Western canon

[Anonymous No.18017079]

Is the Western canon political? Why/why not?

[Anonymous No.18017109]

>>18017079
Canceled bc history is mean

[Anonymous No.18017123]

>>18017079
The notion of a canon is inherently political because it dictates cultural values by establishing hierarchies that often satisfy the criteria of those in power.

Sure there's lots of "beautiful literature" in the canon—so what? Doesn't make it any less political in its function of defining what is culturally valuable (i.e. worth saving, circulating, sharing, institutionalizing, etc.). to a certain group of people at a given moment in time.

Yes, anyone can read works from the canon and enjoy them—I've read and enjoyed many of them myself. But the reality is that we're not talking about some blogger's top 50 list. Canon formation (in the Western, Anglo-Saxon context) is directly tied to the development of English Literature as an academic discipline, which only dates back a few centuries. Both of these things have to do with institutionalized knowledge and power—in other words, what is worth knowing and teaching. Just because "any person can . . . read the recommended works on his own" doesn't mean the foundations of that list are not political.

[Anonymous No.18017199]

>>18017079
Yes, and that's fine.

[Anonymous No.18017240]

>>18017199
Why do you view it as political?

[Anonymous No.18017353]

>>18017123
isnt that a bit reductive and in itself conforming it to a thesis rather than having it be a dynamic thing? while yes, i would agree its inherently political, you take
> satisfy the criteria of those in power.
as an a prioi concept and a driving motivator, rather than, for instance, understanding it as in part a sequential process. Don Quickoats was immensely influential in its formating and style, and can be in part pointed out as an origin for the western novel formate. Thats not necessarily “keeping those in power” that is an important part of history in its contingent nature. Your phrasology seems to imply, indirectly, that we are outside the chain of sequences in seeing these things through a particular lense, rather than creating a composite form of both. Like how did an analysis from power even develop if not from a continuation from this sequence?

An antithesis is still directly a reflection of a thesis. This is not a utter refutement of that lense, but in recognizing that it itself is a lense, not seperate from the wider whole is healthy from a more wholisitc and dynamic praxis.

[Anonymous No.18017630]

>>18017353
agree

[Anonymous No.18017690]

>>18017079
The idea of the canon is a relatively recent conception and will probably change/adapt over the next few decades.

If you're making a list that excludes and includes things, it seems natural that the guiding principles of that selection process are (to a degree) governed by a political zeitgeist.
For instance, right now, if the American canon were to be assembled from scratch, I would assume that a lot of research would go into looking up previously tossed aside women and people of color. Which isn't "muh diversity" but rather a contemporary awareness that a previous editor might not have been concerned with. For instance, Lawrence Dunbar was a very prominent, influential black poet of the 1900s who was very popular and well respected but fell out of public favor by the 60s so a canon assembled today would probably want to revive his legacy (which undeniably previously existed).

And this is all to say that in any scenario he would deserve a spot in the canon for his art, BUT the political motivation of the editor would determine whether he is actually included - not his merit.

[Anonymous No.18017698]

>>18017109
fpbp

>>18017079
Yes.

There are two genders. God made them. Denying this is denying your assigned nature. Neolib atrocities against their own people have not yet been fully realized.

[Anonymous No.18017735]

>>18017690
>The idea of the canon is a relatively recent conception
no it isnt. I dont disagree with the rest of your statement of the particular vogue of the era changing it somewhat, but the idea of canonisity isnt a new concept.

[Anonymous No.18017773]

>>18017123
>it dictates cultural values by establishing hierarchies that often satisfy the criteria of those in power.
And how is that a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.18017804]

>>18017735
Youre right. I guess I should have said "unified western canon" specifically because that's what i meant. Obv canons existed for every tradition but Im pretty sure the idea of the western world having a shared canon that crosses so many borders, ethnic groups, etc is a late 20th cent thing. Although i may still be wrong on that

[Anonymous No.18017991]

>>18017079
Western Canon is mostly not political, although it of course installs one sort of interpretation of values, hierarchy and means to promote them. But the main function of canon is to map out the intertextuality of Western writing. I wouldn't therefore call Canon political inherintly.

[Anonymous No.18018025]

>>18017123
>The notion of a canon is inherently political because it dictates cultural values by establishing hierarchies that often satisfy the criteria of those in power.

Hierarchies are a natural order that arise from even the lowly ant. That's not to say it's good or bad, but it's application is relevant. A new hierarchy can usurp the old one with different ideology but it will STILL seek to satisfy itself: that is another basic truth of humans that is inescapable.

[Anonymous No.18018042]

>>18017804
>Youre right. I guess I should have said "unified western canon" specifically because that's what i meant.
I agree if you take canonicity from a very narrow view of it as a monolyth, but I think that in itself is a caricature of the idea itself by people who want to be seen as going against the grain or people who want to be seen as going with the grain without even knowing what it is.

Someone like russel of copleston, both people who could be said to push the idea of a canon in the 20th century, do not present it as a monolyth, just as major influential steps in developmental and thematic history. Things like the bible, The illiad, Quickoats, Dantes’s, in literature, or plato, Aquinus and descartes in phil. Then there are more disputable things that came into zeitgiest after the fact like Moby Dick. Its not something at the exclusion of others, its lines of iconographic particulars in regards to historical contingencies in gestalt.

You can pick out things that are very important that are not usually seen as part of the usually big hitters, and hell, they may at some point be considered part of the canon, you might even be a person who leads it to that status, but thats the nature of a gestalt. if you are forwarding something because it is “not” the canon or depreciating something because it is “not” the canon, you are depreciating its very nature of iconography.

[Anonymous No.18018175]

>>18017690
>The idea of the canon is a relatively recent conception
Roman education was all about recognising their canon, with the mark of an educated person being making allusions to those and recognising them.

While I agree with the relativism of canon the idea of "classic works an educated person should know" is old.

[Anonymous No.18018213]

>>18017123
>the criteria of those in power
the western canon NOW is disident culture, not mainstream and not the culture that those in power want
yes, people in power force a specific culture for different reasons.
that doesn't mean that all the culture are the same or that there are things that are not better than others, more beautifull or more truthfull
western canon is simple better than globo homo transexual jewish degeneracy
the influx of semitic pseud oaristocracy in the west produced a cultural swamp completely antagonic to the western european spirit and sense of aesthetics
"just talking about power" is for french bolshevik posmodernist homosexuals that want to fuck little kids and die of aids

[Anonymous No.18018253]

>>18018213
go home. i get your jist, but go home and learb how to enunciate yourself better.

[Anonymous No.18018259]

>>18017079
It shouldn't be. But it is. Liberalism actively seeks to smash Western civ bit by bit, so the Western canon is inherently right-wing.

[Anonymous No.18018411]

>>18017079
It's civilizational. The necessary separation of high and low, known and unknown, in order to create a coherent body of work from which an overarching weltanschauung in which artists can occupy a special exhausted position in society.

Of course, not every political movement sees itself reflected in this weltanschauung. Most don't, actually. In the works of Shakespeare there's nothing that can be used to motivate people to vote Republican or to vote Democrat, rather it represents an authentic humanistic tradition that looks down on the present moment from above, and while capable of passing judgement, never offers the kind of unconditional political support ideologues require from their citizenry.

I think this is the biggest danger of people like >>18017123. They claim objectivity, but since nobody is objective we have to take their words with a grain of salt. Statements like
>Canon formation is directly tied to the development of English Literature as an academic discipline, which only dates back a few centuries.

Sound profound, but English has only existed as a standardized written language for a few centuries. Many Anglos would like to ignore that they are a relatively new race of peoples, and that while they were living in destitute barbarism the world-spirit lived comfortably in the east for over a thousand years.

By negating the particular sense of existing-within-history and existing-within-culture, something that can only take a subjective (and, if we are good Nietzscheans, elitist) existence, we aren't freed from subjectivity, we're tricked into believing that our subjectivity is in fact a objective and universal state-- which in the eyes of the government and the American people is the causi belli of so many pointless wars on foreign soil.

No peoples can live on good terms with other peoples without a confidence in their own racial existence, because if they do not respect their own particular beliefs and feelings (with the understanding that those feelings are rooted in a special history which is their own), how can they possibly respect the beliefs and feelings and history of any other peoples?

The war against the canon is one of many actions the US government has taken to make its white citizens feel an unmerited sense of existential anxiety. No other race has the strength of white america, yet no other race is so insecure about its continued existence. This is by design, because it allows for the ruling powers in America (who for the most part have their own tribe, their own religion, and their own historical ontology) to frame the never ending acts of aggression and international crimes they engage in as purely defensive actions, which are justified according to a universalist framework that coincidentally happens to agree with everything the state wishes to accomplish.

[Anonymous No.18018420]

>>18018411
>No other race has the strength of white america
The chinks are BTFOing you. The nigs are fucking your wives. Whats so great about that?

[Anonymous No.18018434]

>>18018420
Thanks for proving my point.

[Anonymous No.18018469]

>>18018434
Losing is proving your point? Good to know.

[Anonymous No.18018742]

>>18018469
America isn't surrounded by Chinese military, it's the opposite. Even if America decided the cede the entire Pacific ocean to China, they would still be on very much equal footings as two great world powers.
At no point in history has being equal to the emperor of China been considered a bad thing. If it wasn't for a cultivated sense of insecurity (which is always heavily promoted by the powers that be), Americans could confidently address their many internal issues, instead of jumping from one war to another as though the fucking Taliban represents an existential threat to America.
Same with the sexual insecurity. No other country promotes that racist cuck shit the way the USA does, and it's been used as a tool to stir up resentment against black americans (a pretty hard race to resent if we're going to be honest, they've had a miserable history) so that the institutions that already exist (slavery, prison industrial complex, the southern democratic vote) can continue to exist undisturbed.
White America is one of the wealthiest, most successful, most internationally celebrated ethnic groups in the entire world. They aren't losing to anybody, and if you step out of your American bubble they aren't even competing with anybody. If America was a confident civilization they could appreciate this fact, make a realistic assessment of themselves, and fix their many domestic problems.
Instead they are presented a schizophrenic narrative of domination and defeat, where being anything less than the #1 good goy means that their children will be forced to learn Chinese and their wives will leave them for black men.

[Anonymous No.18018750]

>>18018742
cope

[Anonymous No.18018777]

>>18018750
I’m not that anon, but do you have anything of substance to contribute?

[Anonymous No.18018783]

>>18018777
All you have to do is see PornHub's searches by country. Cuck porn leads in the US.

[Anonymous No.18018809]

>>18018411
*special exalted position in society
Not exhausted, but a position of excellence that affords immortality for a select few great artists as a reward for their contributions to their host civilization.

[Anonymous No.18018828]

>>18018783
Once again proving that anon's point, you're just too stupid to have basic reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.18018843]

>>18018783
>pornographic preferences are directly correlated with the dominant forces of a nation
I understand your point. But you’re operating on the assumption that the ruling members of the country are in the same group as the cuck porn watchers. Further, you would have to assume that sexual preferences/fetishes manifest in a similar way outwardly as they do inwardly and this is not necessarily true. In many cases, dominant men who have submissive wives will often enter affairs with dominant women to be on the receiving end of things.
Since you’re not explaining your position, what if it were the case that of the cuck porn watchers, a higher majority were black? How would that change your analysis?
I personally enjoy watching women ride fake dicks because I like to meditate, dick in hand, on their technique, physique, and how they build a dramatic sense of tension.

[Anonymous No.18018882]

>>18018783
>The war against the canon is one of many actions the US government has taken to make its white citizens feel an unmerited sense of existential anxiety. No other race has the strength of white america, yet no other race is so insecure about its continued existence. This is by design, because it allows for the ruling powers in America (who for the most part have their own tribe, their own religion, and their own historical ontology) to frame the never ending acts of aggression and international crimes they engage in as purely defensive actions, which are justified according to a universalist framework that coincidentally happens to agree with everything the state wishes to accomplish.
>White America is one of the wealthiest, most successful, most internationally celebrated ethnic groups in the entire world. They aren't losing to anybody, and if you step out of your American bubble they aren't even competing with anybody. If America was a confident civilization they could appreciate this fact, make a realistic assessment of themselves, and fix their many domestic problems.
>Instead they are presented a schizophrenic narrative of domination and defeat, where being anything less than the #1 good goy means that their children will be forced to learn Chinese and their wives will leave them for black men.
Keep slaving away for your jew masters though. Just remember that the only way you're deserving of love or security is by being the best.

[Anonymous No.18018893]

>>18018882
Hail Israel
שאלוהים יגן על העם היהודי וישראל