Issues in PhilosophyIs It Time For the Humanities to Strike?

Is It Time For the Humanities to Strike?

Note: The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the APA Blog or the APA. 

The “climate kids” strike is inspiring. At an age when students are traditionally focused on studies, relationships, and hobbies, these teenagers are advocating for a solution to perhaps our most intransigent problem. Their words are equally encouraging. 16-year old Nobel Peace Prize nominee Greta Thunberg describes the situation by saying, “There is a crisis in front of us that we have to live with, that we will have to live with for all our lives, our children, our grandchildren and all future generations…We won’t accept that, we won’t let that happen and that’s why we go on strike. We are on strike because we do want a future, we will carry on.” The world’s children say they won’t accept the future the adults are currently leaving them, and they are right to do so. It should shame all of us that we knowingly created a deadlier world for them and did relatively little to fix it.

Their refusal to stay silent compels me to do the same in support of a similar issue: the tragic state of the humanities. For decades they have been shrinking throughout parts of the world, quite drastically so since the Great Recession. While we should not conflate an issue that poses an existential threat to the earth with the loss of institutions, practices, and ideas that help us understand the human experience, neither should we avoid clearly stating what we are losing. As philosophy, history, theology, languages, classics, linguistics, and art disappear from society, we give up our soul—the very things that make us who we are. Without philosophy we lose our ideas; without history, our past; without theology, our spirituality; without English, our communication; and so on. Ending the humanities is the death of what it means to be human.

On a basic level, the value of the humanities is undeniable. Anyone who enjoys reading a book, appreciates good speaking, is fascinated by new ideas, or treasures knowing their ancestry benefits from the humanities. But the institution of the humanities adds to society as well. Humanities courses are among the most common courses taken at college, and several polls show certain humanities fields are among the most popular college majors (one site says the humanities, as a group, are more popular than business, nursing, and health professions). During times of middle-class economic growth, humanities class enrollment normally increases, implying that when economic security is not an issue, people desire a humanities education. Additionally, research shows that humanities undergraduates feel more support from their mentors than others, that the arts produce economic wealth, that the public appreciates the qualities art cultivates, that critical thinking is an essential part of every college’s pedagogical model, and that humanities majors do very well in the workforce (in part because employers prize those trained in it).

The damage done when the humanities disappear is stark. People aren’t trained in critical thinking, communication, and basic facts about society. Rational discussion based on a common understanding of the world vanishes, replaced by dogma and antagonism.[1] Despite this near universal acclaim for the work the humanities do, the budget for the National Endowment for the Humanities and National Endowment for the Arts has been slashed numerous times over the last few decades (and Trump’s suggested budget eliminates it entirely), though it has risen slightly in the last few years. Academic jobs have disappeared across the board while more PhDs are leaving academia entirely. Multiple articles report on the attempts of governors, presidents, and other administrators to consolidate or completely slash humanities departments (two of the most recent examples are the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point’s attempt to drop 13 majors, causing protests that led to a complete abandonment of the cuts, and the University of Tulsa’s proposed elimination of the philosophy and religion departments). The only way to square these two facts is to realize just how much the adjunct crisis has affected higher education, which, as data shows, harms both students and professors. Part-time faculty have become more common than tenured, tenure-track, or full time non-tenure-track faculty, a fact made even more disturbing when you note the disproportionate number of women and people of color occupying those positions. As the American Association of University Professors notes, this trend threatens academic freedom, a bedrock of the educational system—and democracy—for generations.

There are similar problems abroad. Arts and humanities graduates in Britain are more likely than any other type to be under-using their degree. Last March, the UK government suggested a two-tiered system for funding different degree programs—STEM programs on one tier, and arts and humanities on another—that would see the latter lose a significant amount of government money and shrink even further. The amount of money the UK’s Arts and Humanities Research Council spends each year has been relatively stable for about a decade, though inflation means this money does less now than it could previously. And the UK’s Education secretary recently called for an end to “low value” degrees (defined as any degree where students aren’t making enough in five years to begin loan repayments). While perhaps not targeting the humanities directly, this final policy makes education serve the needs of business alone, and it’s questionable whether many humanities degrees would survive this culling.

Many schools in Russia are seeing significant cuts in both faculty and budgets, and the Russian State University for the Humanities has lost many professors and administrators. Brazil’s new president Jair Bolsonaro is trying to eliminate philosophy and sociology departments altogether because of the “Marxist rubbish” they teach. Combine these facts with the numerous examples of states persecuting humanities scholars for their speech or work, and it’s clear the problem is not limited to one country.

The near universal consensus that the humanities should play a role in society, accompanied by their continuing atrophy, would at first glance seem to provide us with one of those rare easy-to-solve problems. If most people want the humanities and recognize they are in crisis, it should be easy to muster the necessary will to reinvest in them. Unfortunately, several factors currently prevent this. The first and most obvious is the neoliberal economy that demands liberal arts departments be financially sustainable. The argument that there are long-term and not directly monetizable values that the humanities provides falls on deaf ears, especially when the board of trustees or other investors compel schools to focus on the bottom line. Another problem is that helping the humanities takes a backseat to other troubles. The suffering of underpaid and overworked teachers seems minor next to the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, big data’s invasions of privacy, and environmental threats. But is it wise to separate these problems? Fixing our broken politics, society, and environment requires communication, reasoned argumentation, and intellectual thought—the very things the humanities cultivate. The best path forward is not always the most obvious. While fixing the humanities is not a panacea, it may be a necessary condition for solving our other problems.

The third issue is that while solving this crisis has a consensus, the form it should take does not. The humanities are criticized for their lack of gender and racial representation (among other things), for being too political, and for not serving the vocational needs of society. Groups articulating each view often disagree with the other views, leading to fights about the best way forward. Some prefer for the humanities to fail rather than another perspective to succeed. Though the humanities aren’t perfect, they are undoubtedly better to have—even when imperfect—than to do without. The humanities are fundamental for democracy, as citizens must use them to do their civic duties. Even if the humanities aren’t prefigured as we desire, they should be given as much consideration as we give to other democratic practices.

Some say the humanities aren’t disappearing, only settling into a new role. Advocating for them is unnecessary, since if we wait they will find a more appropriate place. The naivete of this belief is revealed by history. The desires that produce the humanities may not disappear, but we can still lose something vital. These desires didn’t prevent Europe from falling into the Dark Ages for centuries, nor did they prevent many instances of human oppression. While the humanities have at times contributed to subjugation, abandoning them increases the likelihood we will revisit, rather than learn from, such negative experiences. When you include climate change, totalitarianism, influenza outbreaks, and more, it becomes clear we cannot trust natural or social systems to save us from disaster. And while other disasters can be observed as they happen, we may not realize what losing the humanities costs until it’s too late.

Suggestions for improvement—like recognizing that non-tenure-track positions aren’t going to disappear, understanding the power structure of your university, and organizing adjuncts on campus—are helpful but inadequate. The crisis of the humanities is global, and linked to many highly interconnected systems. Working on the local level with one’s administration, department, and colleagues will only be marginally effective, for it doesn’t raise the issue with those who need to hear about it: the public and both political and economic decision makers. These groups need to know what they are losing and why it should be preserved. College administrators must also be pressured to support the humanities. Often, they are compelled by the college’s investors to produce profitability at the expense of a well-rounded education. Personal experience has taught me that while university officials speak glowingly of the liberal arts and how it changed their lives, they follow that up by saying economic demands are forcing cuts and layoffs. Similarly, politicians I have tried to speak with (as part of Humanities Advocacy Day) fail to show up, instead sending members of their staff to express concern without making any promises. While politicians cannot attend every meeting nor specialize in every issue (and some are concerned about the humanities), the haste and attention which some issues get, compared with that which the humanities receive, indicates a set of priorities that renders this problem perpetually unaddressed. Clearly the urgency of this crisis must be conveyed.

As humanities teachers lack access to the mass media, the best way to communicate this concern may be through a strike. Though many questions need to be discussed (Who would strike? What would the demand be? To whom would it be issued?), it may be the best option. The loss of education that will occur if this happens, while regrettable, is a small price to pay to ensure the humanities will remain. It is time to say that we’ve had enough of seeing friends and colleagues leave behind studies they love; of signing contracts with so many responsibilities a long-term career is impossible; of reading about teachers being unable to afford basic necessities; of families being broken up because someone is following a calling that makes staying in one place difficult. Perhaps most of all, we must reject a system that refuses to allow students to explore their passion. It is time to see what a society lacking the humanities looks like, and ask whether we find it tolerable. Now is a good time; teacher strikes are already happening in many parts of the US and the UK. And strikes have been effective in many parts of the world.[2] While it is too early to tell if the Children’s Climate Strike will be effective, the fact that they’ve received international attention is an achievement itself. If we are not willing to pay the price necessary to ensure the humanities’ success, then this crisis will become one our children, grandchildren, and future ancestors will have to live with. And to paraphrase Greta Thunberg, that is something we must not accept.

[1] Many have realized this fact, as shown by articles in The Atlantic, The Telegraph, The Washington Post, Times Higher Education, Huffington Post, Forbes, The New Republic, The Guardian, and New York Times. Even more conservative magazines like The National Review and Weekly Standard don’t advocate for ending the humanities, only de-politicizing them.

[2] As exemplified by the US Coal Strike of 1902, the 1946 Montrel Cottons Strike, the 1946 Pilbara strike in Australia, the US Steel Strike of 1959, the UK Miner’s Strike of 1972 and 1974, the UPS Strike of 1997, and the 2007 South African public servants’ strike.

 

Nathan Eckstrand is an editor at the Blog of the APA and a Visiting Assistant Professor at Fort Hays State University. This piece is cross-posted at the London School of Economics’ Higher Education Blog.

8 COMMENTS

  1. As important as the arts and humanities are to a high quality of life — imagine no polished philosophical writing, music, painting, sculpture, architecture, drama, dance, or communication — a strike is ill advised. If college adjuncts went on strike, they would be replaced by other adjuncts, or their work forced on already tenured faculty. Further, don’t expect your average tenured professor to give up a cushy check to protest for the value of the arts and humanities. Therefore, most likely, a strike would lead to departments being permanently closed and a re-allocation of funds.

    • Dear Jon,

      I appreciate your thoughts. The piece is meant to start a discussion, and I’m under no illusions about the controversial nature of this idea. If a strike happens, it will be an uphill battle (though one I believe is worth fighting).

      To answer your objections, let me first say that I disagree with the categorical nature of your claims. It seems doubtful to me that all adjuncts or all tenured faculty will respond in the way you assume. For example, I’ve already heard from a few tenured faculty who like the idea of a strike.

      While a strike could end exactly as you say, it is naive to assume that it must end that way. Whether things work out as you suggest depends on how many people we convince to join. And given how much humans are influenced by the thoughts and actions of their friends and colleagues, one way to ensure that we won’t get enough people joining is to dismiss the idea immediately.

      I will take your views into consideration as I continue to think about the idea of a strike. I hope you’ll similarly be willing to listen to the words of others in the field as you decide your course of action. If enough people want to have a strike to make doing so worthwhile, I hope you’ll join us.

  2. Dear Nathan:
    You discuss some very profound issues. I desire, however, to comment on only three of the ideas expressed in your article as follows:
    1. What you have written is significant to philosophy in that philosophy is a humanity. I reject the view that philosophy may be scientific as the positivists proclaim. It is, thus, vital to preserve the legacy of philosophy for future generations.
    2. One element of the process causing the downplaying of the value of the humanities are the legacies of pragmatism and instrumentalism. To lay people and even some scholars, the humanities don’t seem to possess ‘cash value’ and that has become increasing relevant in regard to modern materialism.
    3. A ‘humanities strike’ might indeed be effective, yet I doubt many philosophers would attend. Most philosophers are singular individuals and live in private worlds devoid of the broader community of scholars. I can’t speak of all the humanities, yet philosophers generally don’t relate to the collective. Great thinkers must arise to motivate them.
    I appreciate your thoughts, however, and thank you for your efforts.

    Sincerely,
    Edward DeLia

    • Thanks for your thoughts, Edward. I agree with much of what you say, and only have a few thoughts on your final point.

      I am honestly not sure what philosophers will think about a strike. If they’re like me, they don’t desire one, but are willing to join for the potential long-term value it will bring. The description you give of philosophers fits some of the ones I know, but is false for others (and more than a few). Philosophers are a more diverse group than we generally give them credit for.

      This piece was written to start a discussion about the idea it proposes, not end it. I hope everyone who reads it will take the time to listen to what others say, and not presuppose in advance how people in the field will respond.

  3. Great post.

    A related and larger issue is the deprofessionalization of faculty by erosion or denial of faculty governance of institutional academic mission. In subtle and not so subtle ways, administrative control of academic mission is increasingly normal and penetrating. Under its guise, the reasoning in between disciplines fades behind economic urgencies. It’s the faculty who should decide what to do academically when times are tough
    financially.

  4. Dear Jeremy, you touch on an important aspect of the issue at hand: namely, the need for faculty governance of the humanities rather than control by administrators. The faculty should judge the proper mean between quality academics and economic factors.
    I am a firm believer that a person’s behavior stems from his ideas. Thus, the ideas we communicate must to some extent communicate non-economic incentives which is not going to happen as long as McDonaldized administrators control the agenda.
    As Nathan indicates, philosophers are a diverse category and certainly more diverse than when I was educated in the 60s. Hence, the ideas we communicate will affect numerous cultural traditions- hopefully in a positive manner.

    Sincerely,

    Edward DeLia

    • Dear Edward,

      I largely agree, I think. One of the best examples of McDonaldized rationality in higher education and advanced by administrators despite the widespread skepticism and intellectual opposition of faculty from many disciplines is the concept (and jargon) of “strategic planning.”

      If I had one wish for regaining faculty governance of the academic mission, it would be to relinquish strategic planning. In its place, we might instead adopt inclusive, slow-time, faculty governed, student and researcher led (prompted), academic planning.

      Strategic planning is management rationality erasing intellectual rigor and is a constant rationalization for undercutting faculty governance. Moreover, the word itself implies warfare – belying a solidly capitalistic worldview of unending competition, rather than the academic ideal of the universal collegium. The concept of strategic planning is total crap, like a Big Mac.

      One of the things that strikes me as the most absurd in universities today is the way in which the manner in which universities approach their own direction, management, and governance is not as intellectually rigorous as the very disciplines comprising the university. So we find claims made in the process of planning that do not draw on the disciplines inside the university that could illuminate them and which are so lacking in rigor as to be laughable to some of those disciplines. Here’s proof that there is an exogenous shell driving academics, rather than an integrated, autonomous institution.

      Sincerely,

      Jeremy

  5. Nathan writes, “Ending the humanities is the death of what it means to be human.”

    Through out this article the author seems to assume that academia and the humanities are one and the same. Thus he reasons that threats to academic departments spells doom for the humanities. Apparently, we can’t be human without funding the ivory tower.

    It seems to me that the humanities are exploding all around us. Especially since the dawn of the Internet human expression on every conceivable topic is flourishing to such an extent that the primary challenge each of us now faces is not finding such expression, but ruthlessly filtering it.

    It’s true that there is more quantity than quality in such expression, but I don’t see intellectual “elites” as being in a position to solve that.

    Certainly such elites can craft more polished presentations than the rest of us, and there is a kind of beauty in such skill, but when it comes to content academics seems as blind to dramatic imminent threats to human civilization as the good fellow who came yesterday to fix my broken toilet.

    Humanity has a loaded gun in it’s mouth. If an advanced education does not help us face and address this simple fact, it seems reasonable to question the value of such education.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

WordPress Anti-Spam by WP-SpamShield

Topics

Advanced search

Posts You May Enjoy

Metaphysics, Colin C. Smith

The syllabus for Metaphysics is the result of my aim to put the “classical” subjects in contemporary metaphysics like personhood, mind, and the potentiality-actuality...