Look sexist pigs right in the eye: reasons for studying old men
It was September. I was in the middle of my unit on Shakespeare. There was a sense of gratitude in the air as my ninth graders fell in love with stories about star crossed lovers. Then my whole world crashed. A student, in the back row, slammed down her copy of Romeo and Juliet as she demanded a ban on literature that shows girls as enamored weaklings with knives.
I calmly disagreed with her. Then she ran to the dean to complain about the filth I was teaching in Honors English. Is this really the place I want to be as a teacher? Isn't it my job to present the material and help my students make sense of the modern day equivalent of Gossip Girl. I say, let’s look these macho men writers in the eyes to see what’s behind their debatable words.?How could the work of sexist pigs make sense to the enlightened feminist reader of the new millennium? Many scholars today debate the true relevance of studying the misogynist tales of the past. I say- bring it on!
To understand what motivates writers, a scholar must think like writers in the context of when the artists wrote their manuscripts. Furthermore, writers' work must be somewhat exonerated from modern social belief systems or prejudices. There is value in studying work that is considered, for example, misogynistic in today's standards. Students must look at structure, language, syntax and universal concepts such as love, revenge and sorrow but continue to deconstruct text with the notion of how past beliefs form ideas. And therefore, one must study Literature in its original historical context. Often, writers, such as Shakespeare, are influenced directly, or even on a subconscious level, to the?texts and politics and social norms of the times. If one looks at Plato's *Symposium*, the debate that surrounds this play is: "what is the highest and most authentic form of love?" By the end of the play, the philosophers?arrive at the decision that the love between two men is the most elevated expression of love. Moreover, the love of two men is less conditional than a heterosexual relationship, since the motive behind this brand of love is to bear children.?
Before getting out the Rainbow Banners(which I admit, Plato was super open minded about relationships in many ways) let's examine the underpinning of Plato's explanation of the ultimate crush. In the historical context of Plato's time, white men are perceived as Athen’s intellectual superiors and therefore increasing the contact between two males would be perceived as the highest form of love. Furthermore, homosexuality, was not perceived as immoral (as it is today by the far Christian right) but in fact celebrated as superior to heterosexual relationships. During the period when Plato wrote his dialogues, Athens hadn't been infiltrated with Christian values which historically had shuns homosexuality. The pre-biblical Greeks embraced many expressions of love, but at the same time, continued to preach male superiority as Greek women were considered property- equal to enslaved people. Just when I thought Plato cared about me!
To fully understand the essential conflict of *Symposium*It would be important to delve into the philosophical debates of the time as well as Plato's own belief system of duality (the highest form of being to achieve enlightenment) in order to fully connect with the author's purpose. Plato found inspiration for his theories from his interactions with his fellow citizens of Athens, and his education based on philosophical understanding and the plays of Aristophanes. And in the writer's minds, the discussions that he/she came across became infused in dialogues and plays.?
If a scholar never disseminates?the historical background of Shakespeare and Plato (free from constraints of 21st century interpretation) then the reader wouldn't truly be able to embrace the author's purpose of work or understand the conflicts that emerged from the playwright's debates and controversies of his or her time. Would ignoring the historical ramifications be considered unethical when analyzing literature? No, but readers wouldn't be able to access the plays as fully as if they studied the historical context behind theatrical writing. The capability to acquire meaning from literature depends on tapping into the writer's thought process while constructing art whether an audience agrees or disagrees with the ideas presented on the page. Reading a play in the?historical context is important for the purpose of understanding the author’s motivation or at least where these thoughts derived and ultimately the acquisition of text.?
To cancel out great works for the injustices they present, in my mind, is just as incriminating as the macho vibrato many scholars detest for the obvious of reasons. Ideally, evaluation is to rate text not for its value systems but based on why and how these ideas manifested many years ago in the first place. In order for the readers to understand history at its most unflattering, yet honest level, modern intellects must embrace piggish ethics presented in classic literature for the purpose of simply knowing. Isn't that what we should do as thinkers? Modern readers can only work with what they have. In the end, the ultimate goal must be the pursuit of truth. Sure, I want Juliet to break up with Romeo and start a career in marketing but-it ain't gonna happen. But isn't that why we buy stage side seats? In the end, it is a good story of the piggish past. Now go deconstruct Finnegan's Wake and call me in the morning. We have a lot to talk about.