Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Terry Eagleton on The death of universities
I think the ruling class has not ended its counter-reform (Thatcher-Reagan) movement, but continued to develop more attacks, maybe. The attack on public education in the US , especially teachers , is going on now , too. The reform movement of the 1960's was centered especially in colleges and schools. Teachers from higher to lower education are a cadre of radicalizers. So, the ruling class is targetting them all to prevent the next radical reform movement. CB On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Jim Farmelant farmela...@juno.com wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/17/death-universities-ma laise-tuition-fees The Guardian 17 December 2010 *The death of universities Academia has become a servant of the status quo. Its malaise runs so much deeper than tuition fees* Terry Eagleton Are the humanities about to disappear from our universities? The question is absurd. It would be like asking whether alcohol is about to disappear from pubs, or egoism from Hollywood. Just as there cannot be a pub without alcohol, so there cannot be a university without the humanities. If history, philosophy and so on vanish from academic life, what they leave in their wake may be a technical training facility or corporate research institute. But it will not be a university in the classical sense of the term, and it would be deceptive to call it one. Neither, however, can there be a university in the full sense of the word when the humanities exist in isolation from other disciplines. The quickest way of devaluing these subjects – short of disposing of them altogether – is to reduce them to an agreeable bonus. Real men study law and engineering, while ideas and values are for sissies. The humanities should constitute the core of any university worth the name. The study of history and philosophy, accompanied by some acquaintance with art and literature, should be for lawyers and engineers as well as for those who study in arts faculties. If the humanities are not under such dire threat in the United States, it is, among other things, because they are seen as being an integral part of higher education as such. When they first emerged in their present shape around the turn of the 18th century, the so-called humane disciplines had a crucial social role. It was to foster and protect the kind of values for which a philistine social order had precious little time. The modern humanities and industrial capitalism were more or less twinned at birth. To preserve a set of values and ideas under siege, you needed among other things institutions known as universities set somewhat apart from everyday social life. This remoteness meant that humane study could be lamentably ineffectual. But it also allowed the humanities to launch a critique of conventional wisdom. From time to time, as in the late 1960s and in these last few weeks in Britain, that critique would take to the streets, confronting how we actually live with how we might live. What we have witnessed in our own time is the death of universities as centres of critique. Since Margaret Thatcher, the role of academia has been to service the status quo, not challenge it in the name of justice, tradition, imagination, human welfare, the free play of the mind or alternative visions of the future. We will not change this simply by increasing state funding of the humanities as opposed to slashing it to nothing. We will change it by insisting that a critical reflection on human values and principles should be central to everything that goes on in universities, not just to the study of Rembrandt or Rimbaud. In the end, the humanities can only be defended by stressing how indispensable they are; and this means insisting on their vital role in the whole business of academic learning, rather than protesting that, like some poor relation, they don't cost much to be housed. How can this be achieved in practice? Financially speaking, it can't be. Governments are intent on shrinking the humanities, not expanding them. Might not too much investment in teaching Shelley mean falling behind our economic competitors? But there is no university without humane inquiry, which means that universities and advanced capitalism are fundamentally incompatible. And the political implications of that run far deeper than the question of student fees. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant www.foxymath.com Learn or Review Basic Math How to Stay Asleep Cambridge Researchers have developed an all natural sleep aid just for you. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4d0e0cbc3b5537ba231st03vuc ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Terry Eagleton on The death of universities
Historically, radicals have come from the ranks of the scientific-technical intelligentsia as well, as arch-reactionaries from the humanities. When I was in elementary school and high school, English and history teachers were the worst reactionaries. I hated these subjects, loved math and science. Who knew I would turn out occupied with the former rather than the latter? Thanks for nothing, schoolteachers! However, the business model that has overtaken universities, coupled I'm guessing with financial retrenchment, is gutting various programs, notably philosophy, I think in Britain, but also look out for the USA. Howard University plans to ax its philosophy department, which is pretty small as is. In my view, there's too much Africana crap in it, but Howard is conservative enough without having to eliminate one of the few outlets for critical thinking in it. On 12/19/2010 8:45 AM, Jim Farmelant wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/17/death-universities-ma laise-tuition-fees The Guardian 17 December 2010 *The death of universities Academia has become a servant of the status quo. Its malaise runs so much deeper than tuition fees* Terry Eagleton Are the humanities about to disappear from our universities? The question is absurd. It would be like asking whether alcohol is about to disappear from pubs, or egoism from Hollywood. Just as there cannot be a pub without alcohol, so there cannot be a university without the humanities. If history, philosophy and so on vanish from academic life, what they leave in their wake may be a technical training facility or corporate research institute. But it will not be a university in the classical sense of the term, and it would be deceptive to call it one. Neither, however, can there be a university in the full sense of the word when the humanities exist in isolation from other disciplines. The quickest way of devaluing these subjects – short of disposing of them altogether – is to reduce them to an agreeable bonus. Real men study law and engineering, while ideas and values are for sissies. The humanities should constitute the core of any university worth the name. The study of history and philosophy, accompanied by some acquaintance with art and literature, should be for lawyers and engineers as well as for those who study in arts faculties. If the humanities are not under such dire threat in the United States, it is, among other things, because they are seen as being an integral part of higher education as such. When they first emerged in their present shape around the turn of the 18th century, the so-called humane disciplines had a crucial social role. It was to foster and protect the kind of values for which a philistine social order had precious little time. The modern humanities and industrial capitalism were more or less twinned at birth. To preserve a set of values and ideas under siege, you needed among other things institutions known as universities set somewhat apart from everyday social life. This remoteness meant that humane study could be lamentably ineffectual. But it also allowed the humanities to launch a critique of conventional wisdom. From time to time, as in the late 1960s and in these last few weeks in Britain, that critique would take to the streets, confronting how we actually live with how we might live. What we have witnessed in our own time is the death of universities as centres of critique. Since Margaret Thatcher, the role of academia has been to service the status quo, not challenge it in the name of justice, tradition, imagination, human welfare, the free play of the mind or alternative visions of the future. We will not change this simply by increasing state funding of the humanities as opposed to slashing it to nothing. We will change it by insisting that a critical reflection on human values and principles should be central to everything that goes on in universities, not just to the study of Rembrandt or Rimbaud. In the end, the humanities can only be defended by stressing how indispensable they are; and this means insisting on their vital role in the whole business of academic learning, rather than protesting that, like some poor relation, they don't cost much to be housed. How can this be achieved in practice? Financially speaking, it can't be. Governments are intent on shrinking the humanities, not expanding them. Might not too much investment in teaching Shelley mean falling behind our economic competitors? But there is no university without humane inquiry, which means that universities and advanced capitalism are fundamentally incompatible. And the political implications of that run far deeper than the question of student fees. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant www.foxymath.com Learn or Review Basic Math How to Stay
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Terry Eagleton on The death of universities
I certainly didn't mean all teachers or humanties people and artists and philosophers are radical or liberal. Ezra Pound, for example, was a fascist. Classcists have a lot of conservative ideas, not surprisingly. Hell, Platoism is reactionary today, and Plato invented The Academy for which academe is named. At least in the sixties, colleges seemed to be hotbeds and more a source of peace activists than other segments of society. The college sections are called liberal arts, and liberal are now redbaited as socialists. Community colleges are the locus of a lot of radicalizing nowadays. On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Ralph Dumain rdum...@autodidactproject.org wrote: Historically, radicals have come from the ranks of the scientific-technical intelligentsia as well, as arch-reactionaries from the humanities. When I was in elementary school and high school, English and history teachers were the worst reactionaries. I hated these subjects, loved math and science. Who knew I would turn out occupied with the former rather than the latter? Thanks for nothing, schoolteachers! However, the business model that has overtaken universities, coupled I'm guessing with financial retrenchment, is gutting various programs, notably philosophy, I think in Britain, but also look out for the USA. Howard University plans to ax its philosophy department, which is pretty small as is. In my view, there's too much Africana crap in it, but Howard is conservative enough without having to eliminate one of the few outlets for critical thinking in it. On 12/19/2010 8:45 AM, Jim Farmelant wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/17/death-universities-ma laise-tuition-fees The Guardian 17 December 2010 *The death of universities Academia has become a servant of the status quo. Its malaise runs so much deeper than tuition fees* Terry Eagleton Are the humanities about to disappear from our universities? The question is absurd. It would be like asking whether alcohol is about to disappear from pubs, or egoism from Hollywood. Just as there cannot be a pub without alcohol, so there cannot be a university without the humanities. If history, philosophy and so on vanish from academic life, what they leave in their wake may be a technical training facility or corporate research institute. But it will not be a university in the classical sense of the term, and it would be deceptive to call it one. Neither, however, can there be a university in the full sense of the word when the humanities exist in isolation from other disciplines. The quickest way of devaluing these subjects – short of disposing of them altogether – is to reduce them to an agreeable bonus. Real men study law and engineering, while ideas and values are for sissies. The humanities should constitute the core of any university worth the name. The study of history and philosophy, accompanied by some acquaintance with art and literature, should be for lawyers and engineers as well as for those who study in arts faculties. If the humanities are not under such dire threat in the United States, it is, among other things, because they are seen as being an integral part of higher education as such. When they first emerged in their present shape around the turn of the 18th century, the so-called humane disciplines had a crucial social role. It was to foster and protect the kind of values for which a philistine social order had precious little time. The modern humanities and industrial capitalism were more or less twinned at birth. To preserve a set of values and ideas under siege, you needed among other things institutions known as universities set somewhat apart from everyday social life. This remoteness meant that humane study could be lamentably ineffectual. But it also allowed the humanities to launch a critique of conventional wisdom. From time to time, as in the late 1960s and in these last few weeks in Britain, that critique would take to the streets, confronting how we actually live with how we might live. What we have witnessed in our own time is the death of universities as centres of critique. Since Margaret Thatcher, the role of academia has been to service the status quo, not challenge it in the name of justice, tradition, imagination, human welfare, the free play of the mind or alternative visions of the future. We will not change this simply by increasing state funding of the humanities as opposed to slashing it to nothing. We will change it by insisting that a critical reflection on human values and principles should be central to everything that goes on in universities, not just to the study of Rembrandt or Rimbaud. In the end, the humanities can only be defended by stressing how indispensable they are; and this means insisting on their vital role in the whole business of academic learning, rather than protesting that, like some poor relation, they
