4 ms·

Interest in humanities is fading because humanities have failed the world. Instead of understanding the society and bringing about some positive change, they ha

Interest in humanities is fading because humanities have failed the world. Instead of understanding the society and bringing about some positive change, they have become a tool for cultural domination. Some even say that the role of humanities, and history teaching, has always been about cultural domination. But the idea of cultural domination is anathema to most of the 'new generation' which relies, rather, depends on cultural assimilation and tolerance in this global economy for their bread and butter. And this change hasn't come due to humanities... it has come due to technological revolution. So, of course, the interest in humanities is fading.

cubancigar11 13y ago
Why the down vote?
- ars 13y ago
  I didn't, but I'm guess because people don't think it causes cultural domination. I think most people think humanities doesn't do anything at all.
  - cubancigar11 13y ago
    Well, I did say 'some' :) The people with no interest in Humanities will not take humanities anyway. That the interest in humanities is decreasing points directly to the fact that people who actually _like_ humanities are disenchanted with it. That is who my comment is referring to. There is a whole literature in sociology dealing with relationship between humanities and colonialism[1]. But I suppose people downvoting me have really got no interest in humanities :) Apparently, anything that makes it look like it might have a value must be bad. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism
jtheory 13y ago
Can you offer any more concrete specifics? I studied humanities in college (primarily music, some English lit and creative writing, some French lit, ancient Eastern philosophy, etc. -- also compsci, but mostly humanities), and it was something of a mixed bag as educations go, but I did build some very valuable communication and thinking skills along the way. I'm not at all clear how especially something like studying ancient Chinese philosophers could fit into your generalizations, but regardless -- mastering communication and clear thinking on complex, diverse topics is hugely valuable in almost any endeavor, and I've encountered some shamefully poor communicators (and unclear thinkers) in the tech world. I suspect if the humanities could successfully focus on good outcomes in these categories, and demonstrate the value, they'd benefit from it... somehow blending in applied rationality with the standard paths would be awesome, and if that were available I'd go that route again, if I had the choice again.
- cubancigar11 13y ago
  You have given good examples yourself. Before the acceptance of French into humanities, it was just a language evolving with its speakers. After that it was given the status of "official", with official grammar to maintain purity. But who decided which vernacular was pure and which wasn't? The powers that be. The privileged noble who had time for it. While it resulted in better economic opportunities for everyone (while requiring no effort from those who already spoke the pure form), it also quashed the cultural diversity. English is another example. People in most of the world learn British English, simply because English was taught to them when British ruled them because they wanted to create a English speaking cheap workforce. Now that British are gone, their legacy remains. For example, Shakespeare is still mandatory to learn in India, and novels that are today confined to humanities in Britain, are most read in India - they don't read catcher in the rye, they read The Tempest and The Woman in White etc. You can see that firsthand - Indians use idioms that long ago fell out of use in Britain. "Please do the needful" anyone? "I was doing that only"? This is not just about Indians. Germans, as I have been told, learn UK English in school. But eventually all their clients are American, so they end up learning American vernacular and spellings. They can't be blamed, every default is American now. Coming to Eastern philosophy, consider this: the earth is round, people are equal so how come there is something called East or West. It is arbitrary! It is THE example of grouping and stereotypes[1]. There is a large branch of sociology and history dealing with this idea.[2] I will leave it at that since this is closer to my heart and thus I am prone to be biased. Plus, I am still reading more about it. The idea is not that Chinese philosophers would fit in my description or not, the idea is that the philosophers you call Chinese are just a sect of a philosophers in China. But when first non-Chinese went into China, their interest wasn't in philosophy but in the money Chinese had. Through that economical agent they measured everything that was there - the economically weak Chinese philosophers were neglected and forgotten into history and the official Chinese doctrine accepted as the one true 'Chinese'. "Because that is what makes them different." It is why when China dabbles into modernism we call them copycats and not just coming to equal terms. They HAVE to be different, right? I went overboard, I suppose. I am not a good writer nor a native English speaker. Indian, actually. Regarding music, I think it should belong to science and mathematics :) 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroup 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism
Qom 13y ago
That's a rather extreme viewpoint. Don't forget that it's things like culture that make life worth living. I love technology, but I also recognize that the end goal of technological progress is to allow us to experience more culture by augmenting and facilitating our lives. I honestly don't see how studying Ancient Greek for example is supposed to encourage cultural domination. The term "humanities" denotes a vast array of subjects. If there is cultural domination going on, it's mostly with the mass media output of whichever country happens to be in a position of power at the time. For instance, the US have been flooding the market for a long while with their audio, video and written content thanks to their dominant economic position. Local production simply cannot compete with billion-dollar budgets. This leads to cultural intoxication in millions of minds around the world as they are exposed every day to the American way of viewing the world and American cultural norms. A humanities course, no matter how active in its propaganda, cannot possibly rival this kind of utter cultural domination.
- chrismonsanto 13y ago
  > but I also recognize that the end goal of technological progress is to allow us to experience more culture by augmenting and facilitating our lives For you, anyway. For me (a theoretical computer scientist/mathematician), more advanced technology is its own reward. I don't really care what the results are applied to.
  - Qom 13y ago
    Expanding our understanding of the universe IS part of culture since it allows us new avenues of thought. The arts and sciences were considered to be the same thing not so long ago. I also find it highly doubtful that you do not care about the results of technology. Technology pretty much shapes our lives so you cannot plausibly pretend to be so blasé about it all. Our continued existence depends on the responsible use of powerful inventions so not caring about the results is a pretty unscientific and downright dangerous attitude anyway.
jccalhoun 13y ago
I'm a grad student in the humanities so I have a vested interest but I would say that your comment may apply to some humanities but it is also the humanities that is where people are exploring the negatives of cultural domination and the value of diversity. I'm in media studies and use cultural studies, gender studies, and anthropology (which likes to claim it is a "science" but I don't really consider it one). Those fields along with things like post-colonial studies are all about examining and tearing down the systems of cultural domination. As someone who got my BA in English, I find it difficult to understand why some humanities departments are as large as they are at large research universities. Literacy and literature are very important but I don't know that we should be churning out very many people with phds in English.
- cubancigar11 13y ago
  Yes, true. The role of humanities is not as hard-cut as I probably sound in my previous comment. It is indeed a virtue to be able to self-judge. I suppose one can say that humanities is now a mature field which has hit its natural plateau, kind of like classical thermodynamics.

cubancigar11 13y ago

Why the down vote?

ars 13y ago
I didn't, but I'm guess because people don't think it causes cultural domination. I think most people think humanities doesn't do anything at all.
- cubancigar11 13y ago
  Well, I did say 'some' :) The people with no interest in Humanities will not take humanities anyway. That the interest in humanities is decreasing points directly to the fact that people who actually _like_ humanities are disenchanted with it. That is who my comment is referring to. There is a whole literature in sociology dealing with relationship between humanities and colonialism[1]. But I suppose people downvoting me have really got no interest in humanities :) Apparently, anything that makes it look like it might have a value must be bad. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism

jtheory 13y ago

Can you offer any more concrete specifics? I studied humanities in college (primarily music, some English lit and creative writing, some French lit, ancient Eastern philosophy, etc. -- also compsci, but mostly humanities), and it was something of a mixed bag as educations go, but I did build some very valuable communication and thinking skills along the way. I'm not at all clear how especially something like studying ancient Chinese philosophers could fit into your generalizations, but regardless -- mastering communication and clear thinking on complex, diverse topics is hugely valuable in almost any endeavor, and I've encountered some shamefully poor communicators (and unclear thinkers) in the tech world. I suspect if the humanities could successfully focus on good outcomes in these categories, and demonstrate the value, they'd benefit from it... somehow blending in applied rationality with the standard paths would be awesome, and if that were available I'd go that route again, if I had the choice again.

cubancigar11 13y ago
You have given good examples yourself. Before the acceptance of French into humanities, it was just a language evolving with its speakers. After that it was given the status of "official", with official grammar to maintain purity. But who decided which vernacular was pure and which wasn't? The powers that be. The privileged noble who had time for it. While it resulted in better economic opportunities for everyone (while requiring no effort from those who already spoke the pure form), it also quashed the cultural diversity. English is another example. People in most of the world learn British English, simply because English was taught to them when British ruled them because they wanted to create a English speaking cheap workforce. Now that British are gone, their legacy remains. For example, Shakespeare is still mandatory to learn in India, and novels that are today confined to humanities in Britain, are most read in India - they don't read catcher in the rye, they read The Tempest and The Woman in White etc. You can see that firsthand - Indians use idioms that long ago fell out of use in Britain. "Please do the needful" anyone? "I was doing that only"? This is not just about Indians. Germans, as I have been told, learn UK English in school. But eventually all their clients are American, so they end up learning American vernacular and spellings. They can't be blamed, every default is American now. Coming to Eastern philosophy, consider this: the earth is round, people are equal so how come there is something called East or West. It is arbitrary! It is THE example of grouping and stereotypes[1]. There is a large branch of sociology and history dealing with this idea.[2] I will leave it at that since this is closer to my heart and thus I am prone to be biased. Plus, I am still reading more about it. The idea is not that Chinese philosophers would fit in my description or not, the idea is that the philosophers you call Chinese are just a sect of a philosophers in China. But when first non-Chinese went into China, their interest wasn't in philosophy but in the money Chinese had. Through that economical agent they measured everything that was there - the economically weak Chinese philosophers were neglected and forgotten into history and the official Chinese doctrine accepted as the one true 'Chinese'. "Because that is what makes them different." It is why when China dabbles into modernism we call them copycats and not just coming to equal terms. They HAVE to be different, right? I went overboard, I suppose. I am not a good writer nor a native English speaker. Indian, actually. Regarding music, I think it should belong to science and mathematics :) 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroup 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism

Qom 13y ago

That's a rather extreme viewpoint. Don't forget that it's things like culture that make life worth living. I love technology, but I also recognize that the end goal of technological progress is to allow us to experience more culture by augmenting and facilitating our lives. I honestly don't see how studying Ancient Greek for example is supposed to encourage cultural domination. The term "humanities" denotes a vast array of subjects. If there is cultural domination going on, it's mostly with the mass media output of whichever country happens to be in a position of power at the time. For instance, the US have been flooding the market for a long while with their audio, video and written content thanks to their dominant economic position. Local production simply cannot compete with billion-dollar budgets. This leads to cultural intoxication in millions of minds around the world as they are exposed every day to the American way of viewing the world and American cultural norms. A humanities course, no matter how active in its propaganda, cannot possibly rival this kind of utter cultural domination.

chrismonsanto 13y ago
> but I also recognize that the end goal of technological progress is to allow us to experience more culture by augmenting and facilitating our lives For you, anyway. For me (a theoretical computer scientist/mathematician), more advanced technology is its own reward. I don't really care what the results are applied to.
- Qom 13y ago
  Expanding our understanding of the universe IS part of culture since it allows us new avenues of thought. The arts and sciences were considered to be the same thing not so long ago. I also find it highly doubtful that you do not care about the results of technology. Technology pretty much shapes our lives so you cannot plausibly pretend to be so blasé about it all. Our continued existence depends on the responsible use of powerful inventions so not caring about the results is a pretty unscientific and downright dangerous attitude anyway.

jccalhoun 13y ago

I'm a grad student in the humanities so I have a vested interest but I would say that your comment may apply to some humanities but it is also the humanities that is where people are exploring the negatives of cultural domination and the value of diversity. I'm in media studies and use cultural studies, gender studies, and anthropology (which likes to claim it is a "science" but I don't really consider it one). Those fields along with things like post-colonial studies are all about examining and tearing down the systems of cultural domination. As someone who got my BA in English, I find it difficult to understand why some humanities departments are as large as they are at large research universities. Literacy and literature are very important but I don't know that we should be churning out very many people with phds in English.

cubancigar11 13y ago
Yes, true. The role of humanities is not as hard-cut as I probably sound in my previous comment. It is indeed a virtue to be able to self-judge. I suppose one can say that humanities is now a mature field which has hit its natural plateau, kind of like classical thermodynamics.