This website is dedicated to English Literature, Literary Criticism, Literary Theory, English Language and its teaching and learning.
“Racial and Nationalistic Hurdles in the Teaching of Literature” by Philip S. Miller: Summary and Critique
“Racial and Nationalistic Hurdles in the Teaching of Literature” by Philip S. Miller first appeared in The Journal of Negro Education in the Spring of 1949 (Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 134-137).
Introduction: “Racial and Nationalistic Hurdles in the Teaching of Literature” by Philip S. Miller
“Racial and Nationalistic Hurdles in the Teaching of Literature” by Philip S. Miller first appeared in The Journal of Negro Education in the Spring of 1949 (Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 134-137). In this article, Miller explores how racial and nationalistic biases can act as obstacles in the study and teaching of literature, particularly within classical studies. He argues that literature, often perceived as a neutral academic subject, is deeply influenced by national and racial biases that shape the perspectives of both educators and students. Miller highlights how historical narratives, particularly in Greek and Roman literature, reflect aristocratic and imperialist ideologies that may alienate students, especially those from marginalized backgrounds. He underscores how certain canonical texts, traditionally taught in schools, uphold Eurocentric perspectives, often reinforcing social hierarchies. Instead of erasing or avoiding such biases, Miller suggests a more inclusive approach: selecting texts that emphasize broader humanistic values, such as the Stoic writings of Seneca, which resonate with contemporary democratic ideals. He critiques the tendency to romanticize certain civilizations while ignoring their moral contradictions, urging educators to adopt a critical and reflective approach in teaching literature. Ultimately, his work calls for a shift in literary pedagogy—one that acknowledges historical biases while fostering an inclusive and critical engagement with classical texts. Through this analysis, Miller contributes significantly to literary theory and educational reform, advocating for a more equitable and conscious approach to the study of literature.
Summary of “Racial and Nationalistic Hurdles in the Teaching of Literature” by Philip S. Miller
The Presence of Racial and Nationalistic Bias in Literary Studies
Miller argues that racial and nationalistic biases often influence the study and interpretation of literature. He illustrates this through Heinrich Heine’s observation that people struggle with reconciling great literary figures with their national or racial identities (Miller, 1949, p. 134).
These biases shape literary criticism, as Miller notes that “the judgment of the reviewer was finally determined by a racial or nationalistic bias” (p. 134).
Challenges in Teaching Literature to Adolescents
The presence of prejudice in literature is particularly problematic for young students, as their “mind-set” is still developing and can be influenced by nationalist or racial biases (p. 134).
Historical contexts shape students’ perceptions, as seen in the resistance to learning German after World War I due to nationalistic tensions (p. 135).
Nationalistic Influences in Classical Literature
Even in ancient literature, nationalistic biases exist. Miller points out that Socrates, in some Western narratives, is portrayed as an English or French intellectual figure rather than a Greek philosopher (p. 135).
This reflects a pattern of glorifying certain cultures over others: “Socrates, returned to life, finds his home at last at Oxford or Cambridge and perhaps becomes a British subject” (p. 135).
Selective Favoritism in Classical Studies
The study of Greek and Roman literature has been shaped by national and political agendas, as seen in how Julius Caesar was glorified in Germany while Cicero and Demosthenes were disparaged to fit nationalist narratives (p. 136).
Latin teachers before World War II often returned from Italy with enthusiasm for Roman ruins but also admiration for Mussolini’s classical revival, failing to separate scholarship from politics (p. 136).
The Problem of Tradition in Teaching Classical Literature
Classical literature often reinforces aristocratic and elitist perspectives, alienating students from marginalized backgrounds. Miller notes, “The traditional subject matter is essentially the literature of an aristocratic society, and the social institution of slavery is accepted without apology” (p. 136).
The dominant literary tradition favors an upper-class viewpoint, making it difficult for students to relate to characters and narratives (p. 136).
Conflicting Perspectives on Historical Figures
Students from diverse backgrounds may identify with historical figures in ways that challenge traditional interpretations. Miller observes that for some students, “Spartacus may appear as good and as honest… Ariovistus is to them more of a champion of liberty than Caesar; Jugurtha, the African prince, is more of a hero than Marius” (p. 136).
This disrupts the conventional Eurocentric perspective, which presents figures like Caesar and Cicero as heroes (p. 136).
Solutions: Reforming the Teaching of Classical Literature
Instead of censoring texts, Miller advocates for broader representation of humane and democratic voices, such as the Stoic philosopher Seneca, whose writings on slavery and human dignity resonate with modern audiences (p. 137).
He states, “His letter to Lucilius depicting how to treat those who are called slaves has no hurdles in it” (p. 137), suggesting that such perspectives can counterbalance the elitism in classical studies.
The Role of the Educator in Addressing Bias
Teachers must remain impartial and critically engage with texts rather than championing a nationalistic or elitist perspective (p. 137).
Miller insists, “The teacher must be a humanitarian as well as a humanist, guided by the old motto from Terence: Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto” (p. 137), emphasizing the need for inclusivity and critical thought in education.
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Racial and Nationalistic Hurdles in the Teaching of Literature” by Philip S. Miller
Theoretical Term/Concept
Definition/Explanation
Reference from the Article (Miller, 1949)
Racial Bias in Literary Study
The influence of racial prejudices in how literature is analyzed, interpreted, and taught.
“A racial or nationalistic prejudice is often a hurdle in the way of those who are studying a great author or a great literature” (p. 134).
Nationalistic Bias in Literature
The tendency to evaluate literature through the lens of national pride or prejudices.
“The judgment of the reviewer was finally determined by a racial or nationalistic bias” (p. 134).
Mind-Set in Education
Psychological predispositions that influence students’ reception of literature.
“A ‘mind-set,’ as psychologists tell us, is very important: valuable when kindly disposed; very much of a disadvantage when hostile” (p. 134).
Historical Context in Literary Studies
The impact of historical events on the perception and teaching of literature.
“Some of us are old enough to remember the difficulties faced by teachers of German, during and immediately following World War I” (p. 135).
The prioritization of Western civilizations and viewpoints in literature, often at the expense of other perspectives.
“Socrates, returned to life, finds his home at last at Oxford or Cambridge and perhaps becomes a British subject” (p. 135).
Selective Canonization
The process of choosing which texts and authors become central in literary education, often influenced by political and social ideologies.
“Julius Caesar was glorified; Cicero and Demosthenes were disparaged in Prussianized Germany because the glorification and the disparagement suited the national tendency of the day” (p. 136).
Aristocratic Tradition in Literature
The dominance of upper-class perspectives in classical literature, often alienating marginalized readers.
“The traditional subject matter is essentially the literature of an aristocratic society, and the social institution of slavery is accepted without apology” (p. 136).
Reader Identification
The tendency of students to align with characters based on personal or cultural background.
“Spartacus may appear as good and as honest to them as M. Licinius Crassus; Ariovistus is to them more of a champion of liberty than Caesar” (p. 136).
Pedagogical Bias
The ways in which teaching traditions reinforce social or political biases in literature.
“There is an atmosphere surrounding the classics which has been called the genteel tradition” (p. 137).
Humanistic Approach to Education
A method of teaching that prioritizes ethical and inclusive engagement with literature.
“The teacher must be a humanitarian as well as a humanist, guided by the old motto from Terence: Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto” (p. 137).
Contribution of “Racial and Nationalistic Hurdles in the Teaching of Literature” by Philip S. Miller to Literary Theory/Theories
Miller critiques the Eurocentric bias in literary studies, highlighting how Western educational traditions privilege European literary figures and cultural narratives.
He states, “Socrates, returned to life, finds his home at last at Oxford or Cambridge and perhaps becomes a British subject” (Miller, 1949, p. 135), indicating how classical figures are appropriated to fit Western nationalist ideologies.
His argument aligns with postcolonial critiques of how literature is taught in ways that reinforce cultural hegemony.
Miller emphasizes that students’ personal backgrounds shape how they relate to historical and literary figures.
He notes, “Spartacus may appear as good and as honest to them as M. Licinius Crassus; Ariovistus is to them more of a champion of liberty than Caesar; Jugurtha, the African prince, is more of a hero than Marius” (p. 136).
This supports the reader-response theory by arguing that meaning in literature is co-constructed by the reader’s identity and social positioning.
Cultural Studies – Literature as a Reflection of Social Power Structures
Miller examines how literary traditions reinforce existing social hierarchies, particularly in the case of Latin and Greek studies, which have been associated with elitism and aristocratic values.
He states, “The traditional subject matter is essentially the literature of an aristocratic society, and the social institution of slavery is accepted without apology” (p. 136).
This contributes to cultural studies by exposing how literature can sustain and legitimize power structures.
Ideological State Apparatus (Althusser) – Education as a Tool of Ideological Control
Miller highlights how educational traditions reinforce specific political and ideological viewpoints, sometimes unintentionally.
He critiques how Latin education has been historically aligned with elite social classes, stating, “There is an atmosphere surrounding the classics which has been called the genteel tradition” (p. 137).
This aligns with Althusser’s concept of the Ideological State Apparatus, where education perpetuates dominant ideologies.
Miller challenges traditional literary histories that glorify figures like Julius Caesar while neglecting or marginalizing perspectives that challenge imperialist narratives.
He notes, “We in America followed the Germans too readily in their estimates of Demosthenes, Caesar, and Cicero” (p. 136), suggesting that historical literary criticism is shaped by political circumstances.
His perspective contributes to historiographic metafiction by questioning how history is selectively narrated in literature.
Liberation Pedagogy (Paulo Freire) – Literature and Social Justice in Education
Miller advocates for a more inclusive and critical approach to literature that empowers students from diverse backgrounds.
He asserts, “The teacher must be a humanitarian as well as a humanist, guided by the old motto from Terence: Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto” (p. 137).
This supports liberation pedagogy, which calls for education to serve as a tool for social equity and consciousness-raising.
Canon Formation and Deconstruction – Questioning Traditional Literary Selection
Miller challenges the rigid canon of classical literature, arguing for a broader selection of texts that reflect more diverse and humane perspectives.
He suggests that educators should give more space to writers like Seneca, who provide ethical and philosophical perspectives that resonate with modern students (p. 137).
This aligns with deconstructionist critiques of the literary canon, which argue that it reflects exclusionary cultural values.
Examples of Critiques Through “Racial and Nationalistic Hurdles in the Teaching of Literature” by Philip S. Miller
Literary Work
Critique Through Miller’s Lens
Reference from the Article (Miller, 1949)
Julius Caesar (by William Shakespeare)
Miller critiques how historical figures like Caesar have been glorified through nationalistic biases in education. He notes that in Prussianized Germany, Caesar was elevated while figures like Cicero and Demosthenes were diminished to align with nationalist interests. This reflects how literature can be used to serve political ideologies rather than objective historical understanding.
“Julius Caesar was glorified; Cicero and Demosthenes were disparaged in Prussianized Germany because the glorification and the disparagement suited the national tendency of the day” (p. 136).
The Aeneid (by Virgil)
Miller argues that the classical tradition, particularly Roman literature like The Aeneid, promotes an aristocratic and imperialist worldview that alienates students from diverse backgrounds. The text, which glorifies the Roman state and its expansionist ideology, may be seen as an instrument of nationalist pride rather than an inclusive humanistic study.
“The traditional subject matter is essentially the literature of an aristocratic society, and the social institution of slavery is accepted without apology” (p. 136).
The Histories (by Livy)
Miller critiques Livy’s The Histories for its nationalistic framing of Rome’s superiority, which reinforces racial and cultural biases. He notes that for many students, especially those from marginalized backgrounds, figures like Hannibal or Jugurtha might seem more heroic than their Roman counterparts, disrupting the traditional Roman-centered perspective.
“Spartacus may appear as good and as honest to them as M. Licinius Crassus; Ariovistus is to them more of a champion of liberty than Caesar; Jugurtha, the African prince, is more of a hero than Marius” (p. 136).
Odes (by Horace)
Unlike prose works that reflect nationalist and imperialist tendencies, Miller finds that poetry like Horace’s Odes avoids these pitfalls by focusing on universal themes. This suggests that while historical and political biases pervade prose literature, poetry can transcend such limitations and be more accessible to diverse audiences.
“The poets, such as Catullus and Horace, whenever they treat universal themes not bound by time or place, do not raise the hurdles of nationalism and racism” (p. 136).
Criticism Against “Racial and Nationalistic Hurdles in the Teaching of Literature” by Philip S. Miller
Lack of Concrete Pedagogical Solutions
While Miller identifies racial and nationalistic biases in literature, he does not provide clear, actionable solutions for educators beyond suggesting a more humanistic approach.
Critics may argue that simply advocating for a broader selection of texts (e.g., Seneca instead of Caesar) does not fundamentally challenge the structures that perpetuate bias in literary education.
Overgeneralization of Student Reactions
Miller assumes that students from marginalized backgrounds will inherently align with non-Roman historical figures such as Spartacus or Jugurtha over Roman leaders.
This perspective risks essentializing student experiences rather than allowing for individual and diverse interpretations of literature.
Romanticization of Certain Classical Figures
While Miller critiques the glorification of figures like Julius Caesar, he does not fully interrogate whether his own preference for writers like Seneca is similarly influenced by ideological biases.
His claim that Seneca’s Stoic philosophy is more accessible and relevant to modern students assumes a universal moral appeal that may not be as inclusive as he suggests.
Neglect of the Complexity of National Identity in Literature
Miller views nationalistic interpretations of literature as a hurdle but does not sufficiently explore how national identity can also be a productive lens for literary analysis.
Critics might argue that nationalistic readings do not always lead to exclusion or bias; rather, they can deepen historical and cultural understanding when approached critically.
Failure to Acknowledge the Role of Literary Criticism and Theory
Miller critiques literary education primarily from a pedagogical perspective but does not engage deeply with existing literary theories that address bias, such as Marxist or postcolonial criticism.
His work could have been strengthened by integrating theoretical frameworks that explicitly analyze power dynamics in literature.
Potentially Dismissive of the Canon’s Value
While Miller advocates for a more inclusive literary curriculum, he does not fully acknowledge the scholarly and historical reasons why certain classical works have been prioritized.
Critics may argue that instead of de-emphasizing canonical texts, the focus should be on teaching them with critical perspectives that acknowledge their limitations and biases.
Overemphasis on Classical Literature
Although Miller critiques classical literature’s elitist and aristocratic nature, he does not advocate strongly for the inclusion of non-Western literary traditions.
His argument remains confined to Greek and Roman texts rather than proposing a more radical expansion of the literary canon to include African, Asian, and indigenous narratives.
Limited Discussion on Contemporary Literature and Education
Miller focuses primarily on historical literary traditions but does not extend his analysis to contemporary literature, which may also reflect nationalistic and racial biases.
A broader discussion of how modern literature can challenge or reinforce these biases would make his argument more relevant to contemporary literary studies.
Representative Quotations from “Racial and Nationalistic Hurdles in the Teaching of Literature” by Philip S. Miller with Explanation
“A racial or nationalistic prejudice is often a hurdle in the way of those who are studying a great author or a great literature.” (p. 134)
Miller argues that preconceived biases influence how literature is interpreted and appreciated, creating barriers to objective literary analysis.
“The judgment of the reviewer was finally determined by a racial or nationalistic bias.” (p. 134)
He critiques how even professional literary criticism is often shaped by national or racial biases, affecting how works are received and evaluated.
“It is difficult to teach any literature without enthusiasm. But enthusiasm, at that time, served only to fan the flames of prejudice.” (p. 135)
This highlights the challenges faced by educators, particularly during times of political conflict, when literature can become entangled in nationalist rhetoric.
“Socrates, returned to life, finds his home at last at Oxford or Cambridge and perhaps becomes a British subject.” (p. 135)
Miller critiques how Western academia appropriates ancient figures like Socrates, reinforcing Eurocentric narratives in education.
“Julius Caesar was glorified; Cicero and Demosthenes were disparaged in Prussianized Germany because the glorification and the disparagement suited the national tendency of the day.” (p. 136)
He points out how historical and political biases influence literary scholarship, using the example of how Germany reshaped its interpretation of classical figures for nationalistic purposes.
“Spartacus may appear as good and as honest to them as M. Licinius Crassus; Ariovistus is to them more of a champion of liberty than Caesar; Jugurtha, the African prince, is more of a hero than Marius.” (p. 136)
Miller suggests that students from marginalized backgrounds might identify with historical figures differently than traditional literary narratives suggest.
“The traditional subject matter is essentially the literature of an aristocratic society, and the social institution of slavery is accepted without apology.” (p. 136)
He critiques how classical literature often reflects elitist and imperialist ideologies that may alienate modern students.
“The poets, such as Catullus and Horace, whenever they treat universal themes not bound by time or place, do not raise the hurdles of nationalism and racism.” (p. 136)
Miller contrasts poetry with prose, suggesting that poetry can transcend nationalist and racial biases due to its focus on universal human experiences.
“The teacher must be a humanitarian as well as a humanist, guided by the old motto from Terence: Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto.” (p. 137)
He emphasizes the ethical responsibility of educators to approach literature inclusively, acknowledging biases while promoting broader human understanding.
“There is an atmosphere surrounding the classics which has been called the genteel tradition.” (p. 137)
Miller critiques how classical studies have historically been associated with elitism, creating barriers for students from working-class or marginalized backgrounds.
Suggested Readings: “Racial and Nationalistic Hurdles in the Teaching of Literature” by Philip S. Miller
Miller, Philip S. “Racial and Nationalistic Hurdles in the Teaching of Literature.” The Journal of Negro Education 18.2 (1949): 134-137.
Miller, Philip S. “Racial and Nationalistic Hurdles in the Teaching of Literature.” The Journal of Negro Education, vol. 18, no. 2, 1949, pp. 134–37. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2966388. Accessed 16 Mar. 2025.
“The Complete Bibliography of ‘The Journal of Negro Education,’ 1932-2006.” The Journal of Negro Education, vol. 75, no. 2, 2006, pp. 73–318. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40037237. Accessed 16 Mar. 2025.
