JERRY
L.
MAR.TIN
649
have also suffered because of their religion or other factors, but, oddly
enough, even so persistently persecuted a group as Jews receives scant at–
tention in current debates. No one seems to be proposing that more
Jewish texts and topics be added
to
the curriculum - Maimonides and
Spinoza are regarded as just more dead, white, European males. The
problem is, of course, that, despite a history of persecution and discrimi–
nation, American Jews are rather successful. Sometimes there is hesitation
over Asian-Americans, some of whom have been successful, while others
at this point are less so. There even seems to be a bit of irritation when
such groups succeed, refusing merely to be victims, since this success does
not fit with the image of a closed, oppressive capitalist society. The em–
phasis is always on groups that have been oppressed but have not, so far
at least, succeeded. Since some members of various groups - some Asian–
Americans, some Latinos - have been more oppressed or, conversely,
more successful than others, the groupings to be favored have to be fine–
tuned. Gradations have been established among various Asians and
Hispanics, depending on racial background, national origin, and social
class. By these criteria, it would be more important for the curriculum
to include works by Carlos Fuentes than Miguel de Cervantes, but even
more important to include works by a working-class Chicana.
The logic of this position is puzzling.
If
it is important to focus at–
tention on the precise subgroup that has suffered, then why not go all
the way to the individual level? Two individuals may be identical in their
group membership, and yet one may have suffered more hardships or
handicaps than the other.
If
hardships and handicaps are the key to con–
sideration, why not focus on the particular individuals who have suffered
the most? Even if it were true that individual identity were formed pri–
marily out of group affiliations, it would not follow that one should
treat individuals in terms of their group memberships rather than in terms
of their own particular traits and histories.
If
it is valuable to read the
writings of an oppressed person, then one should read the writings of an
individual who was in fact oppressed, not the work of an individual who
happens to be a member of a group, many or most of whose members
were oppressed. Of course, then some members of the white-male–
European canon (the slave Epictetus, for example) would count.
Even more doubtful than the focus on the group is the idea that
some oppressed people "speak for the oppressed," while others do not.
The minority writer who denounces America as hopelessly racist may be
seen as speaking for the oppressed, while the minority writer who sees
America as an increasingly open society may be seen as a tool of the
dominant class.
In
spite of the talk of "other voices," the only voices
that count are those who share the general sociopolitical outlook of the
transformationists. Besides the problems this view poses for academic
