Apparently, in this fiscal crisis, the purpose of the humanities has become defending the purpose of the humanities:
Patricia Cohen, "In Tough Times, the Humanities Must Justify Their Worth" (New York Times)
Catherine Porter's "President's Column" in the Spring 2009 MLA Newsletter (Look for the "Association Matters" section of the .pdf file)
Reading the New York Times article by Patricia Cohen about the humanities trying to stay strong and make a case for their worth (again) made me wonder if the problem in fact, stems from a lack of integration of subjects rather than a lack of interest in the humanities. Most people (to a certain extent at least) enjoy learning about history, drama, and philosophy. However, in the busy world of today, most people must make a choice about the their future careers, and rarely does this include anything related to the humanities for the simple reason that it is not viewed as an employable field. The humanities are important and should not be forgotten, but perhaps the advocates of the humanities have been trying to push for their availability in the wrong way. If it is commonly accepted that the humanities are supposed to teach us what it is to be human and to deal with and understand (or at least be able to critically analyze) various situations in life, then why should this not be incorporated into the course material for what people consider to be the "useful" majors such as business or engineering? For example, courses in business that stress ethics and the philosophy of doing business or courses in economics that teach the history of past economic approaches and trends instead of just graphs and formulas with little relevance to what we actually see in our own lives pertaining to the field. Maybe we did this instead of fighting a losing battle to save the humanities, then students would gain the beneficial knowledge they have to offer without being forced to actually major in them.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a really interesting idea, Christian. In a sense, what you're arguing for is greater integration of fields of study--or interdisciplinarity. But we tend to think of interdisciplinarity as having faculty and students who are specializing in specific subject areas coming together for conferences or symposia; what you're suggesting is that we actually need more interdisciplinarity within each individual classroom: why shouldn't a biology course offer at least a glimpse of the history of biology or medicine? Why shouldn't a psychology course perhaps integrate literary materials in which a particular form of social deviance or psychological disorder is represented?
ReplyDeleteSome faculty might resist this kind of teaching because they lack the training and preparation in the "humanities aspect" of their own fields. Plenty of researchers, professors, and professionals in, say, the hard or social sciences are not necessarily aware of the history of their own disciplines. In fact, many humanities professors are not necessarily aware of the history of their own fields. (You might even be surprised that a strong majority of those who work in university settings know less than you now do about the ideas and history of higher education!). But then the case becomes one for incorporating this kind of material into graduate education. If you're going to teach teachers, could we help them understand the "humanities" implications of what they teach along the way? It is something to think about!