German Literature and Generation X

Abstract

Is there still a market for courses in German literature at North American undergraduate institutions? Large numbers of faculty employed in field continue to behave as if there were. Yet nagging reminders and occasional crisis in our professional environments suggest that Germanists may be only people still convinced of value of studying German literature within a university education. At smaller institutions like my own, administrators regularly call department heads to account for low enrollments in upper-level courses, pointing out that closing them down in favor of well subscribed language courses would be a more efficient use of resources. Once large German departments, now reduced by falling student numbers and hiring freezes, find themselves consolidated with Asian Studies, Classics, Slavic Studies, or whatever departments were down to, say, less than five faculty members. It is left to motley new omnidepartment to define what it has to offer. Often, this means foreign language instruction a la carte, general humanities courses that teach about other cultures in English translation, interdisciplinary courses that attempt to lure students from stronger departments, and for a small handful of majors, selective introductions to literature in original language. At best, this institutional arrangement is perceived as an interesting mix; at worst, as an incoherent muddle. These symptoms of marginalization of Germanistik and of its current identity crisis are familiar enough. Others have described and thoughtfully analyzed them (see for instance Nollendorfs; Van Cleve and Willson). Clearly a serious mismatch has developed between what field has traditionally offered and what its potential consumers-above all students--want or need. Because this is a situation experienced by many colleagues as a painful loss, reactions of denial, anger, or depression are perhaps understandable. On hand, trend toward interdisciplinary collaborations such as German Studies programs has been a creative and often quite successful response to shrinking demand for our services. It encourages one to hope that Germanists will eventually succeed, not merely in repackaging their field in response to external pressures, but in actively transforming it. A key question in this process of transition remains, What can German literature, even broadly defined, actually teach? Critics and observers commonly stress that any re-thinking of field must address pedagogical concerns that are specific to North American post-secondary context. This means, for instance, that teaching practice should take into account essential foreignness of German texts for our students, and that reading lists should reflect our own teaching aims rather than a canon rooted in culture of German-speaking Europe (see, e.g., Nollendorfs 9; Rankin 24). While this is certainly to be applauded, my impression is that much of talk about pedagogy as a factor driving reform occurs over heads of our students. Like faculty in humanities and especially in literature departments, Germanists tend to define their pedagogical aims in terms of their diverse disciplinary and methodological allegiances within academia and its distinct culture (Nollendorfs 4-6). So, for instance, Colleague A teaches the best which has been thought and said by authors of acknowledged greatness, Colleague B teaches feminist approaches to writing and gender, and Colleague C teaches communication theory informed by Frankfurt School. The only thing that seems to make them all Germanists is language of their study examples. But they may well have one thing in common: unques-