Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:43:09 -0500
From: Rocio Quispe-Agnoli <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: José Antonio Madrigal to Frank Domínguez : Re: Literatura y los programas académicos
To: "A. Robert Lauer" <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]

Dear Tony (Madrigal):
Just to point out --interesting "coincidence"-- that when I teach Literary Theory (a required course in our PhD program) I start with Aristotle's Poetics. My course ends up with today's Poscolonial Theories. I commit only one week to 20th century feminist theories (and many of my GS are quite disappointed). When this course is taught by my colleagues, they start in the 1950s (i.e. before 1950, there was no critical  thinking).
 I am aware of the current theories (postmodernism, postcolonialism, etc.) and I am very critical of "cultural studies"and "global studies" (I serve in a committee at MSU that discuss the latter, since it has become "urgent" to implement a major in global studies). And my awareness positions me to question my colleagues' awareness of the use of theories (literary or not) in today's classroom. Again, this is a long debate that deserves much thinking and active dialogue.
 
Two more examples to add to Julian's experience in Houston: (1) We used to have four survey courses for Latin American and Peninsular Literatures. In the case of Latin America, the first one would cover 1492-modernismo, and the second one, siglo XX. Currently we have only one course to cover more than 500 years of literary production. All  my colleagues, except me, start this course with Modernismo. Then, when I offer my topics course on medieval/golden age/colonial women writers, the students have no background at all.
 
(2) the MA reading list and MA exam:  while there are two questions (out of 4) committed to 20th century, there is one reserved for 19th century and one for 1492-1800. As I told my dean some time ago (she is a specialist in 18th century German Lit.): we need to educate our own colleagues, since they are transmitting  the wrong idea  to our UG and G students.
 
My colleagues in Colonial Spanish American Literatures are very interested in this debate as well and we have our biannual conference in Quito this June (www.caso.usfq.edu), However, I have not seen this topic (or related) in any session that discuss the future of colonial studies.
 
Rocio.

-----Original Message-----

From: Coloquio Cervantes [ mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of A. Robert Lauer

Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 8:17 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Fwd: José Antonio Madrigal to Frank Domínguez : Re: Literatura y los programas académicos

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:36:18 -0500

From: "J. A. Madrigal" <[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Fwd: Frank Domínguez: Re: Literatura

  y los programas  académicos

To: "A. Robert Lauer" <[log in to unmask]>

My two cents...Frank is right (hi Frank) except when he blames the

administration. It is our fault, and only our fault, because we forgot

that we went into this profession to study literature, not philosophy,

political theory and other disciplines that should complement what we do

and not become our core.

When we interview the future scholars of our profession, and specially

from the better PHD programs, it is embarrassing how little literature they

know. In most occasion, I find myself talking to them about works they

don't know in their own field. Incredible that someone in Golden Age

sometimes is better read than they are in their own fields. But Frank,

you are right, only three fields exist today: Spanish American Prose,

Contemporary Peninsular literature and Linguistics. The rest is old and

boring.

Also, the only individual in my Department who teaches Theory beginning

with Plato is me...Anything before the Contemporary period is as

dead...

Retirement from this profession is a welcome change!!!

Tony

***********************************************

                    J. A. Madrigal

                Castanoli Professor

        Dpt. of Foreign Languages

                  and Literatures

    Auburn University, AL 36849-5204

               Fax: 334-844-6378

            Phone: 334-844-5183

***********************************************

>>> "A. Robert Lauer" <[log in to unmask]> 11/04/2007 21:25 >>>

>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:31:23 -0400

>From: Frank Dominguez <[log in to unmask]>

>Subject: Re: Literatura y los programas académicos

>To: "A. Robert Lauer" <[log in to unmask]>

>Cc: [log in to unmask]

>

>Dear Robert:

>

>I seldom participate in listserv discussions,

>but Nancy D'Antuono's comments (hi, Nancy!) have

>moved me to add my two cents. I agree that the

>preparation of today's students in every area of

>pre-18th century literature (and I am really a

>medievalista rather than a Cervantista) has

>become woefully inadequate. But, it is not their

>fault. It is ours for permitting programs to be

>streamlined to fit students' natural desire to

>concentrate on the modern to the exclusion of

>the older periods and for watering down the qualifying exams.

>

>In part, this was a reaction to pressure from

>the administration which, working from a

>business model, wanted student training

>accelerated so that they could complete their

>MA/PhD in 5 years. But, what seemed fine for

>English, because they could build on a solid

>undergraduate background, or History, because it

>did not have language problem, was and is a

>disaster for us in language and literature

>departments. The upshot is that we are

>graduating a generation of students that do not

>realize that they are hopelessly unprepared.

>

>Today, I sat on a good dissertation on feminine

>writing as a coping mechanism for loss. However,

>the candidate could not answer how writing had

>been conditioned by loss from time immemorial.

>Perhaps I was wrong in asking, but before, any

>student worth his or her salt could have

>anticipated a question such as mine, even if

>their main concern was the application of Cixous's theories.

>

>The answer is to insist that students have a

>good background in every period (I too am

>grateful to Glaser!), that their qualifying

>exams cover all periods, and that we do not hire

>faculty who are so deficient in the earlier

>periods, that they do not see the value of a

>rounded preparation or can participate fully in

>the discourse of a department. This last is

>particularly critical, because the person you

>hire today will be making decisions about

>programs in the not too distant future.

>

>Frank Dominguez