Doing will never be equivalent to doing politics out there in the real-world. It is not the same as lobbying for legislative changes or school reform. It is not the same as staging boycotts or demonstrations. It is not the same as working in soup kitchens or domestic violence shelters. It is not even the same as literacy tutoring or developing written documents for non-profit organizations. But why would we want literary studies to be/do these practices exclusively? As multiethnic literary specialists, it is incumbent upon us to carve out the niche for multiethnic literature in cultural politics. That is, we must decide what is unique to multiethnic literature that makes its work valuable and relevant. (1) In Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education, Martha Nussbaum considers the relationship between liberal education and citizenship, or the cultivation of (9), in a world that is inescapably multicultural and multinational (8). She argues that the citizen who cultivates her humanity sees beings bound to all other human beings by ties of recognition and concern (10). Among the abilities this citizen needs is what Nussbaum refers to as the narrative (10), the ability to see the world through the experiences and perspectives of individuals different from oneself (10-11). The arts and, in particular, literature, especially those works that unsettle and disturb (100), cultivat[e] powers of imagination that are essential to citizenship (85). Thus, I want to suggest that multiethnic literature's value to social change lies in its imaginative capacities. Inspired change in the public sphere is simply not possible without fostering creativity in our students, and attending to the creativity in literature is one way to accomplish this objective. We can and must make literature relevant without denying its distinctiveness. Imagination, the ability to envision a better world, is key to social progress, and it is what distinguishes, but does not privilege, literature from other forms of discourse. But how does literature cultivate the powers of the imagination, thus making social change possible, even if not immediate? As I confront this most vexing issue, I examine and critique two seemingly rival strands within the discipline: the notion that multiethnic literary pedagogies are insufficiently political and the claim that the reading and teaching of multiethnic literature has become merely instrumental. Next, I draw upon the aesthetic theories of Satya Mohanty and Murray Krieger to argue that multiethnic literature can serve both aesthetics and left politics. (2) I then suggest strategies to integrate the aesthetic and the political in the multiethnic literature classroom. Beyond the Politicized Text: Is the Text Enough? For many critical theorists today, literature is viewed with suspicion (Bell 487), and aesthetics is equated with the status quo and efforts to dominate and oppress others. From this perspective, by passing on to generations of students Western virtues and ideas through the study of the Great Books, literary studies reinscribes hegemonic knowledge and social injustices. From its inception, multicultural studies interrogated and challenged the traditional canon, both in terms of the texts included and criteria for inclusion. Traditional aesthetic standards were rightfully perceived as socially constructed by dominant power groups, and it became clear that works of literature not fitting these standards were excluded and marginalized and that works by women and minorities would never be given a fair hearing. It thus made sense to eschew traditional criteria of literariness to allow for new voices and texts to be valued in scholarship and classrooms and, at the same time, to immerse students in the inevitably politicized nature of reading texts by writers from marginalized ethnic cultures. …
Read full abstract
Sep 1, 2010
Tara Fenwick 
Open Access