Came across this nice podcast questioning our priorities in education here in the US. Mark Slouka, an English professor at the University of Chicago, talks about why he thinks our education has been “dehumanized” and why this is potentially destructive. Right now, in a recession, everyone understands that in order to survive universities must allocate resources strategically as they face federal and state budget cuts and school funding dries up. We choose, based on our values and priorities, what programs deserve to stay afloat and which programs we can afford to jettison. Unfortunately, though all programs can be affected, the humanities are usually among the first to be tossed overboard, in favor of the more “productive” disciplines like math and science (we like things that can be objectively measured, and success in these fields are often measured in dollar signs, giving them a lamentable advantage over their “softer” counterparts).
Frankly, an over-emphasis on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), the popular buzz-term for many education initiatives of the 21st century, at the expense of the arts and humanities is a disservice to democracy. Democracy depends, in my view, first and foremost on an engaged, educated, and informed civil society. In effect, by placing so much emphasis on STEM initiatives we are sending the message that that which is to be valued is that which can be measured monetarily – that which increases the GDP. Also within this message is the assumption that an understanding of the world, its cultures and societies, its histories, and its aesthetic achievements are secondary, if they are considered to be important at all. As Mark Slouka says in the podcast, they are seen “like a sprig of parsley on a plate,” there for decoration only. As we shift our curricula to focus more on “hard” disciplines, “we are raising a nation of workers, not citizens” Slouka warns. Such an outcome is dangerous because “workers are politically neutral.” Or, in today’s volatile age of identity politics, emotionally blinded and politically misinformed on a vast scale. Such an environment is fertile for the growth of demagoguery (i.e. political pundits playing on a nation’s fears, sacrificing truth for ratings).
In Slouka’s words, a humanities education is about “challenging the myths about ourselves.” It’s about “offering the students what truly disturbs them” so they can grapple with the material and, as a result, discover themselves in the process. I have to agree. By eschewing the humanities we cripple the creative capacity of so many students – and ultimately the nation as whole. We also cripple people’s ability to critically analyze their own political opinions and those of others – especially those of “the unreliable narrator.” A humanities education is about questioning and challenging certainties. Slouka says it nicely, “For me, certainty is sort of the mortar of fascism. If you’re sure about everything, then you’re dangerous. I want to complicate your vision, and that’s what the humanities do and that’s what we’re lacking.” Indeed, if we truly are devoted to democracy as we all seem to espouse, I think we need to be concerned about this.
In a future post I’d like to discuss whether or not chopping up intellectual pursuits into “disciplines” is actually an antiquated way of organizing areas of inquiry and how we might benefit from system built around the idea of “flocks” instead of “groups.”
via Conversation: Writer Mark Slouka on America’s ‘Dehumanized’ Education Podcast Episode.
No Trackbacks
You can leave a trackback using this URL: http://www.adambohannon.org/dangerous-2/trackback/
3 Comments
I really like your budding thought of re-evaluating the “disciplines” we have so divisively created in the US education system (and also as it seems in other western education systems – i say western because these are the school systems i am familiar with. i do not know how other places like asia, or the middle east structure their education)
nowadays, because, at least in some spheres, there is a growing trend to talk about interconnectivity and because of technology that gives us easy-access to this “bigger, interconnected picture” (seemingly almost all existing information is at our fingertips), it seems only natural that how we relate to information or “areas of inquiry” will evolve.
should we try to control its evolution by explicitly reinventing, prescribing, and building new disciplines? (but that doesn’t sound ideal, not enough freedom for the human genius to thrive
). i would imagine that a deconstruction of the structure of modern education would be the best answer… but probably also impossible.
this quote made me think about “disciplines”: “artificial constraints lead to arbitrary distinctions and a skewed worldview”
“Over the past century the expert has dethroned the educated generalist, to become the sole model of intellectual accomplishment.
Expertise has for sure had its moments. But the price of its dominance is enormous. Subject matters are broken up into smaller and smaller pieces, with increasing emphasis on the technical and the obscure.”
http://www.ted.com/talks/liz_coleman_s_call_to_reinvent_liberal_arts_education.html
if you hadn’t noticed, my interest has been piqued by your blogpost.