Sitrep 1: Jan. 26^th, 2025

As we have spent time this past week contemplating the challenges of canon and its existential necessity, I’ve appreciated the responses and insights of my peers as they highlighted resonant textual statements and viewpoints of the scholars we have been examining. I was struck by many of the points made in our class forum, though space and time are narrowing my response here to a single point made by Andrew that has evinced further reflection on my part, albeit in directions that spin off from the original intent of the argument being made.

In the very crudest of terms, canon equals exclusivity by just about any way one might define the word. Our readings suggest there is a.) likely a high degree of agreement with that definition, and b.) that it is a troubling feature. Yet, I want to trouble the troubled for a moment by asking if there are any worthy arguments to be made for exclusion. My reasons for reversing the conversation to a point others seem to have moved forward from do not stem from the usual aesthetic standards or academic gatekeeping rationales, but from a point made in Andrew’s writing: “According to Sara Ahmed, when talking about people who work on diversity documents within the university, there is an exhaustion that plagues the people who keep trying to fight for a more truly diverse and inclusive space. You are in a position to fight forever, not having a moment of rest in a world beyond human constructs, or you become resigned to a nihilist's prison. A prison of your own choosing. One might imagine Sisyphus happy, but it’s also true to imagine him between exertion and exhaustion” (emphasis added).

The comparison of diversity and inclusion efforts to the Sisyphean task brings home a clear point – the impossibility of fully realizing inclusion. True inclusion, played to its end, is simply everything and everyone that exists. And we all know that in the context of societal functioning and the institution of canon, that is an impossibility. It is impossible in the scope of a topic of study, impossible when attempting to incorporate all the viewpoints in a particular classroom in a particular discussion, impossible when designing a course, impossible in the offering of an academic credential, impossible in the trajectory of a scholar’s entire career of learning. And if inclusivity is functionally impossible, and one does not wish to be a nihilist, but rather prefers to throw one’s lot in with Dr. King’s more hopeful long historical arc towards justice (Dr. King’s remembrance was another moment that didn’t receive sufficient attention this past week), how does one proceed? Because in the end we are back to simply determining where the borders of exclusivity are drawn, whether we term this process as “canon,” call it something else, or proceed without a conclusion. Which leads me back to wondering if there is a philosophical/moral case to be made for exclusion?  Is there any possibility of “correctly” arriving at an aesthetically and morally defensible canon? Or if not, is there good to be had in practices of exclusion?

A second quote from Andrew has pointed my thinking in a direction: “Most popular narratives tell students to learn Spanish as a second language because it will aid and benefit them in the future.  But that's not how language works. You contribute to the English lexicon for generations to come because you add words and inflections constantly. There is no contribution towards Spanish, nothing to add. Only something to take” (emphasis added).

In thinking about a cultural tradition, here defined by a common language, as something that is dynamic and continually reshaped by the contributions and yes, challenges, of those who belong to that tradition by virtue of a shared communicative element, one can begin to paint an exclusionary construct like language in a generative and positive light. Language is dynamic, constantly evolving, but only through the efforts of those who work within its traditions and constructs. Those on the outside can only take something from the tradition at a static point in time from the efforts and battles that have occurred among those within. Language, and by extension cultural traditions, are necessarily defined by what they have excluded. Spanish is not Japanese is not Cree is not Basque (https://jamesmacmillan.wordpress.com/2023/01/31/etymology-by-billy-collins/), and it is precisely because of this that people can be exposed to an infinite variety of social traditions and diverse ways of knowing. It is also precisely because of this that one can find a tradition to which one belongs, even if that belonging is manifested in belligerent acts, uprisings and repeals of the normative state. In summary, exclusion, not inclusion, is what equals diversity. Diversity doesn’t exist without exclusion. Exclusion is a necessary condition for diverse traditions to emerge and evolve.

If we allow then, that diversity requires exclusion, it means that one has to choose between diversity and inclusion. Both together are an ultimate impossibility. Hence, the entrance of Sisyphus. If we have established already that inclusion is impossible and we accept the idea that diversity is a positive, then the positive outcome of exclusion is diversity, and this has a direct bearing on the idea of canon. In short, it means that we cannot have a single canon. We need to have multiple canons, and multiple ways of allowing canons to form according to the values of distinct sets of people who define and redefine sets of standards by which cultural artifacts are taught, made, and evaluated. And we need to allow those processes to occur within various exclusionary ways of knowing that are part of specific, yet diverse, canonical traditions. As a result, what the aim of education might be is not to attempt to include all things (or even a grouping of all worthy things) into one’s pedagogy, but to work towards fostering equity of opportunity for each student to find their canon, appropriately framing which canon is being taught when, without insisting that any student chooses one kind of canon over another. Pedagogues can provide exposure to at least a tentative breadth of available canons and an in-depth experience with some. A sensitive and knowledgeable teacher might aim to lead each student to find the canon or canons that said student might wholly take from AND contribute to, ensuring the ongoing evolution of a diverse array of canonical traditions.