Hating Harold Bloom? Not as much as usual...

Usually, I cannot stand reading a single word from Bloom because he is such an egotistical, pompous ass, but for some reason (maybe it's the cynical mood that I'm in) the essay entitled, "Elegiac Confusion," had some pretty solid points. Granted, I was still infuriated at him for his disregard of the "hegemonic lenses" that we discussed in class on Thursday. However, I think that his point about the disolution of English as a course of study in higher education is actually sensible and made me agree wit him for perhaps the first time in my life.

"English and related departments have always been unable to define themselves and unwise enough to swallow up everything that seems available for ingestion" (227).

"The morality of scholarship, as currently practiced, is to encourage everyone to replace difficult pleasures by pleasures universally accessible precisely because they are easier (Ex. Creating shields and swords in class, instead of reading Julius Caesar)" (227).

"...Only a few handfuls of students now enter Yale with an authentic passion for reading. You cannot teach someone to love great poetry it they come to you without such love..." (226).

Bloom argues that not enough scholars are entering college with a passion for reading because "cultural studies" is taking over the English classroom (along with cheesy art projects as described above). Students are beginning to study song lyrics, advertisements, and comics, instead of delving into the depths of classical literature. I can see the problem here. The study of literature for aspects such as form, style, and character development are disappearing and disintegrating. By only looking at literature through cultural lenses (race, class, gender, etc.), English courses cannot be self-sustainable. The realm of study moves from the internal to the external. English's transformation into "cultural studies" is actually a transformation from a humanities-based discipline to a social science-based discipline. I can see Bloom's argument here.

Do I think that is the only reason that English is dying? No, of course not. I also feel that it is important to examine literature through various anthropological lenses, BUT...not all the time. Personally, when I read, two of these lenses barely register for me at all (race and class). Gender is sort of there, chilling in the back of my mind, but really, I read for many of Bloom's reasons (ick...I hate to admit it). I often find myself becoming impressed over figurative language, stream of consciousness, and well-constructed images of abstract ideas. These are texts that I consider canonical. However, texts that can be read through hegemonic lenses can also have these qualities that compel me as well. Their Eyes Were Watching God, by Zora Neale Hurston, is a prime example. Clearly, some lenses apply here, but she's utilized beautiful and unique language in her text novel as well. What would Bloom have to say about her? God only knows. I'm willing to bet Hurston is not a part of his canon.

So...my question...finally:

Do you think that English will ultimately meet its demise and turn into a discipline labeled "Cultural Studies?" Do you think English is dying because our culture has taught us to examine texts through the various lenses we would use to analyze a comic strip, song lyrics, a film, or an advertisement? Is there a happy medium between anthropological lenses and analysis of texts based on form and style, and how can it be established?