Robert Scholes offers an analysis of the origins of the word canon in his book The Rise and Fall of English which shows the etymology of canon and cannon as the same: rooted in Greek “kanna: reed; and kanôn: straight rod, bar, ruler, reed (of a wind organ), rule, standard, model, severe critic, metrical scheme, astrological table, limit, boundary, assessment for taxation” (104, citing Liddell and Scott). Scholes notes that the English cane is a cognate, and the “common theme in these extensions [of the use of the word] is power” (105). The use of cane as a verb its relation to canon is shown when Sholes writes, “Many a native in India had Shakespeare as well as other canonical texts caned into him by the currricular arm of the British Raj. The empire was based on its cannon, canon, and canes — to a startling degree” (107). The use of a textual canon is a fuction of disciplinarity, and Scholes also makes a link between canonization and monotheism: “[T]he tendency to canonize and apocryphize is a feature of monotheistic or totalizing forms of thought” (108-109).
I found all of this discussion really interesting. Is canonization violence? Is the enforcement of the canon on youth, especially youth who do not identify within the dominant paradigm (white, middle class, heterosexual, Christian, male) violence? Scholes doesn’t make the argument that the canon should be eliminated: “What I am opposed to is the pretense that there may be some cosmic canon that transcends all institutions because it is based on an unexaminable and unchallengeable Absolute [like Western Civ and Great Books contends]” (111). This use of the Absolute (claiming there is Spirit in these texts, or better Imagination) is a way to mystify the process, which makes access into the canon by others even harder: How does one insert a text into the canon when no one can detail what Imagination is, and no one can prove that an Other text (by a black woman, by a queer farmer) has this alleged Imagination.
In the end, Scholes is much more interested in “a canon of concepts, precepts, and practices rather than a canon of texts” (120), which I like the idea of a lot, and the coursework he suggests at the end of this chapter sounds fun and exciting (for me!). His suggestion for courses also seems to be a good way to question Culture instead of just transmitting Culture (though it could easily be perverted for just the latter).
Interesting stuff…
Scholes, Robert. “A Flock of Cultures: A Trivial Proposal.” In The Rise and Fall of English: Reconstructing English as a Discipline. New Haven: Yale UP, 1998. 103-127.
How lucky you are taking Lit and Pedagogy this summer too – what an inspiration – I loved that class, loved Scholes.
Of course the canon is violent – in who is included (hegemony) and who is excluded. I was thinking about the concept of canon (cannonizing saints) with the question of blogs – InstaPundit is cool and in the canon; Suzie-Q’s MySpace page is definitely outre`. The 4 canonized gospels are in, and the many other gospels are beyond the pale, heresies.