Search News


Browse Archives

News

Tough Love for the Humanities

May 22, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

WASHINGTON -- While he described himself as “stunned” to be chosen as this year’s Jefferson Lecturer, Leon Kass was hardly apologetic. The University of Chicago professor is best known for the years he spent as chair of President Bush’s Council on Bioethics, and he was invited to give the lecture last fall by the then-chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, Bruce Cole, himself twice appointed by President Bush. But Kass -- whose selection was not made public until March 23, two months into the Obama administration -- dismissed the idea that it might be in any way odd for him to deliver the first Jefferson Lecture in the age of Obama.

“My view of the humanities,” he told Inside Higher Ed, “has nothing to do with whose administration it is.”

The Jefferson Lecture is sponsored by the NEH, which describes it as "the highest honor the federal government confers for distinguished intellectual achievement in the humanities." And in his lecture, “’Searching for an Honest Man’: Reflections of an Unlicensed Humanist” -- delivered Thursday night at Washington’s Warner Theatre -- Kass summed up his philosophy by saying that “[t]he search for our humanity, always necessary, yet never more urgent, is best illuminated by the treasured works of the humanities….”

But Kass did not come to Washington to defend the humanities; far from it. In his speech, Kass argued that we only benefit from studying the humanities if we do so “in search of the good, the true, and the beautiful” -- and that most institutions of higher learning today are teaching nearly the opposite.

Kass’s reservations about humanistic studies mirror his well-known reservations about scientific advances, and his lecture drew repeated parallels between the two, describing how his early career and studies led him to his current beliefs about both.

In 1965, having completed an M.D. at the University of Chicago and while working on a Ph.D in biochemistry at Harvard University, Kass -- along with his wife, Amy -- spent a summer doing civil rights work in Mississippi. The experience forced him to drastically rethink his world view: “A man of the left, I had unthinkingly held the Enlightenment view of the close connection between intellectual and moral virtue: education and progress in science and technology would overcome superstition, poverty, and misery, allowing human beings to become… morally superior creatures.”

But “the uneducated, poor black farmers” he met that summer “seemed to display more integrity, decency, and strength of character, and less self-absorption and self-indulgence, than did many of my high-minded Harvard friends who shared my progressive opinions.”

This cognitive dissonance, Kass said, was exacerbated by his readings: Rousseau’s Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and C.S. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man. His concerns about education, and about scientific progress in particular, led him, in 1970, to trade his scientific career for one in the humanities; he wanted to study "not the hidden parts of the human being," in the manner of the sciences, but "the manifest activities of the whole" -- for in Kass's view, the great failure of the modern sciences is their refusal to define a human being as anything beyond the precise sum of his physical parts.

In his ensuing career as a humanist -- besides his years on the President’s Council on Bioethics, Kass has been, since 1976, a professor of humanities at the University of Chicago, where he is currently the Addie Clark Harding Professor in the College and the Committee on Social Thought; he is also Hertog Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute -- Kass became known for his misgivings about scientific and technological advances. And while in his speech he referred frequently to those misgivings, his message was about the humanities.

For while the sciences have lost touch with their humanistic origins, Kass said, the humanities have forgotten their relationship “to the ‘divinities’ -- the inquiry into matters metaphysical and ultimately theological.”

Kass argued that it is the job of the humanities to address “questions of ultimate concern: the character and source of the cosmic whole and the place and work of the human being within it.” Unfortunately, the modern “direction of humanistic learning” has “culminat[ed] in a cynical tendency to disparage the great ideas and to deconstruct the great works that we have inherited from ages past….”

This trend, Kass said, is not only antithetical to the proper mission of the humanities, but unfair to college students, most of whom “are in fact looking for a meaningful life or listening for a summons.”

As he told Inside Higher Ed in a telephone interview, “There are people who would love to study English literature -- but they go to the English department, where, obsessed with theory, they’re not teaching the books the way the students want to read them.

"We live in a world in which very few people have anything positive to say; there's a kind of intellectual chaos that surrounds us. The last thing young people need is cynicism and a belief that the truth about these matters is whatever you want it to be. They deserve the best help that the best books can offer them, the best thinkers."

In the conclusion of his lecture, Kass argued for a return to his own “old-fashioned” brand of humanism. It is best to read books, he said, “in a wisdom-seeking spirit”; that is, students and professors both should “search [for] the true, the good, and the beautiful.”

Asked by Inside Higher Ed to expound upon this, he complied: “I'm basically saying look, especially in an age in which science is promising or threatening major alterations in human nature and in which the world is changing beyond our comprehension, it seems crucial for humanists to keep alive the important questions of what is a human being, what is a good life for a human being -- individually and communally -- and make sure that everyone is as thoughtful and concerned about those things as possible.”

To Kass, the humanities need not and should not be locked in the ivory tower away from the everyday world; they are not – as Stanley Fish would have it – an end unto themselves. On the contrary, humanistic learning is our best hope for finding the wisdom we need to deal with "the profound ethical dilemmas of our biotechnological age."

At the beginning of his speech, Kass had offered his own life as an example of "what anyone can learn with and through the humanities." But, of course, Leon Kass is not just anyone -- and thus his closing list of those to whom he owes gratitude included "President Bush for the privilege of leading wonderful colleagues... in exploring and defending what is humanly at stake in our emerging brave new world."

At this point, the audience's respectful quiet (broken with laughter at the appropriate points) became a rather more awkward silence, punctuated only by coughs. As he'd promised, the gist of Kass's lecture did not have much to do with whose administration it is.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Tough Love for the Humanities

  • Posted by Alfred on May 22, 2009 at 7:30am EDT
  • "The last thing young people need is cynicism and a belief that the truth about these matters is whatever you want it to be."

    I don't see much evidence here that this person knows what faculty in English actually do. It would be nice if those who condemn this field in public would for once take the time to actually acquaint themselves with a scholarly journal or two, and observe or take a class. If you were to say these kinds of things about the sciences with no information, your views would rightly be considered worthless.

    In any case, Kass might be interested to know that deconstruction, an over-publicized fad which he mischaracterizes anyway, burned itself out sometime in the late 1980s. People were, and are, doing other things now. Many other things.

  • The Wayback Machine
  • Posted by RM on May 22, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • Kass's speech, at least as recounted here, takes me back to the bad old days of the late 80s and 90s. It's hardly news. As one of those cynical English professor Kass criticizes I should be angry, but I'm really more disappointed. In my teaching I am certainly past the point where my highest goal was to lift the ideological veil; in fact, I love literature and I want my students to love it too. On the other hand, it doesn't take a reading of crazy French theory to tell you that, even in literature, the good, true and beautiful, are hard to come by (talk about your Enlightenment dreams!). I see myself as having the responsibility to cultivate my students' enthusiasm for literature, but it's also my responsibility to move them beyond simple and often naive appreciation. A speech like Kass' with its demonization of English departments and its vague evocations of the good and the true, don't help at all here. We don't need to fight another culture war; we need to cultivate a love of reading and a response to it that is respectful of one of the the very reasons we read literature--because it is part of a conversation about the good, not because it is the good.

  • This fella needs to be aired out
  • Posted by Doc Mara , English at NDSU on May 22, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • Can't this guy crack a book every decade or so to see if the Humanities has moved past 1989? Get a rocking chair for this guy and put him right next to Stanley Fish.

  • Posted by Amazed on May 22, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • A positive comment about President Bush in that environment! He still has the courage that took him to Mississippi in the 60s.

  • Posted by Brian on May 22, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • @Amazed: Word!

  • ditto
  • Posted by Violet , Span Lit at Midwestern U on May 22, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • Ditto to everything Alfred, RM, and Doc Mara have said. Maybe Kass should follow his own advice and look for the "positive" in the work of his Humanities colleagues.

  • Yes..., but
  • Posted by Steve on May 22, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • I appreciate the points of view of my academic friends. However, one only needs to talk to people, especially people under age 60 or so, to recognize that there has been a shift in society to the pragmatic and utilitarian, at the cost of reflections about life and humanity. As the mayor of Moscow put it back in the era of glasnost, "What's wrong with Americans is that they lack a philosophy of life." I'm not so sure that is true, but it certainly could use some focusing. Promoting contemplation and dialog both on and off campus, and in spite of our hectic lives and material strivings, is a good thing.    

  • ????
  • Posted by PiledHigher&Deeper , PhD at European on May 22, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • Thus far, all the comments have taken umbrage at Kass's passing reference to deconstruction. Something along the lines of "Kass is SO 1989..." This seems to miss the point. Deconstruction has its offspring, and every commenter here knows it. But Kass's point is rather simple: we English profs don't teach TOWARD the human things. (By the way, I suspect Kass realizes that the pursuit of truth, goodness, beauty doesn't guarantee that you reach them. It just implies they exist.) Which of you commenters embrace the metaphysical? And, if you don't, do you make sure your students recognize the dangers of jettisoning them? What sustains human dignity if not some (reasonable) BELIEF that humans have a soul and it is unique, unlike that of other creatures? If such questions are too traditionalist for your taste, then ask something a little less transcendent: If our politics are grounded in "nature and nature's God," as Jefferson penned, then what happens to those "unalienable rights" when both "nature and nature's God" are dubious concepts, at best?

  • Tough Love for the Humanities
  • Posted by Steve Fox , Director of Writing, English Dept. at IUPUI on May 22, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • Although we all need searching criticism, I agree with Alfred that critics of English professors often don't know what they are talking about.  The literature professors I know are not negative or cynical, and I think they would support the idea of literature as a means to wisdom.  It's true that the ways professors and their students engage intellectually with literary texts sometimes looks different than it does in some people's memories or imaginations.  People don't look on "great books" with unquestioning awe, or treat authors as gurus.  But reading literature does increase empathy, deepen critical thinking, promote self-reflection, and broaden readers' humanity.  That won't stop happening just because theoretical approaches change.

  • Misplaced Sentiments
  • Posted by Thomas Urban, PhD , Professor and Philosophy Discipline Chair at Houston Community College on May 22, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • Though empathetic with Leon Koss' criticism of the Humanities over the past half-century, I would like to suggest that the problem is not with the research and teaching interests of those who identify themselves with those disciplines commonly grouped as "Humanities" (diverse as Alfred's comment notes), but rather an ongoing historic struggle between a way of thinking that traces its origins to the nominalism of 17th century rationalism and the shift away from that rationalism that begins with Enlightenment philosophy. It is interesting that Koss's comments echo Kant's reference to the "conceptus cosmicus" near the end of his first "Critique" and stresses the Enlightenment call to understand human life in terms that go beyond the purely rational. However, the way is not to retreat into an "inquiry into matters metaphysical and ultimately theological," as Koss suggests. What is called forth is thinking that realistically locates judgment within the limits of human understanding, including the limits of reason to sufficiently provide a complete portrait of humanity by its accounts of our being here. Yes, to be human is more than being one other "rationally defined" species among many, but the "divinities" that matter are not other-worldly. They confront us directly each time we intuitively note those limits, namely the planes of real relations in which we're embedded, i.e. a world of ideas, not concepts, particularly cosmic concepts and meta-narratives. The problem is thinking that fails to recognize this difference, Koss' included.

  • Blah, Blah, Blah
  • Posted by CaN on May 22, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • Just shut up already about the "crisis" of the humanities and their failure to honor and cherish great ideas of the past. It's all just a bunch of nonsense and always has been. Enough already. What a self-parody Kass and others have become.

  • What of the Writer?
  • Posted by Dr. K on May 22, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • I do embrace the metaphysical in my teaching, in my research, and in my life. But this is not always appropriate to the study of every work of literature. Writers are sometimes more cynical, cryptic, and negative than the professors who teach their works. Voltaire is cynical to the point of sometimes being downright nasty. Lacan intentionally obfuscates. How shall we teach the works of such authors? With optimism and clarity?

  • Have you hugged an English Professor today?
  • Posted by RM on May 22, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • To Piled Higher and Deeper--

    In fact, I do raise in my classroom the kinds of questions you were suggesting ought to be raised. As a number of other posters have said, it's time for some folks to stop talking out of the 1980s/90s playbook (oh, I know, you've got some friends, or are those friends of friends, who tell you how bad things are) and find out what English professors are actually doing. One thing we're doing is trying to teach often underprepared students to read carefully and imaginatively, and to think critically, in the face of lots of forces that militate against this, including shrinking budgets for what is quite labor intensive instruction. So everyone, please find an English professor, shake his or her hand, and say, "thank you for all you do." Cheers.

  • Conversing about Good, Truth, Beauty
  • Posted by RS on May 22, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • "So far, about morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after and judged by these standards, which I do not defend, the bullfight is very moral to me because I feel very fine while it is going on and have a feeling of life and death and mortality and immortality, and after it is over I feel very sad but very fine" (Ernest Hemingway, Death in the Afternoon 4).

  • So many words, so little said
  • Posted by Leroy Four on May 22, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • I suffered through Kass's lecture last night. He really did use a lot of words to say very little. I saw little more than a huge ego on the stage. He came across as saying, "I'm a great man. Listen to and find a way to emulate some random recollections about how I got to where I am, and you, too, can be great." Another case of mental masturbation on display.

  • Never Truer Words Spoken
  • Posted by West Coast prof on May 22, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Dr. Kass is correct when he commends the teaching of humanities for the understanding of what is true or beautiful or right. He won't find much of that in literature departments anymore, however. The content or meaning of great literature is subordinated to studying and teaching about anything else -- social context, structure and syntax, identity politics, prejudices and bias, author's biography, and a criticism over topics NOT covered in the great work. 

    Humanities faculty have lost the courage to assert that their knowledge is important and that educated graduates should also know it and should want to know. Instead we have to require them to take classes in these subjects because the students can see that the topic is the professor's specialty, not his/her passion.  Is it any wonder (indeed, has the sense of wonder valished from humanities courses?) that students turn to popular culture, especially music, in their quest what what is true, beautiful, and the right way to live?

  • Kass is more than an ego
  • Posted by Religion Prof , Senior Lecturer Dept of Religion/School of Business at California Lutheran University on May 22, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • It is an easy temptation to get defensive, especially if you don't share the worldview (political and otherwise) of the critic. "She who has ears, let her hear." (Matthew 11:15) It seams to me that Kass is part of a long line of critics, see Anthony Kronman, Education's End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have given Up on the Meaning of Life, not so easily dismissed.

  • A category error?
  • Posted by Lee J Rickard , Executive Project Director at University of New Mexico on May 22, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Complaining that the modern sciences refuse "to define a human being as anything beyond the precise sum of his physical parts" is rather like complaining that modern paintings don't make music.

  • Kass and the Truth
  • Posted by Jim A. on May 22, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Let's not forget that Kass stacked the Bioethics Commission with people already sympathetic to his extreme position, and even departed from his own Judaism by not engaging the opinion of the Orthodox rabbinate, which largely supported embryonic stem cell research (under careful guidelines).  And now he writes from within the sinecure of the American Enterprise Institute, which hosted Dick Cheney's staggering display of falsehoods on torture.  Kass says,"The last thing young people need is cynicism and a belief that the truth about these matters is whatever you want it to be." Indeed. Then why does he praise the most mendacious administration in recent memory?  

  • Kass Is Right
  • Posted by Laura on May 22, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • I only have to read the titles of presentations at the MLA conferences to know where the study of humanities is today. I agree, deconstructionism is alive and well, it has just become disguised because it has morphed into still more specialties. Can research get any more disconnected from what is important in life, and dare I say, in academia? I'm with Kass. At least he has the guts to go against the party line.

     

  • To Laura
  • Posted by James W. Gettys on May 22, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • "The content or meaning of great literature is subordinated to studying and teaching about anything else -- social context, structure and syntax, identity politics, prejudices and bias, author's biography, and a criticism over topics NOT covered in the great work."

    Just as RS suggests above with the quote from Hemingway, there can be political disagreement with "what is important in life,"
    or what we mean by the Good (i.e. morality), Truth and Beauty (beauty here created at the expense of animals.)

    I'm thinking of Jane Austen's _Mansfield Park_, specifically Edward Said's example of the life of leisure enjoyed by the girls while their father is away tending to his plantations in the Carribean (their leisure, their experience of Beauty, produced by the sweat and misery of slaves not discussed as such in the novel). That is "Truth" relative to the very cultural logic of the art work!

    Hence, my answer also to the protest above that literary study has degenerated into discussing things "NOT covered in the great work." The Not-Stated is often KEY to the meaning of the work. Hemingway himself explained that as a major principle of his story-telling aesthetic, his ice-berg theory.

     

  • Stop with the sad 80s references
  • Posted by Doc Mara , English at NDSU on May 22, 2009 at 7:00pm EDT
  • "I only have to read the titles of presentations at the MLA conferences to know where the study of humanities is today. I agree, deconstructionism is alive and well, it has just become disguised because it has morphed into still more specialties."

    Yes, Laura, if you just get a scrap of paper, cut it up, change the letters around, add a few, and subtract a few, those titles spell out "DeConsTRuctIo(n)." There, it must be true.

    Please. Go attend a class. Our faculty holds discussions about physical and metaphysical issues in literature classes all the time. Truth, beauty--it's all in there. The deconstruction straw man died when Derrida did. Let it, and him, rest.

  • mendacity
  • Posted by GTKarnezis on May 23, 2009 at 6:00am EDT
  • I'm looking forward to reading the speech. Thus far, however, Jim A's observations seem quite pertinent and worth weighing. To speak generously of the Enlightenment and then to, as did the previous administration, glory in "making reality" rather than respecting it, seems hypocritical. I have long doubted the state of the humanities, but I'm not sure Kass is the guy who's got their number.

  • Dreams Of Our Fathers
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on May 23, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • I read Doc Mara’s first post yesterday, and I’m certain he is responsible for the recurring nightmare I had last night. I was on the 660 foot porch of the Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island (Michigan) where there are hundreds of atrium-white rocking chairs.

    http://www.cleveland.com/travel/index.ssf/2009/05/mackinac_island_with_an_oldfas.html

    Slouched in those chairs were William Friday, President Obama’s own “Father Ted” Hesburgh, David Horowitz, Patricia Cross, Clark Kerr, David Henry, Nathan Pusey, etc. If I’m not mistaken, even David Riesman and Noam Chomsky were there. But waaay off in the far reaches of the porch were none other than , Leon Kass and Stanley Fish.

    Everyone was engrossed in conversations about higher education and their own importance ... and you couldn’t walk ten feet without hearing someone mumble “... the envy of the rest of the world ...”

    In my nightmares I walked down on the enormous lawn between the hotel and Lake Huron where I found Mark Twain, Will Rogers, and C.P. Snow, drinking whiskey, smoking cigars, and making jokes about the folks up on the porch.

    Now I’m looking for an expert in dream interpretation?

  • as a student....
  • Posted by Rhonda Scott , Humanities at CU Boulder on May 23, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • As a student at the University of Colorado @ Boulder, I studied Humanities (and received a degree in Humanities with emphases in Psychology and Philosophy). I also have taken additional coursework in English and Literature, finishing up with a Master's degree in Education from the University of Northern Colorado. I write this as someone outside of college academia employ who has been a student for several years of both english, literature and the humanities.

    During my many studies in several different colleges and universities, I have found all of the above-mentioned types of teaching and grievances. I have also taken science courses with professors who think the humanities is a meaningless field altogether. I have had professors who deconstruct, -- "social context, structure and syntax, identity politics, prejudices and bias, author's biography, and a criticism over topics NOT covered in the great work", as well as professors who had us read for the sake of beauty, truth and goodness, depending on what distinguished them as a person. My point is that it took me several undergraduate degrees, along with about 20 additional classes, to obtain all of this information, and very (very) few students are able to take much english or humanities outside of their major. Therefore, you are only speaking to people getting degrees in Humanities and English for the most part, are you not?

    What about all of the other other millions of students graduating continuously who only get their requisite two english comp classes? Their souls are not even touched by any of this. Further, what of the millions of people who never take even a single college class, to what purpose does any of this touch their lives? I became an elementary teacher in order to ensure that all of my students received a better mix of all the aforementioned, (humanities, english, syntax, deconstruction, beauty, truth, etc. etc.), regardless of whether they graduated in the sciences, humanities, or never made it to college. I failed in that endeavor because the elementary schools have fallen completely into "standards" and methodologies created over the past 100 years of political purposes, finalizing in the more recent "No Child Left Behind".

    As a teacher in our current system it is extremely difficult to find the time to teach anything other than strict standards because of time constraints, constant testing of the students, and being constantly monitored by the principal and administration, and the parents, to ensure that you are staying 'completely on schedule' with the standards and testing. As a teacher of the young in this country, you are no longer permitted to 'care deeply' about the students, because you are given about 27 students, then another 50 students in the same day, and seven subjects, along with very strict daily timelines. As a professor, there is some wiggle room to teach as you deem warranted according to your own philosophies and beliefs, as a teacher in the school system, you are permitted no such wiggle room anymore, and the teachers with tenure who did it anyway are being replaced with teachers who will walk the line of non-stop standards and testing requirements.

    Instead of everybody in academia arguing about whether there is any soul left in the Humanities and sciences, as Kass has done repeatedly, and many have argued, I wish all of academia could turn their sights to doing something about the soul of our children's education. By the time children grow up and take a course or two in college (if they are lucky), it is already too little too late to provide them with the vast amount of truth, beauty and goodness they need to assist them in life for purpose, meaning, relationships, careers, (i.e; "life"). Help is needed in the public school system, desperately needed. The teachers have no power to change this tide. Even the current Obama administration is going forward with the "tow the line" approach to teachers, raising standards even further, and planning to apply more measures to teachers "prooving themselves" as meeting those standards. The heart and soul of teaching has been crushed, and it is where we all desperately need to turn our attentions.

  • Disciplinary Breakdown
  • Posted by Long Distance Mom on May 23, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • Transitions are difficult. Traditional academic disciplines are suffering a bit as interdisciplinary programs pick up the slack. Enrollment numbers may decline in the humanities, but English and Literature Departments aren't going anywhere.

    A big part of deconstruction's message is that there is room for the both/and: universities can have traditional humanities AND interdisciplinary programs; literary history AND theory. As Kass has demonstrated so well, faculty will teach increasingly across multiple areas. (It's the newly minted PhDs who are feeling the pain right now.)

    Postmodernists have gotten a bad name because, as Stanley Fish understands, provocative statements alienate some readers, even as they attract others and spur creative thought. Either/or competitions sure generate some interesting fights though...

  • To Rhonda Scott
  • Posted by James W. Gettys on May 23, 2009 at 7:15pm EDT
  • What got me, as a youngster, into literature and the humanities was the "subversive" project of the canonized white male authors and their canonizing white, middle class, middle-aged critics having received tenure in the academy just in time for their mid-life crisis. No wonder the greatest authors were those producing literature with the great "universal" theme of the middle class, white male going through his midlife crisis. That is, "the best," as Matthew Arnold said,"that has been thought and written." But they were likewise often opposed to what Arnold called "phillistinism," or the business penchant for quantifying everything to pieces, the very negation of the True, the Beautiful, and the Good, if you asked me. I naturally gravitated to Arnold's master narrative.

    Later,in the late 70s and early 80s (as I belatedly came into it), that old "subversive" purpose for literature was ridiculed for its ego-centric claim to universal/eternal truths. And because I was familiar enough with the foregoing narrative I found it even more liberating to see literary and historical studies transformed into good old rhetorical analysis by which a more diverse,democratic society might develop some hope of creating social justice out of its tragic cultural heritage. (I fear this shift from one narrative to another has been lost, and so, more recent trends in the Humanities must indeed seem absurd to outsiders: an important context lost.)

    You're right, Ms. Scott. Because of today's phillistinism-with-a-vengence, a similarly fascinating journey through the history of ideas seems less and less possible for more and more students. The Phillistines have you chained to the machine. If you try to subvert their assembly line you'll be amputated. Time indeed, dear readers, for some solidarity.

  • "We blew it."
  • Posted by Hnaef on May 23, 2009 at 7:45pm EDT
  • Having recently read a tall stack of applications for a position at the institution in which I teach, I would strongly recommend that aspiring English professors or even majors select a different line of work.

    Between the vicious mindlessness of academic politics and the inanity of most literary research, there is a tiny comfort zone which the deaths of no sophists will prevent from shrinking into nothingness--"And Universal darkness buries all."

  • Thoughts on Rhonda Scott's comments
  • Posted by Rachel Henning on May 24, 2009 at 9:45pm EDT
  • Like Ms. Scott I also spent many years in Acedemia (B.A. in Theater from Coe College, graduate classes in English and history at New Mexico State University) before choosing to become a secondary English teacher (Simpson College MAT program). I decided on this course for two reasons: my love of literature and my desire to share this love-to actually teach.

    Ms. Scott's comments on NCLB and the impact it has on teaching-especially the impact on helping children love learning, not regurgitate facts- are all too true and fill me with a sort of horror. The discussion on whether or not humanities departments teach students to study what it means to be human, to look for The Good, Truth and Beauty, focuses on only that portion of students that choose to study in the humanities. This leaves out the many students who, as mentioned, are only briefly exposed to these studies.

    Perhaps the exposure to the search for Good, Truth and Beauty should be the focus of teaching at the elementary level. This is the time when students are most open to this type of exploration. As they progress through their education other items, such as histories and theories, can be grafted onto the established foundation of searching for what it means to be human in the humanities (it is called "humanities" for a reason). Even those students that decide not to pursue humanities education would arrive at college better equiped for having a firmer basis in the fundamental purpose of humanities study. College is the time for more intense and specialized inquiry, the basic discipline concepts and reasons-for-existing should be part of every child's basic education.

    I am not saying that we should completely do away with elementary and secondary standards. We need them, and we need the basic skills taught at these levels. What I am saying is we need to remove the over-emphasis on these items and replace it with subject-enjoyment if we hope to alter the academic world.

  • Kass's Understanding of the Job of the Humanities
  • Posted by Patrick Dolan , Lecturer, Rhetoric at U of Iowa on May 25, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • The two most telling comments above come from Kass, who criticizes humanities instructors for "not teaching the books the way the students want to read them," and Laura, who says, "I only have to read the titles of presentations at the MLA conferences to know where the study of humanities is today."

    Laura is precisely the kind of student Kass is thinking about. She reads to have her preconceptions coddled and confirmed, and once that happens, she doesn't need to read anything further. (Otherwise, she could actually read some of the work indexed by the program of the MLA convention.)

    In a genuinely challenging class, she'd bridle, complain, and when she got a generous C, blame it on the professor's politics.

    I read Derrida with pleasure, and am instructed by Foucault. That doesn't mean I don't have the intellectual capacity to know that Dick Cheney is lying most of the time, and that Martin Luther King Jr. was a great American (who also committed adultery). Kass's comments have and ideological and political undercurrent that any humanities student, much less professor can see.

  • Get To Know Your Jefferson Lecturer
  • Posted by Jim , Professor/English at Union College on May 25, 2009 at 11:45pm EDT
  • This quality of thought made him President Bush's second-favorite philosopher:

    "Worst of all from this point of view are those more uncivilized forms of eating, like licking an ice cream cone--a catlike activity that has been made acceptable in informal America but that still offends those who know eating in public is offensive. ... Eating on the street--even when undertaken, say, because one is between appointments and has no other time to eat--displays [a] lack of self-control: It beckons enslavement to the belly. ... Lacking utensils for cutting and lifting to mouth, he will often be seen using his teeth for tearing off chewable portions, just like any animal. ... This doglike feeding, if one must engage in it, ought to be kept from public view, where, even if we feel no shame, others are compelled to witness our shameful behavior."

  • Rachel and Rhonda
  • Posted by GTKarnezis on May 26, 2009 at 4:30am EDT
  • I'd like to thank Rachel and Rhonda for their candor and their focus on teaching conditions that insult the humanities and the sort of teaching they call for. We can speak eloquently and often about the value of the humanities, or about the "crisis" they face, but in the end it all comes down to whether people in the humanities, or those who claim to respect them, have provided teachers and students with the necessary conditions for engaging in humanities subjects. I do not have experience at the primary or secondary level, but I certainly sympathize with the observations that Rhonda and Rachel have made.

    I'm largely retired now, but my experience in higher education taught me that over the years it was those dedicated to the humanities who were most likely to have part-time, non-tenured positions, and that the number of these positions continues to increase as full time positions decrease, while many of the super stars in the humanities remain amply rewarded and indifferent to this situation. I'd like to hear Dr. Kass's comments on these matters. He seems to me a genuinely ethical person whose thoughts on what Rachel and Rhonda have said would be worth hearing.

  • what's missing?
  • Posted by Geoff Parkes on May 28, 2009 at 6:45am EDT
  • as some of "we english" people might know, there is nothing wrong with pursuing the good, the true and the beautiful, s long as we don't ignore that other compulsion that enlightenment initially provided us = that we must, incessantly, question ourselves and the times we live in so as not to perpetuate the crimes of absolutism that had gone before, cloaked in the promises and propaganda of Truth, Beauty and The Good