Critique of Chen (Reference Chen2019)'s article

With all due respect to Chen and the respondents in the article, we contend that the so-called ‘crisis’ surrounding the English major programme stems from the fact that many respondents in the article have ignored the essential nature of this subject and have thus failed to embrace it as part of a larger academic discipline. The five articles cited and analysed by Chen (Reference Chen2019) maintain that the English major is the learning of English language skills and that it has proved uncompetitive in the current job market; hence, the pressing crisis. The anger and disappointment vented in the comments Chen (Reference Chen2019) collected apparently come from the ‘victims’ sacrificed during these baffling transitions. We will elaborate our arguments to address three misleading claims put forward in Chen's article.

First and foremost, ‘crisis’ might be an exaggeration if applied to the current status of the English major programme. The English major programme has experienced a soaring expansion over the years, particularly from the 1950s to the 1990s, due to the socio-economical changes brought about by the development of a new China. The prioritisation of economic acceleration led to an overwhelming demand for fluent English speakers. This further gave rise to heavy borrowing from the Soviet Union mode of foreign language education which meant sole emphasis on developing language skills (Adamson, Reference Adamson2004; Wu, Reference Wu2009). Over 1000 Chinese universities launched their English major programmes during those 40 years. Given the extremely uneven social and economic variables in such a vast country, the effectiveness of these 1000+ English departments has been far from standardised. It goes without saying that some of these 1000+ English major programmes perhaps should not have been launched, since they lacked a sufficient number of qualified teachers and could not attract high caliber students to undertake relevant studies with expected levels of performance. Nevertheless, it is far from true to conclude that the English major programme is in crisis because any academic subject in any country accelerating its development to a similar scale in a short period of time would have to confront similar impediments. If the English major program were in crisis, by definition all other academic programmes would be categorised as in crisis too and so would the entire Chinese higher education system.

Secondly, it is open to question whether or not the individual netizens or respondents whose comments were analysed in Chen (Reference Chen2019) truly understand what English major programmes are. The general public in China often misunderstand English major programmes as being equivalent to the English language education provided by socially recognised private training institutions, or College English Teaching, which essentially refers to English language proficiency courses taught to non-English majors at the tertiary level (Bolton & Graddol, Reference Bolton and Graddol2012). These two comparisons are ill chosen as they focus on nothing but the improvement of English language skills, yet have not yielded satisfactory results (Qu, Reference Qu2012; Du & Guan, Reference Du and Guan2016). This has led to the English major programme being incorrectly regarded as the further enhancement of English proficiency, an upgrade or a premium version of the existing options, if one may say so (Hu, Reference Hu2008). It can be well argued that the comments of the netizens in Chen's article may have been rooted in these misunderstandings. Surely it is undeniable that these comments might help refine the development of the English major programme in response to social development, but universities are geared to higher missions to generate and promote thoughts and values, not subservient to the views of a particular group of people.

Lastly, the fundamental reason behind the debate about the so-called English major crisis is, in essence, a confusion with regard to the direction of English major programmes in China: should they be more practical or more humanistic? A historical review of the development of English major programmes in China reveals that the long-term focus on practical English skills has had detrimental results. A superfluity of graduates who have no expertise other than spoken English is the case in point. Though alternatives were once considered, such as the compound major which pairs the learning of English skills with another major (law, business, journalism, finance, and so on), they proved to be unsustainable compromises (Liu & Wu, Reference Liu and Wu2015). We do believe that undergraduates are entitled to the acquisition of practical skills which help prepare them in securing future employment. However, university education, after all, needs to cultivate humanistic values among students so that we can develop future leaders to serve our communities and guide them forward. Therefore, humanistic values are integral to university education and a humanistic approach to developing the English major programme is indispensable.

It is therefore imperative, from our perspective, that the English major programme as an academic subject should be considered a valid part of Humanities education. Consequently, the curriculum, syllabi, learning outcomes and resources should be designed, arranged and implemented based on the fundamental premise that the study of English language and literature, culture, philosophy etc. are not intended merely for the purpose of acquiring English language skills, but for the development of the critical and speculative capabilities necessary to study human society and culture. In the following two sections we firstly argue why the English major is a humanities subject and then present a pioneering reform aiming to bring the English major programme back to its humanistic basics at Shanghai International Studies University (henceforth SISU) in China.

English major as a Humanities subject

Humanities, in contrast to the study of divinity during the Renaissance, effectively referred to what we know now as the Classics. Currently the term is often utilised to refer to subjects on the contrary side of natural sciences, sometimes social sciences, and professional training. Employing mainly non-empirical approaches, Humanities encompass ancient and modern languages, literature, philosophy, history, law, religion, art etc. This wide range of academic disciplines aims to establish a knowledge repertoire which collectively represents the humanistic spirit and investigates the inner world and cultural world that human beings create, the very core being humanism (Hu & Sun, Reference Hu and Sun2006; Jin, Reference Jin2010). As far as education is concerned, humanities disciplines aim for the development of integrity and virtue, the cultivation of humanistic spirit and dedication, and the safeguarding of social justice. It is not an exaggeration to state that the development of Humanities education plays a vital role in building a nation's image, conviction and values (Zhang, Reference Zhang2003).

In Chinese universities, when majors in Chinese study Chinese Language and Literature, this has no difficulty in being recognised as a Humanities subject. We argue that English Language and Literature or the English major programme should receive similar recognition. Unlike Chinese majors, whose language proficiency poses no challenge for their reading of ancient and contemporary Chinese literature, English majors, limited by their English proficiency upon entering university, have to spend a preparatory period of time strengthening and refining their English literacy, before studying subject-related humanities courses (Zha, Reference Zha2018). In other words, the learning of English skills acts simply as a minimum threshold and medium, but by no means the core or ultimate goal of studying English Language and Literature as an academic subject.

As a Humanities subject, the English major programme possesses two quintessential properties: humanistic and academic. On the one hand, the programme is humanistic because it has the provision of a whole person education as its ultimate objective. Classroom teaching no longer concentrates on English grammar and vocabulary, but instead the dynamic interaction between text, culture and thought. An accurate analysis of language is conducive to the thorough understanding of the author's attitudes and emotions. Vice-versa, an empathetic sensitivity to the author's thoughts and sentiments increases the learners’ awareness of the nuanced and skillful use of language (Li, Reference Li1993). On the other hand, a Humanities-based curriculum organically integrating the learning of language, literature and culture characterises the academic distinctiveness of this subject. Courses should be designed within the Humanities framework so as to contribute to the development of Humanities graduates in terms of the attainment of subject knowledge and transferrable skills.

A Humanities approach to the English major programme cannot be realised through an ill designed combination of language skill courses and Humanities courses. The previous national guidelines for the English major programme (published in 2000) in China used to draw an arbitrary line between the first two years and the last two years of a four-year undergraduate programme, specifying different learning outcomes for these two stages. Such crude division, which disregarded the principles of a Humanities education, was utterly problematic. A Humanities approach would suggest that courses such as reading, writing, speaking and listening should be taught with the intent of instilling humanistic values while developing critical, independent and innovative capabilities. Through studying authentic materials closely, students develop language proficiency, which is to be viewed as a by-product, not the dominant undertaking of the course itself.

Furthermore, a Humanities-based approach to the English major programme indicates that the curriculum should be designed within a comparative framework. Not only should courses such as British and American Literature, Literary Theory, Linguistics, Translation Practice, History of English-Speaking Countries be made compulsory, but also those which offer a cross-cultural and interdisciplinary perspective are worthy of inclusion. The exploration students conduct in the process of learning Comparative Literature, History of Western Civilisation, History of Chinese Civilisation, Western Philosophy, and Chinese Philosophy is to a great extent beneficial in increasing their intercultural communication abilities and broadening their vision as global citizens. English majors in China have long been criticised for a lack of critical acumen, which is largely caused by the absence of a systematic training in Humanities methodology. By learning how to read literary texts from both western and Chinese perspectives, students learn to participate proactively in discovering and creating and in using rigorously analytical methods to transform emotional experiences into rational understandings (Wang, Reference Wang2002; Zha, Reference Zha and Zhong2012). We shall now present the effort to reform the English major programme at SISU as an example to promote a Humanities approach to the English major programme development.

Return to the Humanities: the SISU experience

The reform of the English major programme at SISU can be seen as an institutional response to the deterioration in the quality of graduates from the English Departments in many Chinese universities. Having realised that expanding enrolment was not the answer to improving the quality of English education and that the key was to reposition the English major as an academic subject, the School of English Studies at SISU took the initiative by embarking on a drive to bring the English major back into the field of the Humanities.

The ‘Return to the Humanities’ reform has been ongoing since 2010. The main ethos is to establish a consistent perception as to the type of graduates that the School aims to develop. Being part of a prestigious university, nationally respected for foreign language teaching and learning, the School had higher aims: to develop elite intellectuals with solid English language proficiency, profound understanding of Humanities subject knowledge, broad international vision, competitive cross-cultural communication skills, critical acumen, creativity and leadership. To achieve such aims, an up-to-date curriculum and appropriate teaching pedagogy had to be in place.