688
Johnson and Angela Davis; even of
Harold Bloom, whose own revision
involved restoring the reputation of
the Romantic poets at the expense of
the anti-Semitic modernists-all of
whom, I would add, are certainly part
of the aforementioned "literary and
intellectual community" so obviously
in consensus.
Despite these disagreements, I do
agree that wholesale substitution of
Western classics with other, lesser
known works is, indeed, questionable;
but the more reasonable of us argue
that what is needed is supplementa–
tion, not substitution. Perhaps, in the
past, many could have lived on Great
Books alone, but not anymore as
mass education has become a reality.
Unfortunately, given the restraints
of time, supplementation does mean
that some standard Western classics
would have to go, and I would rather
sacrifice a few such works (while
retaining others) to promote a
thoughtful pluralism than keep out
these currently "marginal" works at
any cost just to maintain a tradition
that will become further and further
out of step with my future students'
needs.
Lastly, the assertion that "the
pluralism advocated by the radicals
has more to do with the academic
pursuit of their own interests than
with educating the enormous variety
of students created by un–
differentiated mass education" is a
gross overstatement. There are just
as many who really do care about
students' interests as there are those
pursuing their own careers in their
advocation of pluralism. If you don't
believe me, ask the adjuncts who
have given up using the Norton
PARTISAN REVIEW
Anthology to instruct New York's
City College students. Believe me ,
they have no reputational axe to
grind.
The more intelligent recognize that
the convergence of career and stu–
dent needs meet at the point of
marketability. The much-bemoaned
revisionism would not be so "in
vogue" if it were not for market
forces responding to an obvious de–
sire or need for such reading matter.
Do you think the ever-growing
number of homosexual students will
continue to be interested in a canon
much of whose literature
concentrates on heterosexual rela–
tions?
In the end, perhaps the real
difference between
those
representing "special" interests and
those representing "scholarly" ones
is that the former are willing to admit
the human basis of their choices,
while the latter are constantly taking
recourse to some farfetched
objectivity, which whether true or not,
often serves as an excuse to avoid
looking at the political consequences
of their arguments.
William Phillips replies:
Bennett Graff
New York
Unfortunately, Mr. Graff repeats
the arguments of the revisionists,
which , as I indicated, distort the
history of Western literature, twist
the purposes of education , and
represent political rather than
literary concerns. But to answer his
specific points:
