Defending the Humanities, Again

To Develop Appreciation of What Matters

I’ve continued taking part in conversations about the problems of academia. Some I’ve recently discussed this with agree with me that thinking of academia as a mere means to a career is a big problem. They nonetheless worry that colleges have lost their way and are teaching things they oughtn’t. Some complain that the humanities have simply expanded too much, reducing the emphasis on classics. Some, typically folks in the social sciences, seem less concerned with the classics but nonetheless have an antipathy toward anything new.

The social science advocates I’ve discussed these things with seemed to believe their disciplines were closer to the hard sciences than the humanities. Perhaps they are right, at least in some ways (assume they both use empirical evidence more than the humanities). I’m not sure why that matters.

Philosophy is in the humanities. Grades in philosophy, I believe, tend to be lower than in many of the social sciences—closer to grades in the hard sciences. (This has been the case at all institutions I have been affiliated with; I am not claiming the differences are great. I don’t have great supporting evidence, but see this and this.) Other disciplines in the humanities do, I believe, tend to have higher grades. If grades are a proxy for something that relates disciplines, some humanities are closer to the hard sciences than some social sciences in that regard. Again, though, I am not sure why that matters.

But, these people have said, grades aren’t the concern. It’s the topics taught. They then went on to condemn “Derridean studies” and “victim studies.” They seemed unaware that some of us in the humanities are concerned to provide rigorous arguments or to study ancient texts. In short, their view was not really anti-humanities, but anti-humanities-that-they-believe-are-woke, where “woke” likely just means anything they don’t like. I don’t have a great deal of sympathy with this view. That’s partly because I think those advocating it are unlikely to have read Derrida or any “victim studies”, but it’s also because I think there is some value in these things, even if limited.

If I were starting college now, I doubt I would take more than one class on Derrida, “victim studies,” or the songs of Taylor Swift, but I suspect there are good classes on each of these. Done right, they would help students develop the same skills encouraged in a class on Shakespeare. Certainly, I don’t know of a reason those skills can’t be taught in such classes.

Admittedly, offering classes like those just mentioned may mean less classes on the Bard or other classics. Even if the newer topics are as academically serious as the historically tested topics, we would lose something if they spread. But how serious is that loss? Is there a realistic fear that no one will read Shakespeare, John Locke, or other luminaries? I simply don’t have that fear— those thinkers are simply so inherently interesting I can’t imagine them falling away.

The worry about leaving classical work behind for various new studies may be real. Nonetheless, I think the worry about changing our universities into vocational schools (see here)—is a bigger concern. I have nothing against vocational schools. I think trade schools are underrated and should be more used than they are. I also think “professional” vocational schools—law school and med school, for examples—are probably as useful as other trade schools. However, if we’re going to change everything into vocational schools, we would lose the humanities. That would mean losing the one sort of institution that actually teaches people to be critical and innovative thinkers.

Trade schools teach necessary skills and good ones teach (I assume) how to reason about using those skills so that when faced with a novel problem, their graduates can solve it using those skills. Unless I am radically mistaken, though, they don’t teach you how to critically analyze life projects, political policies, or great art. In short, what they lack is the concern to appreciate anything of intrinsic value—truth, beauty, and justice. I don’t think that can be taught directly, but I think it may be the most important side effect of studying the humanities. When one studies the great works—which are great for a reason—one comes to appreciate what makes them great. That’s where we discover and develop the ability to appreciate truth, beauty, and justice, including the beauty in mathematics, in Bach, or in physics.

Viva La Humanities!