“Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes

“Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes first appeared in the Cambridge Journal of Postcolonial Literary Inquiry in September 2020. This article offers a reflective and critical examination of teaching literature in settings historically marked by colonial legacies, specifically South Africa and Canada. Noyes discusses “decolonizing” as creating a conceptual “outside” that provides context and meaning to the classroom’s “inside,” thus challenging the boundaries of traditional academic settings. His reflections emphasize the pervasive influence of neocolonial and neoliberal structures within universities, shaping both curricula and student demographics. Through the lens of critical theory, including insights from thinkers like Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o, Theodor Adorno, and Frantz Fanon, Noyes argues that the classroom must acknowledge and actively counter the remnants of imperialism embedded in its structure, content, and teaching methods. He advocates for “critical literacy” as a means to engage students with the broader social forces that influence what is taught and how it is understood, a process he sees as crucial to resisting the commodification of knowledge in neoliberal institutions. The article is significant for literary theory and pedagogy as it challenges educators to consider how institutional and societal structures influence education, and calls for a more inclusive, critically engaged approach to literature that dismantles historical inequalities and empowers all students to interrogate the assumptions underlying their education.

Summary of “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes

• Defining Decolonization in the Classroom: John K. Noyes emphasizes that decolonizing the literature classroom involves constructing an “outside” that influences and gives meaning to the internal learning environment. His approach challenges traditional boundaries and seeks to address neocolonial dynamics within educational settings, particularly as he reflects on his teaching experiences in South Africa and Canada (Noyes, 2020, p. 266).
• Imperialism versus Colonialism: Noyes argues for the use of “imperialism” and “neo-imperialism” rather than “colonialism” and “neocolonialism,” asserting these terms are historically accurate and conceptually precise. He contends that the term decolonization often fails to encompass the broader structures of imperial dominance affecting education (Noyes, 2020, p. 267).
• Critical Literacy as a Pedagogical Tool: Noyes advocates for “critical literacy” in literature education, where students learn to interpret cultural products in relation to the social and political forces shaping them. This concept draws on the work of theorists like Raymond Williams and E.P. Thompson and enables students to engage with literature through a critical lens that questions established authority (Noyes, 2020, p. 268).
• Intersection of Education and Neoliberalism: The article addresses the impact of neoliberalism in higher education, suggesting that the commodification of knowledge poses a threat to academic freedom and critical thought. Noyes argues that the neoliberal model restricts intellectual autonomy by favoring economically driven goals over critical engagement (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).
• Influence of Frankfurt School Critical Theory: Drawing from the Frankfurt School, particularly Theodor Adorno’s Negative Dialectics, Noyes underscores the value of critical theory in exposing the limitations imposed by late capitalism on educational practices. This theory supports a pedagogy that resists superficial “critical thinking” in favor of deeper, context-based critique (Noyes, 2020, p. 268).
• Historical and Institutional Constraints: Noyes explores the South African university system under apartheid and post-apartheid conditions, noting how racial inequities shaped classroom dynamics and limited Black students’ access to education. He describes the residual institutional imbalances as a significant barrier to decolonizing the classroom (Noyes, 2020, p. 270).
• Resistance through Education: Noyes highlights movements like #RhodesMustFall and #FeesMustFall in South African universities, which advocate for accessible and decolonized education. These movements reflect students’ dual desire to deconstruct colonial legacies while achieving equal educational access for all, regardless of socioeconomic status (Noyes, 2020, p. 273).
• Non-Instrumentalist Learning: Noyes argues for non-instrumentalist education that values critical inquiry over vocational training. He warns that instrumentalizing learning for economic productivity undermines the true purpose of higher education, which should prioritize critical and reflective thinking over economic utility (Noyes, 2020, p. 271).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes

Term/Concept	Description	Reference
Decolonization	In the context of literature education, decolonization involves challenging colonial and neocolonial frameworks within the classroom, creating an “outside” influence that shapes and provides meaning to the educational “inside.” Noyes seeks to counter imperial legacies embedded in curricula and pedagogy.	Noyes, 2020, p. 266
Imperialism/Neo-Imperialism	Noyes prefers the terms “imperialism” and “neo-imperialism” over “colonialism” and “neocolonialism,” arguing that these terms better capture the lasting impact of imperial power structures on educational institutions and cultural studies.	Noyes, 2020, p. 267
Critical Literacy	A pedagogical approach focused on interpreting cultural texts in light of the social and political forces that shape them. Drawing from theorists like Raymond Williams, this concept encourages students to engage with literature critically rather than passively absorbing established narratives.	Noyes, 2020, p. 268
Kantian Critique	Refers to the Kantian idea of “putting reason on trial,” distinguishing between autonomous reasoning and reasoning dictated by authority. Noyes applies this concept to the classroom, encouraging students to question and contest dominant narratives.	Noyes, 2020, p. 268
Neoliberal University	The framework within which universities are increasingly influenced by market-driven priorities. Noyes argues that neoliberalism commodifies education, reducing it to an economic product rather than a space for critical and intellectual development.	Noyes, 2020, p. 269
Frankfurt School Critical Theory	A theoretical framework that critiques capitalism’s impact on social structures and cultural production. Noyes draws on Adorno’s Negative Dialectics to advocate for a critique that addresses the broader political and economic forces shaping education.	Noyes, 2020, p. 268
Immanent Critique	A method of critical analysis that examines a text or concept from within its own structure, exposing its contradictions. Noyes uses this approach to critique literature, teaching students to analyze works within their historical and social contexts.	Noyes, 2020, p. 270
Instrumentalism in Education	Refers to the view of education primarily as a means to economic ends. Noyes critiques this perspective, advocating instead for a non-instrumentalist approach that values critical inquiry and intellectual growth over vocational utility.	Noyes, 2020, p. 271
Humanist Idea of Wholeness	The notion of a cohesive, universal human experience, which is challenged by critical and postcolonial perspectives. In the African context, thinkers like Fanon and Biko critique this concept, advocating for recognition of diverse and fragmented realities.	Noyes, 2020, p. 269
Political Context of Interpretation	The understanding that interpretation is inherently shaped by the social and political environment. Noyes emphasizes that critique in the literature classroom must include recognizing these influences on both content and pedagogy.	Noyes, 2020, p. 271

Contribution of “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Postcolonial Theory

• Contribution: Noyes’s reflections align with postcolonial theory by emphasizing the need to dismantle colonial and neocolonial influences in education. He discusses how the classroom can become a space to challenge colonial legacies by drawing on both imported and indigenous critical traditions, which destabilize dominant narratives in literature and culture (Noyes, 2020, p. 267).
• Reference: Noyes advocates for the recognition of imperialism’s lasting impact on the curriculum, suggesting that imported literature must be taught alongside a critical understanding of its cultural and historical implications. He draws on thinkers like Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o and Frantz Fanon to demonstrate how postcolonial ideas can shape an alternative, decolonized educational model (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).

2. Critical Theory (Frankfurt School)

• Contribution: Drawing from Adorno’s Negative Dialectics, Noyes uses Frankfurt School critical theory to critique the commodification of knowledge in the neoliberal university. He suggests that literature education should go beyond “critical thinking” to embrace a deeper “critical literacy” that recognizes the capitalist structures limiting educational spaces (Noyes, 2020, p. 268).
• Reference: He adopts Adorno’s view of critique as a means to address the broader capitalist logic governing cultural and educational structures. This critical approach enables students to examine not only the text but also the sociopolitical and economic forces influencing it (Noyes, 2020, p. 268).

3. Educational Theory (Critical Pedagogy)

• Contribution: Noyes’s work contributes to educational theory, particularly critical pedagogy, by redefining the classroom as a space where students confront and question power structures. He posits that teaching is incomplete if it ignores the institutional and societal limits within which it operates, advocating for an educational approach that encourages resistance to authority and traditional norms (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).
• Reference: His concept of “critical literacy” as opposed to mere “critical thinking” is rooted in the idea that education should engage students in challenging dominant ideologies, making literature classrooms spaces for political and social engagement (Noyes, 2020, p. 268).

4. Neocolonial Theory and Theory of Neoliberalism

• Contribution: Noyes’s reflections address the influence of neoliberalism on higher education, critiquing its impact on academic freedom and the commodification of learning. He argues that neoliberal agendas in universities reinforce neo-imperial dynamics, thus stifling the critical examination of colonial legacies in literature (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).
• Reference: By highlighting the economic constraints that shape educational practices, Noyes connects neoliberalism to the persistence of imperial structures in academia, noting how divestment movements are attempting to counteract these links in Canadian universities (Noyes, 2020, p. 267).

5. Humanist Theory and Critique of Wholeness

• Contribution: Noyes challenges the humanist idea of a cohesive and universal human experience, which often underpins literature education. He critiques this idea, particularly within the African context, where theorists like Fanon and Biko argue for recognizing fragmented realities shaped by racial and colonial histories (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).
• Reference: In this context, Noyes aligns with African humanist critiques that view the humanist ideal of “wholeness” as incompatible with the fragmented lives of those affected by colonial and apartheid histories. This perspective opens literature education to include diverse cultural experiences rather than universalizing Eurocentric narratives (Noyes, 2020, p. 270).

6. Kantian Epistemology and Critique of Authority

• Contribution: Noyes’s notion of “putting reason on trial,” drawn from Kantian critique, aligns with epistemological approaches that encourage skepticism toward authority. In the classroom, this approach allows students to question prescribed knowledge, embracing multiple, contesting perspectives rather than passively receiving information (Noyes, 2020, p. 268).
• Reference: By invoking Kant’s ideas on autonomy and reason, Noyes encourages a classroom environment where knowledge is produced through dialogue and critical engagement, which he considers crucial for a truly decolonized literature curriculum (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).

Examples of Critiques Through “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes

Literary Work & Author	Critique Approach through “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom”	Reference to Noyes’s Concepts
Woyzeck by Georg Büchner	Critiqued as a reflection on class oppression and psychological fragmentation. Büchner’s indecision about the story’s coherence mirrors fragmented social realities in unjust societies, making it a powerful text to explore themes of societal and systemic injustice.	Emphasizes immanent critique and critical engagement with texts’ structure to expose societal inequalities (Noyes, 2020, p. 270).
The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon	Analyzed for its postcolonial critique of colonial violence and psychological oppression. In line with Noyes’s approach, this work can be studied to understand the mental impact of colonization and the struggle for decolonization.	Aligns with postcolonial theory and critiques of neocolonial legacies that impact identity and resistance (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).
The Engagement in Santo Domingo by Heinrich von Kleist	Explored through race deconstruction and its portrayal of racial dynamics. In a decolonized classroom, students critically examine race as a social construct, questioning stereotypes and exploring broader racial inequalities.	Supports critical literacy and the critique of race-based narratives, inviting examination of race as a social and political construct (Noyes, 2020, p. 270).
Decolonizing the Mind by Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o	Studied as an articulation of the cultural and linguistic impacts of colonialism, examining how language enforces imperial power structures and alienates individuals from their culture.	Reinforces critical pedagogy by addressing how language shapes power dynamics in colonial and postcolonial contexts (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).

Criticism Against “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes

• Abstract Approach Lacks Practical Implementation: While Noyes provides a theoretical foundation for decolonizing the classroom, critics may argue that his approach lacks specific, practical strategies for educators to apply within varied classroom settings.
• Ambiguity Around “Outside” and “Inside” Framework: The idea of creating an “outside” to give meaning to the “inside” of the classroom might be seen as overly abstract, leaving educators without clear guidance on how to define and integrate these concepts effectively in practice.
• Overemphasis on Western Critical Theory: Although Noyes advocates for decolonizing literature education, his reliance on Western critical theories, such as those of Adorno and the Frankfurt School, may seem contradictory, potentially limiting his perspective on indigenous and non-Western approaches to pedagogy.
• Critique of Neoliberalism Lacks Depth on Institutional Constraints: While Noyes criticizes neoliberal forces within universities, he may not fully address the practical constraints educators face within these institutions, potentially making his critique feel detached from the realities of academic settings where resources and autonomy are limited.
• Risk of Excluding Canonical Literature: The emphasis on destabilizing traditional canons and focusing on indigenous and postcolonial texts may lead to concerns that canonical Western texts will be marginalized, which some educators and students may view as an essential part of a balanced literary education.
• Insufficient Exploration of Non-Western Educational Philosophies: Noyes could be criticized for not adequately incorporating or exploring educational frameworks and philosophies from diverse, non-Western traditions, which would strengthen his argument for a decolonized approach to literature education.

Representative Quotations from “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“What does it mean to decolonize the literature classroom?”	Noyes opens by questioning the definition of decolonization in a classroom context. This frames the discussion, prompting readers to consider how decolonization might apply to education and what it entails in practical terms.
“I prefer to speak of imperialism and neo-imperialism, rather than colonialism and neocolonialism.”	Noyes emphasizes the lasting influence of imperialism as a systemic force, suggesting that the term is conceptually stronger than colonialism. This distinction sets a foundation for understanding his view on the power structures within educational institutions and the terminology he believes better reflects their influence.
“The literature classroom… is best seen as a place where students acquire skills in advanced critical literacy.”	Noyes argues for a curriculum focused on “critical literacy,” where students learn to interpret literature within broader social contexts, not merely absorbing content but engaging analytically with the world around them. This aligns with his goal of producing students who question and understand societal structures.
“Ideally, knowledge in the classroom is not a finished product handed out in acts of authority.”	Here, Noyes advocates for a classroom where knowledge is not simply dispensed by the instructor but actively constructed by students through questioning and critique, challenging authoritative structures within education.
“Teachers in neoliberal universities have a responsibility to resist the building of walls designed to keep students out of the classroom.”	Noyes criticizes neoliberalism’s impact on education, which he views as prioritizing economic outcomes over accessibility and intellectual freedom. He calls on educators to counteract these trends, ensuring that education remains inclusive and resistant to financialization.
“Critical theory defines the outside of the classroom in order to produce meaning for its inside.”	Noyes applies critical theory’s notion of the “outside” to the classroom, suggesting that bringing external social and political contexts into education enriches the learning experience and allows students to see the classroom as connected to wider societal issues.
“One of the tools I find useful in negotiating this chasm is critical theory of the Frankfurt School.”	Noyes draws on Frankfurt School critical theory, particularly Adorno’s ideas, to critique late capitalism’s role in academia. He uses this theoretical framework to question how education can exist within capitalist structures while resisting the pressures of commodification.
“Ngũgĩ was right that the institutional imbalance in the teaching of indigenous versus imported languages and literatures is a relic of imperialism.”	By referencing Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o, Noyes critiques the unequal representation of indigenous literature in education, arguing that prioritizing European literature reflects and sustains imperialist structures. He advocates for a curriculum that includes both imported and indigenous traditions.
“The project of de-imperializing the literature classroom is muddied by… complicity and critique.”	Noyes describes the inherent tension for educators who both operate within and seek to challenge institutional structures. This ambivalence between complicity with and critique of imperialist frameworks highlights the complexities educators face when attempting to decolonize their curricula.
“Students in South Africa wanted both [universalist and particularist education], and I believe they were right to want both.”	Noyes reflects on the dual goals of the #RhodesMustFall and #FeesMustFall movements, supporting the idea that students should have access to education that is both inclusive and acknowledges specific historical and cultural contexts. He advocates for an approach that recognizes both the universal right to education and the unique needs of historically marginalized groups.

Suggested Readings: “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes

1. Noyes, John K. “Decolonizing the literature classroom.” Cambridge Journal of Postcolonial Literary Inquiry 7.3 (2020): 266-273.
2. TWOHIG, ERIN. “Decolonizing the Classroom.” Contesting the Classroom: Reimagining Education in Moroccan and Algerian Literatures, Liverpool University Press, 2019, pp. 47–70. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvs32t59.7. Accessed 10 Nov. 2024.
3. Parker, Kendra R. “Introduction: Decolonizing the University: A Battle for the African Mind.” CLA Journal, vol. 60, no. 2, 2016, pp. 164–71. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26355914. Accessed 10 Nov. 2024.
4. Afolabi, Olugbemiga Samuel. “Globalisation, Decoloniality and the Question of Knowledge Production in Africa: A Critical Discourse.” Journal of Higher Education in Africa / Revue de l’enseignement Supérieur En Afrique, vol. 18, no. 1, 2020, pp. 93–110. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/48618319. Accessed 10 Nov. 2024.