Roundtable Book Club - Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities
First, I want to welcome everyone who joins us and say that I very much look forward to an interesting and lively exchange of comments, ideas, and perspectives on this important book and on the numerous themes, threads, and topics which I anticipate the book and our discussion will generate.
Gerald Fetz is Dean and Professor Emeritus at the University of Montana where he still works part-time as Co-Director of the UM Crown of the Continent Initiative and other projects. He taught a broad range of courses in German Studies and the Humanities over the course of his 40 years at UM, served as Chair of the Department of Modern and Classical Languages and as Dean of the Davidson Honors College and then the College of Arts and Sciences. He received the University’s Distinguished Teaching Award in 1988. His research and publications have focused on 20th century German and Austrian literature and culture.
After retiring two years ago I decided to embark on the modest project of reflecting on what I had experienced as a faculty member and administrator over the course of forty years at the University of Montana. My aim is to place these reflections as best I can in the context of higher education in America at this time. I’m looking back on those four decades as a teacher of a wide range of courses at the center of the humanities disciplines, and also as an administrator who was both privileged and forced to deal with many of the issues that Martha Nussbaum raises in Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities.
The first “product” of my reflections, informed by other reading on this topic, including Louis Menand’s The Marketplace of Ideas: Reform and Resistance in the American University (2010), was a presentation I made a few months ago to a Missoula Town-Gown group to which I belong. I’m still working on refining and expanding those reflections, and anticipate that our discussions of Nussbaum’s book here will help me think about the questions I have been grappling with and those that Nussbaum adds to the mix much more clearly, broadly and insightfully. And I hope that all the participants will ultimately find this discussion both interesting and useful. So, in advance: I thank you for sharing all of your comments and diverse thoughts about this subject. I imagine that we’re going have a lot of fun batting around a wide range of perspectives, experiences, observations, and ideas.
Discussion Schedule
- April 1-10 – We'll focus the discussion on Chapters 1 & 2
- April 10-20 – We'll focus the discussion on Chapters 3 & 4
- April 21-31 – We'll focus the discussion on Chapters 5, 6 & 7
- May 1-31 (and beyond) – We’ll open the floodgates and let our discussion engage all the wide-ranging ideas that Nussbaum has tossed out, adding our own perspectives, experiences, readings, convictions, and concerns.
Tags: humanities - general
Views: 287
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Gerald A Fetz on -
A few questions to get the ball rolling...
- Nussbaum begins the chapter, and the book, with the following assertion: “We are in the midst of a crisis of massive proportions and grave global significance….No, I mean a crisis that goes largely unnoticed, like a cancer; a crisis that is likely to be, in the long run, far more damaging to the future of democratic self-government: a world-wide crisis in education.” (pp.1-2). Do you think she’s basically right in this assessment? Does she overstate this “crisis?” Are the examples she offers to substantiate her assertion compelling?
- What is your response to her discussion on page 6 that begins: “But we seem to be forgetting about the soul?”
- What do you think about her discussion and then delineation of the “abilities” that she claims “are at risk of getting lost” in what she suggests is the trend toward “education for profit?”
-
Permalink Reply by Ken Egan on -
Thanks for leading this discussion, Jerry--you're the very person for this conversation!
I do think Nussbaum is on to something when she diagnoses a crisis in our culture. The best evidence appears in another discussion thread on the Roundtable, "The Humanities in Our Public Schools." I urge folks to spend a few minutes reading through the posts there--frank talk about how the humanities are underappreciated and undertaught. The students' voices are especially telling.
And it will come as a surprise to few that I embrace Nussbaum's claim that the abilities to think critically, become a world citizen, and imagine others' lives sympathethically are crucial. Our very ability to think independently, to ask hard questions, to challenge assumptions could be at stake. And yes, I do believe those abilities make all the difference in a democratic culture.
And yet I sometimes grow restless with Nussbaum's certainty that the humanities (and arts) are the only conduit to the essential democratic faculties. I look around communities in Montana and witness acts of compassion, civic pride, engagement. Perhaps folks train themselves into these "habits of the heart" through volunteering for causes such as food banks, economic development, team sports, and churches. In other words, it could be that democratic citizenship arrives along multiple paths. So if the official line goes that citizens must be about money-making, the culture actually provides many opportunities for caring, commitment, and the hard work of making communities. Perhaps informal education in the vital democratic abilities takes place in these ways.
And yet, and yet--where and how do we learn to think carefully, to challenge our assumptions, to break out of received assumptions? It's hard for me to find an alternative to the kind of education Nussbaum advocates. . . .
First thoughts in response to this important discussion. . . .
-
Permalink Reply by Gerald A Fetz on
-
Ken (and others): do you think, after reading even some of Nussbaum's book, that she makes a compelling case for "her crisis" being any different than all of the earlier "crises in and for the humanities" that we have seen discussed during the past thirty or so years? And to what extent are her arguments that are intended to address and counter those who make claims that the humanities aren't really essential, or even important, for education, for democracy, for society in general, for people's lives, new, or different, or more likely to cause the doubters to recognize the essential, even the important, aspect of the humanities? Along with you, Ken, I found myself a bit impatient with Nussbaum's rather exclusive defense of the humanities as being the only (?) conduit or means of developing, as you put it, "essential democratic faculties." Doesn't that claim to exclusivity in this regard undercut our (defenders of the humanities and the humanities in general) credibility somewhat, especially for those who aren't convinced? Does Nussbaum come up with any new arguments for the humanities that could be more effective than ones we have often heard (and used ourselves, without much success, apparently) before? What are we missing?
-
Permalink Reply by Kim Anderson on -
Happy to jump in after just reading the first two chapters. I don't think Nussbaum is overstating at all in describing the current state of educational priorities as a "crisis." And I don't have a problem with her ascribing the humanities as essential to successful democracy--given her definition of the humanities and democracy. In emphasizing that she's not downplaying the importance of the sciences in education she says, "When practiced at their best, moreover, these other disciplines are infused by what we might call the spirit of the humanities: by searching critical thought, daring imagination empathetic understanding of human experiences of many different kinds, and understanding of the complexity of the world we live in."
I would say, however, that her argument, at least in these two chapters, is somewhat weakened by her heavy reliance on the Spellman report (which is dated) and close focus on the situation in India. I'm also disheartened by her reluctance to look more closely at what powers may have engendered this shift in focus. Corporate capitalism certainly does not benefit from "educated souls." While she describes the dangers of "education for profit" I don't think she focuses enough on exactly who gains by it, and its a very big gain.
I think we're seeing examples everyday of what we stand to lose by this shift in educational focus. For now, we still have some news organizations that are able to call a major politician when she states that the Constitution abolished slavery. For now. But how many people at that particular rally caught the idiocy? It is so easy to ramp up and then attempt to harness mobs if they are not taught "empathetic understanding of human experiences of many different kinds, and understanding of the complexity of the world we live in."
Finally, I don't think the crisis she describes is different than the ones discussed in the past 40 years, Jerry. I think it's a continuum. I think this work in progress has been going on since the 70s (what we learned from the 60s).
-
Permalink Reply by Jason Neal on -
Well said, Kim. I think shifts in educational priorities have been discussed (especially among educators) for the past 40 years, but what's changed since 1970 is that corporate America has become much more rabidly (and successfully) profit-obsessed. I mean, we're seeing all kinds of crazy statistics in the news recently—e.g.
- The richest 2% of people now own half the world's wealth.
- In just 15 years, from 1990-2005, average CEO pay went from 107 times that of the average worker to 411 times that of the average worker (at its peak in 2000, it was 525 times that of the average worker).
- Prior to the last few years, corporate profits were at their highest share of GDP since the 1960s, while employee wages were at their lowest share of GDP on record.
It goes on and on. I too have read only the first two chapters of Nussbaum's book, and I like how she's framing her argument. Seems to me we, as a nation and a society, have over the past 40 years largely succumbed to an ideology that believes no amount of profit is ever enough and astronomical inequalities in wealth are, hey, all part of the American Dream. And of course that ideology eventually carries over into our educational model...it becomes part of what we expect from and want for society's youth.
On page 17, Nussbaum writes, "Unlike virtually every nation in the world, we have a liberal arts model of university education." I was surprised to learn that our model for higher ed (which, the author argues, influences our model for secondary ed) is so unique. My own college experience was so rich, so formative, I do find myself eagerly aligning with Nussbaum's assertion that the model must be preserved—for all the reasons she states (active learning, critical thinking, etc.). I guess if there really is a "crisis" at hand, it stems from the notion that once we let this unique model give way to another, fundamentally different model more directly designed to yield economic growth, there's no going back. Are we really on the brink of that shift? I dunno, but I don't have a lot of faith that things will just right themselves.
-
Permalink Reply by Gerald A Fetz on
-
Thanks, Kim and Jason, for your excellent comments that were inspired by your reading of the first two chapters of Nussbaum's book. You both make important points, both about her arguments and about what they imply about American higher education and what she perceives to be a serious crisis. What I have observed in my almost 50 years in higher ed (counting 4 years of undergraduate work and 4 of graduate) has been a gradual erosion of the liberal arts (and sciences) core. Fifty years ago most colleges and universities in the US dedicated virtually all of the lower-division curriculum (first two years of college) to that core. It was widely assumed (I heard it often) that such a liberal arts core (whether it consisted of a set of specific classes or a certain number of courses distributed across the liberal arts and sciences disciplines) was very important regardless of what major one ultimately followed and that such a core would provide a significant foundation for any major, for any profession, and for life in a democracy in general. Of course, included in that core were courses that provided skills and habits of critical reading and writing, math literacy and application, research skills, etc. It has been my experience that even though there is still much lip service paid to that model, most colleges and universities, especially those that aren't basically four-year undergraduate liberal arts institutions, have watered down that model to provide more pre-professional and even professional courses for specific majors than that older model allowed. In short, we have "professionalized" the undergraduate curriculum to the detriment of that model of liberal arts and sciences education. Some of that is understandable due to the huge increases in the cost of an undergraduate education even at "public" institutions such as UM that have been made necessary because the state (all states) have drastically reduced their support over time so that the students and/or their parents now need to pay most of the cost of that education. These circumstances understandably compel students and their parents alike to "waste" a minimal amount of time and money getting that degree. Consequently, curriculum that doesn't appear to lead directly to the degree in the major or a sure job at graduation are viewed increasingly with skepticism, as "fluff" even. And I fear that we humaniists and our colleagues across our campuses and in our schools haven't made a very strong counter-case or -argument that might slow or stop and reverse that erosion. Let's hope that Nussbaum's work and the work by others (including us) can do that in some way and articulate why we can't (as a democratic society, as an economy, as empathetic and good human beings) afford to let the humanities (and other basic disciplines) and an education based in them (humanities, arts, basic sciences, qualitative social sciences) be pushed out in favor of professional and economic concerns. I agree with Jason: "things" won't just right themselves. the pressures against that happening are too strong these days.
-
Permalink Reply by Carol A. Bronson on -
I must admit that I have not read the book, but I feel strongly about the erosion of the liberal arts and humanities in the core curriculum. Folks want to focus on the details of a career, but miss the whole point of why one needs a liberal arts education. For that reason alone, Humanities Montana needs to continue to be the voice of reason!
-
Permalink Reply by Kim Anderson on
-
And just to pound home my point, I don't think proponents of the humanities will ever win their argument until they acknowledge, and engage with, the powerful forces that oppose the humanities. That's where I fault Nussbaum so far. She's dancing up to the line. But too often the side of liberal arts presents a case that boils down to "it makes you a better person." That's a good enough argument for me, but I think we all have to also say "and it gives you power that lots of people don't want you to have." But on to the next chapters!
-
Permalink Reply by Kim Anderson on
-
This is a bit over the top but it raises some interesting questions which parallel our discussion:
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/11
-
Permalink Reply by Gerald A Fetz on
-
In my initial comments as “moderator” for this book discussion about Martha Nussbaum’s “Not for Profit…,” I suggested that we might proceed by taking the book in three parts (Chapters I and II, Chapters III and IV, and Chapters V, VI, and VII). I said that I would offer a couple of questions for each of these parts that might help us get the discussion about the issues raised in them off to a start. Since there are still only a few of us participating in the discussion, perhaps it isn’t as necessary as it might have been otherwise, but I’ll proceed with that plan anyway. So, here are a few questions on the second “part,” Chapters III (Educating Citizens: The Moral (and Anti-Moral) Emotions) and IV (Socratic Pedagogy: The Importance of Argument).
Again, though, we certainly don’t need to stick to the questions or even these chapters.
Chapter III-- A couple of questions:
1. To what extent does it seem that this chapter is crucial for the development of Nussbaum’s overall case asserted in the book’s title, focusing as this chapter does on notions and insights into child (and human) development, especially with regards to the nurturing (or not) of those characteristics that express themselves as empathy, compassion, acceptance of “the other,” etc. ? Or is the chapter really more of a digression that might be seen to distract from her main concern? I actually found the chapter to be somewhat oversimplified and not terribly germane, but I may be missing something.
2. At the end of this chapter, Nussbaum lists a few bulleted “qualities” that “we ask…schools...to do to produce citizens in and for a healthy democracy.” They are certainly qualities or characteristics that we want citizens to have and display, but my question is: can we really expect schools to “produce” them? What do you think?
Chapter IV-- Also a couple of questions:
1. How effectively do you think Nussbaum makes the case in this chapter for a different kind of educational pedagogy than what appears to be in place in the U.S. currently, that is, one that sets its objectives in terms of test scores, graduation rates, assessable outcomes, occupational preparation goals achieved, etc.? Can we rely on the philosophies and arguments of the classic education reformers that Nussbaum discusses, as laudable as many of their ideas are and as lamentable it is that we have lost sight of them in many ways, to convince anyone but those of who are convinced already that the humanities, the arts, active learning, etc. are crucial for a democracy? Again, I’m not sure that we don’t need arguments that are less traditional if we hope to convince policymakers, even many in education, that the current educational trends are counter-productive in terms of nurturing the kinds of students that we all say we want. What do you think?
2. What are some of the other effective educational strategies besides the Socratic Method that might work in the ways Nussbaum’s suggests that method does? Isn’t one of the problems with that method the fact that it works best (only?) when classes are small, when the goal isn’t “testing,” and when the classes have teachers who are creative, inspiring, active and engaged thinkers themselves? How can we expect such methods to be used and successful when most of the teachers at the non-professional, general education level in colleges and universities are either standing in front of huge lecture classes or are inexperienced T.A.s? It seems that every question leads to several more!
-
Permalink Reply by Gerald A Fetz on
-
I suppose I shouldn't respond to my own posting, but I have to say that I just read through the entire Roundtable Discussion on "Humanities in our Public Schools" that has been taking place since early this year and was overwhelmed both by the sophisticantion and insights of the many comments (by high school students, teachers, humanities administrators) and by the open questioning of just why the humanities and the kind of learning they represent have such a difficult time competing with other aspects of our educational system. What a great discussion--I recommend it to everyone who happens on to this one!
-
Permalink Reply by Ken Egan on
-
Thanks for these prompting questions, Jerry. I know what you mean about Chapter 3--seems kind of thrown in. It points to one of the weaknesses of Nussbaum's book--she's clearly summarizing a lot of her thinking from earlier books. There's a schematic quality to "Not for Profit" that makes it less engaging. In this case, I have a hunch Chapter 3 could have been compressed dramatically to get to this key statement: "This story of narcissism, helplessness, shame, disgust, and compassion lies . . . at the heart of what education for democratic citizenship must address." She's answering the fundamental question: What is education for? She provides one answer through Rousseau. Nussbaum is also establishing the grounds for a "universal theory of education"--she wants to show that there are innate human tendencies that must be encouraged and discouraged through schools. This claim always poses a puzzle for me--is there some pre-cultural self that appears in all places and time? Not so sure. But Nussbaum needs to make that point before plunging into her comparison of Tagore and Dewey.
HM Links
Guidelines for...
Have feedback about this site? Share it here.
Latest Activity
Jan Umphrey posted a blog postCall for manuscripts about your work in humanities-based classes
I'm the editor of a magazine, Principal Leadership, which is published by NASSP and has about 25,000 readers. I am seeking manuscripts for the October issue about the state of humanities in public secondary schools. This forum is a wonderful exchange of ideas, and I'm so heartened to see the humanities being supported.I would love to hear about successful programs and strategies for keeping such classes strong in the face of challenges from…See More
Ken Egan replied to Humanities Roundtable's discussion 'The Trail Book Club - The Royal Wulff Murders'"Good response, Kathleen! You raise many questions for others to consider. Just two questions on my part: What do you make of Martha Ettinger, the lead detective (sheriff) in Royal Wulff Murders? She's a Montana woman who loves…"
"Did anyone notice Charles Johnson's article about the gubernatorial candidates, where Neil Livingstone promised to call a Constitutional Convention, in particular, to get rid of the "clean and healthful environment" language?"
© 2012 Created by Ken Egan.
