Search News


Browse Archives

News

Humanities' Constituencies

March 10, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

WASHINGTON -- C.P. Snow’s depiction of a “gulf of mutual incomprehension” separating scientists from humanists may date to 1959, but it’s still relevant – and cited -- in discussions of the humanities in 2009. Panelists speaking Monday on “The Public Good: The Humanities in a Civil Society” cited Snow in describing a need to better bridge that gulf -- with the consequences of failing to do so exacting a real and human price, argued Patty Stonesifer, chair of the Board of Regents for the Smithsonian Institution and senior adviser to the trustees of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Speaking from her experience combating the AIDS epidemic with the Gates Foundation, Stonesifer stressed a need to focus simultaneously on cultural and scientific aspects. She described a concurrent focus on funding cultural activities intended to soften prevailing stigmas -- such as radio soap operas, poetry competitions and street theater -- with funding for microbicide development, for instance.

The American Academy of Arts & Sciences sponsored the panel discussion at George Washington University, in which speakers focused in large part on broadening the humanities’ perceived scope and constituency. “The case for the humanities is not the case for a narrow constituency,” argued Associate Justice David Souter of the United States Supreme Court. In his prepared remarks, Souter explained the importance of history in shaping an understanding of why judges ruled as they did in different eras. “Where history’s understanding is missing, cynicism will take its place,” he said.

Don Michael Randel, president of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, described the ultimate goal of the humanities as an ambitious one. “What we really hope for is a certain quality of mind … a way in which the mind never ceases to be full of wonder of the world and all its people,” he said.

Randel added, during the question and answer period, that while he thinks there is a need to move beyond instrumental arguments for the utility of the humanities, that’s not to say there aren’t plenty of good such (instrumental) cases to make. For example: “We can’t wait until a war starts … to learn the language and culture of the people we need to deal with.” Arguably, he continued wryly, benefits can be accrued in learning the languages and cultures of one's allies, too.

Edward L. Ayers, president of the University of Richmond, stressed an area where the great promise of the humanities is unmet. “We are not reaching large numbers of first-generation, immigrant, minority or poor students with the wonder that is the humanities,” he said.

“To be a classics major at an elite school is to see many opportunities ahead. But it takes bravery to be a humanities major at places where Wall Street does not come to recruit” -- or where the best graduate schools do not seem like possibilities, Ayers said.

"The humanities bring the profoundly useful gifts of broadened vision,” Ayers argued. But “an unappreciated crisis of the humanities are that they may not reach those who would find them most useful.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Humanities' Constituencies

  • a good day at InsideHigherEd
  • Posted by Mitya , Ph.D., Humanities on March 10, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • The top story--"Obama's Pledge to Science"--is followed shortly by "Humanities' Constituencies." What a fortuitous coincidence! I read yesteday about the president's stem cell reversal, and I was amazed at his commitment (a profession of faith, no less!) to the guidance of "sound science." This story begins with a reference to Snow's claim that a "gulf of mutual incomprehension" separates scientists and humanists. And it has never seemed truer. How can science guide us? Hasn't Obama already made determinations regarding definitions of "human life" that call for such policy reversals? And weren't those determinations the result of training that was not purely in the hard sciences? Hasn't a (political) decision--based itself on reasoning beyond the ken of Science--already been made that would lead the president to reverse the Bush policies? And isn't there a number of glaring contradictions in Obama's own voting record--denying funding to scientific programs that would avoid many of the ethical dilemmas surrounding stem cell research while choosing to support ONLY those that seem to verge on the unethical? Do we really want to start allowing Science to determine what is right and wrong? Didn't the 20th century teach us anything?

  • Another "use" for the humanities
  • Posted by Naomi F. Collins , Consultant on March 10, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • After listening to the provocative presentations yesterday evening, I might only add more explicitly that it takes a humanities framework to shape decision-making about the sciences, engineering, and technology. Those fields may tell us what we can do, build, or advance, but the humanities background can help us determine whether we should do so, what we ought to do in our or other societies, how to compare the value of one scientific or technological development or approach with another; how to allocate resources, and whether ideology or facts should shape our research ... (as our President just addressed).

  • Re: Naomi
  • Posted by Kevin on March 11, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • I agree Naomi... and what people should realize is that vocational training in STEM is going to be very important to keep us "competitive," but that our individual competitiveness will mean absolutely nothing if we don't learn these vocational skills in the broader context of the humanities, which give us the tools needed to be engaged *citizens* instead of merely being consumers and interchangeable parts.

  • Souter
  • Posted by DFS on March 11, 2009 at 5:45pm EDT
  • "'Where history’s understanding is missing, cynicism will take its place.'"

    The most precise auto-epitaph in history.