In an academic setting, when attempting to define the slippery thing that is the literary canon, you usually only have to think of the “classics.” Books, plays, and poems by authors like Dickens, Shakespeare, and Poe are all examples of pieces of fiction that would make up the canon, as they are not only well-known, but also widely taught to students of literature. If you have taken any English classes throughout high school, you’ll recall many of these works being taught to you as “revolutionary” texts, with ideas and structures that established the “foundation of literature.” The distinguishment of these writings comes from generations of assertions of their importance by the general academic community, but that is now being questioned. Because of a plethora of biases and dated ideologies, these renowned authors are almost exclusively straight white men. As a result, the narratives that make up what is considered the cornerstone of literary academia are severely lacking in representation.

Adam Spry, an Emerson professor of American Literature who specializes in Native American Literature and is a member of the Anishinaabe Nation, believes accepting the idea of the literary canon, or any canon, is problematic to teach because all cultures interpret the value of texts differently. He observes that prioritizing “one kind of storytelling that focuses on realism [a Western value] has the potential to create a standard against which other stories will be judged.” In addition to this, many books and plays in the literary canon we are taught are simply old, and outdated texts often express outdated ideas. Patriarchal thinking from the past still impacts the canon today, as it is the white male voice that most often determines what is “good.”

The dominating voices of those who are privileged, whether by gender, race, or class, have influenced over time exactly what texts are to be viewed as academically superior, and which ones are to be cast away. Some women, such as Harper Lee, Charlotte Brontë, and Mary Shelly, have gained recognition as authors of literary merit, but so many still remain erased from the academic scope. This too, however, doesn’t begin to address the lack of LGTBQ+ people, BIPOC, and others who are not part of the hegemony. “We have a lot of power as professors to frame people’s understandings of texts,” Spry says. It’s not that powerful pieces from diverse authors don’t exist; it’s just that they are simply often overlooked in the classroom in favor of well-known classics.

Herein lies the importance of redefining the literary canon. If we think of it as including only the classics, we think of it as a collection of works almost exclusively written by cisgender, heterosexual, white male authors, effectively erasing the stories of thousands of authors who are and write for minorities. Then, since the canon is a core part of learning and digesting literature in an academic setting, thousands of students are only exposed to a very limited set of perspectives in literature. They are taught that quality compositions are almost solely created by white men and that all other pieces are not essential to their learning.

So what literature should be taught in the classroom? Acknowledging the importance of feeling represented in texts, Spry says, “If I can offer students opportunities to have that sort of encounter, to say your experience is legitimate and worthy of attention and art, that’s great.” Spry understands the significance of this on a personal level, because he, as an indigenous man, never encountered any of the literature of his people until he was in college. He also believes that simply mandating diverse texts isn’t enough: “It’s a bigger systemic problem that we don’t have the capacity to teach diverse literature … if we continue to hire non-diverse people … that literature, even if it is present in that classroom, is going to be marginalized.” Diverse literature, as Spry explains, should be taught by experts of the subject for students to truly understand it.

The literary canon has shrunk to only promote the most privileged authors. Western academia as a whole will benefit from expanding the canon to welcome diverse narratives, and to become enriched with new ideas, perspectives, and cultures. Stories have power—of that there is no doubt. We must reexamine the way we teach literature, so that everyone, not just those with privilege, can have their stories heard, respected, and shared.

Redefining the Literary Canon