There’s something of English 101 that reminds me of the Greek prescription of military service. There was, in ancient Greek culture, common ground between all people that could be drawn upon in politics, religion, philosophy and theater because every citizen male was required to serve time in the military. In an age and culture that prides itself on individuality, it may be difficult for us to image a community founded on universal experience. However, as the only almost universally required course in American universities, English 101 could in some senses serve the same purpose. English 101 establishes commonality within the university and in that way legitimizes the university as a community.

However, as was the problem in the Greek context as well, English 101 is not, in fact, a universal experience—it is exclusively a university experience. The formation of a “university community” also creates the category of those excluded from it. University education is a privilege afforded only to those who can prove themselves “worthy” (whatever that means) by admission standards (and whoever sets those) to participate (in ideologically prescribed programs)—just as Greek military experience was only guaranteed to those qualified by their citizenry and gender. English 101, then, has the potential to be used as a tool to legitimize and normalize the institution’s ability to reinforce larger social constructs of power (i.e. education—alongside socioeconomic status, race, gender, etc—as a means of determining an individual’s worth in the social strata).

English 101 reinforces other constructions of power as well. The supposition (myth?) that English 101 is a standardized course across American universities suggests that it would be possible to standardize 1) an education (IDEOLOGY) that is appropriate and fruitful for every person in society and 2) a measurably “correct” means of language use—neither of which seem realistic, but both of which suggest measures of control over an individual’s powers and autonomy.

Of course, beside the potential ideological consequences of English 101, there is also the day-to-day function and impact of 101. While I want to be wary of the part I, as a 101 instructor, play in reinforcing institutional ideologies, I do believe that education can play an important role in both empowering an individual in society at large and also in shaping/revealing their sense of self. Communication is a valuable tool to both dissect the external world and to share the internal world. I hope as an instructor I’m able to equip students with tools—even through the prescribed English 101 classroom—to better criticize the ideological institutions they’re part of and to potentially use composition to shape the future use of those institutions.