Are the Humanities Doomed?

[Hibush]

[. . . ]

Does Professor Clune add any insight to the discussion?

No. He laboriously discusses the problem but leaves it to others to come up with solutions. And by "laboriously," I mean the essay could have been cut by at least half.

The tendency to engage in pedantic verbosity is one of the reasons the humanities are doomed.

I admit to skipping the middle 80% because he appeared not to be providing the answer. Why does he fail to heed his own call for acts of essential self-preservation?

[marshwiggle]

My hope is that these reflections will inspire someone to make the case for literature professors as moral experts, to describe the skills and knowledges that underlie this expertise, to show what the moral expertise of literature professors can teach us that we don't already know, and to exemplify moral approaches to literary works.

Then, faced with these alternative models of expertise, perhaps literature professors will finally be in a position to decide what we are. Our students, states, and colleagues are curious to know.

Sounds like an incredibly pompous assertion to make.

I should think that ethicists are the academy's moral experts.

If we're talking about people to suggest frameworks for making moral decisions,  then perhaps. But if the suggestion is that any group of academics has, by virtue of their profession, some sort of moral superiority to members of the public, then that's as pompous and self-righteous as any claim by any religious zealot.

[Parasaurolophus]

But if the suggestion is that any group of academics has, by virtue of their profession, some sort of moral superiority to members of the public, then that's as pompous and self-righteous as any claim by any religious zealot.

I would never suggest such a thing (indeed, there's even a little bit of evidence against the claim). I don't know whether that's what this guy is suggesting, because the paywall is in my way. I doubt it, since it seems like a silly claim to make, and one ought to be charitable to others' arguments and not set up straw men.

I would have thought that whatever goes into 'moral expertise' involved thinking long and hard about the nature of morality, about different ethical frameworks, about moral decision-making, and about applying moral theory to particular cases. In which case, there is indeed one group of humanists who have those skills and that training, and who get it explicitly from their education, but they're not in the English department.

If there are two cases for English literature, and one is as artistic education and the other as moral education, then I would think that the case for the former is much stronger than the latter. (Indeed, I think that the case for the former suffices.)

[mleok]

The tendency to engage in pedantic verbosity is one of the reasons the humanities are doomed.

I couldn't agree more. Not to mention that if the best argument he can come up with for the continued justification for the study of humanities is that humanities professors are moral experts, and not even try to make that case, then this article is just one more nail in coffin of humanities.

[mleok]

If there are two cases for English literature, and one is as artistic education and the other as moral education, then I would think that the case for the former is much stronger than the latter. (Indeed, I think that the case for the former suffices.)

The essence of the article is that artistic education is depreciated in modern society because, de gustibus non est disputandum, and attempting to justify the study of literature on the basis of both artistic and moral education is fundamentally contradictory. The argument that literature professors are in the business of moral education is asinine though. If anything, the last part of the article seems to make the case that literature professors aren't necessarily the best equipped to handle the task of moral education.

[Parasaurolophus]

If there are two cases for English literature, and one is as artistic education and the other as moral education, then I would think that the case for the former is much stronger than the latter. (Indeed, I think that the case for the former suffices.)

The essence of the article is that artistic education is depreciated in modern society because, de gustibus non est disputandum, and attempting to justify the study of literature on the basis of both artistic and moral education is fundamentally contradictory. The argument that literature professors are in the business of moral education is asinine though.

Thanks. I guess there's not much to recommend it then, eh?

I can't help but wonder if part of the problem here stems from the project of trying to find a common essence for all the humanities. 'English prof speaks for everyone' is a pretty common thread with these sorts of defences.

[mleok]

If there are two cases for English literature, and one is as artistic education and the other as moral education, then I would think that the case for the former is much stronger than the latter. (Indeed, I think that the case for the former suffices.)

The essence of the article is that artistic education is depreciated in modern society because, de gustibus non est disputandum, and attempting to justify the study of literature on the basis of both artistic and moral education is fundamentally contradictory. The argument that literature professors are in the business of moral education is asinine though.

Thanks. I guess there's not much time recommend it then, eh?

I can't help but wonder if part of the problem here stems from the project of trying to find a common essence for all the humanities. 'English prof speaks for weveryone' is a pretty common thread with these sorts of defences.

If one is looking for a reason why we need to study literature, then this article does nothing to advance the case for it. On the contrary, it makes a far better case for why literature, and literature professors, have not relevant expertise in modern society.

Edit: To get a better sense of Michael Clune's motivations, all one needs to realize is that his new book, "A Defense of Judgement" is an attempt to reassert the central role of aesthetic education in the teaching of literature. That, for me, helps to explain why the entire discussion of literature as a means of moral education seems so half-hearted. In essence, he's setting up a strawman argument, and is making a case, in an extremely disingenuous and deceptive manner about why literature should be about aesthetic education.

[Hibush]

Thanks to Forumites with disciplinary knowledge! It sounds as if Clune illustrates the problem that is leading to a decline in the academic humanities, rather than offering a sustainable direction.

I think there is a good case for engaging people in moral issues through literature. You can learn a lot if the character you identify with faces a moral dilemma and makes choices that have bad consequences that you only know from seeing into the other characters. Real life doesn't offer the same opportunities. Those stories can be fun and a great teacher can really make you work through the hard stuff.

It's not that lit profs have a unique authority to teach morality, but they have a unique mode of exploring morality that should be attractive to many students. It seems easier than for scholars of baskets, or blueberries.

[mamselle]

I like seeing ethics, aesthetics, and epistemology--maybe peppered with logic--in a balanced conversation.

That was the earlier formula, expressed as "The true, the good, and the beautiful" that served as a starting point, as I recall. That's not to say those are exclusively sufficient or necessary as topics for a broadly-based education, they're not.

But once set into interactive consideration, each with each other, the resulting study would have some chance of dimensionality and playfulness as well as creating a steady, satisfying train of thought to take you through life,'s Himalayas of doubt and decrepitude.

M.

[Wahoo Redux]

At its bedrock, art is really just a conversation about ethics and experience. 

I don't know which came first after hunting, prayer, song, or narrative----probably all three as one, which is what literature is.

Literature is one of the oldest pursuits of human beings. 

Why should we need to justify its existence in the academy?

[Parasaurolophus]

At its bedrock, art is really just a conversation about ethics and experience. 

I don't think that's right at all. It's a nice idea, but I don't think it's at all plausible.

For one thing, it doesn't really capture non-representational art or art forms (e.g. suprematism, colour-field or action-paintings, music, dance) very well at all (the mimetic theory of art shares this failing, incidentally). More importantly, it's far too reductive, and offers a really impoverished analysis of art, its use, and its value. I am reminded, in this respect, of the literary Darwinists' analysis of genre as the play between tragedy and comedy, or of science fiction as being about species survival (or whatever trite thing it is they say--it's the end of a long day and I don't quite remember offhand. There's only so much garbage a chap can have ready to hand with a hatchling around).

Some art is about ethics at its core. A lot of Ursula K. LeGuin's work comes to mind--not least The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, although I think almost everything she wrote has a deep and rich moral underpinning. And some art is conversational, especially in the sense of trying to spark something inside its viewers, such as conceptual art or lots of avant-garde fun and nonsense.

But it needn't be and, frankly, most art for most of art history--especially 'art' with a lower-case 'a', though this applies to 'Art' too--didn't, and doesn't. Aestheticians pretty much gave up on the project of finding a common essence for art twenty years ago, and rightly so: the field has really flourished since.

[Hibush]

Why should we need to justify its existence in the academy?

Every field of study needs to justify its existence in the academy on a continuous basis. Fields that fail to do so because  they think they have some kind of "lifetime membership" are going to lose resources to fields that keep reporting their worth. How pervasive is the idea among humanities faculty that ancient human pursuits are automatically justified?

I'm in an applied science field. Some faculty and administrators in my institution are truly embarrassed about the "applied" part. There is a significant faction that would boot us if they could. That puts pressure on delivering and documenting value in terms they understand or we'd be starved of resources. The administrators are usually persuaded by the money, but sometimes the satisfaction of knowing that their academic work makes regular people's lives better through the work of the applied faculty.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

At its bedrock, art is really just a conversation about ethics and experience. 

I don't know which came first after hunting, prayer, song, or narrative----probably all three as one, which is what literature is.

Literature is one of the oldest pursuits of human beings. 

Why should we need to justify its existence in the academy?

1) Are you advocating bringing hunting and prayers into curriculum? The latter actually was a foundation for many old European universities.
2) The question is not about justifying existence per se. It is about justifying existence on the scale some people used to and in the specific form. Coal geology does not warrant a separate course in many places anymore.

[Hibush]

2) The question is not about justifying existence per se. It is about justifying existence on the scale some people used to and in the specific form. Coal geology does not warrant a separate course in many places anymore.

Once-hot fields do indeed disappear. Nuclear engineering is gone already. Campus reactors are expensive to maintain. It turns out that the resulting lack of workforce is one reason it would be difficult to expand the nuclear energy industry.

[apl68]

At its bedrock, art is really just a conversation about ethics and experience. 

I don't know which came first after hunting, prayer, song, or narrative----probably all three as one, which is what literature is.

Literature is one of the oldest pursuits of human beings. 

Why should we need to justify its existence in the academy?

At one level I'd like to say that its justification should be self-evident.  But in practice, Hibush is right.  Every field needs to earn its keep in some way.  I'm a great believer in the value and utility of public libraries, but I've long since accepted the necessity of justifying our existence through service to the community that supports us, adapting in any way necessary to continue performing that mission.  Any institution that wants to survive in a changing world has to adapt to show that it is still relevant. 

That said, it is depressing to see how narrowly value is determined in our society.  If something's contribution can't be reduced to dollars and cents--revenue generated, or workforce utility, etc.--then it's assumed that it doesn't deserve support.  And that anybody who wants to argue for continued support is doing so only out of a cynical motivation to preserve employment.  An awful lot of decision makers' and ordinary people's minds are so imprisoned by that sort of thinking, and so unable to understand any motivation that can't be boiled down to dollars and cents, that they just can't think outside that box. 

It shouldn't be that way.  But it's the reality that we have to deal with.  It means that those of us who advocate for things that don't have an obvious dollars-and-cents justification have to work that much harder to make the case to a skeptical world that these things are useful.