Dropping the Canon Bomb

Is ‘the canon’ not like the caviar of literature? For a large proportion of the worldwide population, reading scales low on the priority list, and even for those who do read, the canon is classified as boutique consumption – as John Guillory says in so many words in Cultural Captial: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation, the canon is not the daily news. 

I agree with concept of egalitarianism. But in an ideal scenario where everyone has an equal opportunity to write, and there is equal opportunity to read those texts, are the demographics of ‘canonised’ authors really important?

Which leads me to ponder: is it possible that the canon is just inherently prejudiced? And that it’s difficult to sit with the notion that we idolise the work of a group of predominantly white, male, upper-class, caviar-munchers? And that, as Guillory explains, the act of ‘opening up the canon’ stems from a politically based drive to “reconstruct it as a true image (a true representation) of social diversity"?

Guillory says that any reconsideration “of canon critique in its political context must begin with the notion of “social identity”.”  And so 'opening up' the canon is about trying to strike social balance by including authors from social minority backgrounds.  There are infinite ways a text ‘represents’ a social group, among them: what is written (message), how it is written (voice) and by whom it was written (author).  A text written about a minority group is not the same as a text emerging authentically from that group.  As an shining example, it’s been suggested the Miles Franklin given to The Hand That Signed the Paper was geared to capitalise on the author’s Ukranian-ness, constituting a multicultural ‘opening up’ of the Aussie canon.  But, as evident from the fallout of Demidenko’s ‘hoax’ identity, the literary world still hasn’t decided where to situate a text in which the message, voice and author are incongruous. Can a text that loses its integrity still be used to ‘open up’ the canon?

If the canon manifests itself in educational syllabus, then maybe tokenistic box-ticking is the chief method of ensuring a text ‘authentically’ fits all three categories. I wonder, do schools and universities actually, consciously, seek out texts by authors from “marginalized race, class or gender identity”? Are these authors the kind that Guillory says "returns in the critique of the canon, not as the genius, but as the representative of social identity"?

On the other hand, perhaps this ‘authentic’ minority status evaporates as soon as the text actually finds a spot in the canon; as Guillory attests, “it is only as canonical works that certain texts can be said to represent hegemonic social groups. Conversely, it is only as noncanonical works that certain other texts can truly represent socially subordinated groups.” Seems like a lose-lose situation!

Guillory also uses this word ‘noncanonical’. What makes a text noncanonical? Simply that it isn’t canonical, or that it bears some other handicap - related to race, sexuality, gender, class or similar - that keeps it oppressed under the literary glass ceiling? What about being a popular text? Is popularity a handicap? Can a text be both popular and canonised? It’s more likely that they’re mutually exclusive categories, kept at opposite ends of the spectrum by the reality that classics tend to lack the novelty and associated hype of the new (except in the case of Popular penguins, which consciously inject coolness into the classics, and I suppose they’ve succeeded, but only to the extent that we’re now drinking from Charles Dickens coffee mugs).

So, as I was saying about caviar. Guillory reminds us that the ‘literary curriculum is precisely not the site of mass cultural production and consumption’.  And how could it be when so few people decide to pursue canon-heavy arts degree?  As university students, I guess we’re also minority group - one that’s overly represented in the canon.