Bridget Jones Diaryat A level as opposed to Pride and Prejudice? Both are texts

about class, social anxieties and romantic love but one carries the symbolic badge of credibility and

the other does not.

I have personally found cultural capital to be an important social asset and I am concerned that my

students will be disadvantaged by having not accessed certain texts and debates of canonical

importance before going to University; I worry about the impact that might have on their status in a

higher education environment. Bourdieu discusses the importance of teachers; conscious or

unconscious expectations and peergroup pressure whose ethical orientation is itself defined by the

class values brought into and reinforced by the institution. This allocation effect and the statusassignment it entails doubtless play a major role in the fact that the educational institution succeeds

in imposing cultural practices that it does not teach and does not explicitly demand, but which belong

to the attributes attached by status to the position it assigns, the qualifications it awards and the

social positions to which it later give access. (2010, p.17). One such cultural practice is the teaching of


6/24


6

key and canonical texts and debates shaped and sanctioned by academics in the field. So when an A

grade student in Media or Film Studies fails to demonstrate the requisite cultural capital their low

status is established among their peers and lecturers. By adhering to a canon, teachers and exam

boards are supporting its existence. But by not adhering to a canon, one risks disadvantaging students

and devaluing our own cultural capital.

2. Context: the problem with canons

The creation of lists is common practice. The press, media, publishers, all create lists for various

purposes: to entertain, to provoke debate, to award prizes, to make profits. Such lists are reasonably

harmless because of the public realm in which they are created and promoted. With a literary prize,for example, people usually assess how far they agree or disagree with decisions based on their own

opinion or their opinions of the people or institutions making that decision. Educational canon

creation is different.

The secondary school syllabus has an unspoken authority in its anonymity. Books appear on lists of set

texts and very little is known about the process of selecting these texts and what powers influence or

dictate what is taught in schools under the term literature. Obviously the canon of texts taught inschools is influenced by what academics and Universities perceive to be of significance but many of

the students we teach are not connected to the world of academia and never will be. If, as Pierre

Bourdieu claims, class (as defined by economic capital and fathers occupation) and taste are directly

linked then there is a direct conflict taking place in the education system. The texts that students are

made to read in secondary schools are chosen by people in Universities or at the very top of

examination boards who are, in the most part, from a different social class to themselves. Thus the

study of English Literature becomes a process of aligning students tastes with an educational elite.

Even in an age when many people in positions of academic power are not from privileged

backgrounds, they still belong to an elite and have adhered to specific cultural practices in order to get

there. Whilst much criticism of the literary canon focuses making it more representative, Guillory


7/24


7

asserts that any decision, no matter how inclusive in its intention, is exclusive: it is much easier to

make the canon representative than the University. More to the point, those members of social

minorities who enter the university do not represent the social groups to which they belong, as

they have accrued cultural capital sanctioned by those institutions. It is purely the symbolic capital of

their qualifications that permits them to set the agenda for what books millions of teenagers read in

mainstream schools when, arguably, popular commentators, parent groups or school librarians might

be better equipped to do so.

At least if texts were chosen by someone in the public mainstream, students might more comfortably

develop skills of criticism. There could be more genuine discussion among students and teachers

about the success of a text. Students would be able to hate books freely without being made to feelthat not appreciating a text was equal to not being clever enough to get it, therefore preventing

them from accessing the elitist club of Literature study.

Guillory evaluates the relevance of Gramscis idea of unitary schools (Prison Notebooks, Gramsci, A.,

1998) where a general curriculum is offered with a view to developing a method of research and of

knowledge, and not a predetermined programme learning takes place especially through a

spontaneous and autonomous effort of the pupil, with the teacher only exercising a function offriendly guide as happens or should happen in the university. This model, which places the

students interests and experience at the core of its ideology is quite prescient what hes talking

about here is the development of skills and practices as opposed to the assimilation of a body of

knowledge determined by academic experts. Guillory sees this integrated model as an alternative to

canonisation in the sense that if individual institutions operate in this way then the culture of the

school really is the culture of the school and the people who inhabit it. In Gramscis system and works

therefore cannot be allegorised as intrinsically canonical or intrinsically noncanonical, intrinsicallyhegemonic or intrinsically antihegemonic as opposed to a received culture handed down from the

state or faceless exam boards and regulators.

The connection between academic criticism and the status of texts is strong. Modern literary criticism


8/24


8

is often linked back to the work of F.R. Leavis. In The Great Tradition (1950), Leavis took the position

that with the exception of Jane Austen, George Eliot, James and Conrad, there are no novelists in

English worth reading (p.9). In his preface Leavis does not apologise for his opinions; the opening

quotation from Samuel Johnsons preface to Shakespeare not dogmatically but deliberately

(p.9) suggests that this work is meant as a starting point for discussion about literature, not as a

definitive truth.

He adds that the only way to escape misrepresentation is never to commit oneself to any critical

judgement that makes an impact that is, never to sayanything. I still, however think that the best

way to promote profitable discussion is to be as clear as possible with oneself about what one sees

and judges, to try and establish the essential discriminations in the given field of interest, and to statethem as clearly as one can (for disagreement, if necessary). (p. 9) [emphasis as original]. Of course,

his opinions on literature, coming from an established and respected critic are highly influential but he

does expect to be argued with. At fault, then, are those who teach and reproduce these views without

challenge or criticism especially when the people producing opinion belong to one social group: white,

educated and middle class. As the novelist Howard Jacobson Leavis former pupil claims, He is an

exemplar, to be learnt from not followed, of how to make literature your own. What he saw was highly

idiosyncratic; we cannot see it that way again. But he teaches the importance of seeing it some wayand as things are, isnt his still the only narrative on the table? (Howard Jacobson on being taught by

FR Leavis, The Daily Telegraph, 2011). The challenge for us as teachers is finding ways of instilling in

our students the skills and confidence to commit themselves to a critical judgement, to make

literature their own. One way of doing this is through the study of texts that students consume

independently, outside the school environment.

When I discovered that, in their 1942 book Culture and Environment, FR Leavis and Denys Thompsonrecommended using films, advertisements and newspapers to develop critical awareness in school

children for a moment I felt vindicated as a teacher of Media Studies; to me, this was proof that these

objects of study were as worthy as Literature. This reveals an ideological dilemma that I am certain

afflicts other teachers. I have a longstanding respect for and attraction towards academia, so perhaps


9/24


9

I feel a need for Media Studies be regarded as having the same prestige. Since becoming a teacher in

the state sector, I realise this reverence for literature is not the norm. Most of my students do not feel

like that and as such would be better served by being taught critical skills applicable to the texts they

encounter on a daily basis. The object of studys perceived status by a social elite is secondary to the

development of analytical and critical skills. Perhaps, then, it is the teachers and exam boards who

perpetuate this elitism in the teaching and learning of English Literature.

3. Methodology

Through interviews with subject officers at exam boards across three disciplines: English Literature,

Film Studies and Media Studies, I analyse the ways that prescription is explained and justified. I will

gain deeper understanding of how people in positions of power use that power (or not as the case may

be) to influence what students are taught in schools.

I began this project with the aim of finding out why certain texts in English gain primacy and what

factors fed into teachers decisions about what to teach but throughout the process of research my

focus shifted slightly. I realised that there were numerous factors influencing decisions and that I

would be unlikely ever to uncover the truth about how educational canons are created. I decided,

therefore, to take a more constructionist approach and focus on how people described the processes

around and reasons for choosing particular texts.

My starting point was a case study analysis of comments made by teachers about Of Mice and Men on

the Times Education Supplement(TES) internet chat forums. I started a thread entitled Why do you

teach Of Mice and Men? and used the responses, as well as the responses to a similar thread posted

earlier in the year. I categorised the reasons people gave for teaching it. The results are shown

below in fig. 1.1


10/24


10

Fig. 1.1 Analysis of TES Forum: Why do you teach Of Mice and Men?

Potter claims that discourse analysis, through focusing on the language adopted by individuals

emphasizes the way versions of the world, of society events and inner psychological worlds are

produced in discourse(quoted in Social Research Methods, Bryman,A. 2004, p.370) so rather than

taking their comments at face value, I hoped to uncover something more meaningful about how far

different agents feel they have the power to choose what to teach or whether to a certain extent the

decisions are felt to be taken elsewhere and therefore out of their hands. This will enable me to

propose ways of empowering those who can influence the curriculum to ensure that students are

reading the right texts for the right reasons.

One of the most interesting things about the responses on the TES forum was the way in which

teachers talked about and justified their decisions in selecting and prescribing texts, often beginning


11/24


11

with reasons that were out of their control such as Because it is on the syllabus or because we have

lots of copies and no discernible budget for anything new. The tone of many of the posts on the TES

forums was slightly defensive with people either staunchly supporting their personal decisions or

deflecting the blame on to a head of department or exam board. In fact the first response was asking

me for the context of my research, which I clarified but I was then concerned that respondents were

modifying their comments, which were reasonably formal, because they knew what the project was

about. Gill argues that discourse is a form of action and is a practice in its own right (Bryman, A.

p.371) and as such can be adapted in response the context that he or she is confronted with. Certainly

on the chat forum this was the case. Another thread, entitled Of mice and bleedin men!! had been

started 6 months earlier in the year by mymoose with the more colloquial and contentious post: I

can't believe this book is still doing the rounds in schools. How about something a bit more inspiringfor teenagers than this drivel? The comments in this forum proved a much richer source of honest

comment about the nature of prescription and the value of this particular text on the English

curriculum. Most of the utterances analysed below came from this more informal thread.

In Social Research Methods, Bryman says that in discourse analysis, emphasis is placed on the

versions of reality propounded by members of the social setting being investigated and on the

fashioning of that reality through their renditions of it (p.370) so as well as analysing the discourse ofteachers I also spoke to examiners and subject leaders across GCE English Literature (AQA, WJEC2)

Media Studies (OCR3) and Film Studies (OCR, WJEC4) to get an insight into processes of prescribing

texts. The selection of subjects was based purely on who responded to my solicitation. Some were

interviews where the subjects were happy to be recorded over the phone and some were written

email responses. I also include in my data an essay and email discussion with an ITT course leader in

Media Studies at Sussex University5 who I had known to express some unfashionable opinions about

the need for canon formation in Media Studies.

6

2

Henceforth known as EN1 and EN23

Henceforth known as MD14

FM1 and FM25

MD26

Transcripts can be found in appendices 3b,4b,5b,6b,7b and 8b


12/24


12

Although I felt that being honest about my research had somewhat sterilised the TES chat thread, I

felt I had to be honest with these professionals in order to get them to agree to be interviewed. The

emails (appendices 3a,4a,5a,7a) I sent were slightly adapted to suggest a more sympathetic feeling

towards their specific subject. When analysing the data however, it was important to keep in mind

that they knew they were responding to a defender of Media Studies and someone potentially hostile

to the prescription of texts. In fact two interviewees (notably the most experienced) began the

conversation by asking me to explain my role, why I was interested and what I had found out so far.

When analysing and coding the data, I set out to look for examples of ideological dilemmas, and

interpretive repertoires defined by Potter and Wetherall thus:

Repertoires could be seen as building blocks speakers use for constructing versions of actions,

cognitive processes, and other phenomena the presence of a repertoire will often besignaled by certain tropes or figures of speech. (1988, p. 172)

Having transcribed the texts I noticed four interesting processes in the way respondents constructed

their realities around their role in the larger system of canon formation. The categories are defined

below:

Category 1: An ideological dilemma/conflict between their personal opinions and their professionalrole. This sometimes manifested itself in the use of distancing devices in the discourse of a number of

participants (coloured pink on the transcripts).

Category 2: Deflecting personal responsibility or pacing blame on another group of people or another

institution (coloured green on the transcripts).

Category 3: Making value judgments about texts discussed. In any conversation about texts, titles willinevitably come up and I noticed that despite (in some cases) the insistence that there should be no

hierarchy of texts, nonetheless in conversation personal opinions were expressed about texts,

(coloured yellow on the transcripts).


13/24


13

Category 4: Ascribing status to subjects through explicit or implicit comment (coloured blue on the

transcripts).

3.1 Evaluating my methodology

Analysing discourse was much easier in the interviews than the email responses, mainly because I was

able to steer the conversation and use clarifying questions. In contrast, the crafted nature of the email

responses meant that they were difficult to code under the categories Id originally outlined, although

their comments were useful in my exploration of the wider issue. This unfortunately meant that the

majority of my discourse analysis ended up referring to mainly Film Studies and English Literature

although in all interviews the role and status of all three subjects were discussed. Also, as I found with

the chat tread, the most fruitful discourse occurred in the less formal conversational moments in the

telephone interviews. The interviewees began each interview with a definite position, something they

had thought about in advance and planned to say but it was the conversation that was spontaneous

that revealed the most.

Another flaw of this type of analysis is that it doesnt take into account the personality and experience

within the role so for example, distancing devices were used very heavily in two interviews but I

suspect for different reasons in one case, with EN1, I sensed that he had (or at least wanted me to

believe he had) strong leftleaning opinions that were at odds with his official role whereas FM1

seemed to be concerned about misrepresenting the exam board for which he worked. EN2s response

despite using the word we was very official and gave almost no personal response merely

forwarding the OfQual document that they use as a basis for their discussions. I knew from a previous

email that she is recently appointed to the role and therefore has little personal experience of the

process of selecting titles for prescription.

Were I to do this again I think I would need to use a bigger sample and take into account the

experience of the interviewee. This could easily have been established by including it in our

discussions. Nonetheless, general themes did emerge and I feel I was able to draw some fairly robust

conclusions based on the small sample available to me.


14/24


14

4. Summary of key findings from discourse analysis ofTES forums

There were two main findings from this analysis. Firstly that the formal structures of the curriculum

and assessment are the dominant force in deciding what text are taught (category 1): this was

mentioned by the majority of respondents. Secondly, that some teachers were experiencing feelings

of disappointment that their students do not enjoy the same quality literature that they do (category

3) or that teaching quality literature is not even an option under the strict guidelines of the

curriculum.

The assumption is that it is on the syllabus because it was written by a recognised author with an

established reputation in the canon (rightly or wrongly) but teachers obviously teach it for reasons

more related to the institutional context: I choose a text that I think will get the best out of my class

and get them a decent grade in the exam. (englishtt06, appendix 2). The fact that it also ticks a box

in terms of being part of the canon is an added bonus.

The status ofOf Mice and Men as a literary text is devalued in comments like Id prefer to do Grapes

of Wrath but can't because GofW is REAL literature and my students aren't up to it. (seaviews,

appendix 1) and It would be nice to live in a world where every child is allowed to read 'great'

literature and appreciate it for what it is (englishtt06, appendix 2) which reveals almost an

embarrassment at teaching what they themselves acknowledge is an easy text. Or perhaps the

embarrassment stems from the fact that it is the most popular text and popular equals nonliterary.

There is an ideological dilemma at play here. These teachers want to get the best grades out of their

students but they also want to teach texts they perceive to have literary merit. Within the confines of

the prescribed list from the exam board they see the two to be mutually exclusive and the result is a

whittling down to only one suitable text that now reigns supreme across the country. Luckily students

enjoy Of Mice and Men but there are plenty of other texts out there ripe for analysis and reflection

and under 100 pages that they would enjoy as much if not more, but unless they are written by

recognised authors, they will not be considered.


15/24


15

5. Summary of key findings from interviews with subject officers

There were many similarities in the ways that the interviewees framed their arguments and referred

to their opinions in relation to their professional position. All appeared to be in agreement that canon

formation is essentially an elitist practice regardless of whether they were actively involved in the

prescription of texts or not. Some speakers were concerned about the limiting effects of canonisation:

Yeah there was a unanimous feeling really against any sort of, er sort of canon... there was a feeling

that, urm, they wanted teachers to have the freedom to be able to choose and teach what they

wanted to. (FM1)

I mean, Im not at all interested in a film canon at all what Im interested is students having a passion

for a variety of cinema and I think the A level does that. (FM2)

I (and others) felt what we were getting in exam answers was teachers favourite films (and I mean

films) with a canon of texts and case studies being offered by centres and candidates and very little

sense that candidates were being asked to draw upon their own experience and knowledge. (MD1)

This limiting effect is supported in the comments made by English teachers in the previous chapter. A

different issue raised by these comments is the role that teachers play in limiting the curriculum. On

the two specifications written by FM2 and MD1, there are very few prescribed texts but still a canon

emerges as teachers choose to teach the same texts and textual forms (film is just one of many

strands teachers can choose from the OCR Media Studies specification). This may be due to class and

taste similarities between these teachers but most likely its because they themselves have studied

films as part of their higher education study and are reproducing the canon imposed on them. It also

hints at a hierarchy of mediums, which I will come to later.

FM2, also a University Film Studies course leader, complains that new subjects become

professionalised they start off as subjects that are very fresh and new and very vanguardist and over

a period of time they accrue certain practices and procedures and before long they just become


16/24


16

another subject within the curriculum with its particular characteristics, its particular language and its

particular key concepts. Its a shame to see that happening to film. In contrast, MD2 complains that

It cannot be right there isnt a broad body of knowledge that all media students have access to. I

know this sounds a little Govian but it is little embarrassing when A level media students dont know

who the Director of the BBC is or who owns BSkyB. (Perera, K. 2011).

Canon formation is associated with the political right in the statement above. EN1 makes the same

connection: Hugely driving the whole notion of a canon is an agenda of lets call, you know, it loosely

speaking of the right, not as in being right but politically aligned to the right, (EN1). In this utterance

the speaker clearly establishes himself at the start of the interview as being on the left and opposed to

canonisation despite the fact that his job is to select the texts for A level students to study, possiblybecause he is aware of my position on canonisation. What allows him to present himself in opposition

to this practice is the presence of an unspecified force, be it government regulators, the press or the

format of the assessment.

Both Literature representatives defer to these external forces often. In the short email response from

EN2, this external influence is mentioned at the start and end of the email: as a starting point, the

regulators produce subject criteria which have to be adhered to. This will provide parameters forselecting texts, suggesting either that meeting these criteria is the primary concern or that as a result

of this fact, her own decision making is hampered. These are also mentioned by all the other

examiners, EN1 admits that The major dominant force was the government quango regulator []

there was a significant English subject presence in this quasi government role, pretty much setting the

rules so, whatever you think about GCSE or A level, 80% of that I would say, 75,[or] 80% of that was a

given. Both English officers distance themselves from the decisions made by emphasising how much

of the decisionmaking is taken out of their hands. This is supported in EN1s transcript by theconstant fluctuation between pronouns some opinions he ascribes to himself, for others he uses

they.


17/24


17

These criteria (appendix 11) outline some specific parameters relating to different forms of literature

and different time periods: at least one play by Shakespeare; work by at least one author writing

between 1300 and 1800;at AS, work by at least one author published between 1800 and1945. This

focus on historicism clearly reinforces the idea that old, established, critically acclaimed literature is

seen to be better than anything contemporary probably because there has been time for the people

who ascribe value to see whether or not it has been (in their words) significant. Elsewhere it states

that: Learners study may include texts in translation that have been influential and significant in the

development of literature in English. Significant according to whom? Again there is a reliance on the

tastes and opinions of an invisible nonelected elite to decide what is important and relevant in

everybodys lives. The guidelines also state that texts studied should merit serious attention.

Serious suggests not popular.

In many cases there are expressions of some element of ideological dilemma or conflict between

personal opinions and their professional role. Both EN1 and FM1 were clearly aware of how they came

across and I felt, were holding back their personal opinions when asked to comment on their feelings

towards Michael Gove and the current Department for Education. When asked how he felt about

recent proposed changes to the secondary English curriculum, EN1 replied What do you think? ()

Its just cultural baggage isnt it? as though it was something naturally occurring we should all put upwith. A similar tone was taken with FM1: its just middle class bourgeois experience isnt it? Both

these statements assumed a complicit agreement and acceptance of the status quo. FM1s final

comment was Thats mild for me suggesting much stronger feelings that he felt unable to express.

In contrast, FM2 and MD1 didnt seem to struggle at all in expressing personal views, and interestingly

they both also confidently presented themselves in positions of power: I choose the films (FM2) and

I (and others) felt (MD2).

The English examiners experienced a difficulty in negotiating their individual position within the larger

system which came across clearly with EN1, EN2. EN1 begins the interview by distancing himself from

the exam board, Before we start Id like to say that all these views are mine personally, and elsewhere

when discussing the issues faced when choosing specific titles reinforces his position as separate from


18/24


18

the exam board: Erm, people like myself and the exam board itself and you know, often me through

gritted teeth, we have to say are they going to get us into trouble? When we got onto the more

specific topic of the recent guidance published by the board for teachers selecting their own texts for

the comedy drama unit this become more pronounced. I questioned him about the need for this quite

specific document (appendix 10) and asked whether it was because centres might want to teach a

television comedy. Below is the transcribed response:

Interesting question, choosing my words carefully herewed anticipated that debate and

wed prob well you know, I mean I would argue, shows my age maybe that there are, an

episode of Fawlty Towers lets say has massive erm comic potential that is sort of

Shakespearean if you like, but we were sort of worried that a) we would then be seen as trivialof course Fawlty Towers studies at A level literature headlines, so that would get us into

trouble. And b) it would do the kids no service because they would, you know because theyd

like it and not be able to write about it. Now Im not convinced by that second argument and

those statements arent mine but in the end thewe... they, I say rather they than we or I, they

took a decision that in a literature course, drama, if its TV drama, can only be a single play.

(EN1)

The confusion about whether to use the pronoun I, we or they underlines this dilemma. He eventually

settles on they being presumably the exam board of which by his own admission he is as high up as

it gets. Clearly he does not feel in a position to permit something as radical as the study of what could

be described as a classic or canonical sitcom in the canon of literature despite his own assertion that it

has Shakespearean comic potential.

Thats assuming he wants to. There is hesitation (maybe/lets say/sort of/if you like) when comparingFawlty Towers and Shakespeare, either in anticipation of my potential disagreement, or maybe

reluctance to compare something canonically great with something recently popular lest he disinherit

his cultural capital. Similarly, I imagine, English teachers, Literature professors and the literate upper


19/24


19

classes would see the study of a sitcom as an attack on their subjects (and therefore their own)

intellectual status.

This also seems to be the case with the huge, huge fear of, we glibly say, The Daily Mail but of the

right wing press, be it The Mail, The Telegraph, whatever. Huge fear governed it. I dont think the

exam boards were as such frightened, the fear had already been built in to the set of instructions.

This suggests that with a subject as highly regarded as English Literature, everyone involved is

anxious to be seen to be maintaining standards and keeping the subject at a level where it is still

regarded as high art. By perpetuating the study of certain historical texts or perhaps under the

current government, the compulsory study of Pope and Dryden the education system maintains the

status of a subject that is not accessible to all. Bourdieu suggests that when class fractions whopreviously made little use of the school system enter into the race for academic qualifications, the

effect is to force the groups whose reproduction was mainly or exclusively achieved through

education to step up their investments so as to maintain the relative scarcity of their qualifications

and, consequently, their position in the class structure. Academic qualifications and the school system

which awards them thus become one of the key stakes in an interclass competition which generates a

general and continuous growth in the demand for education and an inflation of academic

qualifications. (2010, p.127). He was referring to an aristocratic elite but the idea is also applicable toa hegemonic ruling class of people in positions of power who wish to protect that power by

maintaining the difficulty of their subject.

One factor that affects the status of Film and Media Studies is the inclusion of a practical element. The

definition of a soft subject as defined by The Russell Group as subjects with a vocational or practical

bias, for example: Media Studies (Informed Choices, 2012). English Literature does not include any

sort of literary creativity students are required only to consume others work rather than make theirown. In the UK, there is no requirement for any student of English or English Literature to be able to

write creatively or rather, attempt to write in any literaryform. Young people are not expected to be

able to create literature, it is almost as though it is considered to be too difficult, too lofty an

achievement. But they can be expected to create a trailer or a music video. In many respects, a video


20/24


20

is harder to create than a poem. The omission of literary writing in secondary education only serves to

reinforce the notion that writing literature is some mysterious unfathomable pursuit that can only be

achieved by a gifted elite.

Guillory posits the idea that schools reproduce social order and social inequities through regulating

access to the means of literary consumption and production. By not expecting our students to write

stories and poems and giving them the impression that literary production and criticism is the domain

of the welloff and welleducated, we are never likely dispel the myth that the reading and writing of

literature cannot be done by normal people.

There are underlying references to the difference in status between Literature and Media Studies inEN1s transcript. He begins by saying that the people who interfere [in English], dont bother to

interfere with Media and Film Studies because they wouldnt look at them. They wouldnt deign to

give them existence. His choice of wording: wouldnt deign ascribes a sort of snobbishness to the

people who regulate and interfere with English and aligns himself with what he perceives are to be the

views of the interviewer, a Media Studies teacher. However later on in the conversation, he himself is

guilty of expressing that snobbish, elitist attitude towards Media Studies: Yeah, yeah and Ill be hon...

yeah, Media Studies sometimes is not necessarily to my taste, but, Media Studies with its skills andtheories is hard you know, certainly at university level. He is aware of the innate snobbishness of

the comment and masks it with qualifiers sometimes and not necessarily and the fact that he stops

himself from saying he is being honest. Elsewhere this snobbishness is revealed implicitly through

value judgments about texts for example joking that it would be all right for students to write about

a Dan Brown novel As long as you dont like it. Although he backs this up by saying its a joke, he

also adds Well you know its got to be critiqued.

The problem of the hierarchy of forms and practices is something that concerns Media and Film

Studies educators. Creating a canon of texts and theories may legitimises the subjects in the eyes of

those who value such practices but it would we be risking losing something more important by

conforming to their ideology. The fact that Film Studies is, according to FM2, starting to accrue


21/24


21

certain practices and procedures to become just another subject within the curriculum. is

perhaps evidence of the damaging effects of canonisation and legitimisation of an art form through

criticism is already happening in Film Studies. Film, as a relatively new art form only began to develop

an established canon around the 1950s with publications like Cahiersdu Cinma which, argued Edward

Buscombe, was deliberately trying to raise the cultural status of cinema by advancing the claim of

cinema to be an art form like painting or poetry (Grant 2008, 76). Andrew Sarris Pantheon (1968)

a hierarchical list of 14 of the greatest American film directors similarly sought to validate the art

form and define what it means to be a great filmmaker. The fixed canon reduced and knowable

can be easily translated into cultural capital.

6. Conclusions

There is an inherent mistrust of the literary canon and what it stands for. Educators seem to want to

distance themselves personally from the elitist ideology it represents but dont seem to know what

the alternative is. As a result, we are in a state of frustrated acceptance of the unsatisfactory status

quo. There is perhaps a fear that by refusing to adhere to the study of canonical texts, we will de

legitimise and devalue Literature as a subject. In reality it may open up the study of Literature to a

wider audience and involve a wider variety of people in the creation and distribution of stories and

ideas. Teachers and exam boards need to be galvanized to explore other methods of text selection

and assessment within the boundaries of the regulators, or challenge the boundaries that have been

set. The lack of a canon in Media Studies is a unique feature, something to be valued and protected.

Media education, it has been argued, is having what might be described as an identity crisis at the

moment but we must resist the urge to prove the worth of Media Studies to an academic elite and

celebrate the freedom it offers teachers and learners.

Canonisation has limiting effects on students both in terms of what they encounter in secondary

education and their relationship to texts. Lists provided by exam boards do not offer enough choice

for teachers. In the case of the AQA Other Cultures unit at GCSE, Of Mice and Men seems to be the

only option for teachers who are pressed for time and under pressure to deliver good grades to

schools competing for place on league tables. This is something that has to be addressed.


22/24


22

The canon creates hierarchies of textual forms. As well as studying novels, poems and plays,

students should be encouraged to engage with films, television shows and more popular and

experimental forms of writing like genre fiction, fantasy fiction and fanfiction. This point is made

beautifully by Will Self his introduction to The Master and Margarita, almost all styles and modes of

fictionalizing were attempted before the crystallisation of the social realist novel in the nineteenth

century; that this one mode has become a deadening near Stalinist orthodoxy says much about

the extent to which literature is the complaisant poodle of postEnlightenment progressivism, and

very little about the rites that may be performed at the altar of high art (2010). If the curriculum is to

be wideranging it should include a variety of forms and at a time when education is being reformed

by people with rightwing, liberal humanist views, it should surely be a teachers role to promote and

defend a more democratic, pluralistic approach to education

The repeated study of canonical text inhibits students critical skills and our assessment of them.

Social mobility should not depend on the acquisition of cultural capital and refined tastes. Students

should be encouraged to develop their own, considered opinions and responses to texts and situations

and give honest critiques of a range of texts. Howard Jacobson writes, Evaluation doesnt mean

awarding stars. It means staking a claim. It doesnt matter a jot if we evaluate mistakenly () To be

cultured means to nail ones colours to the mast, and those who fear whats arbitrary in that (and runto theory for protection) fear culture itself. The current system requires students to assimilate the

ideas of an elite group by teaching them how to appreciate Literature. The only way to change this

institutional practice is for English teachers in classrooms across the country to share and discuss a

range of good and bad texts without impressing their own value judgements on their students.

7. Strategy for implementation

As a result of this research I have written A Manifesto For the Democratisation of English Literature.

The manifesto (appendix 12) summarises some of the key findings of this study and intends to

galvanise teachers into taking action to reclaim their subject. Part of this project is a petition to reduce

the level of prescription of texts at GCSE and A level, inviting English Literature examiners to look to


23/24


23

Media and Film Studies for ways of assessing critical evaluation and analysis without adhering to a

canon of texts and topics.

Please visit: http://reclaimingtheenglishcurriculum.blogspot.co.uk/ for more information.

Bibliography

Anon. 2012. Teachers Standards. Department for Education.

http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/t/teachers%20standards%20from%20september%202012.pdf.

Bennett, Peter, Alex Kendall, and Julian McDougall. 2011.After the Media: Culture and Identity in the 21st

Century. Kindle ed. Routledge.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 2010. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. 1st ed. Routledge.

Bryman, Alan. 2008. Social Research Methods. 2nd ed. Oxford: OUP Oxford.

Caughie, John. 1981. Theories of Authorship: A Reader. New ed. Routledge.

Gadotti, Moacir. 1996a. Pedagogy of Praxis: A Dialectical Philosophy of Education. SUNY Press.1996b. The

Pedagogy of Praxis: Dialectical Philosophy of Education. Trans. John Milton. State University of New York Press.

Gauntlett, David. 2007. Creative Explorations: New Approaches to Identities and Audiences. New ed. Routledge.

Gove, Michael. 2011. Michael Gove to Twyford Church of England High School In the News.

http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/speeches/a0073212/michaelgovetotwyfordchurchofengland

highschool.

Gramsci, Antonio. 1998. Prison Notebooks: Selections. Ed. Quintin Hoare, Geoffrey Nowell Smith, and Geoffrey

Guillory, John. 1994. Cultural Capital: Problem of Literary Canon Formation. New ed. University of Chicago Press.


24/24


Jacobson, by Howard. 2011. Howard Jacobson on Being Taught by FR Leavis. Telegraph.co.uk, April 23, sec.

books. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/8466388/HowardJacobsononbeingtaughtby

FRLeavis.html.

Lang, Anouk. 2010. A Dirty Little Secret: Taste Hierarchies and Richard and Judys Book Club. Participations 7

(2) (November). http://www.participations.org/Volume%207/Issue%202/PDF/lang.pdf.

Leavis, F. R. 2008. The Great Tradition: George Eliot, Henry James, Joseph Conrad. Faber and Faber.

Macey, David. 2001. The Penguin Dictionary of Critical Theory. New Ed. Penguin.

McDougall, Julian. 2012. Media Studies: The Basics. 1st ed. Routledge.

Paton, Graeme. 2011. Children Should Read 50 Books a Year, Says Gove. Telegraph.co.uk, March 22, sec.

educationnews. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8395784/Childrenshouldread50

booksayearsaysGove.html.

Professor Mary James, Tim Oates, Professor Andrew Pollard, and Professor Dylan Wiliam. 2011. The Framework

for The National Curriculum. Department for Education.

https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DFE001352011.

Professor Rick Rylance. Why Study Eng Lit? Why Study English?http://www.whystudyenglish.ac.uk/you

are/whyenglish.htm.

Rosen, Michael. 2012. The New Govelevels: Segregation Is Back. MichaelRosenBlog.

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/newgovelevelssegregationisback.html.

Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1988). Discourse analysis and the identification of interpretive

repertoires. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods

(pp. 168183). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Documents

The Primacy of Texts the Problem With Canonisation in the Secondary School English, Film and Media Studies Curriculum