![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
brdgt
Last night I worked this event:
...and it was fascinating. Leach, Randel, and Yu represent the infrastructure of funding for the Humanities in the United States and they all had very strong opinions on the value of the Humanities and it's future.
Leach focused on the decline of debate and the rise in polarization in America (and their relationship to the crisis in the Humanities). He pointed out how Business is the number one major in the United States, while critiquing the difference between possessing knowledge and having a skill set. For him, the ideal future for the Humanities is one in which it is valued by everyone and contributes to the enrichment of society. I respected his overt political stance on polarization in America (pointing out, for example, that when people are calling other people both fascists and communists in public debate this reflects several failures). The humanities teaches us how to have informed and reasoned debate and if anything the Bush administration and current events (ie: teabaggers) shows us is that we have lost these skills/no longer value them.
Mandel emphasized the intrinsic value of the Humanities (rather than the instrumentalization argument - and pointing out that both the sciences and the humanities are fundamentally about the insatiable curiosity of how things [natural world/humans] work). He pointed to a tradition of anti-intellectualism in the United States, the poor quality of modern media, and the decline in reasoned debate as well. During the question and answer period he conceded that the instrumentalization argument (the humanities are good because of their instrumental value in economics, politics, etc.) shouldn't be thrown out, but that it shouldn't be the only argument for the value of the humanities.
Yu was the only one to focus less on the value of the humanities and more on an internal critique (for example, expanding the people, regions, methods, and theories that the humanities engages with expands their value to the public). She pointed out that the Humanities needs to undergo a thoughtful critique, while also emphasizing intellectual freedom as the basis of all other freedoms. She was definitely the most quotable - pointing out that "democracy demands wisdom, not superior force, money, or technology," and the humanities should be about "the relentless inquiry into the idea of 'value' itself - one only needs to look at the financial pages to see the cost of not doing this."
The question and answer period was a whose who of humanities faculty (I'm willing to bet the chairs of every single humanities department was there and Biddy Martin called on everyone by name - impressive, considering the size of the room and attendance). I thought the best question actually came from the director of the Center for the Humanities, Sara Guyer, when she asked how we convince students and parents to not just see the value in the humanities, but choose it as a major. The panel responded with two lines of argument: 1. the Humanities are definitely of value to society and we need spokespeople and other types of publicity to get this out there (ie: that CEO's want people with humanities, not business degrees, etc.); and 2. that we need to advice students of the multiplicity of careers available (within and outside the humanities) of a humanities degree.
The question I wanted to ask was this: so much of what they talked about emphasized the value of teaching the humanities, but, what we, as humanities graduate students and professoriate, know is that we will be rewarded for in hiring, promotion, funding, and accolades for our research. The financial component of the teaching award I won will barely cover segregated fees for a year, while I have classmates who will leave with a PhD and no teaching experience because they are on NSF or NEH grants (the very institutions represented on the panel). So, if the future of the humanities lies in it's teaching, why don't we reward teaching as much as we do research? (and yes, I know the two are intrinsically related - being a better teacher, makes me a better researcher and vice versa).
The Center for the Humanities proudly presents: A Panel Discussion Humanities in the 21st Century February 3, 2010 @ 5:30 pm Chazen Museum of Art, Room L160 This panel brings together the nation’s foremost experts in the humanities to discuss the direction of the Humanities in the 21st century. Moderated by UW-Madison Chancellor Carolyn ’Biddy’ Martin, the panel will include comments from Jim Leach, Chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities; Don Randel, President of the Mellon Foundation; and Pauline Yu, President of the American Council of Learned Societies. |
Leach focused on the decline of debate and the rise in polarization in America (and their relationship to the crisis in the Humanities). He pointed out how Business is the number one major in the United States, while critiquing the difference between possessing knowledge and having a skill set. For him, the ideal future for the Humanities is one in which it is valued by everyone and contributes to the enrichment of society. I respected his overt political stance on polarization in America (pointing out, for example, that when people are calling other people both fascists and communists in public debate this reflects several failures). The humanities teaches us how to have informed and reasoned debate and if anything the Bush administration and current events (ie: teabaggers) shows us is that we have lost these skills/no longer value them.
Mandel emphasized the intrinsic value of the Humanities (rather than the instrumentalization argument - and pointing out that both the sciences and the humanities are fundamentally about the insatiable curiosity of how things [natural world/humans] work). He pointed to a tradition of anti-intellectualism in the United States, the poor quality of modern media, and the decline in reasoned debate as well. During the question and answer period he conceded that the instrumentalization argument (the humanities are good because of their instrumental value in economics, politics, etc.) shouldn't be thrown out, but that it shouldn't be the only argument for the value of the humanities.
Yu was the only one to focus less on the value of the humanities and more on an internal critique (for example, expanding the people, regions, methods, and theories that the humanities engages with expands their value to the public). She pointed out that the Humanities needs to undergo a thoughtful critique, while also emphasizing intellectual freedom as the basis of all other freedoms. She was definitely the most quotable - pointing out that "democracy demands wisdom, not superior force, money, or technology," and the humanities should be about "the relentless inquiry into the idea of 'value' itself - one only needs to look at the financial pages to see the cost of not doing this."
The question and answer period was a whose who of humanities faculty (I'm willing to bet the chairs of every single humanities department was there and Biddy Martin called on everyone by name - impressive, considering the size of the room and attendance). I thought the best question actually came from the director of the Center for the Humanities, Sara Guyer, when she asked how we convince students and parents to not just see the value in the humanities, but choose it as a major. The panel responded with two lines of argument: 1. the Humanities are definitely of value to society and we need spokespeople and other types of publicity to get this out there (ie: that CEO's want people with humanities, not business degrees, etc.); and 2. that we need to advice students of the multiplicity of careers available (within and outside the humanities) of a humanities degree.
The question I wanted to ask was this: so much of what they talked about emphasized the value of teaching the humanities, but, what we, as humanities graduate students and professoriate, know is that we will be rewarded for in hiring, promotion, funding, and accolades for our research. The financial component of the teaching award I won will barely cover segregated fees for a year, while I have classmates who will leave with a PhD and no teaching experience because they are on NSF or NEH grants (the very institutions represented on the panel). So, if the future of the humanities lies in it's teaching, why don't we reward teaching as much as we do research? (and yes, I know the two are intrinsically related - being a better teacher, makes me a better researcher and vice versa).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-02-04 05:06 pm (UTC)I'm typing on my technologically powerful but under-read iPhone. Excuse my ineloquence.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-04 05:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-04 08:54 pm (UTC)Your school has more fun panels than my school does. Whine.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-06 02:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-04 08:40 pm (UTC)I think this is an underappreciated/underrecognized truth. A lot of awesome researchers (professors) at a place like this aren't nearly as invested in teaching as they are in research, and so even though they COULD be great teachers, and that potential is partially related to their rock-star researcher abilities, they are often NOT great teachers.
The connection between good researching and good teaching should be stressed more in grad school. The attitude adjustment would eventually work its way up through the pipeline, and I think that's the most efficient way to do it.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-06 02:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 04:45 am (UTC)I'm particularly interested in this anti-intellectual/polarizing stuff as it relates to the net, because that's the location of so much political debate and "debate" these days. And in space that are unmoderated, or poorly moderated, you really do see this thing where it's force, persistence, and sometimes cruelty, that can win out over any type of real argument. And it's telling that I have even been encouraged to think of it as "winning" -- not knowledge-producing.
And I had something else to add but I forget. I might be back!
no subject
Date: 2010-02-06 02:55 am (UTC)