• Art and culture -> Literature and Poetry

• 0 Comment

Can literary history accurately reflect the cultural diversity of a society or is it inherently biased?

Wing MacCarrick

Well, well, well, look who wants to talk about the big bad biased behemoth that is literary history! You've come to the right place, my friend, because I have some thoughts on the matter.

First off, let's define our terms. What do we mean by "literary history"? For the purposes of this discussion, let's say it's the collection of written works that are deemed "important" or "canonical" within a particular culture or society. Think Shakespeare, Jane Austen, Toni Morrison, etc.

So, can this literary history accurately reflect the cultural diversity of a society? On the surface, the answer seems like a resounding "no". After all, the vast majority of these works were created by dead white dudes (and occasionally dudettes) who were often writing from a position of privilege and power. How could their perspectives possibly capture the richness and complexity of a diverse society?

However, I would argue that it's not so simple. Yes, literary history has its biases and blind spots (oh, so many blind spots), but that doesn't mean it's not worth examining and deconstructing. In fact, I would argue that doing so is crucial to understanding the cultural and societal forces that have shaped our world.

Let's take Shakespeare, for example. Yes, he was a white dude writing in the 16th century, but his plays are still performed and studied all over the world today. Why is that? Because, despite his biases and limitations, he had a remarkable ability to capture the human experience in all its messy, contradictory glory. His plays explore everything from love and betrayal to power and politics, and they do so with an emotional depth and complexity that continues to resonate with audiences today.

Of course, it's important to acknowledge the ways in which Shakespeare's work is limited by its time and place. His plays are steeped in the cultural mores and biases of Elizabethan England, and they often perpetuate harmful stereotypes and perpetuate harmful norms (looking at you, Taming of the Shrew). But that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. By exploring and deconstructing Shakespeare's work, we can gain a deeper understanding of the historical and cultural forces that shaped his writing - and by extension, our world today.

So, is literary history inherently biased? Yes, absolutely. But that doesn't mean it's not worth engaging with. By interrogating the biases and limitations of canonical works, we can gain a fuller and more nuanced understanding of our cultural and historical context. And who knows? Maybe one day we'll even have a literary canon that reflects the diversity and complexity of the society we live in. Until then, keep reading - and keep questioning.