Have the Humanities a future?

[Smellincoffee]

I became a librarian in part because I wanted close association with the humanities without the burden of having to teach. Alas for me, the institutions which I regarded as protecting the soul of civilization are reducing their collections to become computer labs. By day I'm the admin for a computer lab, and by night I console my soul with sonatas and Shakespeare. Whereas the heart of a university education was once the humanities, now universities are very expensive trade-schools which bestow degrees that aim for more respectability than a mere certification. (Of course, that a master plumber or electrician is far more valuable than an Bachelor in History, both in terms of services rendered and in compensation.) I have nothing against useful skills like accounting and business administration now taught; indeed when I was unemployed my chief aspiration was to find any job that would let me go back to school to acquire more marketable skills. But the market is not the chief end of man.

The humanities are ill-defined now. In my own university experience the areas of study that they once possessed have now been claimed by more modern-sounding departments, and given sharper-looking teeth in connection with science. When I read history at university, for instance, my department was known as "Behavioral and Social Sciences". I know when I think of humanities, I think of history, language, literature, and art at the very least. While I don't support tax money being used to pay for degrees in art that will be nothing but a financial burden to the graduates trying to find a job as a philosopher, I do believe they ought to be studied and promoted, if not in the way they are now. The days of universities being restricted to a few, and giving those few a rich education steeped in classics and logic and such, are over. That doesn't mean that literature, art, history, and other humanities should be retired, or scoffed at. I'm fairly certain people will continue to be interested in these subjects; we are a species that constantly seeks meaning, and we won't find it in careers as CPAs. I sense a danger, however, in the humanities being separated from one another. History should be factually accurate, but it should also be meaningful; literature and philosophy and history should all be connected together, delivering common themes to the reader, doing something to them other than entertaining them for a few minutes.

It's hard to see how the humanities might recover their integrity, however, and I worry as the world becomes more a machine being tended to by millions of functionaries with degrees that they will never regain a place in the human heart.

 

[BvBPL]

The unnecessary and awkward use of the passive voice by a librarian certainly throws the future of the well-written word into doubt.

 

[bugwar]

Have the Humanities a future?

Of course they do.
The entertainment field has been with us since pre-stone age, and shows no sign of withering.

Individuals who do the actual work of building civilization want to go home after a hard day at work, and relax by enjoying the entertaining fantasies of Humanities majors.

 

[aelf]

They do have a future, but I'm not particularly optimistic about it.

Society and industry are almost one and the same now, which means trade skills, as you said, are overwhelmingly the priority at the expense of other things. While for much of human history survival was the priority, I don't think there has ever been such a pervasive worship of work (see Bugwar's comments above).

Of course, the fact that an unprecedented number of human beings enjoy comfortable living is a good thing, so I'm not exactly too broken up about the dearth of appreciation for the humanities. The sad thing is we don't need to work so much. It's society's worship of work that's driving us to and depriving us of the time and energies to appreciate things that the humanities call to our attention.

 

[Gori the Grey]

The humanities have a very bright future.

For starters, they offer the second best career skills in the present climate: critical thinking, research, oral and written communication. To hear CEOs talk, the most highly-prized abilities in the present business environment are creativity and imagination. Moreover, in a world where one will, on average, not only hold six or seven jobs, but actually have two or three fully different careers, training oneself not for the specifics of one particular job, but in widely applicable thinking skills, is the wisest approach. STEM will remain the most lucrative for those who have strength in mathematics. Everyone else will soon discover they are better served by the humanities than "pre-professional" majors like communications, business, etc.

At the same time, work in corporate America is becoming so soul-deadening, that, as you point out, people are thirsty for contexts of meaning outside of their work life: art, literature, philosophy, history. Not everyone has CFC to provide meaning in their lives, so many will have to resort to sonatas and Shakespeare. Hell, I recommend them even to people who do have CFC!

The humanities are due for a flourishing. The corporatization of every -ing corner of society has gone just about as far as it can go. Some flowers are going to start growing up from the cracks in the concrete.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

History should be factually accurate, but it should also be meaningful; literature and philosophy and history should all be connected together, delivering common themes to the reader, doing something to them other than entertaining them for a few minutes.

Could you explain what you mean here? For example, what does it mean for history and literature to be connected together? Does history need to examine the literature in the era covered? Must literature be written about historical studies to make the latter valid? I'm just not sure. Also, why should different fields of study need to have common themes?

 

[Kyriakos]

There is a nice quote by Baudelaire, in the late 19th century France (Paris mostly), that by his time the materialism as a mindset was expanding so rapidly that "in a century virtually all youths will not be dreaming of discovering or thinking or creating, but of managing to be a millionaire".
Which wasn't that far off from what happened, by 1960 the post ww2 mindset was the one which ultimately brought us to the nice phase we are in currently.

I think that the humanities won't die, and they might pick up again, but even if they do so considerably it is still alarming that an entire society (in the general sense, i mean the western world) allowed itself to aspire mostly for cash and material wealth.

 

[sophie]

Could you explain what you mean here? For example, what does it mean for history and literature to be connected together? Does history need to examine the literature in the era covered? Must literature be written about historical studies to make the latter valid? I'm just not sure. Also, why should different fields of study need to have common themes?

There are a lot of literature (and art) scholars today who would vehemently argue against the Historical/Biographical school of interpretation.

 

[amadeus]

In terms of their value in the labor market, people will stop getting them once they find their degrees to not be needed in the marketplace. But, we are nowhere near that point—people that hold arts degrees still, in terms of compensation, outperform those that don't have any post-secondary education.

Once the economy picks up again, the "are arts degrees worth it?" stuff will die off again.

 

[Tee Kay]

Without the humanities, what's left? Just numbers and machines.

Not enough to live on.

 

[Crezth]

Answer: Yes, because you titled this thread "Have the Humanities a future?" instead of "Do the Humanities have a future?"

 

[dusters]

This whole stuff made me very sad when i studied at faculty of Humanities in the biggest Uni of my country. I had numerous conversations with almost all levels of administrative personnel about this issue.

The market doesn't welcome historians, philologists, philosophers and theologicans at the moment, at least not in Europe, Latvia. All these positions, the very few of them which are left up for grabs, are state funded and research numbers / funding is decaying every year.

I left philology field mainly due to this. I see no perspective if i want to feed not only myself, but family as well. This year i'm looking to resume pedagogy studies, cus at least the teacher profession is required in buisness enviroment.

 

[aelf]

For starters, they offer the second best career skills in the present climate: critical thinking, research, oral and written communication. To hear CEOs talk, the most highly-prized abilities in the present business environment are creativity and imagination. Moreover, in a world where one will, on average, not only hold six or seven jobs, but actually have two or three fully different careers, training oneself not for the specifics of one particular job, but in widely applicable thinking skills, is the wisest approach. STEM will remain the most lucrative for those who have strength in mathematics. Everyone else will soon discover they are better served by the humanities than "pre-professional" majors like communications, business, etc.

Just curious. Did you study the humanities in university/college?

 

[Silurian]

Without the humanities, what's left? Just numbers and machines.

Not enough to live on.

As a Civil Engineer I would agree with this.

I want stuff that looks good as well as being functional.

Also Geography and History have applications in construction. For example if you a planning to build on a historic industrial site you need people who have been trained to look at historic records to find the places to avoid excavating or what you are likely to find.

 

[downtown]

In terms of their value in the labor market, people will stop getting them once they find their degrees to not be needed in the marketplace. But, we are nowhere near that point—people that hold arts degrees still, in terms of compensation, outperform those that don't have any post-secondary education.

Once the economy picks up again, the "are arts degrees worth it?" stuff will die off again.

Yeah, I agree, and to be honest, I'm not sure it is even that close. The "the job market sucks because all these hipsters are majoring in basket weaving" meme is not really based in reality.

Now, is there a future in the study of the humanities for US students who are not already rich? That's a much less settled question.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Just curious. Did you study the humanities in university/college?

I did, but you quoted the wrong paragraph as evidence. You should have cited the next paragraph. Being able to read Shakespeare and listen to sonatas with appreciation has enriched my life in ways that I regard as immeasurably more valuable what a pre-professional major might have done for my pocketbook.

 

[aelf]

No, you're right about that bit. Perhaps.

What I would like to point out is that the humanities expressly prepares one for a life that is very different from business/corporate life. If one takes what one learns to heart, then one would tend to be ill-suited for that kind of environment. Studying the humanities to be more successful there is kind of missing the point, I think.

 

[Tee Kay]

As a Civil Engineer I would agree with this.

I want stuff that looks good as well as being functional.

Also Geography and History have applications in construction. For example if you a planning to build on a historic industrial site you need people who have been trained to look at historic records to find the places to avoid excavating or what you are likely to find.

Ah, but if you don't care about historical value you would just bulldoze the place guiltfree.

But yes, as an engineer (kinda) myself I understand.

 

[Silurian]

Ah, but if you don't care about historical value you would just bulldoze the place guiltfree.

But yes, as an engineer (kinda) myself I understand.

Well the court would have to decide if you were guilt free.

From BBC

Excavations for London's Crossrail project have unearthed bodies believed to date from the time of the Black Death.

A burial ground was known to be in an area outside the City of London, but its exact location remained a mystery.

Thirteen bodies have been found so far in the 5.5m-wide shaft at the edge of Charterhouse Square, alongside pottery dated to the mid-14th Century.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21784141

The costs involved when you find something unexpectedly are far greater than if you know something could be there.

 

[Tarquelne]

IMO a huge part of the problem is the way humanities courses are often taught.

Bad, but all-too common scenario: A facts-memorization focused course with a large classroom of students who don't want to be there.

Most will learn what they must to pass the course, then it'll drain from their minds.

Ideally - and this is being done, but not enough: A course focused on "why" and "how", based largely on discussion or short-papers, smaller, and for students who want to be there. (Why do they want to be there? Because the previous small, discussion-based course actually turned out to be interesting.)

The graduates of such a course may not have a firm command of largely irrelevant facts as the top graduates of a traditional course. They will, however, have internalized much of what they learned.

I should point out that the "ideal" scenario above requires more teaching skill, and has less through-put than the other. I think it's worth it though - go ahead and slash the humanities requirements for students. It'll still be an improvement if they really learn from the few courses they must take. Do this enough and a higher demand should actually develop.