Students name
Professor
Course
Date
American cultural canon
whether the American cultural literary is still important or is no longer important remains a question for most discussions. The relevance of contemporary writing is unarguably significant in shaping modern works. However, modernism comes with trends and new ways of doing things. With new issues in society comes to new ideas to solve them. With that in mind, there is no need to bring contemporary writings to modern society. Modern institutions prepare pupils to interact with the real world and become survivors. The American cultural canon is not important in the current literature. Literary canon describes the literature classification based on certain criteria. I have based my stand on some of the theories underpinning the existence of literary canon. The united states have a long history of race implications on authors. Several literary works did not meet the potential or reflect the content because of external factors. The role played by political influence was massive during the past years of literature writing. The biasness in establishing the authenticity of literature works puts the American cultural canon in jeopardy. Most literature works that met the standard during the period were excluded because of personal reasons. Political factors played major roles in the selection of the works. Most authors had to face the ruthlessness of moderators because of their political stand. The American cultural canon is composed of literature works authored by Americans. However, the content of the works varied depending on the captured theme. The major limitation of American cultural canon is the lack of diversity in the cultural review. Most American works published over the past decades addressed the American culture. Authors who addressed external cultures were eliminated despite the high level of writing skills. In most instances, authors classified in the American cultural canon addressed issues that promote American culture, political prowess, and good things about America. That explains the political implications of the strategy in influencing the literary works. The collection of works written in a specific period depended on certain factors: the credibility of the work, author profile, and themes addressed. The American cultural canon employed one major criterion which never promoted transparency in the literature profession. The idea that the American cultural canon should address American history limited the authors who had global views. The lack of multiculturalism in the American cultural canon tarnished the effectiveness and authenticity of the criterion. The status of canon in the 60s is different from what is observed in the 21st century. A lot has changed. However, the fact remains that the canon has been far from rewarding authors what they rightfully deserved. The American cultural canon was relevant in the 1960s because of the issues that rooted the country. Racial discrimination and gender inequality in the country resulted in several movements that relied on literary works. There are still movements in the current generation, but that should not necessitate efforts to establish a canon. The world has changed, and modernist writers embark on matters that promote inclusiveness. American communities in the 1960s differ from the current situation. The political transformation has occurred over the past decades. From my stand of view, the literature work “Battle Royal” by Ralph Ellison should never be taught in modern schools. The relevance of the literature work has declined relative to societal demands.
The new America strive to has eradicated the old stereotypes, if not fully. Cases of racial abuse are taboo to most parts of the country, and offenders are at risk of facing the law’s full force. A better option for the American cultural canon is to use a multimedia approach. For the benefit of the nation, the American cultural canon should not incline too much on the country’s issues, rather global trends. It is the fact that Americans were known for self-reliance and culturally-centralized, a practice that shaped the literary canons. Turning to the multimedia option will help clear the country’s tarnished image and attract global writers into discussing issues affecting the country. Canonization should make changes that fit modern writing. The old ways of categorizing the literature writers should not apply to what is seen in modern writing. While American history remains, the American cultural canon should turn to the multimedia platform to embrace the developed technology.
Based on the authors’ experience of the 1960s, changes are inevitable on how canon should be formed (Rakefet, 153). Most authors suffered at the hands of publishers and critiques. For example, women writers in the 60s had difficulties finding publishers because gender stereotypes dominated the period. Men had an upper say in the literature profession. Literary works were approved based on acceptance by universities and critics. With the current trends, there is a need to change how canon is formed to ensure fairness to authors who strive to leave a mark in the writing profession. Most writers have struggled to match the current writing styles to those identified in the past. That should not be a problem because societal themes have changed dramatically, requiring a different approach to canonization. If there should still be an American cultural canon, its formation should require to conserve canon power. The process of forming a canon should be culturally sensitive. The battle on whether to include or exclude cultural correctness gives the notion that canon is non-persistence.
Canon formation entails the production, consumption, diffusion, and evaluation of canon authors and literary works. Institutions of canon works should allow for the autonomy of the authors. Over the past years, authors were regulated and evaluated on the type of content to write. Institutions and critics dictated the type of literary work to be published. The authors lacked writing autonomy to express their ideas and reciprocate their writing efforts. There is a need to include current societal trends in writing. If there was the American cultural canon, culture inclusively should have dominated its formation. While the universities and critiques played major roles in attesting canon groups, the trend should change. Instead of the critiques and universities, independent panels should be created. The panels’ role should be to evaluate the authors based on literary works—the rigidity of the universities and critiques in assessing determining the canon.
General readers should be given a chance to evaluate the authors. In literary works, general readers form a higher percentage of literary consumers. Readers can provide representative information about authors and their works. Over past decades evaluation of authors only required the decision by institutions and critiques. The modern canon should be selected based on the credibility of works. Readers can provide substantial suggestions on whether literature work is credible or not. The reason for including readers in the evaluation process is because they interact with literature works more frequently.
Media is another platform that should be included in the canon formation process. The contribution of media is massive, especially in disseminating information about literary works and authors. Cases of propaganda can be harmful to the success of authors. The inclusion of media will help lower the incidences of propaganda and, therefore, spread misinformation. Also, mass media is a useful tool in the marketing of published works. The current society requires that literature be marketed in media.
Ideological influence is another factor that should play a significant role in the canon formation process. The ruling class has influenced the canon formation, and that should change. Modern should be independent of political or other external influences. The unfair treatment of authors based on race and political stands denied them the right to express ideas. The ideology of powerful people should never influence the formation of the canon, even if they have the opportunity to do so.
Certain principles guide the formation of the canon. One of the majorly discussed principles is transitoriness, which describes the versatility and negotiability of the canons. Transitoriness views the canon as persistent cultural reservoirs and accumulative. Another principle which underpins the formation of canons is the generativeness. The principle of generativeness explains the ability of the canon to act as a cultural shock absorber. Canons have cultural standards and guidelines that are either acceptable or declined based on their qualities.
In summary, canon formation should never be viewed based on traditional critical perspectives. Consumerism cultures dictate the evaluation approach, distribution channels, and evaluation standards. Mass media is likely to influence the intensity of external formation on the formation of the canon.
Works cited
Rakefet Sela-Sheffy. canon formation revisited: canon and cultural production. (2002) 2, 141–159. Retrieved from https://www.tau.ac.il/~rakefet/papers/Canon-formation-revisited.pdf