This question alludes to a likely unfamiliar reference, especially to non-Rhetoric scholars. In his essay “Three Countertheses,” Victor Vitanza wrote, “Can any one of my (even more open-minded) readers, therefore, imagine the National Council of Teachers of English or the College Composition and Communication Conference having as it conference theme the question Should writing be taught? (This is no mere question of whether writing can be taught; obviously it can be as either craft or techne. This is not mere position based on ‘vitalism.’) As far as I’m concerned, this political-cum-ethical question can/should no longer be begged.” Vitanza, writing in the 90s, draws on a post-structuralist argument, primarily through Lyotard and Deleuze and Guattari, to push against the two dominant schools of thought in the discipline at the time: what is/was called current-traditional rhetoric and the Marxian/cultural studies social epistemic rhetoric that was emerging at this time as post-process composition. Much of his argument is about the slipperiness of viewing pedagogy as an application of theory, as though theory could simply be applied.
A related, and somewhat more recent, version of this comes from a NY Times op-ed by Stanley Fish from 2008. Here’s an extended bit of his argument.
It is not the business of the humanities to save us, no more than it is their business to bring revenue to a state or a university. What then do they do? They don’t do anything, if by “do” is meant bring about effects in the world. And if they don’t bring about effects in the world they cannot be justified except in relation to the pleasure they give to those who enjoy them.
To the question “of what use are the humanities?”, the only honest answer is none whatsoever. And it is an answer that brings honor to its subject. Justification, after all, confers value on an activity from a perspective outside its performance. An activity that cannot be justified is an activity that refuses to regard itself as instrumental to some larger good. The humanities are their own good.
Will the Humanities Save Us?
Though coming from different perspectives both Vitanza and Fish are asking a question of ethics in relation to writing/humanities: what should be done?
The historical context I find relevant here begins with the formation of professional academic organizations (e.g., MLA) in the late nineteenth century, followed by college majors and general education in the early twentieth century. By the mid-twentieth century, humanities departments, especially English and History, had become cornerstones of a growing academy: the GI Bill, plus the Baby Boom, plus changing gender roles, etc. I have to disagree with Fish’s claim that the humanities do nothing. If nothing else they require students to attend classes and complete assignments. They issue college degrees. And during this period, the height of their cultural influence, they delivered an education focused on patriarchal, Anglo-American nationalism: the great literature and historical accomplishments of English-speaking men. Of course all that began to come apart in the 70s and 80s with feminist canon-busting, multicultural literature, and the rise of theory. This period also saw the development of many studies programs: women’s studies, African-American studies, media studies, and so on. These developments each represent the insufficiencies of the traditional humanities disciplines by that time.
These struggles were still ongoing in the 90s. E.D. Hirsch was making his claims for a traditional cultural literacy and against multiculturalism. There were various backlashes against and among emerging schools of thought driven by the influx of postmodern and critical theory. We were also seeing the rise of the neoliberal university following the Reagan/Bush years. From this emerged the trends that we see now.
- The traditions of history and literary studies remain. The departments still largely have the same courses and hire faculty in with the same specializations (though they offer a wider array of things now too). The point is that faculty who share Fish’s views (if not Hirsch’s) remain.
- The traditional faculty are combined with more progressive faculty who see their work as explicitly connected with political goals, such as social justice. This doesn’t mean that traditional faculty are opposed to social justice (as the political right is) but they may not view their teaching or scholarship as explicitly aimed toward it.
- Both sets of faculty are opposed to the takeover of the university by neoliberal values. As such they reject neoliberal expectations such as departments having enough students to justify the number of faculty they have.
The other factor I haven’t mentioned is the rise of software culture in the nineties. The humanities in general chose not to respond to this global shift in the way humans live and communicate. They still have not.
The most radical response is easy to discern. Given the fact that tenure makes it difficult to fire people, stop hiring humanities faculty. 10-15 years from now we’ll be in a better place, financially speaking. By that time, universities we’ll have developed habits of not hiring humanities faculty, students will stop entering their grad programs, as well as their undergrad programs. IOW, by then, we’ll be comfortable with sending the humanities to live on a farm in the country.
That’s the most radical response and not one I am endorsing. But we have to recognize that it exists as an option.
Here’s the thing about the humanities (and the arts)… In theWest we can trace these traditions back to Classical times, but we know better than to accept that kind of intellectual sloppiness! These are really mid-twentieth century phenomena. There really weren’t MFAs until the 50s. The whole “book-for-tenure” thing took off in the 60s. Don’t be fooled by suggestions that what we are trying to sustain in our universities has existed on this planet much longer than I have. Sure, our professional organizations go back to the 19th-century, but general education and majors are early 20th-century inventions and the tenure expectations of faculty followed on that.
So much for the timeless quality of the arts and humanities! Whatever happens to our departments, people will still make/practice art. Maybe people will not read literature or perceive history in the ways dictated by contemporary disciplinary dogma, but they still will have interest in these questions, at least some of them. Developing knowledge in medicine, science and engineering requires complex machinery and processes, and humans trained to participate in that work. The arts and humanities do not. There isn’t much reason for tertiary education here.
Of course I have notions about how the arts and humanities might continue to exist in the posthuman world, but at the end of the day they don’t matter. I’ve been writing about this topic for 20 years on this blog and engaged in these matters elsewhere in my various positions. I think faculty have to help themselves to solve these problems .
Alex Reid 