684
PARTISAN REVIEW
sics of our humanities tradition and the writings of a California-based
thug and convicted felon is so absurd that one hesitates to take it seri–
ously, except for the fact that the claim was published in a most distin–
guished educational publication . What Vann and Kunjufui ask for is
clearly not education but a politicized curriculum meant to instill pride
in ghetto residents - out of a false belief that mythological history, such
as Karenga's Kwaanza holiday - will provide the inspiration to lift up
the black underclass. Juxtaposing multiculturalism and Afrocentrism as
one and the same, they write that "all students would benefit from an
Afrocentrist, multicultural curriculum," They are wrong. Few students,
least of all the very African-American youths they hope to reach, would
benefit.
The academy seems more and more mired in madness. The Modern
Language Association's recent convention featured sessions on "Outing
Goethe ... Homosexuality and Heterotextuality," whatever the latter is.
Papers were presented on such topics as "Cruisin' for a Bruisin':
Hollwood's Deadly Lesbian Dolls" and "Henry James and Queer
Performativity." The historical profession is only slightly less guilty. The
most recent issue of
The journal oj American History
features as its lead ar–
ticle, "America's Boy Friend Who Can't Get a Date: Gender, Race and
the Cultural Work of the Jack Benny Program, 1932-1946." Having read
the article, I cannot decide whether the late comedian would be flat–
tered to have learned that he was engaging in "cultural work ," or to
find that the author had posthumously outed Benny - by claiming that
his program provided a "homoerotic subtext" that was "depicted safely."
And to think that when I was growing up, I thought I was enjoying a
half-hour of comedy. Now I am informed that by my act of listening, I
was "trying to make sense of a world in economic and social disorder,"
or engaging in valuable cultural work. And hence , the Marxian project
never dies; it just lives on in academia.
I must leave it
to
others
to
suggest how to teach traditions.
Symposia such as this one afford a good opportunity to take on the
multiculturalists. But as usual, the best antidote is solid and meaningful
work of a non-PC character. PC academics talk only to themselves,
while the broad book-buying public, that same public which has made
bestsellers of both Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s book
The Disllllitillg of
America
and Robert Hughes's book on PC and multiculturalism, will
respond intelligently. In the end, the PC academics will find themselves
more and more isolated. May that time be closer than we now think
possible.
