Classics

[downer]

A provocative article in today's NYT.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/magazine/classics-greece-rome-whiteness.html

It's partly the usual culture wars, which I find interesting here.

But generally it seems that Classics departments are dying not because of the culture wars, but because not many students want to major in Classics. And you don't need a Classics department to have some Homer in a Gen Ed course.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

"2,240 Bachelor's degrees in classics were awarded in 2012–13, an average of 8.1 per department."
from https://classicalstudies.org/scs-news/trends-teaching-classics-undergraduates

So, whatever "explode the canon" or "overhaul the discipline" (from NYT article) means, it is nearly completely irrelevant even in respect to the public perception of relevant writings. "Thucydides Trap" was brought to us by political science, not classics.

[spork]

Given what's in the NYT article (I've never read any of Padilla's work), it sounds like he's saying that classics, as organized and taught as a formal academic discipline, has consistently emphasized an ahistorical narrative that was originally created to service the needs of empire. I don't put that in the category of a "culture war" argument.

[downer]

Given what's in the NYT article (I've never read any of Padilla's work), it sounds like he's saying that classics, as organized and taught as a formal academic discipline, has consistently emphasized an ahistorical narrative that was originally created to service the needs of empire. I don't put that in the category of a "culture war" argument.

There are all sorts of debates about the western canon, but the central one is whether west is best. Padilla is undermining those who argue that Western Culture is great and derives from the ancient Greeks, and indeed on Christianity.

[spork]

Given what's in the NYT article (I've never read any of Padilla's work), it sounds like he's saying that classics, as organized and taught as a formal academic discipline, has consistently emphasized an ahistorical narrative that was originally created to service the needs of empire. I don't put that in the category of a "culture war" argument.

There are all sorts of debates about the western canon, but the central one is whether west is best. Padilla is undermining those who argue that Western Culture is great and derives from the ancient Greeks, and indeed on Christianity.

Again, not having read his work so maybe I'm putting words in his mouth, but the presentation of "West" as all goodness and light, because it purportedly is a direct descendant of Greece and Rome, which were also all goodness and light, is very problematic.

[dismalist]

Given what's in the NYT article (I've never read any of Padilla's work), it sounds like he's saying that classics, as organized and taught as a formal academic discipline, has consistently emphasized an ahistorical narrative that was originally created to service the needs of empire. I don't put that in the category of a "culture war" argument.

... to service the needs of empire. Quite.

The British Empire was run by those who were conversant in Greek and Latin, not because of any direct utility, but because those adept at those languages were also thought to be adept at running an Empire.

Now the American Empire is run by lawyers and MBA's, not because of any direct utility, but because ... that's all there is. :-)

[mamselle]

And maybe I'm conflating "Antiquity" with "Ancient," but don't think of the "Ancient Greeks" as mapping into the time frame of "Christianity" very much, if at all.

The Hellenistic era, yes, and some take "Ancient" up to c. 600 CE or so, but that to me becomes Byzantine, not really ancient, at least in terms of art and music history. And while Paul and many early church writers wrote in Greek, more of the Greek literature I'm thinking of could have been Gnostic (so not in the Christian canon as then construed) or based on any of a number of other flavors of philosophy and religious adherence of interest at the time.

I'm willing to be corrected--I don't do much work in that period--but I'd wonder about lumping together eras and places and confessional affiliations like that.

M.

[spork]

And maybe I'm conflating "Antiquity" with "Ancient," but don't think of the "Ancient Greeks" as mapping into the time frame of "Christianity" very much, if at all.

The Hellenistic era, yes, and some take "Ancient" up to c. 600 CE or so, but that to me becomes Byzantine, not really ancient, at least in terms of art and music history. And while Paul and many early church writers wrote in Greek, more of the Greek literature I'm thinking of could have been Gnostic (so not in the Christian canon as then construed) or based on any of a number of other flavors of philosophy and religious adherence of interest at the time.

I'm willing to be corrected--I don't do much work in that period--but I'd wonder about lumping together eras and places and confessional affiliations like that.

M.

You've pointed out the ahistoricism of those who claim "the West" is a direct descendant of ancient Greece and Rome and thus superior to all else: the barbarians were always barbarians, and they still are.

[Hibush]

Given what's in the NYT article (I've never read any of Padilla's work), it sounds like he's saying that classics, as organized and taught as a formal academic discipline, has consistently emphasized an ahistorical narrative that was originally created to service the needs of empire. I don't put that in the category of a "culture war" argument.

There are all sorts of debates about the western canon, but the central one is whether west is best. Padilla is undermining those who argue that Western Culture is great and derives from the ancient Greeks, and indeed on Christianity.

It's helpful to think about the implied causality claimed in the arguments.
Is the claim that Western Culture is great because it derives from the ancient Greeks? That is, because of deep roots, or the legitimizing force of association with ancient Greeks? [I think Spork restated it this way.]

I suspect the real logic is greatly influenced by the fundamental model of many groups and cultures, namely "We are great, therefore we need to identify a foundation story to support that image of ourselves." The corollary is "We are better than them, so we need a fancier foundation story than theirs."

Those are both premised on a value judgement, not an objective fact, so the logic only holds for those who support the conclusion. I suspect the ancient Greek philosophers would find shortcomings.

They are nicely flexible, so they can be deployed by any culture.

I don't see anything wrong with cultures developing and celebratng their own identity stories, as long as they respect that other cultures have different stories that are just as legitimate and apply just as well to those in that culture. Honoring one does not negate others.

Identity stories have to gloss over all the failures, bad ideas, injustices and other distractions if they are to be effective. One has to recognize that those things also happened. Ignoring the rest underlines a lot of dangerous nationalist movements.

[spork]

^ Well put.

[downer]

When I was young, maybe under the influence of punk and Philip Larkin, my attitude towards the "ancients" was very skeptical. I am always amazed when I find my students hungry to buy into the bizarre claims and values of the ancients. I try to head that off at the pass, highlighting the fact that they were all patriarchal slave-owners. But it reminds me that people do love to bond to a cultural history. I still don't really understand why. It does help me understand why the rhetoric of "the Western Tradition" is so powerful though. And people are not fussy about historical accuracy either.

So I'm sympathetic to Padilla's attitude. Reading the comments of NYT readers on the piece, I see how much people like to defend the importance of reading Homer as students. I'm happy to teach Homer, but I do it in a way that emphasizes how each generation likes to interpret the works in ways that support their own values.

[Caracal]

Given what's in the NYT article (I've never read any of Padilla's work), it sounds like he's saying that classics, as organized and taught as a formal academic discipline, has consistently emphasized an ahistorical narrative that was originally created to service the needs of empire. I don't put that in the category of a "culture war" argument.

... to service the needs of empire. Quite.

The British Empire was run by those who were conversant in Greek and Latin, not because of any direct utility, but because those adept at those languages were also thought to be adept at running an Empire.

Now the American Empire is run by lawyers and MBA's, not because of any direct utility, but because ... that's all there is. :-)

Well,  utility is a bit beside the point. Many of the people who were supposed to be learning Latin and Greek didn't really see the point either. You didn't actually have to be particularly good at it, mostly admission to elite universities wasn't particularly competitive. (At least that was true in the US till 20th century) However, it certainly shaped the way they operated the British Empire. Similarly, all those MBAs absorb a worldview and it impacts the way they govern even if it doesn't actually help them do it better.

[Caracal]

But it reminds me that people do love to bond to a cultural history. I still don't really understand why.

I think the impulse often comes from the shock of recognition. When I read Homer a long time ago for school, a lot of it was pretty boring to me, but there are a few moments where it grabbed me from 3000 years away. I get that with Shakespeare sometimes too. I still vividly remember reading Paradise Lost in a dingy Irish school library. (I really was not expecting the sex scene)

You wouldn't want to discourage that kind of indemnification, but identification is also always potentially dangerous.

[apl68]

But it reminds me that people do love to bond to a cultural history. I still don't really understand why.

I think the impulse often comes from the shock of recognition. When I read Homer a long time ago for school, a lot of it was pretty boring to me, but there are a few moments where it grabbed me from 3000 years away. I get that with Shakespeare sometimes too. I still vividly remember reading Paradise Lost in a dingy Irish school library. (I really was not expecting the sex scene)

You wouldn't want to discourage that kind of indemnification, but identification is also always potentially dangerous.

That seems like kind of the point of having students read works from past centuries and millennia--to help them to see that human beings have a lot in common in the things they think and do and care about.  Even human beings living in radically different cultures.  Putting a special emphasis on the Greek and Roman classics makes sense insofar as their long-term influence in the culture of so much of the world is an historical reality. 

On the other hand, if we have fewer students majoring now in classics, and more studying the classic works of other cultures that are growing more prominent in today's world, that only makes sense in light of today's realities.  One reason why I've made a point in recent years of reading works like the Analects and Dream of the Red Chamber.  Both of which contain those "shock of recognition" moments, by the way.

[dismalist]

The article says the Classics is bad. We also see a decline in interest in the Classics. That's a solution, not a separate problem.