“It’s easier to be a mediocre historian than a mediocre physicist (in other words, it’s easier to get a C in a history class than it is to get a C in a physics class). But it is just as difficult to be an excellent historian than it is to be excellent at anything else.” – William Cook
This quote from the lecturer that I’m listening to at the moment really struck me today. I have been listening with great interest to Machiavelli’s analysis of the Roman republic in Discourses on the Books of Livy, applying principles to our own republic, seeing some of the same pitfalls, and generally being amazed at how much we can learn through a study of history. This train of thought led me to my reaction to Pop’s interview essay question (I am not proud of it; I think I actually drooled, that’s how badly I was snarling and barking). OK… I think it’s best to leave you out of the rest of the stream of consciousness. Long story short, I eventually ended up pondering two things: the devaluation of the humanities in our culture and the ideas of specialized vs. generalized education. While I’d like to talk about both right now, I doubt I’ll get farther than the first topic in this essay.
Despite the multitude of majors in a given university, all seem to fall within three general categories: business (or “the services,” if you will), the sciences, and the humanities. Of course, I’ve simplified a great deal. For instance, I’ve meshed the theoretical and applied sciences, I’ve grouped law into business, fine arts into the humanities, and political science into, well, let’s say the humanities (although a good case could be made for putting that with business).But I still believe that it’s a fair representation of available ‘career paths.’
Of these three, guess which one has the fewest enrolled on average? Now this can mean many things. What I’m choosing to interpret it as is an indicator of what the culture considers important and unimportant. And, in this passive ranking, the humanities come in last place. As Mom just said, “not only are they undervalued, they are actually underestimated.”
You might argue that we have established general education courses (from grade school through undergraduate secondary school) which include the humanities, and you’re right. But which classes are (generally) considered to be fluff? To which of the three schools do kids go for easy A’s? (This becomes ironic when, upon careful reading of Cook’s quote, you realize that it is even harder to go from mediocrity to excellence in history than it is in physics.)
I know this isn’t a big shocker to anyone who knows me, but I generally see the humanities – what some people call the “liberal arts” (people who, if they use that phrase around me, inexplicably end up missing) – as the most valuable use of our finite allotment of neurons. I’m not saying that the ‘hard sciences’ are a waste of time (it’s not an if-you’re-not-for-us-you’re-against-us thing); I enjoy electricity, pasteurization, and modern medicine as much as the next man (and I probably enjoy discussions of quantum physics and epigenetics a tad more than the next man). What I think I am saying is that, for the vast majority of people, it is better to be familiar with Aristotle and Ibsen than with Einstein and Hawking (or with Crichton and Clancy, for that matter).
Regardless of your occupation, the more critical parts of our lives center around human interaction. This interaction spans from the microcosmic (personal reflection, familial relations, professional communication) to the macrocosmic (internal politics, international relations). In the middle ages (five hundred years or so before universities became vocational schools), the universality (and, thus, the importance) of what-we-now-call the humanities was recognized; the trivium was taught before the quadrivium. Logic, rhetoric, grammar – these were things that were foundational to any study, including that of arithmetic, astronomy, geometry, and music (what we might call “the sciences” today). Today, however, they are an elective, available after a decade of formal education.
Not only do I believe that the humanities are pragmatically valuable in their universality, I believe that they are teleologically the most valuable discipline. The way to illustrate this best is a quote from ‘Mr. Holland’s Opus’ (this is when Mr. Holland is told that the school is cutting the fine arts program):
Walters: I care about these kids just as much as you do. And if I’m forced to choose between Mozart and reading and writing and long division, I choose long division.
Holland: Well, I guess you can cut the arts as much as you want, Gene. Sooner or later, these kids aren’t going to have anything to read or write about.
OK, so maybe that illustration wasn’t the best way to illustrate my point, but it certainly was the most potent.
Now I’ll actually explain myself. I love it when words match their meanings and, for that reason, I love the word “humanities.” The study of art, music, literature, philosophy, history, and politics is the study of what it means to be human. What else can measure up to that?
Again, I am not trying to diminish the other categories. I am simply trying to put everything in its place. Business knowledge is necessary for survival in a non-communal society. But what is the purpose of survival? Medicine can improve health and elongate life. But what then? What has a better back and twenty extra years brought you? Theoretical sciences lead to applied sciences, which save us time and energy. But what do we do with that saved time and energy? Go research more things to save us time and energy? It’s cyclical. What is the point?
The other two categories are means to the end of existence. But what is the telos of that existence? What does it mean for a human to be? Science and business don’t give the answer. This is not a flaw of science or business; they are merely not constructed to include the answer. It is not a part of their ‘mission statement.’ The answer lies in a study of history, in an understanding of psychology, in non-verbal self-expression, and in the exercise of reason.
Peanut Gallery: What do you think? Are the humanities undervalued? Am I giving them too much credit? Or might we be justified in spending our educational resources on the sciences and the services, as skills such as logic and rhetoric can be picked up along the way? What balance should we try to strike in this post-modern world?