ABSTRACT
Typically, the term is used to encompass what are generally recognised as the most important works in a particular artistic tradition (most usually of literature or music). It is derived from its original use, dating from the fourth century, to refer to the authoritative and definitive books of the Christian Bible. Defenders of the notion of a canon would argue from the position that there are universal aesthetic values (albeit that these values may unfold over time, with the development of the tradition). Individual works are therefore included in the canon on the grounds that they best express these universal values. The canonical works are therefore the finest expression of a particular language, and may indeed be taken as the expression of a culture’s or a nation’s identity. The idea of a canon has come under increasing criticism, not least with the emergence of Marxist and feminist criticism in the 1960s, and post-structuralist and post-colonial accounts of culture. With increased sensitivity to cultural pluralism and to the economic and political conditions of artistic production, the canon appears less as an expression of universal values than as an expression of power relations. The canon may be seen to exclude subordinated groups at a number of levels. First, the canonical works may represent certain groups (non-whites, the poor, women) according to culturally dominant stereotypes. Second, the canon may exclude works produced by those groups, or not recognise the media within which those groups have traditionally expressed themselves. Finally, the manner of expression celebrated within the canon (including preconceptions of the nature of human subjectivity and creativity) may be inappropriate in articulating the experience of subordinated groups. [AE] Further reading: Eagleton 1984; Kermode 1975.
