DREAM STATE: TEACHING IN THE ENGLISH CULTURE WARS

PART FOUR: TEACHING ENGLISH 


Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.’
 

 
C.S. Lewis 
 
‘Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and from others. Their fear is only their inability to face what is real, and I can’t vent any anger against them. I only feel this appalling sadness. Somewhere, in their upbringing, they were shielded against the total facts of our existence. They were only taught to look one way when many ways exist.’ 
 
Charles Bukowski 
 
Let’s talk about fake reality again. We live in an age when supposed literary types censor the writer who (in my experience) most delights and captures younger readers: Roald Dahl. Arrogantly done so that he’s ‘less problematic’ to these vandals’ pearl-clutching sensibilities.  
 
The philistines neither like nor understand literature and good writers – their uniqueness of vision, the worlds they create, which maintain individuality but work broadly and across time. Instead, they want a fake version which fits them and their narrow, time-limited obsessions. 
 
If they find the real Dahl ‘offensive’, there’s no one stopping them writing their own stories and seeing if anyone likes them. But I’ve taught such garbage – the tedious Rooftoppers is an example – and it puts pupils to sleep.   

All this is true of how too many English teachers approach literature, especially recent graduates. They view it as a grim but necessary dietary supplement, needed to rid the world of ‘Tories’, ‘Climate change deniers’, ‘Racists’ ‘Transphobes’, take your pick. Texts are promoted because of their woke propagandising. 
 
The effect is to make reading seem a chore and a bore. Pupils are being massively short-changed, especially boys. The almost limitless delights of our great writers are being denied to them by a narrow cadre of ideologues, themselves often badly read. 
 
I was asked to produce an English Department reading suggestions list. That’s when I realised the poor level of literary interest amongst my colleagues. Great literature was regarded as The Kite Runner, The Book Thief – perhaps, at a stretch, To Kill a Mockingbird. No one had read a thing by: Graham Greene; Eric Ambler; Ian Fleming; C. S. Lewis; Patricia Highsmith; Wilkie Collins; Ernest Hemingway; Rudyard Kipling…I could go on. 

In a meeting on teaching Doyle’s The Sign of Four, the only thing discussed was countering its supposed ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’. Nothing on the literary value of this wonderful text, on why it’s still read with great joy by so many. Not a word on plot, prose – even character. This for a novel containing the best-known fictional character ever created! 

All the teachers except me in my department had degrees in English, but I never heard any enthusing about writing as an art or express aesthetic joy in it. The most one got was how a hackneyed ‘issue’ was ‘tackled’ by this or that trendy modern writer. 
 
Given my contrary nature, this was a huge incentive to do the opposite. It may seem egotistical but I felt on a mission, to use as large a range of good writing as I could. What one person can achieve is limited, but it has to start somewhere. 
 
So I taught as widely and freely as I liked, whilst covering the syllabus. Especially at A-level, where I delighted in using ‘dangerous’ texts such as American Psycho, Hemingway’s short stories – and even Louis-Ferdinand Celine’s controversial Journey to the End of the Night. To be honest, I wanted to see the reaction of my colleagues. In fact, most said they didn’t know a thing about any of these texts – itself revealing. 

For lower years, I enthusiastically promoted any and all reading, especially ‘low brow’ stuff – including true crime, detective fiction and graphic novels. I positively discouraged pupils from class-reader texts such as the above Rooftoppers – the dull books lauded by dull English teachers. 

Needless to say, I promoted Dahl’s creepy short-stories, always using Man from the South as an exemplar to be read and enjoyed in lessons. Another classroom hit was Poe’s The Tell-Tale Heart. I also enthused about Agatha Christie’s masterpiece And Then There Were None. I’m so proud to have been told at parents’ evenings how this got pupils reading who’d never shown an interest. 

If literature is going to survive, we have to confront its supposed educational guardians, who are now destroying it. 

 WHY AND HOW I LEFT 

I left teaching (I always knew I would) abruptly. Not due to anything scandalous but from health issues, triggered by a refusal to back down on the obvious fact that men and women are biologically distinct. I’d been seriously ill and was anyway only teaching part time, such was my frailty.  

The trigger was an alarming discussion with other English teachers. As usual, me on one side, the entire department on the other. Apparently, it was biological determinism (a major crime) to claim that the England men’s football team would soundly beat the women’s team.  
 
My prediction was ‘not evidence-based’; even if the men did win, it wouldn’t be due to them being better at football. If that happened, it was due to society, funding, a ‘culture of low expectations’, prejudice – take your pick from the issues teachers spend hours on. 
 
I pleaded guilty, to believing that men and women are different biologically and that in a physical sport, the best men would always beat the best women. If they disliked this, it made no difference to its veracity. And if they argued that winning in sport didn’t mean you were better at it, they were asserting nonsense and knew it. 
 
Quite why my position seemed remarkable and disturbing to them was itself remarkable and disturbing. Even more so was their zeal, competing to attack my position, as if anxiously aware that the angrier their denials of reality, the more safely ‘progressive’ it made them all. 
 One of them assured me: ‘I don’t think you’re sexist – I won’t be cancelling you.’ I thanked her for this wonderful news, asking how it fitted with her insistence that culture wars are an invention of the privileged few? 
 
Alarmed by this flat-earth dogmatism, I published a disguised account of the conversation. Not disguised enough! I was threatened with disciplinary action for bringing ‘the school and profession into disrepute’.  
 
I replied that it was only what I exposed which could do so. Were they saying their views were disreputable? I agreed – so why not change them? Or were they angry that what they espoused in the classroom had been made public? Well, those who paid their wages had every right to know what was being taught to their offspring. 

Somewhat concerned, I contacted the excellent Free Speech Union and Toby Young. They were most helpful, so I joined – which I’d suggest everyone does. In fact, I wrote a number of articles (initially under Eric Blair, then my own name) forThe Daily Sceptic, exploring my row and the wider educational/cultural issues involved. 

It goes without saying that I didn’t bother with my teaching union. They’re now completely corrupted by wokedom and would have taken the other side, as they always do on free-speech issues. The only reason I’d ever joined was to get the classroom insurance cover – effectively a way of forcing most teachers to be in one of the unions.  
 
I ended up leaving in 2023 on health grounds, much helped by the school’s lovely HR lady. 

 LOOKING BACK 

I wrote this book to give my honest experiences and views, in the hope they’d be of interest to others. Also as a warning to parents, to be vigilant of how biased and politicised schools have become. And as a way of encapsulating my conflicting feelings and ideas, on what was the most enjoyable thing I ever did for a living.   
 
Because of the new environment, I’m relieved to no longer work in a school although I miss being in the classroom. I loved the teaching and wasn’t bad at it – results were good. My irascible temper made me explosive at times, and I certainly trod a fine line in terms of using humour. But it’s the best and most important job I ever had and I’m grateful to have done it. 
 
I think my contribution was mostly positive. I worked at the same school for seventeen years, as said with stints as Second in Department and Head of Department. The latter role was stressful yet coincided with being a new father.  
 
I never received any thanks from the school. Such is the price for taking on the pitiless ideology of wokedom! But it’s one I’d pay again, without hesitating.   
 
Still – if I can be forgiven for writing my own leaving do – here’s an ex-pupil who somehow heard of my experiences and messaged me out of the blue:  
 
‘Hello Sir. You taught me for 7 years at ***: 2007-2014. 
 
I’m not sure if you’ll remember me, but I really hope they’re for GOOD reasons if you do! 
 
I just felt the need to reach out and thank you. You may or may not know that English was my best A level result, the one which got me to university to continue studying English Language. 
 
There are 2 reasons for this; I had an interest and affinity with English, but I also had a lot of respect for my teacher… the one who stuck around. 
 
I’ve seen that you no longer teach, and I think that’s a loss. I also gather it was, at least in part, because of a disagreement, and I firmly assume they were wrong. 
 
Not that I strictly use it in my line of work, but I graduated from *** University in 2017 with 1st Class Hons in English Language. But I’m also set to marry a girl I met there, who also happened to be studying English. An early bonding moment was lending her a book on Shakespeare which I bought for your class (I’d be amazed if you recall, but the preowned one with someone’s notes in the margins). 
 
Anyway, I hope you’re well, and apologies if I’m bothering you. I don’t know if you wanted to see any of this, but I felt I needed to say it. 
 
Thanks again Sir!’ 
 
Which means more than anything that could have been said at some phoney leaving do…

CONCLUSION: THE BITTER FRUITS OF CRITICAL ‘THEORY’ 

I’ve always been someone who forcefully pursued free speech. So the disagreements explored here didn’t scare me, however annoying and exhausting they were. I’m not claiming to be brave; I didn’t feel unnerved by the disputes and cold-shouldering. Depressed, occasionally – which is another reason the Free Speech Union is so important: to give isolated free-speech advocates a sense of companionship. 

What does scare me is the realisation this isn’t enough. Free speech is vital but it’s not sufficient, to win the social, political and intellectual conflict now raging. The outcome of this conflict will decide whether this country stays a mainly peaceful place – where the ideal of debate and democracy is the accepted way for dealing with disagreement – or if we’ll get political violence and civil war. 

No doubt many will find that a daft piece of hyperbole. I’ll try to explain the reasoning behind my fear. 

It’s hardly original, to say that the most terrifying aspect of trans-gender ideology is what should have prevented it achieving anything: a rejection of objective reality, replaced by personal ‘truths’ (by definition relative) and self-validation. Self-worship has triumphed – at least for the moment – over the building blocks of our culture and society: religion; philosophy; political plurality; artistic expression; science. 

We need to understand how a ‘be kind’ quasi-religion has become the unchallengeable ideological power of today, running our institutions and public life. We especially need to grasp that it took hold through rule by a ‘progressive’ elite, evangelically committed to enlightening a fictional population of uneducated peasants and right-wing hate preachers. This delusional self-flattery fits perfectly into the fake but beguiling intellectual background behind wokedom. 

The key thing is to look closely and distinctly, at those originating, promoting and following this ideology – especially the first. Their previously obscure academic nonsense has now spawned confusion and suffering. 

The originators comprise an unimpressive yet relentless group, located in university humanities and social ‘science’ departments. These were greatly empowered by their vast expansion under Tony Blair, with the opportunity to brainwash almost limitless students. Their forerunners are the sociologists and philosophers in the Frankfurt School who invented and promoted ‘critical theory’. This is often abbreviated to ‘theory’, as if it offered some universal explanation of everything – something its disciples claim to believe. 

As a piece of creative thinking applied to literature and the discussion of artistic interpretations, critical theory can be interesting and mainly harmless. No objective truths are involved, since any literary text can and should offer a multitude of meanings. 

The problems arise when semiotics, structuralism, post-structuralism – and especially the meaningless ‘deconstruction’ – claim that objective scientific truths don’t exist, outside the language we use for them – even suggesting that reality is created by language. Everything becomes relative. This absurd idea is behind the mess we’re in, since it makes language the unarguable reality. A perfect position for envious non-science academics, suffering from fears of inferiority and irrelevance. 

At a stroke, this grants semantics unlimited authority. That’s why ‘progressives’ are obsessive in controlling language and demanding conformity to their rules for its use. It’s how they’ve grabbed and maintained power. Just look at the scores of genders conjured out of thin air – an obvious absurdity, yet one which sees our cities and public buildings bedecked in worshipful rainbow flags. 

In essence, ‘theory’ is incoherent nonsense, proclaiming the non-existence of all truths except its own – especially scientific ones. In doing so, it is in fact telling us to ignore what it says. Unfortunately, it hasn’t been ignored and the reason is obvious: it’s promoted by shameless conmen, with enough people fooled, making it impossible for them to admit this has happened. It’s a cult, akin to Scientology or the Reverend Jim Jones’ ‘People’s Temple’; ever vigilant and ever needful of heretics for its survival and promotion. 

Time and again this pattern recurs in human history, from business to religion to politics to academia. If sufficient numbers are involved – as perpetrators or dupes – then the incentive gap is too large for widescale disavowal. There are too many people with too much to lose. They dominate our universities (including Oxbridge), our media, our politics, our Civil Service, our intelligentsia, our arts, our public sector, and our top industries and businesses. In short, all our public life. 

The situation is equivalent to the Soviet Union and its block; just look how long that lasted and the horrors perpetrated! There are increasing numbers of dissidents against wokedom, but vastly outweighed by those who see nothing to gain from challenging this orthodoxy. Aside from those with an unshakable belief in objective truth, many don’t have much to gain. The point is that belief in objective truth is essential in our society. 

The most dangerous aspect has been how many ‘top academics’ are quiescent, if not active in promoting this ideology, even amongst scientists. Very few – if any – believe in it, at least not when they speak privately. But the rewards for collaborating are huge. 

Now to the second group. The promoters of this rubbish in our wider society are the managerialists, uncritically applying the ‘ideas’ of the first group. Managerialists have no beliefs, no values of their own; they just want to manage. It’s an activity which they see as an end in itself, even though today it largely involves the pretence of working. They’re happy under all ideologies, especially those which crush independent thought. They find individuality baffling and dangerous. The same sort of people were happy as 19th-century colonial administrators, although they then had real work to occupy them. 

Because the fact is, many ‘managers’ today have virtually nothing to do, especially in the top-heavy public sector. The woke ideology – likewise based on nothing – is an absolute gift, to fill their time in an ever-expanding way. 

The final group are the followers. This is where real hope lies. Virtually no one believes in or follows woke ideology, other than under painful duress. It’s a stunningly horrible and annoying system, and there are many signs that the young are openly rebelling against it. They do have a strong sense of what’s objectively true and detest those who deny it – at least, until indoctrinated in our schools. 

Fighting that indoctrination is what’s needed. It requires free speech but also an understanding of how we got here, with a robust defence of the Enlightenment values of objective truth and empirical reasoning. We need teachers – new and different ones – to do this. 

The alternative is too horrible to imagine. If objective reality continues to be rejected in favour of conflicting ‘personal truths’, our society won’t survive. 

AFTERMATH 

The experiences and ideas I’ve discussed desperately need exploring creatively. But in a climate of censorship and cancellation, there’s very little that does this. The reason is obvious. Contemporary literature – especially poetry – inhabits the same progressive echo-chamber as education, the public sector and all the arts. 

The same refusal to face reality – and fear of causing offence – is evident. It’s extraordinary that writers aren’t chronicling the horror unfolding in front of us; most creative work conspicuously ignores this.  In its place we get ideologically approved writing, preaching diversity but practising narrow conformity. The perspective is left-liberal and the tone one of tiresome moral superiority. 

Such orthodoxy has always been a spur to my writing. This increases the difficulty in getting published and noticed, as almost all publishers are ‘progressives’, although two of my collections – Falling Down (2016) and Jack the Stripper (2021) – were selected as Poetry Book Society Recommended Reading. But the climate is now more rigidly ‘progressive’ than ever, as left-liberals are in full denial of the tide turning… 


This article (DREAM STATE: PART THREE – THE ENGLISH CULTURE WAR) was created and published by Free Speech Backlash and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Paul Sutton

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*