About Critical Mass [dot] Writing [dot] Reviews [dot] Contact
« previous entry | return home | next entry »

May 22, 2008 [feather]
Wither the humanities

We're used to stories about the decline of the academic humanities, as well as to explanations for that decline that center on everything from the Corporatization of the University (which renders the decline no fault of the humanists) to Political Correctness (which renders the decline entirely the fault of the humanists). The truth is somewhere in the middle, of course, as all complex realities tend to be. And while a look at the trivial-sounding courses, hyper-politicized scholarship, and aggressively multiculturalist hiring patterns that characterize the humanist side of the academy reveals a host of problems, the precise nature of those problems as well as their natural historical emergence are lost to those who don't look at them in context.

Yale professor Anthony Kronman's Education's End offers good and compelling insight into both the problems and their institutional contexts, not least because Kronman writes from a real position of informed earnestness about the value of genuinely humanistic study. Read his book if you can--but in the meantime, here is a summary from Christopher Orlet:


AT ONE TIME the purpose of a university education was to give future leaders an opportunity -- before they shouldered the dull burdens of civic responsibility -- to explore the purpose and value of life. By instilling a strong sense of history, of reason, of logic, of the best of what has been thought and said, a background in the Humanities would prepare a young scholar for whatever may lie ahead.

This, at least, had been the belief going back to Plato's Republic.

[Allan] Bloom believed the university should provide the student with four years of freedom, "a space between the intellectual wasteland he has left behind and the inevitable dreary professional training that awaits him after the baccalaureate." More important, the college years were "civilization's only chance to get to him." (Somehow I doubt Tom Wolfe would agree.)

The Humanities also served a primary existential purpose, which was to counterbalance "the defects of a democratic order" (Bloom's phrase), and to fill "a void by pointing to the human ends which the ideals of liberty and equal rights are unable to prescribe," adds James Pierson in the New Criterion.

The Sixties Generation broke with this four-thousand-year tradition. If the bugbears of early 20th Century radicals were the consumer-driven economy and the thoughtless pursuit of material comfort, then the Baby Boomers' bete noire was Western Civilization and all it entailed.

From then on, social change, rather than concerns about work and consumption, would be paramount on college campuses. Such change would not come from the government or the people, but from the university, since the university was uniquely situated to tackle moral issues. After all where else could one find so many smart, morally superior persons? First, however, the university, and its Humanities departments (the propagandizer of the elitist, racist, sexist, imperial tradition of Western culture) must change and adapt.

In the subsequent 40 years the radicals and their political agenda have triumphed unopposed on the college campus, so much so that today's student is compelled to conform to an intolerant progressive doctrine if he hopes to receive his sheepskin. Students are now told that there is a single right answer and, like the Sphinx, only he, the professor, possesses it.

Inevitably this atmosphere of conformity and groupthink results in a sterile learning environment, where dialogue and debate are limited for fear of uttering the wrong sentiment and facing disciplinary action.

A RADICAL FREE MARKETER might say that the Humanities deserve their fate since they proved unable to compete in both the marketplace and the marketplace of ideas. However it wasn't the marketplace that killed the Humanities, says Kronman. Rather, it was the one-two punch of political correctness and research specialization.

Of these, political correctness and its offspring diversity, multiculturalism and constructivism (which gave us such wonders as "rainforest math" and "African math") have done the most damage. With more women than men on college campuses, and near majorities of foreign students, to say nothing of the distinctive viewpoints, experiences and traditions they bring, political correctness is seen as an "instrument of corrective justice" -- payback for the sins of all of the Dead White Males that created the racist, patriarchic and imperial West.

Not only are the ideas and institutions of the West and the works that embody them no more valuable than those of other non-Western civilizations, but professors find it difficult to teach Western Civilization courses when they loathe its chief representatives. Lost in this political quagmire is the question of how we can hope to understand or appreciate or compare and contrast ourselves to other cultures if we are wholly ignorant of our own?

The final blow to the Humanities has come in the form of the modern research ideal, an idea that honors and rewards original scholarship, specialization, and incremental thinking, and whereby academics "choose an inch or two of the garden to cultivate," and which the Greeks and the renaissance scholars knew was the antithesis of true learning.

Kronman reminds us that specialization is anathema to the broad study of the "great conversation" that has been going on throughout the history of Western Civilization. When he focuses on original discoveries, Kronman argues, "a scholar does not aim to stand where his ancestors did. His goal is not to join but supersede them and his success is measured not by the proximity of his thoughts to theirs, but by the distance between them -- by how far he has progressed beyond his ancestors' inferior state of knowledge," all of which leads him to pretentious philosophical departures like deconstruction, where one misses the big picture by focusing on the minutiae. As Pauline Kael's reminded, "Taking it apart is far less important than trying to see it whole."

Despite the obvious doom and gloom Kronman sees reason for optimism. Political correctness has had a 40-year run and at long last seems to be on the wane. A few universities are even dusting off their Great Books courses.


The most interesting parts of Kronman's book are the sections on how the research ideal made its way into the humanities and then undid them. The book is worth reading for that alone.

Kronman is not just a gadfly. He's putting his money--and his time--where his mouth is. Formerly dean of Yale's law school, he's now teaching undergraduate courses in Yale's hard-core humanities curriculum, the Directed Studies program.

posted on May 22, 2008 8:56 AM




Trackback Pings:

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.erinoconnor.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1467






Comments:

I will go back and read this more carefully, but first wanted to respond to a couple of paragraphs:

"The Humanities also served a primary existential purpose, which was to counterbalance "the defects of a democratic order" (Bloom's phrase), and to fill "a void by pointing to the human ends which the ideals of liberty and equal rights are unable to prescribe," adds James Pierson in the New Criterion."

There could not be a four-thousand-year tradition of the humanities "counterbalancing the defects of a democratic order" because there has not been anything resembling four thousand years of a democratic order. Virtually all people, throughout most of that apan of time, lived under monarchy, feudalism, dictatorship, and/or aristocracy. Any need for "counterbalancing" of democracy (and of secularism) is much more recent.

"The Sixties Generation broke with this four-thousand-year tradition. If the bugbears of early 20th Century radicals were the consumer-driven economy and the thoughtless pursuit of material comfort, then the Baby Boomers' bete noire was Western Civilization and all it entailed."

Actually, most early 20th century radicals wanted to *expand* material comfort to a broader section of the population.

Posted by: david foster at May 22, 2008 1:31 PM



David pretty much went straight to the point I also reacted to. Seriously, folks who want to defend some kind of "tradition" in the academic humanities can do better. Four thousands years of unbroken, august tradition, and then forty years of dirty hippies wiping it all out? Is that supposed to be an example of erudition and scholarship, arguing that there has been 4,000 years of the scholarly humanities doing the work of defending liberty, or providing four years of freedom for young people, etc.? That's like rising up to argue for the conservation of precious phlogiston: it's so fictional that it can't be anything but funny.

Posted by: Timothy Burke at May 22, 2008 5:33 PM



True. The error, though, is in Orlet's summary. Kronman can't be responsible for that. His book is worth reading, and I hope you won't dismiss it on the basis of a review--or, worse, on the basis of a block quote. I included the comparatively dull and problematic bits about the long history of the humanities because they were necessary context for the more interesting bits about the research paradigm. The main point here is the way the research paradigm has posed real problems for the humanities; Kronman is fascinating on how, among other things, it predisposed the humanities to politicization and trivialization.

Posted by: Erin O'Connor at May 22, 2008 5:55 PM



An argument about the burden of the research agenda is indeed interesting, though I think attributing that to Sixties radicalism is a misfire, if that's what Kronman does. In any event, that argument is not well served by the eye-rolling pomposity of Orlet's cries of o tempora o mores.

Posted by: Timothy Burke at May 22, 2008 6:05 PM



Tim--As I stated above, Kronman does not attribute the problem of the research agenda to Sixties radicalism. He attributes the infusion of radicalism into the humanities to the research agenda. You may find you totally disagree with Kronman. But I think you ought to at least have a look at the book, not least because you are so concerned with the ways the procedures and forms of academia cause certain foundational problems for its ability to realize its mission, and so concerned, too, to argue that people who see politicization as a cause rather than an effect don't get what they are talking about.

Posted by: Erin O'Connor at May 22, 2008 6:38 PM



A renewed emphasis on teaching over research could certainly help rejuvenate the humanities.

My fear, though, is that a caste system could develop, with departments hiring full-time researchers and full-time teachers. New research still needs to be produced, but will the researchers hold more power and authority? Especially in a university system where teaching is increasingly farmed out to part-time employees, how could we ensure that teaching isn't looked down upon?

Also, we would need far more systematic evaluation of teaching in order to evaluate professors for tenure. Administrators, themselves often with less teaching experience than many professors, aren't qualified to judge the issue. Departments and programs would furthermore need to articulate clearly the teaching mission of the college, which could begin to infringe upon the academic freedom of the professors.

Finally, there's no reason that new fields emerging out of the ethnic and women's studies programs must necessarily turn us to research over teaching. These fields often emerged from student-led grassroots movements on campuses (such as John Edgar Wideman's push for an African-American Studies major on the UPenn campus). Classes in these fields are often over-enrolled. The issue is: how to construct a curriculum that gives students the structure needed to achieve mastery in a field but also the freedom to pursue -- especially in the humanities -- issues of personal significance to the students?

Posted by: Luther Blissett at May 23, 2008 7:09 AM



I have read Kronman's book. His "remedy" is to teach "secular humanism" -- he claims this is what the universities were teaching before the research ideal took over in the humanities, if I recall correctly. I doubt that this is going to do the trick.

He seems to think at the end that much of the dying off of consideration of "the meaning of life" is because of the soiences and technology. I don't see how anything is going to stop this, if it is true -- though his argument seemed kind of strained to me.

His argument that the research ideal damaged the humanities seems more plausible to me. With so many thousands and thousands of professors, is there only so much to be said? In the sciences, there really does seem, so far, to be more and more to say (perhaps about less and less). In the humanities, I'm not so sure. Perhaps the humanities went off the deep end because the practicioners simply got bored?

I wonder what would happen if the humanities somehow got off the research track and put more emphasis again on teaching. What would keep the practitioners from going brain dead? Or would that not be a problem?

Posted by: Mike at May 24, 2008 11:08 AM





Post a comment:




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)