Changing the Conversation in Adaptation Studies
In
the world of academics and the study of adaptation, we frequently hear the term
associated only with the adaptation of a text to film, but, as you continually point
out in your blog posts, that is only a small part of the concept of adaptation. I, too, was very taken, as was Laurence Raw, by Jillian St. Jacques's
presentation during one of my adaptation panels during the February conference
of the SWAPCA in Albuquerque. And, immediately afterward, began to move my
thoughts away from film, to culture and society, and the adaptations I have
participated in during my life, both outside and inside the academy. Not so
dramatic as Jillian's, but still as more than one of the (what I refer to as)
"followers," who always do what they are told, and who seem to be so
much alike, and so happy - never even seemingly wanting to be different, or an individual. Maybe, for them, this predictable
"follower" characteristic is a form of coping, or maybe breaking away
from the status quo is too frightening, but, as a child in the 1950s and 1960s,
then in college in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the only movement that
fascinated me, and eventually engulfed me, was that idea of individualism. Pursuing that idea, alone, made me an outcast
in my native 1970s northeast Texas, something which continues today. This,
coupled with what one of my colleagues refers to as
"anti-intellectualism," has created an almost unsurmountable barrier
to individualism here, to education, and to discovery - key elements for me in
cultural adaptation. Much is overlooked
by those who refuse to investigate change, refuse to pursue discovery, refuse
to listen to a variety of perspectives, and refuse to look at themselves as
individuals with something individual to say.
Years
ago, I began to move away from the "film only" presentations of
adaptation at conferences, to a more culturally-centered presentation. Much of
the time, it seems participants, and audience members, are disappointed when
they don't hear the typical film adaptation presentation they expected, even
though film is included as a part of my presentations. Those reactions reveal what
I consider two distinct theories: one, that the academy only considers text to
film adaptation worth study (some even limit this study to adaptation of canonical
texts); and, two, that cultural adaptation somehow does not fit within my area
category (Adaptation: Literature, Film, & Culture) - hard to believe that
cultural adaptation is not considered as relative, essential, or dramatic
enough for conversation at one of these international events.
My
congratulations to Jillian, and to Laurence, both of you have accomplished
great strides in the field of adaptation studies, have gotten it out of the
"text-to-film only" category, and are encouraging a conversation that
takes adaptation out of the stuffy, marginalized, environment of academia and
into the public sphere of popular culture. Thanks to you two, and a variety of
others who have also decided to broaden their study of adaptation to include
culture and society, my panels, and the papers I present, have expanded the
conversation. We in academia understand, as do Laurence and Jillian, the value of
studying the past, but we also understand the importance of focusing on
the present and toward the future, and with cultural studies leading the
parade. In order to keep the current, young, just out of public school,
students excited about learning, we have to make education interesting,
relevant, and useful for them, and cultural studies is an essential element in
this undertaking.
Studies
in cultural adaptation also figure as essential elements in interdisciplinarity
and transdisciplinarity studies (both essential in the working world outside
academia), but the fear from inside the academy is that introduction of these
studies and techniques will undermine the disciplinary kingdoms created over
countless years by those who discount every "other" as just a passing
fancy for students who cannot decide which discipline to choose as a major.
Comments such as, "You'll never get a job without a specialty," or
"No one will hire a liberal arts major." Although nothing is further
from the truth, professors are the rule in the academy (the kings of their
kingdoms). If you do not listen to them,
and follow their dictums, you will have a hard time graduating, and especially
getting approval of your thesis or dissertation. Even within the academy,
individualism is not looked at favorably, and, in many cases, the influences of
culture and society are not areas of interest or focus. What is not being
realized is the connection between literature and culture - current culture- or
how cultural changes and differences affect the world around us. As an example, in a recent blog post, you
write about cultural adaptation saying, " This is not designed as a political piece: far from
it. Rather it is designed to show how a mindful awareness of one’s
surroundings and how we respond to them can help us become more “adaptive” as
people, as well as making us more aware of the continuities linking different
cultures."
My
personal conclusion, after my emersion from the unvarying strictness of
adaptation studies as a student in the academy, is that I cannot grow,
intellectually or culturally, while cloistered. And, although I knew what I
needed to do, I was so inundated with "old-school" philosophy
concerning adaptation, that I had lost focus when it comes to the importance
of cultural adaptation in every area of study.
Thanks to scholars like Laurence Raw and Jillian St. Jacques for your
contributions to the study of cultural adaptation, and to the world-wide
conferences for allowing us to bring the conversation back to the forefront.
Let's keep this conversation going.
Chuck Hamilton
Charles R. Hamilton, PhD
Professor of English
Northeast Texas Community
College
SWP/ACA Area Chair -
Adaptation: Film, Literature, and Culture
P.O.Box 1307 Mt. Pleasant, TX
75456
Email: chamilton@ntcc.edu
903-434-8248
"In a certain sense we
are all made of words:...
our most essential being consists in language.
It is the element in which we think and dream and act,
in which we live our daily lives."
N. Scott Momaday
our most essential being consists in language.
It is the element in which we think and dream and act,
in which we live our daily lives."
N. Scott Momaday