Mad dogs and Englishmen: high noon for English studies and the university

---

THOMAS OLVER

The English of the old colonizer is of no value in the new project of nation building. Our response to the needs and demands of government and industry needs to be creative and immediate

This is a shortened version of a paper presented at theAUETSA '97 Conference (29 June--3 July) at the University of the North. The paper, taking its lead from the theme of the conference ("The millenium approaches: (w)hither English?"), problematizes the future of English studies in South African Universities and also the discipline of English studies itself. English studies includes both the study of English Literature (or Literature in English) and the teaching of English language. Traditionally the literature component of the subject has taken preference over the language component. We are increasingly, however, being asked to address the teaching of language in our courses. The paper makes four proposals of ways we could reorganize our discipline in answer to the challenge facing us, and these are briefly outlined in this summary.

The first option would be a straightforward division of English studies into two departments (or sub-departments): a department of English language and a department of English literature. This would be a conservative and fairly straightforward option, and would do little to change the existing status quo in most departments that have responded in some way to the pressure to transform their courses.

A second option would similarily involve a division into two departments: a department of South[ern] African Languages and Literature and a department of European Languages and Literature. English would be one of the languages and literatures studied in both departments. This would be a more honest attempt to reflect in the academy the ambiguous position of English in South Africa.

A third, more radical, approach would be to have only three broad departments dealing with language, literature and culture studies: a department of Language and Communication (teaching language acquisition and the skilful deployment of language), a department of Comparative Literature (in which English Literature would take its place alongside other local and world literatures) and a department of Cultural Studies (studying the diversity of cultural expression).

Recognizing that change is inevitably a slow process which occurs by degrees rather than by revolution, especially in notoriously conservative English Departments, I make a fourth proposal that recognizes the status quo of English departments and tries to respond to the challenge by looking at the content of courses. This proposal envisages two parallel streams: English as Medium and English as Text.

The following table is meant simply as a demonstration of how it may be possible to separate language and literature studies, as well as offer a limited service to other departments and faculties at first-year level (which would necessitate their input). The "two streams" should not be seen as entirely discreet; one could consider mechanisms to allow students to select from one or both streams. Options or courses I have suggested are neither complete nor comprehensive, and are simply meant as possibilities, as are the levels I have placed them at. Ideological and practical considerations will also have to be taken into account. We should also consider in the long term faculty-wide course development, with core courses and options over a three- or four-year degree.

In conclusion we need to recognize that English studies is a site of enormous contention today. Increasingly it is not "mother tongue" users or students of literature whom we will find in the lecture hall. The English of the old colonizer is of no value in the new project of nation building. We will have to respond to the needs and demands of government and industry, both within the English department, and in the university as a whole. The more creative, and immediate, our response, the more we will be able to be proactive and part of the outcome. Instead of rushing around like mad dogs, haphazardly responding to the challenge, or like Englishmen trying to preserve some special status for English, we need creatively to engage in the debate, and help the transition that we find ourselves part of.