Santayana had it right.
Arnita Jones of the American Historical Association has been kind enough to bring to my attention something that Waldo Leland, the executive director of the American Council of Learned Societies, wrote to the historian Charles Homer Haskins in the 1920s: “I have been wracking my brain for weeks in an effort to think of undertakings appropriate to the Council of Learned Societies which might be characterized as having ‘practical’ bearings upon present-day problems. It seems difficult. But this is what I think we have got to do if we are to win any funds from trustees of endowments and foundations.” Leland could have been writing about the problems of the humanities this week, and of government as well as philanthropic support.
Patricia Cohen of The New York Times is not the only one worrying about the difficulty the academic humanities have in justifying themselves to the public. Andy Delbanco had an interesting piece in The Chronicle Review last month that discussed the problem, noting our “need to respond to the public demand for some demonstrable utility in what we teach: literature, history, philosophy, the arts.” He concluded that “we have to come to terms with the utility question one way or the other.” And he noted the three most common responses: the pressure created by the global economy for an educated workforce; the dependence of democracy upon an educated citizenry; and the need for liberal education to “deepen and enrich individual experience.” Andy failed to follow up this line of argument though, and concluded by saying that if academics (not humanists) are to be taken seriously then our universities have to perform in a more just manner.
I am for the just university, but Andy’s argument stops short of confronting what George Santayana called “the utility of useless knowledge.” Is it possible for the humanities to demonstrate that they are “useful” in an empirical sense? Is it necessary? That is worth debating, but I think the larger problem is not the justification for the humanities, but rather the larger dilemma of liberal education.
Why should a country in deep distress allocate resources to undergraduate instruction in the arts and letters; that is, in physics as well as in philosophy? A recent “Dear Colleague” letter circulated by the Congressional Humanities Caucus (seeking support for NEH and NHPRC), argued that “it is the humanities which ground, inform, and shape our civic, cultural and intellectual lives.” Sure, but can we be global citizens if we are ignorant of biology or psychology? The Social Science Research Council, eager to generate more support for social-science research, recently labeled itself the generator of “necessary knowledge.” Certainly. But history and literature are also necessary — all knowledge is.
I think Santayana was right. Until we can redefine “utility” to encompass the notion that it is the full range of learning that is necessary to save ourselves, I fear we will be unable to help ourselves, the country, or the world very much.
(Santayana photo is here)
