Get rid of humanities professors (not the humanities)
Yesterday, I posted on Stanley Fish’s question, “Will the Humanities Save Us?” He followed that essay with this one, called “The Uses of the Humanities, Part II.” In this second essay, Fish makes a great and much-needed distinction on the humanities question. He says, in effect, that the world is glad to have novelists and essayists and historians, but that the world is far more in doubt about the need for uber-critical and hyper-analytical “theorists” of the humanities. This, I think, is a welcome distinction.
That’s right. What is in need of defense is not the existence of Shakespeare, but the existence of the Shakespeare industry (and of the Herbert industry and of the Hemingway industry), with its seminars, journals, symposia, dissertations, libraries. The challenge of utility is not put (except by avowed Philistines) to literary artists, but to the scholarly machinery that seems to take those operating it further and further away from the primary texts into the reaches of incomprehensible and often corrosive theory. More than one poster decried the impenetrable jargon of literary studies. Why, one wonders, is the same complaint not made against physics or economics or biology or psychology, all disciplines with vocabularies entirely closed to the uninitiated?
The answer is that those disciplines are understood to be up to something and to be promising a payoff that will someday benefit even those who couldn’t read a page of their journals. What benefit do literary studies hold out to those asked to support them? Not much of anything except the (parochial) excitement experienced by those caught up in arcane discussions of the mirror stage, the trace, the subaltern and the performative. (Don’t ask.) The general public, which includes legislators, trustees, and parents, is on the side of my colleague at Johns Hopkins. Let them put on plays.
Fish may be writing in a rather cheeky manner here, but I’d have to say that his colleague at Johns Hopkins is right. What the humanities need are teachers who teach students how to write and speak and read and think about the Permanent Things (love, virtue, duty, God, evil, etc.), which lead directly to a concern (after graduation) with the Current Things (government, education, race, legislation).




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top12 Comments to “Get rid of humanities professors (not the humanities)”
In far too many humanities departments in academia today, there has been (in recent times) a “deconstructionist” agenda. They are busy deconstructing the Western heritage that was passed to us by our forebears. They see little good in it and tear it apart every which way they can. In many cases, it is decency itself that is being deconstructed by progressive professors.
The result is that many students are just not learning good history and the status of Shakespeare, Dante, Longfellow, Dostoyevski, Dickens, Scott, Goethe, Pope and others are greatly diminished.
Passing along a constructive cultural legacy is no longer the point. Deconstructing it is, and very little of anything of cultural value is constructed in its place, except a cultural cynicism that erodes our cultural self-respect.
We are intellectually impoverished by the current trends in most humanities departments.
Report comment to moderator
Humanities professors vary widely (no doubt the same is true in other fields). I had literature professors who just let us talk about the books we had read (though since we were reading Spanish lit, having us discuss them in Spanish was a learning experience in itself). Others challenged us to think about the work in ways we hadn’t before, and taught us the literary and social context that produced the work.
The one experience I had with “arcane discussions” was when I took a course on Don Quixote by a professor who was perhaps the world’s expert on the subject (this was in Madrid). Most of what he taught us was interesting, but one time he spent the entire lecture discussing whether a scene from the novel was representing an actual event in Cervantes’ life or not. He was obviously fascinated by the question, but we were very bored by it.
I had originally planned on getting a Ph.D. after I completed my M.A, but that made me change my mind. I didn’t want to bore another generation of students (I had planned on becoming a college professor) with the details of my doctoral dissertation.
Report comment to moderator
At one time, those who taught humanities courses normally believed they had something of value to pass on to the students. That included a legacy of love for liberty, a decent Christian and/or Western heritage, and a set of values that made people better citizens who knew they had much to be grateful for as carriers of a great (but flawed) culture.
That made for decent teaching.
Today a new trinity is worshipped in the humanities: “Race-Gender-Class.” It is a neo-Marxist paradigm that views practically all culture as networks of oppression. It leaves more cynicism than gratitude in the hearts and minds of students who study history and culture.
Some kids today know little to nothing about our Founding fathers except that they owned slaves.
Great thinkers are routinely dismissed as nothing but “dead white males.”
The notion of “greatness” itself is cynically eroded as we feature mainly the flaws of those who passed down great legacies to us.
Don’t tell any professors or journalists, but there is more to intelligent discourse than race-gender-class perspectives. Try freedom-faith-family.
Try being more grateful than cynical about our Western cultural heritage.
Report comment to moderator
Wow.
First you were anti-science.
Now you are anti-humanities.
You jokers really do wish to repeal the enlightenment.
Good luck with that.
Report comment to moderator
By the way, spare me your denialism about these observations. it’s true, you are anti science and and anti humanities (see Joel’s ramblings about our heritage above).
Anti-intellectualism. Just believe. KSW you PTSSP.
Report comment to moderator
Stanley Fish is bumming me out.
My inability to justify a narrowly academic career as a literary critic is largely what led me to quit grad school with the MA and start teaching middle school. I thoroughly enjoyed (and still enjoy) the pleasures of reading, the accomplishment of decoding, the brilliant beauty of a single well-turned line, but I just couldn’t hack a career in which I couldn’t answer the “what’s it for?” question.
So to hear Fish glibly respond, “Nothing! But it’s fun,” crushes my hopes of one day justifying a return to academia.
Actually, I’ve come to the opinion that if you abandon (as we have) the liberal humanism* of the 19th century — the idea that literature inculcates values and critics are the gatekeepers of high culture — then you cripple the study of literature. It’s limited to either personal pleasure or training in rhetoric. Neither of those are bad, of course, but they’re pretty narrow.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus, your pseudonym has now become ironic. I think that Erasmus of Rotterdam would have agreed completely with Joel Mark.
Report comment to moderator
Not one anti-science or anti-humanities word in anything I wrote, Erasmus. Not a hint. Read my comments before you comment on them or emote over them.
I have been a humanities professor at the university level and I have stood by my conviction that it is a valuable field of study that can and should be taught well. The humanities can be highly constructive and enriching if not subordinated to “deconstructionist” political and postmodern agendas.
My comments were pro-humanities and pro-intellectual to the core. To criticize what I deem to be poor agenda-driven teaching in the humanities is to be pro-humanities.
Report comment to moderator
Harrison says
What the humanities need are teachers who teach students how to write and speak and read and think
So Erasmus responds
Now you are anti-humanities.
Report comment to moderator
ERASMUS! Go back and study Joel Mark’s previous comments again carefully and honestly!
His first two comments #1 and #3 state conclusions that sound like the Voice of Experience. His third comment #8 introduces a leitmotif that recurs in the third comment of every thread to which he lends his voice, The Rebuke of Word Deafness Motif.
BTW, what has Joel Mark published, besides misunderstood right wing blogs?
JJF: Stanley Fish is bumming me out . . . to hear Fish glibly respond, “Nothing! But it’s fun”. . .
Fish often bums me out too, particularly when he goes out of his way to welcome over readers from the right. In this case, Fish’s response is not as glib as it sounds. “Much Ado About Nothing” is a charming answer. He could also have said “Loves’ Labours Lost.”
. . . how to write and speak and read and think about the Permanent Things . . .
First thing we do, let’s kill all the literary critics. Then we’ll say what we want, hey nanny no, maybe even what Harrison wants! The next morning of course we’ll have to teach students to listen to what others have said before them, which is OK because that will just be what we (and Harrison) have said. Before you know it, WorldMag will have its own edition of Diacritics. But that’s OK because it won’t breathe a word about deconstruction.
Anton Webern wrote iintensely beautiful music before he was shot and killed at twilight by an American occupation soldier. He frequently composed musical symmetries which were inaudible to the listener but essential to his own contemplation of his creation. I’m tellling you this now, because when we have killed all the humanities professors, people might forget.
Report comment to moderator
When SCROOP MOTH writes about me (which is getting rather often), I have a hard time knowing what he/she is talking about.
Report comment to moderator
“It” is good enough for me.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!