Because of the varying interests of students within any academic department, the curriculum within each major and minor should reflect variety just as wide as those students' interests. As such, the argument can be made for the English department. One good example is the ongoing “Horace Mann University staff meetings” in the advanced essays class. Some students stressed the importance of literature above all else, while those concentrating in English education generally wanted classes that would pertain to their future careers as teachers. Still others thought that creative writing should take the forefront. The need to come together with a concise and complete 16-course curriculum for this assignment made compromise and balance a definite necessity.
Arguments against this can be made. One student argued that literature classes can address most academic needs within the English department. He stated that if taught correctly, the literature classes could teach not only the literary background, but also grammar and spelling, as well as help those going into education with their futures as educators and offer a template for creative writing.
A couple of other students agreed, while others disagreed. Counter arguments were made. How would creative writing be taught from a compositional point of view? How would advanced, college-level lessons in grammar be applied in classes that are focused on content rather than technical aspects? While no opinions were wrong, it was clear that compromise had to happen in order to create a fair and balanced curriculum for all of those involved.
If such in-depth debates were sparked between “staff members,” then how much bigger the conflicts are among students in a curriculum that has not reached a compromise. Thus, it is the faculty and staff who must make sure that as many interests as possible are covered within their department. Deans and other decision makers must be sure not to be biased in any way. Educators must decide how to accommodate for each course's objectives while helping students to get the most out of their education. Both the administration and the professors must work together to make sure that the objectives of each course within the department are a harmonious mixture of practical and theoretical.
Of course, this is speaking on a wider plane, it seems, than that mentioned by a scholar like Scholes. In “Textual Power,” Scholes says, “The field of English is organized by two primary gestures of differentiation, dividing and redividing the field by binary
opposition. First of all, we divide the field into two categories: literature and non-literature” (5). Further down the page he defines literature as classic “texts” that are read and studied in class, and non-literature as anything but, specifically literary criticism and creative writing. Though this broad categorization suits his argument, and though he does mention the “dividing and redividing” of the two, I would say that the line that he draws is slightly off-center as well as exclusive.
In a counterpoint, Graff, though his focus is also on the dichotomy between “literature and non-literature,” tends to at least mention the whole picture. When speaking of the relationship between creative writers and theoreticists, he says that he doesn't see “many signs of curricular collaboration between these factions – or, for that matter, between creative writers and scholars or critics, or between any of these groups and teachers of rhetoric composition” (273). Here, Graff mentions what Scholes failed to acknowledge in his essay, which is that there is more to an English education than simply reading what other people read and responding to it, or attempting to copy the styles of what one has read. I personally would agree, especially given the varied results of our class' assignment in picking 16 courses for an imaginary university's curriculum.
After the presences of other areas of study within the English program have been brought to mind, another issue can be tackled. That is the problem of integration. Should literature, creative writing, language theory, education and other fields be acknowledged as completely separate entities and treated as such, taking care of each one in its own time? Graff mentions that professors “require that those who major or minor in creative writing cover a number of literary periods and genres. How or whether students integrate their creative writing courses within their courses in literature, composition, or theory is left largely to students to figure out on their own” (272). This is where I return to a subject upon which I lightly touched earlier, and that is the importance of defining course objectives in a way that will apply knowledge across the curriculum rather than just in the field denoted in the course title. As a practical person, I think it is essential to learning – be it in the classroom, in the workplace, or in life in general – to apply related knowledge wherever it is applicable. For instance, a creative writing assignment might be to study short bits of literature to find a style or theme that suits the student as a writer. Likewise, in a literature class, assignments to write brief creative pieces of writing based on the styles being studied at a given time might help students to apply the theories with which they are working. Of course, none of these blended assignments could take the place of an actual, separate course in another subject, but the results could be a more complete and satisfying educational experience for students and professors alike. Students could break the potentially boring cycle of reading and responding, or writing without direction. Professors might better see the potential of their students and also maybe witness something new. Also, I would imagine that plenty of people wouldn't mind breaking the monotony of a class singly focused on one particular subject. The incorporation of different teaching techniques could add a new dimension to otherwise two-dimensional course work.
Of course, the issue of balance works in many ways in this situation. Not only must activities be integrated between subjects, but also there must be boundaries within the activities. As Bernstein illustrated so well through example in the latter portions of “Frame Lock,” writing in a class focused on linguistics, for example, should at least try to make sense and form a clear thought through the use of language. Creative writing could certainly be used in a class focused in something like linguistics, but in general, I would think it to be a good idea to leave the random, experimental styles to a class designated for such a thing. It is important for a writer to consider his or her audience in order to communicate effectively, and I would judge by Bernstein's writing that he would support this idea.
On the subject of communication, I would say that this is the key to beginning anything that I have previously mentioned here. Graff says, “I think that our isolation from each other, which deprives us of the possibility of helping each other, makes our jobs harder and less pleasurable in the long run – not least by depriving our students of a continuing conversation that they might join, by leaving them confused about the relationships between courses and instructors, and by forcing them to start over virtually from scratch with every new instructor” (273). In this way, we see both student and professor benefits. By unifying the system, students gain a standard by which they might judge their own work. Ask any group of students which professors they would recommend and why, and you will get a fair amount of agreements about which ones grade the hardest, which ones have the strangest quirks, which ones favor certain styles of writing, etc. In a grand unification throughout the department, a certain level of objectivity can be gained in that professors will understand each other more and will be better equipped to handle each other's needs. This, as Graff said, would make the job much easier overall.
English, by nature, is quite a broad subject. As a form of communication – a language – it encompasses many facets and has many uses. As a reflection of this, by recognizing all of the different subsets within the English department, getting over personal biases, compromising and communicating, a new, unified and efficient format for the department can exist. It might take a little motivation and action, but the benefits would be outstanding and well worth the effort.
