Moreover the humanities will not disappear from all universities; they will remain in the elite institutions (at least in the U.S.), where they will be taken up by the children of the rich, who can afford to pursue non-practical ends. The humanities will then become the domain of courtiers and revolutionaries.
As for the humanities existing apart from other disciplines....that has been the case for a long time. In fact, it has been even worse; they have been isolated and have attempted to reintegrate themselves by becoming "scientific," that is by stripping away their social and political dimension and by adding various distorting professional jargons.
J.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Farmelant" <farmelantj at juno.com> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org, marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu, marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 5:45:34 AM Subject: [lbo-talk] Terry Eagleton on "The death of universities"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/17/death-universities-ma laise-tuition-fees
The Guardian 17 December 2010
*The death of universities
Academia has become a servant of the status quo. Its malaise runs so much deeper than tuition fees*
Terry Eagleton
Are the humanities about to disappear from our universities? The question is absurd. It would be like asking whether alcohol is about to disappear from pubs, or egoism from Hollywood. Just as there cannot be a pub without alcohol, so there cannot be a university without the humanities. If history, philosophy and so on vanish from academic life, what they leave in their wake may be a technical training facility or corporate research institute. But it will not be a university in the classical sense of the term, and it would be deceptive to call it one.
Neither, however, can there be a university in the full sense of the word when the humanities exist in isolation from other disciplines. The quickest way of devaluing these subjects – short of disposing of them altogether – is to reduce them to an agreeable bonus. Real men study law and engineering, while ideas and values are for sissies. The humanities should constitute the core of any university worth the name. The study of history and philosophy, accompanied by some acquaintance with art and literature, should be for lawyers and engineers as well as for those who study in arts faculties. If the humanities are not under such dire threat in the United States, it is, among other things, because they are seen as being an integral part of higher education as such.
When they first emerged in their present shape around the turn of the 18th century, the so-called humane disciplines had a crucial social role. It was to foster and protect the kind of values for which a philistine social order had precious little time. The modern humanities and industrial capitalism were more or less twinned at birth. To preserve a set of values and ideas under siege, you needed among other things institutions known as universities set somewhat apart from everyday social life. This remoteness meant that humane study could be lamentably ineffectual. But it also allowed the humanities to launch a critique of conventional wisdom.
>From time to time, as in the late 1960s and in these last few weeks in
Britain, that critique would take to the streets, confronting how we
actually live with how we might live.
What we have witnessed in our own time is the death of universities as centres of critique. Since Margaret Thatcher, the role of academia has been to service the status quo, not challenge it in the name of justice, tradition, imagination, human welfare, the free play of the mind or alternative visions of the future. We will not change this simply by increasing state funding of the humanities as opposed to slashing it to nothing. We will change it by insisting that a critical reflection on human values and principles should be central to everything that goes on in universities, not just to the study of Rembrandt or Rimbaud.
In the end, the humanities can only be defended by stressing how indispensable they are; and this means insisting on their vital role in the whole business of academic learning, rather than protesting that, like some poor relation, they don't cost much to be housed.
How can this be achieved in practice? Financially speaking, it can't be. Governments are intent on shrinking the humanities, not expanding them.
Might not too much investment in teaching Shelley mean falling behind our economic competitors? But there is no university without humane inquiry, which means that universities and advanced capitalism are fundamentally incompatible. And the political implications of that run far deeper than the question of student fees.
Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant www.foxymath.com Learn or Review Basic Math ____________________________________________________________ How to Stay Asleep Cambridge Researchers have developed an all natural sleep aid just for you. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4d0e0cbc60c067e1f21st06vuc ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk