Newsgroups: bit.listserv.literary
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:51:00 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <PH408014@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hirsch

>        This might make for a good discussion. The first big question is who
>makes up the list of important cultural references. When I first looked at
>Hirsch's (sp.?) book it seemed he meant to teach the references on the most
>superficial level: i.e. Shakespeare, famous playwright. Now this does lessent
>the discomfort in reading when things are entirely unknown, but that does not
>provide us with a common culture. And what about jazzz, and American popular
>music, and film, are they part of it? Doesn't there come some point when
>just perhaps people aren't going to be able to assimilate cultural and in-
>tellectual history from the Greeks to the present? Why is it important?

  I don't believe that what Hirsch was doing was presenting
a prescriptive list of cultural icons.

  What Hirsch was saying was that it was not simply enough
to know how to read - there is more to reading than simply
knowing words - just as there is more to reading than simply
knowing letters.  And the something more are the references
to what is (within the projected scope of the author's
audience) common knowledge.

  And so, Hirsch would argue, as would I, that you are doing
minorities a great disservice if you do not teach them at least
the basics of mainstream common culture.  And he would argue
that it *necessary* to know this information only to the level
of detail that one would expect it to be common knowledge.
The key is communication.  It may be desireable to have read
Hamlet - but it is important to be (at least) familiar with the
title and author.

  What Hirsch does not argue is that other cultures should
not be taught.  He does not argue that our common culture
is static (in fact, rather the opposite).  And he doesn't
argue that the list of examples he gives in the back of the
book is either comprehensive, exclusive, or static.  He does
not argue for the imposition of a mainstream culture, but
only for an awareness of it.

  And as for the Greeks, certainly a literate person would
know Pandora's Box, probably Prometheus as well.  Not as
myths or plays, but at least the general idea of what they
represent.

  There has been a tendency in the public mind to confuse
Bloom and Hirsch, and to accuse Hirsch of being a closet
facist - intent on dictating to us a literary canon.  But
I'll repeat again - what he suggests is that to be successful
in a cultural context, one must be able to communicate.  To
communicate successfully, one must share in the common
culture.  Neither a shockingly bold idea, nor an assault
on "multicultural" ideals - except in as much as those ideals
include excluding the common culture from the classroom.

  Hirsch also has some related ideas about what he describes
as "content free" education.  But that is not particularly
relevant to this discussion.  I highly recommend, however,
that you read the book yourself.  It is short and easily
read, and he is probably better qualified to discuss his
ideas than I am.

                             -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU