What's in a Name?

On Masterpieces of Western Literature and Philosophy and its new makeover.

By Lucy Mason

Next fall, Masterpieces of Western Literature and Philosophy, the Columbia Core’s year-long course studying significant literary works, will be officially known as Literature Humanities. Of course, Literature Humanities has been known as this for decades, but the coming school year marks the first time that title will be reflected on students’ transcripts. 

On some level, who cares? This change simply makes the fine print match reality. The course will continue as it has since its inception: A small group of first-year students led by a professor to discuss, analyze, and debate great works. Literature Humanities, a name organically created by the people who do the work of the class, reflects the humanity at the center of what this course asks students and faculty to engage with in the texts they read. 

However, the change does present a historical break. Literature Humanities, or as it was originally called: “Humanities A,” has always had some variation on this longer formal title. In 1937, the first year the class became mandatory for all entering first-years, it was listed in the official copy of the university registrar as “Humanities A – reading in and discussion of European literature and philosophy.” Since then, the wording has changed slightly, but the fact remains, that every year the course has been offered the title included the words “Western” or “European” as a descriptor of the content it teaches. 

The word “Western,” and the later added, “masterpieces” are problematic in their own right. When we assert that this course covers both the so-called “West” and what has been decided are masterpieces, a grand, inaccurate generalization is being made. What does it even mean to say “the West” or to declare a work a “masterpiece” to the world? Literature Humanities, on the other hand, maintains broadness and sidesteps the problems these two terms carry. Students will continue to read many of the same works, but the label of “masterpieces of the Western world,” and the hierarchy implied with that proclamation, is consciously removed.

Illustration by Fin Sterner

But the Core is Western. Stripping that title from this class misrepresents the majority of the syllabus. When a person hears the word “Western,” there is a preconceived notion of what that means, and by extension, which works belong to that tradition. There is room to question whether “the West” is a useful concept, but the fact remains that when the phrase is used to describe literature, specific works come to mind. In this way, the formal title is honest to that reality. Students often critique the Core’s Eurocentrism, and while those concerns ought to be raised, changing this course title is not necessarily the appropriate way to challenge what people perceive as “the West” and the masterpieces associated with it.

I found out about this new(ish) course title two months ago. Since then, the words “Western” and “masterpieces” have haunted me. Part of me doubts whether people will even notice that this has happened since it has no material impact beyond a few words on future generation’s transcripts. It is symbolic, but covertly so. The Core itself is a symbol: the hallmark of a Columbia education.

Symbols are important. They possess power, shaping how we view institutions, history, and ourselves. Changing this course title from Masterpieces of Western Literature and Philosophy to Literature Humanities is not meaningless, it reflects an effort to reconsider and to question. But at the same time, it is just a symbol. And sometimes, the power given to symbols—or taken away—does not shift the material realities they represent. The course remains the course. The work of rethinking what it means to study these works has always, and will continue to, happen in the classroom, and not on the transcript.