Summary Of Lawrence Levine's 'The Opening Of The American Mind'

In her summary and evaluation of Lawrence Levine’s thesis and observations in his book The Opening of the American Mind, Keri Wycuff reveals Levine’s intent and the effectiveness of his argument. Wycuff first identifies the opposition that Levine is speaking out against in his book, which is “the conservative concern that multiculturalism and relativism in radical professors has directly influenced the literary canon, the students, and the university for the worst” (Wycuff 1). She reveals Levine’s rebuttal and overall thesis to be that these claims and fears have no basis in fact because the history of university and the literary canon reveal that they are ever-changing and evolving to fit the changes in culture and society. Levine uses the
First, she notes his examination of the changes made in the university system due to the changes in the purpose for higher education. In the beginning, students continued their education to widen their minds and knowledge. This was the same system where they used literary classics to study grammar. This system has evolved because of the change in the purpose for education, which evolved to the current system, where students go “to further their career rather than to expand their mind” (1). Next, she cites Levine’s connections between the changing states of the historical and literary canons. The literary canon must not be romanticized into something sacred and unchanging because it has a turbulent past where scholars have fought over what it should include. Levine compares it to the historical canon, which has a similar past. All of these changes are products of cultural change, and “it is impossible for the canon and the university to not change with the world around them”(2). This establishment of the history of university and the literary canon leads Wycuff to believe that Levine’s argument is sound, which means that this historical evidence of change is enough to calm the fears of modern change in the educational system and the fear of “radicals” affecting the system
The main assumption is that since he has proven his fact historically, it instantly proves his assertions about the future. While he establishes the history very well and conveys that change is normal, it does not eliminate all fear against changes happening. Those who are arguing against some of the changes, such as Bloom, have well-supported claims and fears that cannot simply be dismissed as radical because change in the system is normal. While Bloom’s arguments had points that were questionable, I believe he voiced a few valid concerns which fuel his overall point that the continuing literary discussion is in danger of being severed. Personally, I have noticed an increase of students that consider the ability to regurgitate information as the main essential trait of an educated person, which in itself will halt expounding upon literary knowledge and discussion. This attitude is a product of culture because, as Wycuff and Levine point out, all changes in the system are products of the culture in which they develop. Therefore, this change and the change in university and education that it will influence are things that need to be addressed. Levine seems to call for open acceptance to any and all change, which should not be the case. Proposed changes should still be examined