If you are currently pursuing (or
have pursued at some point) a degree in the humanities, you have surely heard
the moans and groans that come from people when you tell them your area of
study. Physics and math acolytes claim that their majors are more practical and
in greater demand than a history or an English degree—and rightfully so.
However as a discipline, the humanities are by no means less admirable. The
large aggregate of topics that are generally labelled as humanities encompass those studies which analyse human culture,
relations, and ideas. As opposed to the physical sciences, the humanities demand
an analytic, rather than empirical mindset. Everything from languages, to
history, philosophy, literature, and geography are prime examples of majors within the
humanities discipline, while more quantitative pursuits such as political
science and economics generally belong within the realm of sociology. The study of
history admittedly lacks practical application in terms of employability, but those
who choose to pursue a degree in the field are just as noble as those
individuals who study business, physics, or math.
As a constituent member of the
human race, one has a responsibility, perhaps even an obligation, to educate themselves about those people, societies, centuries,
empires, and technologies to which they owe their mere existence. Being a
citizen of a particular country entails an intrinsic duty to understand the
history and heritage of that country’s past. As a Canadian, there is nothing
more cringe-worthy than meeting someone who cannot identify all of our nation’s
constituent provinces and territories, or worse—is even ignorant of its capital
city. Likewise, if you are a mechanic or an operator of some type of machinery,
it is a fundamental requirement of your job to understand the function of the
tool you are using; not only how it works, but how and when it was produced. An
auto mechanic who does not know the make and model of a particular car, or
cannot display a basic understanding of the history of his profession is not a
very good mechanic.
The sheer virtue of being human entails a duty to understand the
basic principle of human history and the human condition. One of the most
appropriate quotes to justify this position comes from the Spanish philosopher
George Santayana:
“Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.”
A quick glimpse to the recent
follies and atrocities of human history would reveal that they were committed
in ignorance of past events. The recent financial meltdown of 2008, brought
about by the Subprime Mortgage crisis of 2007, was made possible only by much
of the same negligence that produced the 1929 market crash. If the Federal
Reserve and the banks had heeded a more stringent regard to the causes of the
Great Depression, perhaps the economy would not currently be in such a
deplorable state. Of course this is but one example. It wouldn’t be difficult
to identify any other number of global misfortunes that are the direct or
indirect result of historical ignorance. A fundamental grasp on the theories in
history and philosophy are necessary to avoid the mistakes that were made in
the past. In this respect, one may argue that the humanities are of a much
greater practical use than any kind of science or mathematics.
This is not to undermine however,
the value of empirical disciplines like math, physics, or chemistry. The knowledge
provided by the scientific method is acquired through controlled experiments in
a laboratory setting. Therefore, scientific facts are in regard to the nature
of things as they are, while the
facts of the humanities or sociology deal with things as they have been, or how they
might be. The speculative mindset
necessary to study philosophy or literature can greatly benefit the technical
ability required to make scientific and mathematical observations as well. In
order to acquire a broader and more rational view of existence, one must have
an understanding of both the physical sciences and the humanities. In the afterword of Jared Diamond’s Pulitzer Prize
winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel, he
argues the advantages of historical studies over scientific studies.
“Laboratory experimentation can obviously play little or no role in many of the
historical sciences. One cannot interpret galaxy formation, start and stop
hurricanes and ice ages, experimentally exterminate grizzly bears in a few
natural parks, or rerun the course of dinosaur evolution. Instead, one must
gain knowledge in these historical sciences by other means, such as
observation, comparison, and so-called natural experiments.” Diamond argues
that to be sufficiently versed in the study of reality, one must be equally
knowledgeable about things as they are and how they might be in the future
according to how they have been in the past.
It is only by ignorance of history that one could endorse something as absurd as fascism or communism. It is only by an ignorance of philosophy that one could believe the claim in the existence of mystical ghosts and deities of which there is no proof. It is only a profane ignorance of the human condition that produces a Stalin, a Pol Pot, a Hitler, or a Caligula. Studying the humanities provides insight into the way humans act and relate to one another. Such insight is essential when one is confronted with extreme ignorance, racism, mysticism, prejudice, bigotry, or any of the other intellectual malignancies that infest our culture today. Consider the preceding the next time some insolent twat claims that his engineering degree is more prestigious than your degree in the humanities.
It is only by ignorance of history that one could endorse something as absurd as fascism or communism. It is only by an ignorance of philosophy that one could believe the claim in the existence of mystical ghosts and deities of which there is no proof. It is only a profane ignorance of the human condition that produces a Stalin, a Pol Pot, a Hitler, or a Caligula. Studying the humanities provides insight into the way humans act and relate to one another. Such insight is essential when one is confronted with extreme ignorance, racism, mysticism, prejudice, bigotry, or any of the other intellectual malignancies that infest our culture today. Consider the preceding the next time some insolent twat claims that his engineering degree is more prestigious than your degree in the humanities.
We are not saying the humanities and arts are useless, just that the degrees largely are. They are classes which give you easy A's, but absolutely nothing that you could not get from reading a book, taking class at the local community center, or joining a book club. To paraphrase a famous movie, you are basically spending tens of thousands of dollars getting knowledge that could be easily obtained for a few dollars in late fees at the local library.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, people with degrees in engineering, chemistry, physics, and computer science, et cetera have a degree which not only checks the "liberal arts education" box for employers (just like BA degrees in the arts, humanities and social sciences) but also shows employers they have specific, valuable, useful skills.
Your blog indicates that you do not understand science at all. While some branches of science make heavy use of controlled experiments in a laboratory setting, many do not. Evolutionary biologists rarely watch evolution unfold in a controlled laboratory setting. As for science not dealing with things as they have been or how they might be, astronomers use the cosmic microwave background radiation to look back over 10 billion years to the birth of the universe, and their knowledge of nuclear physics to project the ultimate fate of our sun and planet billions of years in the future.
The difference between a scientist and a historian is that the historian rarely has the extensive skill set to examine evidence of what happened in the past that the astronomer or evolutionary biologist does. The historian rarely is trained in calculus, Bayesian statistics, error analysis, computer simulation, or other tools that scientists use to test the validity of theories about the past. Instead, the churn out ideas, often which are completely unfalsifiable.
Ultimately, the biggest difference I see between the humanities and the natural sciences is that scientists are trained to work in the arts and humanities (Einstein was a magnificent violinist and Richard Feynman decoded Mayan Hieroglyphs that had plagued linguists in his spare time) but I would be floored to see someone with a degree in history or women's studies solve the three body problem or unify General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI have to disagree with you. Just as someone could learn about history by reading books in a library, they could also learn about science that way. Autodidacts tend to have large gaps in their knowledge and the university setting is a much more effective means of learning than reading books by yourself. The BA is just certification that you know something about a particular field. There are many jobs that require BA's in the humanities too so they are far from as useless as they claim (journalists, curators, archivists, teachers, and researchers to name a few).
DeleteAlso, your claim that humanities majors have no interest or knowledge of the sciences is just pure derisive stereotyping. I am currently studying for a BA in economics and I have taken several calculus courses. I have a degree of interest and knowledge in the sciences (at least in the mathematical sciences). The examples you give of Einstein and Feynman are atypical examples of rare genius. There are plenty lot of the math majors at my university are cultural illiterates.
While it might be possible to learn some STEM skills at the library, your typical public library is not going to have expensive software licenses for programs such as IDL and MATLAB, nor is it likely to have nuclear reactors, large diameter telescopes, DNA sequencers, chemical laboratories, oscilloscopes, or any of the other equipment that constitute the skill sets that STEM degrees certify. You can read all the books on operating a nuclear reactor or using a telescope, a CCD, and IDL to analyze a global cluster and construct a H-R diagram, but it is not the same as actually getting hands-on experience using the telescope or reactor and writing the code.
DeleteOther than teaching positions, I do not think I have ever seen a job offer where the requirements specify "degree in English literature" or "degree in Philosophy".
The hard truth that you learn when you get out into the job market is that bachelors degrees are just a check box that employers look at. Employers care about the specific technical skills of STEM subjects. Everyone else gets lumped in the same pile. Few employers will really care about the difference between someone with a degree in philosophy and someone with a degree in Asian American studies.
I know a lot of people who got degrees in the social sciences, arts, and humanities and then when back for a second bachelors or a masters in a STEM subject like computer science to improve their job prospects. I do not know anyone who got a STEM degree and then went back for a humanities degree for the same reason.
As for whether STEM or humanities students know more about the others' subject, consider this. The basic history and English classes that a nuclear engineer has to take are exactly the same as a history or English major. However, the basic physics and math classes that a nuclear engineer has to take are not the same physics and math classes that a history or English major has to take. A nuclear engineer might have to take a dozen or more humanities, arts, and social science classes for a bachelors degree yet a Humanities major rarely must take more than four or five STEM classes, and these STEM classes are usually extremely watered down.
Are there some people with degrees in the humanities that can explain the difference between special and general relativity or the difference between a prokaryote and eukaryote? Sure! but they are rare (and studies bear this out). On the other hand, a scientist or engineer who can read music, explain the electoral college, or speak a foreign language are quite common.
In the end, the scientist and engineers get the same quality of liberal arts education as everyone else, but they also get valuable technical skills that are useful in the job market and in learning new skills. In fact, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu recently said as much in a talk.
There is nothing wrong with a humanities degree, but I think it is important that people not fool themselves into thinking that they are getting something other than a piece of paper that tells employers that they are probably better-educated than someone with just a high school diploma and a lot of knowledge that they could have gotten just as easily with an Amazon.com gift card.