On “the humanities”

Last updated on: January 5, 2014 at 1:34 pm by Jane the Actuary

On “the humanities” 2014-01-05T13:34:00-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

So Heather McDonald (whose writing I’m nearly always impressed with) has a piece in the Wall Street Journal lamenting the fact that UCLA has changed its requirements for the English major. I can’t actually link to the WSJ piece itself, which is behind a paywall but findable by searching for text in the article, but here’s a link to a blog post which excerpts a significant portion, and here’s the key information from the post/article:

Until 2011, students majoring in English at UCLA had to take one course in Chaucer, two in Shakespeare, and one in Milton —the cornerstones of English literature. Following a revolt of the junior faculty, however, during which it was announced that Shakespeare was part of the “Empire,” UCLA junked these individual author requirements. It replaced them with a mandate that all English majors take a total of three courses in the following four areas: Gender, Race, Ethnicity, Disability and Sexuality Studies; Imperial, Transnational, and Postcolonial Studies; genre studies, interdisciplinary studies, and critical theory; or creative writing.

Of course, McDonald follows this with commentary on the value of reading the canonical English writers, but, that aside, there’s the bigger question of what it means to have a degree in English.

Here’s a blog post which an old friend of mine, now a professor in Old English, linked to on facebook: “Humanities scholarship is incredibly relevant, and that makes people sad.” Here’s the bottom line of the post: “The humanities didn’t just turn to [the newly popular attention to race, class, gender, sexuality, and disability, in the 1980s) for kicks (still less because it was “fashionable,” as culture-wars critics like Alan Sokal have claimed); turning to them was the result of research. Through research, scholars found out that these categories were complicated, powerful, and important for understanding culture.”

Part of her defense is that it’s valuable that literary and artistic traditions of non-Western, non-white groups have been discovered/preserved, which is all well and good.

She also says, “Academic humanities scholars do this very well, but non-university-affiliated people engage in humanistic work all the time.” — and here refers to, well, basically, everyone who reads or writes fiction (with some odd criteria: fanfiction writers are “engaging in humanistic work” as well as someone who watches every single Eric Rohmer (who’s he?) film you can, or every Start Trek episode — but maybe only if you blog about it — and it’s not particularly clear why only someone who obsesses about it qualifies). This is all well and good — though there was an article a while back asserting that people who read fiction are somehow better, more spiritual and empathetic, than someone who reads nonfiction, which I wasn’t a fan of. But “engaging in the humanities” should be more about engaging in works which are at the highest levels of skill, with a beauty in their prose, not the latest bestseller.

But her examples of “humanities scholarship” I would really question being in fact the humanities; they look a lot more like social science to me, and certainly would really stretch the concept of English literature. And when a new graduate stakes their employability on being an English major, what they want employers to believe is that they’re very good at reading and understanding complex texts and writing about them with a well-honed writing ability that transfers to multiple tasks in the working world.

And at UCLA, this is what they have to say about the English major: The Department of English is dedicated to the study of the literatures and cultures of those parts of the world in which English is the primary language, and to the study of the history and structure of the English language itself.” So I suppose they’re being honest: literature and culture. And, indeed, the major includes four “historical” courses: one in each of the periods pre-1500, 1500 – 1700, 1700 – 1850, and 1850 to present; three “breadth” courses, chosen from three of the four categories of Gender, Race, Ethnicity, Disability, and Sexuality Studies; Imperial, Transnational, and Postcolonial Studies; Genre Studies, Interdisciplinary Studies, Critical Theory; and Creative Writing (with the provision that Creative Writing courses require instructor approval); and two electives and a senior capstone course.

Of course, looking through the UCLA department website and course descriptions failed to answer the key question: whether studying great literature of the past or modern cultures in the Anglosphere, are students learning to read and reason and write in a highly skillful manner, or not?

Uncategorized

Previous Post

January 4, 2014

On Professionalism and Ethics

Next Post

January 5, 2014 Parking a link: on Social Security

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was thrown into a pit by his jealous brothers?

Select your answer to see how you score.

David Moses Joseph Peter