Humanities departments, even as they wave the banner of a critical theory conceived by ardent critics of the division of labor, simultaneously deposit themselves into a convenient little niche created for them by the universities that fodder capitalist enterprises. Unlike earlier humanists who either squandered their families’ capital or martyred themselves for the cause of truth, today’s practical humanists understand that a sustainable bourgeois existence is more fundamental in the hierarchy of needs than the search for truth. While their theories laud freedom and autonomy and look askance at all heteronomous authority, in practice humanities PhD mills see their mission not so differently from departments churning out JDs and MBAs. The point is to make sure students can find a nice comfortable bourgeois job when they’re done.
When students derive pleasure or pride from the quest for truth itself, rather than its socially useful results, we can conclude such students are fueled by antisocial narcissism rather than a healthy desire to be team players in the existing social order. A passion for truth might admittedly serve as a powerful fuel to propel students in their studies. But if it propels them in a direction that isn’t useful in the present social order, what’s the point? No, on those rare occasions when this antisocial passion for truth arises, it must be summarily extinguished. A more conventional fuel, the desire for bourgeois respectability, must be put in its place. This fuel may not provide quite the same impetus, but at least it gets the students going in the right direction.
In the new humanities, where truth is defined a social construction (unlike the elitist truth of past humanities, which abhors aspiring after broad dissemination), it is in fact difficult to see how a passion for truth could be distinguished from a monomaniacal narcissism. In an era of democratic epistemology, the proper aspiration for the seeker of truth is to work to forge consensus, rather than solitarily seek a truth that appeals to him alone.
In this new, improved, tamed and domesticated humanities, the central question is, how to attract good students? If the purpose of humanities graduate programs is merely to prepare students for a productive role in the division of labor, why settle for such a small one? Why would a bright student opt to host ornamental sideshows in undergraduate education, and forego the more significant and lucrative roles her intelligence qualifies her for?
No comments:
Post a Comment