The majority of English literature is not multicultural

The argument

This argument holds that an English literature course should reflect the actual body of English literature, the overwhelming majority of which is not multicultural in the sense the curriculum debate intends. The literary canon studied in English-language schools is built from centuries of works by largely European and Anglo-American authors — Shakespeare, the Romantic poets, the great nineteenth-century novelists, and the established figures of modern literature. This canon, proponents argue, constitutes the core tradition that an English literature course exists to teach, and it simply is, as a matter of historical fact, predominantly the product of particular cultural traditions rather than a multicultural body of work. The argument contends that a curriculum should represent its subject faithfully. If the great weight of recognised English literature comes from this canonical tradition, then an English course that accurately covers the subject will naturally consist mostly of those works, and devoting substantial curriculum time to multicultural literature would mean teaching a distribution unrepresentative of the actual field. Proponents argue that the limited classroom hours available should be spent on the most significant and influential works of the literary tradition the course is meant to convey, and that prioritising inclusion over representativeness risks crowding out the foundational texts students are there to study. From this standpoint, the role of the curriculum is to transmit the established literary canon, and the composition of that canon — not a goal of demographic representation — should determine what is taught. Since the majority of recognised English literature is drawn from the traditional canon rather than multicultural sources, a faithful curriculum will reflect that balance. Because the majority of English literature is not multicultural, this argument holds, multicultural literature should not be a required part of the curriculum.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The argument treats the canon as a neutral inventory of 'the field', but critics respond that the canon is itself the product of historical selection — shaped by who had access to publication, education and prestige — so citing its current composition to justify keeping it unchanged assumes precisely what is in dispute. 'English literature' is also no longer plausibly non-multicultural: major, widely-taught authors writing in English include Chinua Achebe, Toni Morrison, Salman Rushdie, Derek Walcott and Zadie Smith, so a faithful survey of the field as it now stands would already include such work. And the premise that a curriculum exists only to 'transmit the established canon' is contestable: educators commonly hold that literature teaching should also develop critical reading and prepare students for a diverse society, aims the sibling positions foreground, on which including varied voices is a feature rather than a distortion. Representativeness, properly understood, need not exclude multicultural literature — it may require it.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The canon is a historically-selected body, shaped by unequal access to publication and prestige, not a neutral record whose composition settles what should be taught. [Rejecting P3] English-language literature already includes major multicultural authors such as Achebe, Morrison and Rushdie, so including such work reflects the field faithfully rather than distorting it.