Why study the humanities?

The federal legislation that established the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1965 defined humanities as specific disciplines: "language, both modern and classical; linguistics; literature; history; jurisprudence; philosophy; archaeology: comparative religion; ethics; the history, criticism, and theory of the arts"; and "those aspects of the social sciences which have humanistic content and employ humanistic methods." But to define humanities by itemizing the academic fields they embrace is to overlook the qualities that make them uniquely important and worth studying. Expanding upon a phrase from Matthew Arnold, I would describe the humanities as the best that has been said, thought, written, and otherwise expressed about human experience. The humanities tell us how men and women of our own and other civilizations have grappled with life's enduring, fundamental questions: What is justice? What should be loved? What deserves to be defended? What is courage? What is noble? What is base? Why do civilizations flourish? Why do they decline? Kant defined the essence of the humanities in four questions: What can I know? What should I do? What may I hope for? What is man? These questions are not simply diversions for intellectuals or playthings for the idle. As a result of the ways in which these questions have been answered, civilizations have emerged, nations have developed, wars have been fought, and people have lived contendedly or miserably. If ideas are important, it surely follows that learning and life are poorer without the humanities. Montaigne wrote: A pupil should be taught what it means to know something, and what it means not to know it; what should be the design and end of study; what valor, temperance, and justice are, the difference between ambition and greed, loyalty and servitude, liberty and license; and the marks of true and solid contentment. Further, the humanities can contribute to an informed sense of community by enabling us to learn about and become participants in a common culture, shareholders in our civilization. But our goal should be more than just a common culture -- even television and comics can give us that. We should, instead, want all students to know a common culture rooted in civilization's lasting vision, its highest shared ideals and aspirations, and its heritage. Professor E. D. Hirsch of the University of Virginia calls the beginning of this achievement "cultural literacy" and reminds us that "no culture exists that is ignorant of its own traditions." As the late philosopher Charles Frankel once said, it is through the humanities that a civilized society talks to itself about things that matter most.

How should the humanities be taught and learned? Mankind's answers to compelling questions are available to us through the written and spoken word -- books, manuscripts, letters, plays, and oral traditions -- and also in nonliterary forms, which John Ruskin called the book of art. Within them art expressions of human greatness and of path those and tragedy. In order to tap the consciousness and memory of civilization one must confront these texts and works of art. The members of the study group discussed at length the most effective ways to teach the humanities to undergraduates. Our discussion returned continually to two basic prerequisites for learning in the humanities: good teaching and a good curriculum. Good teaching Good teaching is at least as essential in humanities as in other fields of learning. In this connection, it is critical to point out that of all undergraduate credit hours taken in the

humanities, 87 percent are taken in the freshman and sophomore years. Because nonhumanities majors account for the largest part of these credit hours, courses taken at the introductory level are the first and only collegiate exposure to the humanities for many students. Therefore, we should want to extend to these students the most attractive invitation to the humanities possible. This requires teachers who can make the humanities live and who can guide students through the landscape of human thought. A good curriculum If the teacher is the guide, the curriculum is the path. A good curriculum marks the points of significance so that the student does not wander aimlessly over the terrain, dependent solely on chance to discover the landmarks of human achievement. Colleges and universities have a responsibility to design general education curricula that identify these landmarks. David Savage of the Los Angeles Times expressed the consensus of the study group when he said: "Most students enter college expecting that the university and its leaders have a clear vision of what is worth knowing and what is important in our heritage that all educated persons should know. They also have a right to expect that the university sees itself as more than a catalog of courses." Will the Humanities Save Us? In the final paragraph of my last column, I observed that the report of the New York State Commission on Higher Education slights indeed barely mentions the arts and humanities, despite the wide-ranging scope of its proposals. Those who posted comments agreed with David Small that the arts and the humanities are always the last to receive any assistance. There were, however, different explanations of this unhappy fact.Sean Pidgeon put the blame on humanities departments who are responsible for the leftist politics that still turn people off. Kedar Kulkarni blamed the absence of a culture that privileges Learning to improve oneself as a human being. Bethany blamed universities, which because they are obsessed with maintaining funding default on the obligation to produce well rounded citizens. Matthewblamed no one, because in his view the reports priorities are just what they should be: When a poet creates a vaccine or a tangible good that can be produced by a Fortune 500 company, Ill rescind my comment. Although none of these commentators uses the word, the issue they implicitly raise is justification. How does one justify funding the arts and humanities? It is clear which justifications are not available. You cant argue that the arts and humanities are able to support themselves through grants and private donations. You cant argue that a states economy will benefit by a new reading of Hamlet. You cant argue well you can, but it wont fly that a graduate who is well-versed in the history of Byzantine art will be attractive to employers (unless the employer is a museum). You can talk as Bethany does about well rounded citizens, but that ideal belongs to an earlier period, when the ability to refer knowledgeably to Shakespeare or Gibbon or the Thirty Years War had some cash value (the sociologists call it cultural capital). Nowadays, larding your conversations with small bits of erudition is more likely to irritate than to win friends and influence people. At one time justification of the arts and humanities was unnecessary because, as Anthony Kronman puts it in a new book, Educations End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life, it was assumed that a college was

above all a place for the training of character, for the nurturing of those intellectual and moral habits that together from the basis for living the best life one can. It followed that the realization of this goal required an immersion in the great texts of literature, philosophy and history even to the extent of memorizing them, for to acquire a text by memory is to fix in ones mind the image and example of the author and his subject. It is to a version of this old ideal that Kronman would have us return, not because of a professional investment in the humanities (he is a professor of law and a former dean of the Yale Law School), but because he believes that only the humanities can address the crisis of spirit we now confront and restore the wonder which those who have glimpsed the human condition have always felt, and which our scientific civilization, with its gadgets and discoveries, obscures. As this last quotation makes clear, Kronman is not so much mounting a defense of the humanities as he is mounting an attack on everything else. Other spokespersons for the humanities argue for their utility by connecting them (in largely unconvincing ways) to the goals of science, technology and the building of careers. Kronman, however, identifies science, technology and careerism as impediments to living a life with meaning. The real enemies, he declares, are the careerism that distracts from life as a whole and the blind acceptance of science and technology that disguise and deny our human condition. These false idols, he says, block the way to understanding. We must turn to the humanities if we are to meet the need for meaning in an age of vast but pointless powers, for only the humanities can help us recover the urgency of the question of what living is for. The humanities do this, Kronman explains, by exposing students to a range of texts that express with matchless power a number of competing answers to this question. In the course of this program Kronman calls it secular humanism students will be moved to consider which alternatives lie closest to their own evolving sense of self. As they survey the different ways of living that have been held up by different authors, they will be encouraged to enter as deeply as they can into the experiences, ideas, and values that give each its permanent appeal. And not only would such a revitalized humanism contribute to the growth of the self, it would put the conventional pieties of our moral and political world in question and bring what is hidden into the open the highest goal of the humanities and the first responsibility of every teacher. Here then is a justification of the humanities that is neither strained (reading poetry contributes to the states bottom line) nor crassly careerist. It is a stirring vision that promises the highest reward to those who respond to it. Entering into a conversation with the great authors of the western tradition holds out the prospect of experiencing a kind of immortality and achieving a position immune to the corrupting powers of time. Sounds great, but I have my doubts. Does it really work that way? Do the humanities ennoble? And for that matter, is it the business of the humanities, or of any other area of academic study, to save us? The answer in both cases, I think, is no. The premise of secular humanism (or of just old-fashioned humanism) is that the examples of action and thought portrayed in the enduring works of literature, philosophy and history can create in readers the desire to emulate them. Philip Sydney put it as well as anyone ever has when he asks (in The

Defense of Poesy, 1595), Who reads Aeneas carrying old Anchises on his back that wishes not it was his fortune to perform such an excellent act? Thrill to this picture of filial piety in the Aeneid and you will yourself become devoted to your father. Admire the selfless act with which Sidney Carton ends his life in A Tale of Two Cities and you will be moved to prefer the happiness of others to your own. Watch with horror what happens to Faust and you will be less likely to sell your soul. Understand Kants categorical imperative and you will not impose restrictions on others that you would resist if they were imposed on you. Its a pretty idea, but there is no evidence to support it and a lot of evidence against it. If it were true, the most generous, patient, good-hearted and honest people on earth would be the members of literature and philosophy departments, who spend every waking hour with great books and great thoughts, and as someone whos been there (for 45 years) I can tell you it just isnt so. Teachers and students of literature and philosophy dont learn how to be good and wise; they learn how to analyze literary effects and to distinguish between different accounts of the foundations of knowledge. The texts Kronman recommends are, as he says, concerned with the meaning of life; those who study them, however, come away not with a life made newly meaningful, but with a disciplinary knowledge newly enlarged. And that, I believe, is how it should be. Teachers of literature and philosophy are competent in a subject, not in a ministry. It is not the business of the humanities to save us, no more than it is their business to bring revenue to a state or a university. What then do they do? They dont do anything, if by do is meant bring about effects in the world. And if they dont bring about effects in the world they cannot be justified except in relation to the pleasure they give to those who enjoy them. To the question of what use are the humanities?, the only honest answer is none whatsoever. And it is an answer that brings honor to its subject. Justification, after all, confers value on an activity from a perspective outside its performance. An activity that cannot be justified is an activity that refuses to regard itself as instrumental to some larger good. The humanities are their own good. There is nothing more to say, and anything that is said even when it takes the form of Kronmans inspiring cadences diminishes the object of its supposed praise. Why Study the Humanities? Having learned more about the myths and stories of Western civilization, I am understanding more how study of the humanities (art, history, and literature) can be used to help people better understand and communicate with one another. It is obvious that the study of humanities is not just a college course, but it is an ongoing process and practice in life. The humanities can first be used to understand the past which has created the present. The culture which we have was shaped by the past. Facts, findings, and literature of even thousands of years ago have influenced our world today. Knowing this past can allow people to understand our present; knowing how we came to this present helps us to communicate about it and the future. The study of the humanities can also be used to realize differing interpretations of life and history. Studying facts of the past helps to understand literature of the past. Art reflects the cultures of the past, and shows how we achieved what we have today. For example, the Song of Roland was very biased about the Saracens (Muslims). If one

only studied literature, they would have a totally skewed interpretation of who the Muslims were. By studying history though, we know that the battle in this literature wasn't even against Muslims. Also by studying history and religion we can see how Islam developed and what it really is. This is just one example of how the comprehensive study of the humanities can be used to understand the world, and to communicate fairly and intelligently with others in the world. The humanities are not just part of the college's curriculum. The study of the humanities teaches one how to study and look at how the past developed and how it has impacted today's world. The humanities allows people of different cultures to communicate and understand their sometimes common pasts but present differences. The humanities shows how different disciplines affect and complement one another. Finally, the study of the humanities shows that this study is ongoing and continual, constantly evolving and shaping. The humanities are academic disciplines that study the human condition, using methods that are primarily analytical, critical, or speculative, as distinguished from the mainly empirical approaches of the natural sciences. The humanities include ancient and modern languages, literature, history, philosophy, religion, and visual and performing arts such as music and theatre. The humanities that are also regarded as social sciences include technology, history, anthropology, area studies, communication studies, cultural studies, law and linguistics. Scholars working in the humanities are sometimes described as "humanists".[1] However, that term also describes the philosophical position of humanism, which some "antihumanist" scholars in the humanities reject. Classics The classics, in the Western academic tradition, refer to cultures of classical antiquity, namely the Ancient Greek and Roman cultures. The study of the classics is considered one of the cornerstones of the humanities; however, its popularity declined during the 20th century. Nevertheless, the influence of classical ideas in many humanities disciplines, such as philosophy and literature, remains strong; for example, the Gilgamesh Epic from Mesopotamia, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Vedasand Upanishads in India and various writings attributed to Confucius, Laotse and Chuang-tzu in China. History History is systematically collected information about the past. When used as the name of a field of study, history refers to the study and interpretation of the record ofhumans, societies, institutions, and any topic that has changed over time. Knowledge of history is often said to encompass both knowledge of past events and historical thinking skills. Traditionally, the study of history has been considered a part of the humanities. In modern academia, history is occasionally classified as a social science. Literature "Literature" is a highly ambiguous term: at its broadest, it can mean any sequence of words that has been preserved for transmission in some form or other (including oral transmission); more narrowly, it is often used to designate imaginative works such as stories, poems, and plays; more narrowly still, it is used as an honorific and applied only to those works which are considered to have particular merit.Visual arts

Humanities today In the United States The Humanities Indicators, unveiled in 2009 by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, are the first comprehensive compilation of data about the humanities in the United States, providing scholars, policymakers and the public with detailed information on humanities education from primary to higher education, the humanities workforce, humanities funding and research, and public humanities activities. [16][17] Modeled after the National Science Boards Science and Engineering Indicators, the Humanities Indicators are a source of reliable benchmarks to guide analysis of the state of the humanities in the United States. Many[weasel words] American colleges and universities believe in the notion of a broad "liberal arts education",[original research?] which requires all college students to study the humanities in addition to their specific area of study.[citation needed] The University of Chicago and Columbia University were among the first[weasel words] schools to require an extensive core curriculum in philosophy, literature, and the arts for all students.[citation needed] Other colleges with nationally recognized, required two year programs in the liberal arts are St. John's College, Saint Anselm College and Providence College. Prominent proponents of liberal arts in the United States have included Mortimer J. Adler[18] and E. D. Hirsch, Jr.. The 1980 United States Rockefeller Commission on the Humanities described the humanities in its report, The Humanities in American Life: Through the humanities we reflect on the fundamental question: What does it mean to be human? The humanities offer clues but never a complete answer. They reveal how people have tried to make moral, spiritual, and intellectual sense of a world in which irrationality, despair, loneliness, and death are as conspicuous as birth, friendship, hope, and reason. "Increasing numbers of critics view education in the liberal arts as irrelevant" [19] or as "learning more and more about less and less" [20] which no longer prepares the students for the American job market in the face of increased competition due to more graduates .[21] After World War II, many millions of veterans took advantage of the GI Bill. Further expansion of federal education grants and loans have expanded the number of adults in the United States that have attended a college.[21] In 2003, roughly 53% of the population had some college education with 27.2% having graduated with a Bachelor's degree or higher, including 8% who graduated with a graduate degree.[22] The counter view is that "A familiarity with the body of knowledge and methods of inquiry and discovery of the arts and sciences and a capacity to integrate knowledge across experience and discipline may have far more lasting value in such a changing world than specialized techniques and training, which can quickly become outmoded." [21]