Classics

[Ruralguy]

There are certainly classicists at mediocre SLACs saying similar things.

[apl68]

They need to get some art historians on board and broaden their canonical definitions as well as their understanding of trade and commerce in that era.

Mohenjo-Daro? Zimbabwe?

Roman-made glass beads have been found in contemporaneous Korean digs, just to look at things from the other direction.

M.

Globalization!

Globalization:  It's older than you think!

[downer]

I thought globalization was as old as trading. I guess it must be older.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

Veering slightly off-topic:
I recently became aware of a Classics department with a major called "Ancient Civilization" (just one) that focuses on the ancient Mediterranean world and excludes all other ancient world societies.
Apparently they renamed their dying major a few years ago in hopes of attracting more students.

Thoughts?

They need to get some art historians on board and broaden their canonical definitions as well as their understanding of trade and commerce in that era.

"Getting some art historians on board " may be a clue here: it does not make much sense for a struggling department to bring people from elsewhere in the university to take on some of already scarce teaching load (let alone hire new faculty with appropriate expertise). So, it is more likely to be a rational choice maximising load for the existing faculty, rather than ignorance.
Such "label-slapping" behavior is not particularly rare and, definitely, is not limited to humanities.

[mamselle]

I was thinking more of getting some collaborative buy-in from other instructors in other areas about the set-up, etc.

I realize that's not very likely, but it's wise whenever possible.

And I do know it can happen....collegial interactions on either a formal or informal level do occur...

M.

[spork]

Veering slightly off-topic:
I recently became aware of a Classics department with a major called "Ancient Civilization" (just one) that focuses on the ancient Mediterranean world and excludes all other ancient world societies.
Apparently they renamed their dying major a few years ago in hopes of attracting more students.

Thoughts?

Classics typically promotes an ahistorical view of the ancient world that was originally created to service the needs of empire.

[mamselle]

And usually, the British Empire...

M.

[dismalist]

Classics typically promotes an ahistorical view of the ancient world that was originally created to service the needs of empire.

And usually, the British Empire...

And for the American Empire we now have MBA's! Therefore, longevity is strictly limited.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

Classics typically promotes an ahistorical view of the ancient world that was originally created to service the needs of empire.

And usually, the British Empire...

Interesting.
1) The article that restarted this thread claims that current approach to classics mostly arose from "liberal" opposition to the increasing sway of philology a century ago. Both my undergrad and MSc institutions (in two different European countries) currently have only "classical philology" departments. So, indeed, there should be some factor that made classics the way they are in the anglo-saxon world.

2) Such "utilitarian" approach implies that many fields should have outlasted their purpose by now and their decay should be welcomed. Moreover, there is high likelihood that their actual purpose is very different from their justification by the current faculty.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

CHE published a response to the article that restarted this thread.
The title (This Is the Way the Humanities End. A recent book review by Louis Menand carries the field further along the path to oblivion.) is followed by exclamations that [the article that restarted this thread] "is the kind of stuff that gets English departments defunded"
Am I alone in thinking that this grossly overestimates impact of New Yorker's book review on society?

[Hibush]

CHE published a response to the article that restarted this thread.
The title (This Is the Way the Humanities End. A recent book review by Louis Menand carries the field further along the path to oblivion.) is followed by exclamations that [the article that restarted this thread] "is the kind of stuff that gets English departments defunded"
Am I alone in thinking that this grossly overestimates impact of New Yorker's book review on society?

Where Menand's veiws have the most influence, in his own department, they likely lead to more intellectual vigor not defunding. But tagging the classiscist as radicals may bring them onto the crosshairs of those trying to defund the radicals in area studies at universities where intellectual vigor is less valued.

[Hibush]

[2) Such "utilitarian" approach implies that many fields should have outlasted their purpose by now and their decay should be welcomed. Moreover, there is high likelihood that their actual purpose is very different from their justification by the current faculty.

Some areas in my applied-science department have clearly been judged to have outlasted their purpose and their decay, while not welcomed, is not especially mourned either in light of the cool things the new hires are working on. That current faculty hanging on in those areas do have creative justifications for why their positions should be "replaced".

But applied science is expected to change with the applications and current societal needs. Is that a relevant distinction?

Are the classisicsts ahistorically calling their disipline the core of academics missing an opportunity to make a better argument. Would they do better making a case that they are contrarian, cutting edge and disruptive?

[pgher]

[2) Such "utilitarian" approach implies that many fields should have outlasted their purpose by now and their decay should be welcomed. Moreover, there is high likelihood that their actual purpose is very different from their justification by the current faculty.

Some areas in my applied-science department have clearly been judged to have outlasted their purpose and their decay, while not welcomed, is not especially mourned either in light of the cool things the new hires are working on. That current faculty hanging on in those areas do have creative justifications for why their positions should be "replaced".

But applied science is expected to change with the applications and current societal needs. Is that a relevant distinction?

Are the classisicsts ahistorically calling their disipline the core of academics missing an opportunity to make a better argument. Would they do better making a case that they are contrarian, cutting edge and disruptive?

In a related sense, my particular sub-sub-discipline in engineering was eliminated almost everywhere, roughly 30 years ago, except a handful of institutions, including where I got my PhD and where I am now. Over the past 10-15 years, it has been booming. It appears to be cyclical--a lot of the fields that were hot in the tech boom of the 1990s are down now, but I know they won't be down forever. Maybe Classics (and similar fields that are struggling now) need to discern what the relevant cycles are in society and position themselves for the next upswing.

[ciao_yall]

[2) Such "utilitarian" approach implies that many fields should have outlasted their purpose by now and their decay should be welcomed. Moreover, there is high likelihood that their actual purpose is very different from their justification by the current faculty.

Some areas in my applied-science department have clearly been judged to have outlasted their purpose and their decay, while not welcomed, is not especially mourned either in light of the cool things the new hires are working on. That current faculty hanging on in those areas do have creative justifications for why their positions should be "replaced".

But applied science is expected to change with the applications and current societal needs. Is that a relevant distinction?

Are the classisicsts ahistorically calling their disipline the core of academics missing an opportunity to make a better argument. Would they do better making a case that they are contrarian, cutting edge and disruptive?

Because the whole point of the classics is that there is nothing new under the sun. That human nature is what it has been for thousands of years and other than a few technical details we still... gossip, have sex, enjoy intoxicating substances, find reasons to "other" people who are different, and whatever else we have done.

Humans are human and haven't advanced as a species. That is the lesson classicists teach.

[Ruralguy]

...and if you ignore all of our achievements and gains of scientific knowledge of the last two to three thousand years, then this makes sense.