Thursday 11/4/2010, discussion on the future of the Humanities in public universities, organized by the UCHRI (the University of California’s Humanities Research Institute) and UCSC’s Institute of Humanities Research. Capitalized names everywhere, one could begin with this need to be visible like others and claim a well-deserved dignity. Capital is the stuff of headlines. I read it as a symptom of weakness, as I do the building of our Humanities I block, no matter the transparency aimed at with the large windows of the groundfloor room where we had this discussion. I digress. Here is my understanding of the proceedings:
1. positive point in introduction by Nathaniel Deutsch: to remember that to an outsider, what is striking is the quality and intensity of intellectual life on this campus, the great inventivity and contributions of scholars in the humanities, and how seriously they take their public service to students, families, and society at large.
2. three points by David Theo Goldberg: the classic mission of the university, namely to prepare and enable an increasing middle class, is threatened by the latter’s massive weakening and fragility since the 70’s (that is when one could feel this weakening, I would think). The middle class is rapidly transforming and eroding or at least a beat away from losing its security. Diversity is increasingly connected to work specialization hoped for by students. A general goal remains for the Humanities, which could be reformulated as an interpretation or translation project. I think he meant by this the massive on-going work of understanding other cultures not only in relation to our own (and our “own” needs to be defined), gather their work, ensure universal access to it and permanence… And a more precise goal: recreate a discourse of public reason. [my thought: ratio? judgment? good luck. What could the role of the humanities as I know it be in this? Ratio requires something like measure, a peg or canon by which to measure and ration. But in a situation where all mediations are gone—church, state, parties, ideologies of yore—what would the new mediation be? Human rights?? which is up for grabs by all ideologues…]
3. Gail Hershatter was going to show this video on what it takes to become a Ph.D. in the Humanities, but there was a technical failure. Gail Hershatter addressed a number of aspects of budgets, which are statements of values, and how diverse the reactions are. How can one reach across departmental lines? Existing structures make it very difficult for many scholars who think of their work in fluid fashion to reach across the disciplines.
4. Eric Porter: the humanities are under siege but necessary to the institution. One major effect of dwindling budgets is the destruction of idea and practice of diversity, not noticed or addressed by almost anyone. [my thoughts: the humanities are not necessary to the institution, qua institution. And budgets are not going to get better, and if they do, the parcimonious extra sums are going elsewhere. We are not in a “moment of budget retrenchment” but in a major reconfiguration exercise]. Claim also that the humanities provide critical thinking to students. [Yes, but what do we mean by this? Surely not that others don’t? and speaking of critical abilities, is this really the core of the humanities? However critical we become, can’t it immediately be turned into the next tool of conformity? Examples: the diasporic, diversity, the green, etc., can’t Exxon or GE immediately recycle this stuff in next day’s full page ads?].
5. Jim Clifford starts from the no-kvetch position, permission to see wider and long term. Not even a short couplet therefore on the progressive and structural belittlement of the humanities! He spoke of the old-style Arts and Sciences type universities (fifty fifty!) to our being one of five divisions: 20% of the pie! So let’s dream up the bigger humanities rather than a poor mirror image of STEM programs. What are the greater humanities? all kinds of people across the university ultimately doing work involving some or all of the following four dimensions: 1) interpretive, not positivist, provisional; 2) realist though not crudely objective, empirical, even statistical; 3) historical though not teleological [but evolutional], and aware that explanations are all too often partial; 4) ethical and political. In the end, Jim said, we need to get rid of this word, the “greater humanities,” and open the space to all those who are working along the lines mentioned above.
An image comes: the humanities were once part of this class cargo ship which sailed on and on towards famed ports of call, delivering a classical education, sciences, beaux-arts, and their satellites. The humanities are wondering where they are: still on the ship, though perhaps in the engine room or galleys and grumbling? or dropped at sea on a raft tethered to the aft, and shouting?