What's English?
Parker’s essay reminded me of the relative newness of English and its tortuous and checkered history. His essay made me come back to questions and ideas, such as what does anyone really teach?, why do they teach it?, and, in general, how certain areas of knowledge get attached to a particular label. It is interesting, for example, how “English” courses in our middle and high schools seem to fall under a great variety of vague labels. Some are called “English”, others are called “Language Arts”, others “English Language Arts”, others “Humanities”, still others “Social Studies/Humanities”. As Parker remarks in his essay, “’English’ has never really defined itself as a discipline. Before 1883, as we have seen, it was associated chaotically with rhetoric, logic, history, and many another definable subject” (13). My own 6th grade course is called “Language Arts”. It’s a rather odd title, really. What exactly does it mean? Does it mean the art of language? And does that mean any language? And why is “Art” in the plural form? Why not “Language Art”? Or “Art Language”?
Parker also remarks several lines earlier that “English departments became the catchall for the work of extremely diverse interests and training” (13). Indeed, I sense this in my “Language Arts” classroom. Last year, for example, we read Farewell to Manzanar. Is this even appropriate for a “Language Arts” class? It’s history, really, no? Anyhow, I started the unit off with a short lecture on Asian immigration into California and the challenges Asians faced such as the various Exclusion Acts. I gave them a sense of the atmosphere in California in 1941 and then concluded with the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the heightened alarm over Japanese-Americans. Well, that lecture belongs in a history class, doesn’t it? What the hell am I doing? Well, I can take comfort in the fact that I am not alone. Many middle and high schools, in fact, teach this book under the “catchall” umbrella of “English”.
It makes me a little ashamed, really, that I seem to be part of a discipline that is really not a discipline at all. I feel like a leech, taking a bit of every other subject that suits my fancy and putting it under my “Language Arts” umbrella. On the other hand, that is what I love about the vagueness of it, since I seem to have the greatest liberty out of any of the other subject teachers in terms of what I can pull into the classroom. In fact, I think that is what good teaching is really about — namely, the process of exploring one area of interest and following it to all the various places(“subjects”) it leads you. In this sense, our schools should be filled with only “English” teachers.
“Where Do English Departments come From?" (1967) by William Riley Parker. Excerpted from The Norton
Book of Composition Studies (Vol. 1, pp. 3-16). London, England: W.W. Norton, 2009. Susan Miller (Ed.).
Parker also remarks several lines earlier that “English departments became the catchall for the work of extremely diverse interests and training” (13). Indeed, I sense this in my “Language Arts” classroom. Last year, for example, we read Farewell to Manzanar. Is this even appropriate for a “Language Arts” class? It’s history, really, no? Anyhow, I started the unit off with a short lecture on Asian immigration into California and the challenges Asians faced such as the various Exclusion Acts. I gave them a sense of the atmosphere in California in 1941 and then concluded with the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the heightened alarm over Japanese-Americans. Well, that lecture belongs in a history class, doesn’t it? What the hell am I doing? Well, I can take comfort in the fact that I am not alone. Many middle and high schools, in fact, teach this book under the “catchall” umbrella of “English”.
It makes me a little ashamed, really, that I seem to be part of a discipline that is really not a discipline at all. I feel like a leech, taking a bit of every other subject that suits my fancy and putting it under my “Language Arts” umbrella. On the other hand, that is what I love about the vagueness of it, since I seem to have the greatest liberty out of any of the other subject teachers in terms of what I can pull into the classroom. In fact, I think that is what good teaching is really about — namely, the process of exploring one area of interest and following it to all the various places(“subjects”) it leads you. In this sense, our schools should be filled with only “English” teachers.
“Where Do English Departments come From?" (1967) by William Riley Parker. Excerpted from The Norton
Book of Composition Studies (Vol. 1, pp. 3-16). London, England: W.W. Norton, 2009. Susan Miller (Ed.).