June 15, 2006

A Swift Kick for Us Humanists

War. Pestilence. Famine. All in the paper again today. And tomorrow. And the day after that. Are we, the people, serious about peace or justice? What I want to know: Who excused the humanities from this mess? I keep trying to draw my professors, the ones I had in college and any others I know, into the fray. We have the tools for the job.

Looking for a job?

See all 217 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,477
Administrative: 1,652
Executive: 163
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

The play, the painting, the music are not the end state. It’s Shakespeare, Cezanne, Mozart standing along the road and reaching out to us on our marathon with a cup of Gatorade. Isn’t The Tempest a lesson for the ages in resiliency after we screw up? That life goes on, albeit with a cost? Matisse asks that we look anew once we walk out of the gallery. Hard to imagine that J.S. Bach wanted us to head home from church and debate key signatures.

Before me, calling the question, are a headline about stem cells and an e-mail from Iraq. Same one you read about two teams of scientists embarking on stem-cell research. Not for the ride but to try for cures to dreadful diseases. The e-mail is from my friend Rich Morales, an Army lieutenant colonel fighting in his second Gulf war. A former White House Fellow, Rich wrote, “I lost a good friend on Memorial Day. That day always meant something to me symbolically, now it’s even more personal. Additionally, my good friend who I worked with in the White House lost a brother here a few weeks ago.” Note: Rich writes, too, “I love my country” and doesn’t take sides in the politics.

How can we tackle stem cells and leave Rich and his troops sitting in danger? We need to figure out how to stop fighting wars. The U.S. spends billions on research for medicine, science and engineering. Perhaps the rest of us are not looking hard enough for peace. I don’t mean that the humanities have all the answers. The people at the table with the big questions might just need some help.

Why do the hard scientists, as humanists grumble, have all the huge grant money? The party line: “Blame the politicians for the lousy funding.” My hypothesis: “It’s the questions. The humanities asks lousy questions.” Look at the carnage of the 20th Century. Is the human condition, our field, doing any better these days? Not yet. Enough to suggest that the world’s problems would welcome a few new ideas. Why don’t the humanities take responsibility for peace and for justice? Someone has to.

I’m an English major. What are the questions we’re asking now? Well, check out the “Forthcoming Meetings and Conferences of General Interest” (italics mine), from the mother ship, the Modern Language Association. Have another click at topics of fresh grants at the National Humanities Center. “Upcoming Events” at The New York Institute for the Humanities has only a seminar that happened six weeks ago. This is all such a fraction of what the world today needs from the humanities.

This humanities situation grabbed me by the throat one afternoon a few years ago, 13,780 feet up on Mauna Kea (Live Webcam. Take a look.) for a board meeting of the 3.6-meter Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope. I asked an astronomer what he was working on. “The equation state of the universe.” Best I can translate: “Where is the universe going and when will it get there?” The magnificent audacity of scientists delights me. They’ll model the whole thing – the universe or a genome. Only the start of the question. Look at where these scientists begin. Christian Veillet, director of the telescope project, also leads a Bach choir and was first to tell me of the Motets.

Here’s the rub. I’ve spent my career so far in business and government. Without the humanities, without The Odyssey or King Lear or Richard II or The Tempest, I would understand even less than I do. My MBA opens doors. Debit left, credit right never hurts. As for the tools for solving problems, my humanities win every time. Again and again, I fail at convincing my professors and their colleagues that they have to take on The Big Questions. I can’t explain sitting on the sidelines to any troops serving in Iraq. Astrophysicists want to model the universe? Be my guest. We’ll model peace. And then justice. What does peace look like?

Humans are good at dissecting Really Big Problems. If a car starts in Washington, D.C., we can map the supply chain and macroeconomic links to a death in Darfur. Time to chart the periodic table of emotional elements here. Why we start our car, anyway. We’re missing something.

A few days after Mauna Kea, I met with some English professors who lamented their department’s aging computers. Their English students had to rely on the generosity of the oceanographers and their computer lab. Fair? Well, we realized, the oceanographers were writing grants to end global warming. The line item for computers was a detail.

The hard scientists are earning their keep. My heroes of the century past are Jonas Salk and Norman Borlaug. Borlaug’s work still feeds millions by putting more grains of wheat on shorter stalks. The rest of us aren’t creating human conditions that can accept these advances at enough scale.

What, with our metaphors, would transform a humanist into a Salk or a Borlaug? Why do we shirk such an impact? For the scientists, it seems, the analysis is a building block toward the shape of the universe or a cure or clean water. I despair. At a humanities conference, I put this to a newly tenured Ivy League art historian. “Well, your question presumes that utility of knowledge is a value,” he said. Almost enough to make me regret Salk’s efforts.

I’m sitting here, too, with books that don’t help my cause. The Discoveries, Great Breakthroughs in 20th Century Science, Including the Original Papers. By Alan Lightman (Pantheon Books, 2005). The other, The New Humanists: Science at the Edge by John Brockman (A Barnes and Noble Book, 2003). Science at the edge? No luck so far on digests of humanities’ accomplishments.

I do consider, on these searches, that if I can I see a problem, I must be wrong. Someone has to be working on this. I Googled “model for peace.” A hit at the UNESCO Web site. Promising, but not exactly the “model” I expected: A fashion model who is an advocate for peace. At least Patricia Velasquez is thinking out of the box.

Could we could dream up a NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts for the humanities?

The NEH could have a center that, metaphorically, does what NIAC does: “seeks proposals for revolutionary aeronautics and space concepts that could dramatically impact how NASA develops and conducts its missions. It provides a highly visible, recognizable, and high-level entry point for outside thinkers and researchers. NIAC encourages proposers to think decades into the future in pursuit of concepts that will ‘leapfrog’ the evolution of current aerospace systems. While NIAC seeks advance concept proposals that stretch the imagination, these concepts should be based on sound scientific principles and attainable within a 10 to 40-year time frame.”

Humanists could write the equivalent of Science in Action, How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society, by Bruno Latour (Harvard University Press, 1987). I can’t be alone in thinking that we are insulting to J.S. Bach or Shakespeare or Orwell that that we’re just supposed to sit there as an end. Another alarm is the fine reporting in Radical Evolution, The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies – and What it Means to Be Human, by Joel Garreau (Doubleday, 2005). (Disclosure, Joel is a friend.) Mankind is at work enhancing our bodies and our technical minds. No similar efforts enhancing kindness or generosity or ability to walk away from a fight.

Over the years, the humanities establishment has not missed a chance to surrender necessity and national security to all other fields. Congress just added a supplement to the Pell Grant to encourage study in, where? Science and math and engineering and only languages deemed essential to national security. Why did we yield the SMART grant, acronym and funding, to other disciplines? With the U.S. government “waterboarding” humans they call “detainees,” poor command of English is eroding national security.

I checked in Oslo, though those folks only pay for results, Nobel at least offers a bit of inspiration, how to think like a Nobel Laureate. Try the one about running a prison camp. The challenge for the humanities is to prevent situations that require prison camps. Yes, I know about the Kluge Prize in human sciences. Another that stops at thought: “The main criterion for a recipient of the Kluge Prize is deep intellectual accomplishment in the human sciences.”

I tried our own National Endowment for the Humanities. Anything motivating, inspiring? Hortatory or even instructive? Not that I found on the Web page. Entertaining but not much use if we are going for the big questions is Tom Wolfe and his NEH Jefferson Lecture. I adore Wolfe, but no help here. More whirled peas than world peace. No section on the questions we must answer to improve the human condition.

I know funding for these models for peace and justice will not roll off presses at Bureau of Printing and Engraving without some sweat and blisters. And some battles.

In the U.S., the federal government spends $15 billion a year, as far as I could total, for research at universities. Our $50 million for peace is not going to fall into anyone’s lap just for imaginative thinking. One thing to be intrigued. Quite another to develop the $100 million grant for justice. I can’t assume those with the grants are looking to share.

We humanists deal often in adages when we are stuck. Here’s one: “If you want something done right.….” I cranked “Carnegie Endowment for International Peace” into Google, hit the Contact Us button and let fly. (Adage: Faint heart wins little.) On Memorial Day, by coincidence.

——-Original Message——-
From: Wick Sloane [mailto:wsloane@well.com]
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 6:27 PM
To: Info
Subject: Visiting Scholar/Grant Application
Congratulations on the fine work of the Endowment. Would you direct me to the information I need to consider making a proposal for funding to design a model for world, or international, peace?

Thank you very much.

J.R.W. Sloane
One Avon Place
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140

Reply came the next morning before even the coffee could have warmed up at Carnegie.

———— Original Message ————
Subject: RE: Visiting Scholar/Grant Application
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 09:01:37 -0400
From: Info
To: Wick Sloane
I’m sorry but the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is not a grant-making organization.

Thank you for your interest.

Where might I turn? I wrote back. No reply.

Note to Jessica Tuchman Matthews, Carnegie President: Whacking the person on a.m. e-mail duty would be a poor response. Instead, let’s have a power breakfast up the street at Kramerbooks. Isn’t the 20th century evidence enough that we need a better handle on the components and causes of peace? Invite Patricia Velasquez.

If you don’t mind a metaphor, shall we let John Milton, asking for help in beginning Paradise Lost, set the bar for a project well beyond our everyday reach?

I thence Invoke thy aid to my adventurous song,
That with no middle flight intends to soar
Above th’ Aonian mount, while it pursues
Things unattempted yet in prose or rhyme.

Or in modeling peace?

Wick Sloane is chief operating officer at Generon Consulting in Massachusetts and former chief financial officer of the University of Hawaii system.

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Humanists and the whole voyald

Oh Wick: plug in globalization to peace, add a dash of nationalism-come-lately to a half teaspoon of religiosity, blend with poverty and drought, and you’ve got problems, you’ve got problems in River City. Of course what you say is so obvious: peace in our time, as Woodrow Wilson wanted. He carved up Europe and left a buffet ready for the next invaders. Money abounds and ideas and theories, but there is no answer. While Salk eliminated polio, and your other hero provided food for more lives, both add challenges to certain populations in particular places. There are too many variables. Look at the vast differences in Hawaii and Massachusetts and go from there. Maybe because both states under US protection, some differences paved over. But the rest of the country, the world, the us and them of the planet, notwithstanding all that is great in the humanities. Would that there were a way for your query to be answered. But the question is too broad, too naive, in my humble estimation, to brook any simple answer or possibility of a solution.

dunya mccammon, at 8:20 am EDT on June 15, 2006

I concur wholeheartedly with your aims and lament, but as Dunya pointed out, the problems are far too complex and overwhelming for simple answers. When I start to feel that my educational practices are not sufficient to fight against the eroding ethos of the time and situation (however they are defined), I remind myself of Ghandi’s comment rather than Milton’s: “Be the change you wish to see in the world.”

Jane Lasarenko, at 9:05 am EDT on June 15, 2006

Humanities and the NEH

It was thirty years ago that I published a New York Times letter, and then a scholarly article, arguing that the NEH was unsuited and ill-equipped to make the humanities relevant or meaningful to others besides academics, or to preach to anyone other than the choir. It was then already obvious that the sciences were asking the real questions, and the NEH had no capacity to change that.

Nothing has changes since then. Wick Sloane is has it exactly right.

Mel Topf9:15 a.m., June 15, 2006

Mel Topf, Prof. at Roger Williams University, at 9:30 am EDT on June 15, 2006

John F. Kennedy said in his 1961 inaugural address: “All this will not be finished in the first 100 days...nor in the life of this administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.”

Perhaps by asking, as Jane pointed out, “How can [I] be the change that [I] wish to see in the world?”

Dykes, at 10:00 am EDT on June 15, 2006

Systems Theory

This suspicion of modeling grand problems in the humanities is a relatively new phenomenon. It began during the 1950s when scientists embraced cybernetics and systems theory. At that time many humanities scholars saw systems theory as inherently militaristic and exploitative. A good history of its abandonment (and a plea for its use again) is embedded in this dissertation, available through ProQuest Digital Dissertations if your institution subscribes:

Toward a science of synthesis: The heritage of general systems theoryby Hammond, Debora Ruth, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, 1997

On a related note, at least one of the scholars mentioned, Bruno LaTour, can be claimed by the humanities too. He is fond of curating art history exhibitions (such as the blockbuster Iconoclash) and attending humanities conferences.

Travis, Man of Mystery at U of Pittsburgh, at 10:35 am EDT on June 15, 2006

How soon we forget

How soon we forget. It wasn’t science alone, or even the bigger American budget, that won the Cold War. After WWII, and during the atomic age, many turned to the humanities for reaponses that science simply can’t give. (Not to mention the role that supposedly “discredited” religion played. Both John Paul II and Benedict are thoroughly grounded in the humanities.) The Cold War was a battle of ideas in which the humanities played an important part. Whatever you think about the CIA-funded effots of intellectuals, remember that at least it was thought important to recruit artists and writers to the struggle.In the current struggle between Islamic terrorism and civilization—WHICHEVER side you are on—you must acknowledge that ideas and culture will play the most important role. But not if the West is stuck in what Alain Finkielkraut calls “penitential narcissism” about itself and its culture.

Let’s not bury the humanities just yet.

Gypsy Boots, at 11:05 am EDT on June 15, 2006

The humanities don’t know what they are up against....

Props to Travis for bringing up Hammond’s _Science of Synthesis_, an excellent book. I think Hammond makes a convincing case that a synthetic knowledge (of the sort the humanities and social sciences can give) is vital for attacking the problems facing the world today. If we could work on problems in the spirit of systems, the humanities and social sciences would be in much better shape in terms of public interest in our work, because it would permit us to make some real contributions. In fact, there are some places that this approach is going forward, e.g., in “integrated assessment” methodologies for studying climate change and biodiversity loss. Recent initiatives like the Human Genome Project and the Nanotech initiative have set aside funding for synthetic studies from historical and sociological perspectives.

But I don’t entirely agree with Hammond’s thesis for why systems went out of fashion; frankly, I find her explanation a bit naive. Yes, some people thought systems was a creature of the military, but that was not decisive. The more fundamental problem is that systems approaches to problems are VERY politically contentious, because the method proposes to analyze and potentially provide “solutions” to big problems. The specialization of scientific fields as they stand is much less contentious because scientists stay in their boxes and rarely venture out. True, they may make larger claims about the impacts of their work, but if called on it in a public forum, they will fall back on their technical specialization. “Hey, I just model heat transfer between the earth and the atmosphere. I can’t conclusively say anything about how this is going to affect people’s lives.”

Especially today, there are powerful forces pushing this kind of disciplinary sclerosis. One facet of the recent “academic freedom” movement is a renewed push to keep people in their academic boxes — this is why there is so much animosity toward using “race” “gender” or “globalization” as concepts for stimulating transdisciplinary work in the social sciences. Never mind that they are significant issues facing society that deserve study by *all* disciplines, from mathematics and biology to philosophy. But this should give you an idea of the forces out there.

What to do? Maybe better than trying to “solve” big problems, we should do a better job of highlighting the major dilemmas we face, dilemmas upon which the mighty of the world must ultimately exercise judgement. One possibility!

Grad Student, at 11:35 am EDT on June 15, 2006

Just dare!

“There are too many variables", writes Dunya. “The problems are far too complex and overwhelming for simple answers", writes Jane. So what? Sure it will start with a simple, even simplistic, approach to the problem, but the models will get better and better as we incorporate more and more factors. How do you think the current models of the evolution of a star, the histoy of our solar system, or the evolution of the universe started? Indeed there are many variables, and human behavior is hard to model. It does not mean that it is not possible! On the way, building blocks from the modest contribution of many will accumulate and hopefully lead to a decent construction. The Moon was not too far for those who decided to pay it a visit, apartheid was not too big to be fought for those who made it end... Be audacious indeed, be confident in your ability to contribute, even modestly, to the solution of the problems you tackle, find new angles or decompose the big problems in pieces easier to manage, but please do not give up before even starting because the problem is too dificult!

Christian Veillet, Executive Director at Canada France Hawaii Telescope, at 11:50 am EDT on June 15, 2006

Using my skills as a critic, let me note that I think the questions here are mis-framed. What those of us who study history, anthropology, area studies, cultural studies, etc., are really very, very good at is pointing out when the big grandiose ideas of politicians (and sometimes war-makers) are counterproductive or won’t work. We’re not so good at making peace, admittedly. But if more people listened to the detailed explorations of people’s values, creativity, concerns, needs, and approaches that we delineate, there might be less harm done in the policy world. But that’s the thing. Humanists are often best at making things more complicated. People who can translate our insights into actions usually want simplifications (eg. “What does ‘the real Iraqi’ think about suicide bombing?"). Complexity is scary. It doesn’t fit in soundbites or briefing packets. The scientists have plenty of trouble getting policy types to listen (think global warming). Their world isn’t perfect. Neither is that of the humanists.I’d thus argue that the problem isn’t necessarily with the humanists, but with policymakers unwilling to grapple with complexity, hard choices, and a world with realities that stretch beyond the next elections.

a humanities person, at 11:55 am EDT on June 15, 2006

answers?

Reading the comments, a trend becomes evident, the questions are too complex and have no answers. What scientist would take that approach? Einstein calmly argued for a unified grand theory of the everything. Until we can do that with confidence, science will trump the humanities everytime.

Let’s take another look at the 19th century. In that era humanists believed they could find the answers and they proposed the grand theories which 20th century humanists convinced their students, themselves, and society could not possible work. Back to Pogo, we are our own worst enemies.

KEL, at 2:15 pm EDT on June 15, 2006

KEL misses the point.

KEB says that the problems are too complex; could it be that the answers are too contentious?

Let’s start this way. Why are scientists important? Surely not because they devised string theory or general relativity! What typical Americans (or indeed, typical policy-makers) care is whether they can build bigger and better computers and satellites, not whether a physicist says there are 6 quarks or 7. This is not to devalue the importance of “theories of everything” — they are what keep science intellectually alive, just as theories of history and of society keep the humanities and the social sciences alive.

Now, if scientists advise people how to produce better machines, what should historians and social scientists do? Well, they should help produce “better” institutions, economies, and social orders. And there’s the rub: the people who have the power to alter economies, institutions, and social orders are not typically people who want to change what they have created. Sometimes, they do; and at such times the humanities are fantasically important.

Hence my comment about “posing dilemmas” above. We shouldn’t be aping scientists, not because the problems we study are too complex, but because ANY answer is likely to be too contentious.

Grad Student, at 7:05 pm EDT on June 15, 2006

Opinion

The problem is that scientists come up with solid data and humanities often come up with opinions supporting by quotes from the opinions of others.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 5:00 am EDT on June 16, 2006

No kick from me for humanists. They were once a powerful, dynamic force. I still have nostalgia. Today? Well, the humanities seem bloodless to me. Can we debate race? Of course, from a politically correct viewpoint. Can we discuss politics? Yes, it it is correctly couched in pseudo-objective terminology. Atheism? Well, yes, if comments are guardedly put forth. What if there are no deities? That can be discussed in suitably abstract terms that reach new heights of obscurantism and hence do not seriously offend. Is it OK to be rich? Not many humanists defend that viewpoint either. It is not a nice thing to discuss. Good humanists know that the rich are exploiters of mostly evil motives.

Marvin McConoughey, at 5:00 am EDT on June 16, 2006

Kevin and the philsophy of science

Kevin, That is by far the grossest oversimplification I have ever heard by anyone remotely connected to academe.

While the entire philosophy of science takes year to understand, “data,” at best, is a series of perceptions that individuals have. The choice of what data to record is based on their beliefs and opinions about the nature of the universe. At best. At worst, “data” is a series of selective antidotes intended to provide scientific-looking cover for a political viewpoint. Ironically, scientists do, (and should) rely on the work of others. But, this isn’t any different than in any other field.

Larry, at 9:25 pm EDT on June 17, 2006

Reality(?) Showing

I say pony up a billion for a reality show award to the contestant with the best BIG PLAN- seed money-Take my wifes please— we need the dough!

Votes will be cast by the general public (?) whose recent American Idol votes outnumbered the last presidential election by about a gazillion

Seriously though Wick—- you have provoked great thoughts from high intelligence

Ron Gallagher, Career Counselor at Williams College, at 11:45 am EDT on June 21, 2006

Leverage Knowldge for Social Good

Very provocative, indeed! Much of what is suggested by Wick Sloane resonates with and was the basis for the Intellectual Entrepreneurship Consortium (IE)I developed at the University of Texas.

https://webspace.utexas.edu/cherwitz/www/ie/

The goal of IE is to educate citizen scholars——to leverage knoweldge for social social good, something not vigorously pursued by those of us who are humanists. IE seems to change the metaphor and model of education from one of “apprenticeship-certification-entitlement” to one of “discovery-ownership-accountabily.” IE is not vocational education or professional development; it is about discovering and celebrating the enormous value of academic expertise—whether humanitistic, social scientific, scientific or the synergies produced by the collaboration among these different perspectives.

I was energized after reading Wick’s essay and encourage readers to check out some of the work I am doing with IE, and the essays I have writtren about it—-all of which are contained on the web page (above).

Rick Cherwitz, Professor at University of Texas at Austin, at 6:15 pm EDT on June 21, 2006

Jobs Related to A Swift Kick for Us Humanists

or search for jobs directly.

Open Rank
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

The Department of Radiation Oncology in the School of Medicine at UNC-Chapel Hill invites applications for a tenure-track ... see job

Research Fellow
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Professor or Associate Professor
East Carolina University

East Carolina University, a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina, is a doctoral institution with an ... see job

Open Rank Professor — Policy Unit
University of California, Los Angeles

The Policy Unit of the UCLA Anderson School of Management is seeking to fill one position in the general field of Strategy see job

Radiologic Technology Chair
Sinclair Community College

Sinclair is a comprehensive community college with an enrollment of over 24,000 students that offers career and transfer ... see job

Associate Dean, College of Education
Troy University

Troy University is seeking applicants for the position of Associate Dean of the College of Education — Montgomery campus. The ... see job

One-Year Faculty Position in Creative Writing
Northwestern College — IA

NORTHWESTERN COLLEGE (IOWA) has a one-year visiting position in Creative Writing (Fiction or Poetry) Fall 2009, with possible ... see job

Director of Human Resources
University of Texas, Brownsville

Position Number: FY 09-6 Reports to: Associate Vice President for Business Affairs/Compliance Scope: The University of Texas ... see job

Adjunct Faculty
Western Carolina University

Working Title: Adjunct Faculty — History

Posting Information: Western Carolina University is always ... see job

Chef and Kitchen Manager
Southern Oregon University

Faculty and staff make an educated choice to work at Southern Oregon University. They contribute to the education of students ... see job

A Swift Kick for Us Humanists

Related stories