Prevent the Matrix (or why we need the humanities)
Last weekend I was talking with my friend Jon Stokes who is the Deputy Editor of Ars Technica. We were discussing the state of the humanities (in relation to “digital humanities“) when we both began to bemoan their lack of significance in modern society. As many are aware it is the Department of Art or Classics or Foreign Languages or Philosophy or Religion which are often hit the hardest when the funds disappear. In part, I think this is because it is the technology, science, and other similar departments that eventually create the type of student who creates capital for a society whereas reading Plato doesn’t have much of a monetary ROI.
Yet a society without the humanities is troublesome. I don’t want to sound too Sci-Fi, but it is Matrixish to think of a world where we don’t care if our students think about the ascetic, or philosophical, or religious implications of decisions made on the behalf of society. We need more critical thinks (especially now more than ever) and not less who are merely part of the machine.
I wish I could have captured Jon’s words but he said something to the extent that it is those who study humanities that often have the critical eye toward society. He said it so well. Basically, it is all too easy for those who care only about the almighty dollar to cut funding to departments that in their understanding merely create a bunch of rebellious hippies. If you are a wealthy alumni who pours funds back into your institution and some of the professors and students who are humanities majors seem to be critical of your business practices it is not surprising that you wouldn’t want your money to go to them.
I wonder what the future holds for the humanities? What changes could we see in the future in how these subjects are taught? How should these subjects be mediated if colleges and universities do not find them worth the cost of operation? Thoughts?
There is a deliberate campaign to undermine the Humanities. I would posit that this is in part due to the fact that they are the most likely academics to challenge the status quo, and perhaps even the elite class themselves.
I agree. It is the philosophy, sociology, history, and religion departments that often have a prophetic voice to some extent. If there are less of them there is more power for the powerful.
I can’t help but imagining a world much like Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451.
I am not familiar with Fahrenheit 451. Is it book or movie?
It’s a book, but I think they made a movie too. Pretty quick read. Interesting twist- firemen in the book don’t put out fires, but set fire to books instead.
Thankfully my own university has to have a theology department as part of its charter. But already we’ve seen some jobs go.
It is true that the humanities feed into so much, I don’t think people realises this.
It is also interesting to note that in many Islamic societies there is a much lower take up of humanities subjects (save Islamic theology and its allied subjects). Science and engineering are what are the big subjects – it has been suggested that this partly explains why there is so little academic insight or criticism concerning aspects of Islamic culture from within Islamic societies. Which perhaps suggests dogmatic religion and blind technology is not a healthy combination for a society…?
Thanks for this:
P.
Peter: I worry that we ourselves may someday come much too close to combining dogma and technology. It won’t be an Islamic brand, but more a civil religion, an Americana. Our politicians preach it and our businesses fund it.
Thanks – yes I know what you mean.
The one phrase I didn’t want to hear was ‘Civil Religion’! I have just finished marking theology & religious studies BA papers for the ‘social scientific study of religion in contemporary society’ and one of the questions concerned whether the concept of ‘civil religion’ could be applied to other societies besides the US. 78 papers, two essays a paper and at least one in two chose the ‘Civil Religion’ question. Ugh! I never what tot read another for a long time.
P.
@Peter: I’ll try to avoid the word for a while!