What do you think?
Rate this book
The Humanities and Public Life
This book tests the proposition that the humanities can, and at their best do, represent a commitment to ethical reading. And that this commitment, and the training and discipline of close reading that underlie it, represent something that the humanities need to bring to other to professional training and to public life.
What leverage does reading, of the attentive sort practiced in the interpretive humanities, give you on life? Does such reading represent or produce an ethics? The question was posed for many in the humanities by the “Torture Memos” released by the Justice Department a few years ago, presenting arguments that justified the use of torture by the U.S. government with the most twisted, ingenious, perverse, and unethical interpretation of legal texts. No one trained in the rigorous analysis of poetry could possibly engage in such bad-faith interpretation without professional conscience intervening to This is not possible.
Teaching the humanities appears to many to be an increasingly disempowered profession―and status―within American culture. Yet training in the ability to read critically the messages with which society, politics, and culture bombard us may be more necessary than ever in a world in which the manipulation of minds and hearts
is more and more what running the world is all about.
This volume brings together a group of distinguished scholars and intellectuals to debate the public role and importance of the humanities. Their exchange suggests that Shelley was not wrong to insist that poets are the unacknowledged legislators of Cultural change carries everything in its wake. The attentive interpretive reading practiced in the humanities ought to be an export commodity to other fields and to take its place in the public sphere.
What leverage does reading, of the attentive sort practiced in the interpretive humanities, give you on life? Does such reading represent or produce an ethics? The question was posed for many in the humanities by the “Torture Memos” released by the Justice Department a few years ago, presenting arguments that justified the use of torture by the U.S. government with the most twisted, ingenious, perverse, and unethical interpretation of legal texts. No one trained in the rigorous analysis of poetry could possibly engage in such bad-faith interpretation without professional conscience intervening to This is not possible.
Teaching the humanities appears to many to be an increasingly disempowered profession―and status―within American culture. Yet training in the ability to read critically the messages with which society, politics, and culture bombard us may be more necessary than ever in a world in which the manipulation of minds and hearts
is more and more what running the world is all about.
This volume brings together a group of distinguished scholars and intellectuals to debate the public role and importance of the humanities. Their exchange suggests that Shelley was not wrong to insist that poets are the unacknowledged legislators of Cultural change carries everything in its wake. The attentive interpretive reading practiced in the humanities ought to be an export commodity to other fields and to take its place in the public sphere.
172 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 2014
About the author
Peter Brooks
119 books63 followersPeter Brooks is the author of Henry James Goes to Paris, Realist Vision, Troubling Confessions, Reading for the Plot, The Melodramatic Imagination, and a number of other books, including the historical novel World Elsewhere. He taught for many years at Yale, where he was Sterling Professor of Comparative Literature, and currently is Andrew W. Mellon Scholar at Princeton.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
April 14, 2024
This review originally published in Looking For a Good Book. Rated 3.0 of 5
The opening sentence on the Goodreads description for this book reads: This book tests the proposition that the humanities can, and at their best do, represent a commitment to ethical reading.
The essence of this book is to discuss and show, by discussion, the value and importance of the humanities in our everyday life. When educational institutions, whether higher education or secondary education, ‘needs’ to make cuts due to costs, it’s usually the humanities that take the brunt. Peter Brooks (with Hilary Jewitt) have held symposiums to discuss the importance of the humanities and have then secured essays and transcriptions of these symposiums for this book.
I found a number of interesting and thought-provoking ideas scattered throughout, the first of which was in Brooks’ introduction in which, discussing the value of education, he mentions that “there is even a philanthropic organization … that offers prizes of $100,000 to induce smart kids to drop out of college and become entrepreneurs on their own, on the theory that college impedes rather than enhances the development of creative ideas.” At first reading, I thought this was so disappointing, but I quickly realized that had I known about this, and if there was such a prize back in my school days (and assuming I might have been considered a ‘smart kid’) I would have seized the opportunity. Entering school as an art major, I quickly changed my focus because of what I perceived (and still look back on) as the absolute stifling of creativity. I wondered if I was going to end up disagreeing with much of the book, but that wasn’t the case.
Not surprisingly, there is a lot of intelligent discussion and reflection within these pages and you have to really like discussion of ethics and philosophical examination of morals to appreciate this because it does get a bit dry at times. And I say that as someone who does like this topic. The humanities have always been important to me, but I’m not one who needs to read this, and that boils down to really the core problem. As Judith Butler notes in her essay, “Ordinary, Incredulous”:
Some of my colleagues claim that the humanities must be recognized for having the “intrinsic value” that they have. Of course, the problem emerges that others do not recognize that intrinsic value – at which point, the intrinsic value must be demonstrated. If it must be demonstrated, it has to be demonstrated within a language and an idiom that can be recognized by those who most clearly need to be convinced of that value. And that language is, increasingly, one that cannot recognize the value of the humanities, or can recognize it only with difficulty, because the kids of values recognized by such a language, that are registered in that language, are those that cover over or consign to oblivion the value of the humanities.
Something not addressed much is the very fact that those who ‘need’ the humanities aren’t reading, but using social media. Michael Roth does address it in “The Avoidance of Reading”:
I do not know whether watching television is more or less ethical than reading, but I think all of us would find it odd to believe that we are becoming, as a culture, better people, more empathic, or more capable of imagining others because of television or because of YouTube. Why would reading be ethically superior as a genre of experience?
But of course, what is ethical reading without ethical writing? William Germano notes:
The act of reading ethically, which is to day reading both the lexical construct and the social text, must remind us that ethical writing is a duty beyond questions of truth value, systematic method, and full citation. … The ethics of seems pretty clear to me: Write as if you mean it, and write as if what you write can change the reader. Because it will.
I can’t help but compare this idea, though, to that of the role model aspect of sports stars. As Charles Barkley, the basketball player, once pointed out when someone accused him of not being a good role model (and I’m paraphrasing): I’m paid to be a basketball player and to win, not to be a role model as a human being. Which of course prompted a lot of debate back then. So, too, with writing. Yes, what you write can change a reader but where does the responsibility begin and end for the writer? Must you write so that you cannot be interpreted in any way other than what is ethically ‘straight’? Who gets to determine the ethics of the day? This would be one of the biggest issues we have right now as communities consistently and regularly pull books off library shelves because they don’t meet with the community ethics.
Lots to consider, lots to debate, and interesting food for thought, even if it is a bit dry at times.
This book contains the following:
Introduction – Peter Brooks
“Ordinary, Incredulous” – Judith Butler
Part One: Is There an Ethics of Reading
“Poetry, Injury, and the Ethics of Reading” – Elaine Scarry
“The Ethics of Reading” – Charles Larmore
“Responses and Discussion” – Kwame Anthony Appiah, Jonathan Culler, Derek Attridge
Part Two: The Ethics of Reading and the Professions
“The Raw and the Half-Cooked” – Patricia J. Williams
“Conquering the Obstacles to Kingdom and Fate: The Ethics of Reading and the University Administrator” – Ralph J. Hexter (with Craig Buckwald)
“responses and Discussion” – Richard Sennett, Michael Roth, William Germano
Part Three: The Humanities and Human Rights
“The Call of Another’s Words” – Jonathan Lear
“On Humanities and Human Rights” – Paul W. Kahn
“Responses and Discussion” – Kim Lane Scheppele, Didier Fassin
Concluding Discussion
Looking for a good book? The Humanities and Public Life, edited by Peter Brooks with Hilary Jewitt might prompt some good discussion but reading essays and ‘discussion’ that were first presented in person gets more than just a bit dry.
I received a digital copy of this book from the publisher, through Netgalley, in exchange for an honest review.
The opening sentence on the Goodreads description for this book reads: This book tests the proposition that the humanities can, and at their best do, represent a commitment to ethical reading.
The essence of this book is to discuss and show, by discussion, the value and importance of the humanities in our everyday life. When educational institutions, whether higher education or secondary education, ‘needs’ to make cuts due to costs, it’s usually the humanities that take the brunt. Peter Brooks (with Hilary Jewitt) have held symposiums to discuss the importance of the humanities and have then secured essays and transcriptions of these symposiums for this book.
I found a number of interesting and thought-provoking ideas scattered throughout, the first of which was in Brooks’ introduction in which, discussing the value of education, he mentions that “there is even a philanthropic organization … that offers prizes of $100,000 to induce smart kids to drop out of college and become entrepreneurs on their own, on the theory that college impedes rather than enhances the development of creative ideas.” At first reading, I thought this was so disappointing, but I quickly realized that had I known about this, and if there was such a prize back in my school days (and assuming I might have been considered a ‘smart kid’) I would have seized the opportunity. Entering school as an art major, I quickly changed my focus because of what I perceived (and still look back on) as the absolute stifling of creativity. I wondered if I was going to end up disagreeing with much of the book, but that wasn’t the case.
Not surprisingly, there is a lot of intelligent discussion and reflection within these pages and you have to really like discussion of ethics and philosophical examination of morals to appreciate this because it does get a bit dry at times. And I say that as someone who does like this topic. The humanities have always been important to me, but I’m not one who needs to read this, and that boils down to really the core problem. As Judith Butler notes in her essay, “Ordinary, Incredulous”:
Some of my colleagues claim that the humanities must be recognized for having the “intrinsic value” that they have. Of course, the problem emerges that others do not recognize that intrinsic value – at which point, the intrinsic value must be demonstrated. If it must be demonstrated, it has to be demonstrated within a language and an idiom that can be recognized by those who most clearly need to be convinced of that value. And that language is, increasingly, one that cannot recognize the value of the humanities, or can recognize it only with difficulty, because the kids of values recognized by such a language, that are registered in that language, are those that cover over or consign to oblivion the value of the humanities.
Something not addressed much is the very fact that those who ‘need’ the humanities aren’t reading, but using social media. Michael Roth does address it in “The Avoidance of Reading”:
I do not know whether watching television is more or less ethical than reading, but I think all of us would find it odd to believe that we are becoming, as a culture, better people, more empathic, or more capable of imagining others because of television or because of YouTube. Why would reading be ethically superior as a genre of experience?
But of course, what is ethical reading without ethical writing? William Germano notes:
The act of reading ethically, which is to day reading both the lexical construct and the social text, must remind us that ethical writing is a duty beyond questions of truth value, systematic method, and full citation. … The ethics of seems pretty clear to me: Write as if you mean it, and write as if what you write can change the reader. Because it will.
I can’t help but compare this idea, though, to that of the role model aspect of sports stars. As Charles Barkley, the basketball player, once pointed out when someone accused him of not being a good role model (and I’m paraphrasing): I’m paid to be a basketball player and to win, not to be a role model as a human being. Which of course prompted a lot of debate back then. So, too, with writing. Yes, what you write can change a reader but where does the responsibility begin and end for the writer? Must you write so that you cannot be interpreted in any way other than what is ethically ‘straight’? Who gets to determine the ethics of the day? This would be one of the biggest issues we have right now as communities consistently and regularly pull books off library shelves because they don’t meet with the community ethics.
Lots to consider, lots to debate, and interesting food for thought, even if it is a bit dry at times.
This book contains the following:
Introduction – Peter Brooks
“Ordinary, Incredulous” – Judith Butler
Part One: Is There an Ethics of Reading
“Poetry, Injury, and the Ethics of Reading” – Elaine Scarry
“The Ethics of Reading” – Charles Larmore
“Responses and Discussion” – Kwame Anthony Appiah, Jonathan Culler, Derek Attridge
Part Two: The Ethics of Reading and the Professions
“The Raw and the Half-Cooked” – Patricia J. Williams
“Conquering the Obstacles to Kingdom and Fate: The Ethics of Reading and the University Administrator” – Ralph J. Hexter (with Craig Buckwald)
“responses and Discussion” – Richard Sennett, Michael Roth, William Germano
Part Three: The Humanities and Human Rights
“The Call of Another’s Words” – Jonathan Lear
“On Humanities and Human Rights” – Paul W. Kahn
“Responses and Discussion” – Kim Lane Scheppele, Didier Fassin
Concluding Discussion
Looking for a good book? The Humanities and Public Life, edited by Peter Brooks with Hilary Jewitt might prompt some good discussion but reading essays and ‘discussion’ that were first presented in person gets more than just a bit dry.
I received a digital copy of this book from the publisher, through Netgalley, in exchange for an honest review.
November 2, 2021
This is the book version of a symposium called “The Humanities in the Public Sphere” that happened at Princeton in April 2012. It was convened by Peter Brooks and consisted of Judith Butler’s keynote followed by three sessions on “The Ethics of Reading,” “Reading and the Professions,” and “The Humanities and Human Rights.” Brooks’s guiding thesis for the symposium/book is that the humanities are valuable as a practice and process, not a product. Reading good books does not make someone a good person but the practice of close reading ought to be an export commodity to other fields. This book is filled with excellent essays; my favorites were the ones by Judith Butler, Elaine Scarry, Kwame Anthony Appiah, Patricia J. Williams, Richard Sennett, Michael Roth, and Paul W. Kahn.
Judith Butler rejects the idea that the humanities needs to prove its own instrumentality: “We find ourselves housed and displaced within language with metrics of value that not only cannot gauge well what we do, but have so monopolized the field of value that they threaten to consign what we do to oblivion. What can those whose language is consigned to oblivion do? They can reenter the fray, open up the space between the language that has become obvious or self-evident and the enormous loss it has already accomplished and still portends” (36).
Elaine Scarry suggests that, if literature can diminish injury, it is because of three things: its invitation to empathy, its reliance on deliberative thought, and its beauty. She writes, “Part of our interior remains capable of change. It is this part of us—this region of reversibility—that literature addresses” (48).
In response to Charles Lamore’s suggestion that we have a moral responsibility to an author, Kwame Anthony Appiah argues that we have a responsibility to literary conventions because they allow us to engage in conversation with others: “Like all artistic practices, reading flourishes only when people are committed to continuing an ongoing conversation. That is the commitment that I think gives reading an ethics in the first place: It generates obligations to others” (58).
Patricia J. Williams presents images from the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti that, uncaptioned, look like images of praying but have been labeled as images of ‘looting,’ which utterly changes “the relationship to these figures as legal subjects as well as human beings” (77).
Richard Sennett suggests that we are asking the wrong question when we ask whether the humanities are valuable. We should be asking “to whom they are valuable” (94). As someone who works primarily with architects and engineers, he has observed that imaginative technical craftmanship is an exclusive, limited, cordoned off realm available to MIT grads more than state school grads. He sees an “issue of inequality in the technical realm” (94).
Michael Roth senses that those who ask about the value of the humanities are afraid of reading: “Those running from studies based in reading to studies based in numbers or systems are often running from ambiguity and its exposures” (97).
Paul Kahn, a humanist teaching at a law school, has to explain to his colleagues that “there is no reason to prefer a poll to a film… we learn what people think by looking at the products of their imaginations— books, poetry, films, political rhetoric, judicial opinions, performances, and practices… To understand that, one has to give up measurement and take up interpretation (116-17). He continues, “What I have called “thinking with” is what the humanities have always taught. It is a kind of conversation, the aim of which is not to discover authorial intent but rather to create something new: an interpretation” (117). In the end, “there is no single message in humanities texts. Great works are, almost by definition, morally complex” (119).
Judith Butler rejects the idea that the humanities needs to prove its own instrumentality: “We find ourselves housed and displaced within language with metrics of value that not only cannot gauge well what we do, but have so monopolized the field of value that they threaten to consign what we do to oblivion. What can those whose language is consigned to oblivion do? They can reenter the fray, open up the space between the language that has become obvious or self-evident and the enormous loss it has already accomplished and still portends” (36).
Elaine Scarry suggests that, if literature can diminish injury, it is because of three things: its invitation to empathy, its reliance on deliberative thought, and its beauty. She writes, “Part of our interior remains capable of change. It is this part of us—this region of reversibility—that literature addresses” (48).
In response to Charles Lamore’s suggestion that we have a moral responsibility to an author, Kwame Anthony Appiah argues that we have a responsibility to literary conventions because they allow us to engage in conversation with others: “Like all artistic practices, reading flourishes only when people are committed to continuing an ongoing conversation. That is the commitment that I think gives reading an ethics in the first place: It generates obligations to others” (58).
Patricia J. Williams presents images from the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti that, uncaptioned, look like images of praying but have been labeled as images of ‘looting,’ which utterly changes “the relationship to these figures as legal subjects as well as human beings” (77).
Richard Sennett suggests that we are asking the wrong question when we ask whether the humanities are valuable. We should be asking “to whom they are valuable” (94). As someone who works primarily with architects and engineers, he has observed that imaginative technical craftmanship is an exclusive, limited, cordoned off realm available to MIT grads more than state school grads. He sees an “issue of inequality in the technical realm” (94).
Michael Roth senses that those who ask about the value of the humanities are afraid of reading: “Those running from studies based in reading to studies based in numbers or systems are often running from ambiguity and its exposures” (97).
Paul Kahn, a humanist teaching at a law school, has to explain to his colleagues that “there is no reason to prefer a poll to a film… we learn what people think by looking at the products of their imaginations— books, poetry, films, political rhetoric, judicial opinions, performances, and practices… To understand that, one has to give up measurement and take up interpretation (116-17). He continues, “What I have called “thinking with” is what the humanities have always taught. It is a kind of conversation, the aim of which is not to discover authorial intent but rather to create something new: an interpretation” (117). In the end, “there is no single message in humanities texts. Great works are, almost by definition, morally complex” (119).
April 14, 2025
‘The Humanities and Public Life’ is a compendium of essays written by noted scholars in the field: literary critics, historians, humanists, political theorists, legal scholars, philosophers, aesthetes, and sociologists/anthropologists. The compendium seeks to define an ethics of reading and whether or not the humanities must be subject to a concept of instrumentalization, i.e., must the humanities necessarily serve a purpose, and if not, then why not? For some added context, this compendium collects essays, responses, and even convening conversations between the essayists, responders, and other academics that took place over several dialogue symposia at Princeton University.
The book covers such a depth of inquiry that it’s hard to give it anything but five out of five stars — so why didn’t I give it a perfect score? Because, as professor William Germano says on page 145, “I feel we have not articulated anything really to demonstrate the value of what we do.” And he’s right: there was a lot of talk—albeit very important talk—but these very intelligent people couldn’t reach a defense to their dilemma. That’s a shame, but none of that is to say that this book isn’t of value. On the contrary, the book begins a profoundly important dialogue to contemplate the true place, a meaningful place, of humanities within the public sphere.
While I commend Peter Brooks and Hilary Jewett for bringing together these incredible minds, I must warn any readers of this book that there are so many different subjects and styles of voice included in this collection that it’s somewhat challenging to keep focus. Prepare yourself for plenty of proverbial whiplash when diving into this book because the turns of cheek are on nearly every page, but the conversation keeps its momentum, never letting up on the sheer appeal of its original problem. Of note, some of my favorite passages in this book include Patricia J. Williams’s notes on imagery and captions (page 75), Jonathan Lear’s intimate connection with the Crow people (page 109), Kim Lane Scheppele’s accounts of Soviet resistance, and of course, Judith Butler’s remarkable opening essay that bemoans the notion of deliverables.
‘The Humanities and Public Life’ is a terrific collection that I would love to own for my own library one day. I marked up my copy with page marker Post-Its and [penciled!] underlines — the library is going to be so furious with me lol. I could sit and listen to these contributors for days if they’d let me! The book also made me feel like I was back in university, discussing the importance of beauty for itself, of empathy, and of deliberation (thank you, Elaine Scarry — page 40!). I felt stupid but smart but curious all at the same time. It’s a wonderful, exhilarating feeling.
Lastly, I should also note that this book, while it discusses a timeless subject, seems rooted in a specific moment in history. There are lots of references to the Torture Memos from the Bush administration. I don’t think it’s necessary to read the Torture Memos themselves, but familiarize yourself with the implications and repercussions of the Memos to understand why it continually rears its head in these conversations.
OK, that’s all, bye-bye now! =)
The book covers such a depth of inquiry that it’s hard to give it anything but five out of five stars — so why didn’t I give it a perfect score? Because, as professor William Germano says on page 145, “I feel we have not articulated anything really to demonstrate the value of what we do.” And he’s right: there was a lot of talk—albeit very important talk—but these very intelligent people couldn’t reach a defense to their dilemma. That’s a shame, but none of that is to say that this book isn’t of value. On the contrary, the book begins a profoundly important dialogue to contemplate the true place, a meaningful place, of humanities within the public sphere.
While I commend Peter Brooks and Hilary Jewett for bringing together these incredible minds, I must warn any readers of this book that there are so many different subjects and styles of voice included in this collection that it’s somewhat challenging to keep focus. Prepare yourself for plenty of proverbial whiplash when diving into this book because the turns of cheek are on nearly every page, but the conversation keeps its momentum, never letting up on the sheer appeal of its original problem. Of note, some of my favorite passages in this book include Patricia J. Williams’s notes on imagery and captions (page 75), Jonathan Lear’s intimate connection with the Crow people (page 109), Kim Lane Scheppele’s accounts of Soviet resistance, and of course, Judith Butler’s remarkable opening essay that bemoans the notion of deliverables.
‘The Humanities and Public Life’ is a terrific collection that I would love to own for my own library one day. I marked up my copy with page marker Post-Its and [penciled!] underlines — the library is going to be so furious with me lol. I could sit and listen to these contributors for days if they’d let me! The book also made me feel like I was back in university, discussing the importance of beauty for itself, of empathy, and of deliberation (thank you, Elaine Scarry — page 40!). I felt stupid but smart but curious all at the same time. It’s a wonderful, exhilarating feeling.
Lastly, I should also note that this book, while it discusses a timeless subject, seems rooted in a specific moment in history. There are lots of references to the Torture Memos from the Bush administration. I don’t think it’s necessary to read the Torture Memos themselves, but familiarize yourself with the implications and repercussions of the Memos to understand why it continually rears its head in these conversations.
OK, that’s all, bye-bye now! =)
June 10, 2014
There is no question but that the humanities are under fire. Budgets are being cut, sometimes whole departments. How then to justify the humanities within the university, without accepting "instrumentalization", a term thrown around much in this book, which means roughly, being able to demonstrate some "deliverable" or bottom line worth.
Peter Brooks, the editor of the book,and organizer of the symposium from which the articles and discussion in this book was drawn, starts with the "Torture Memos", a series of Justice Department documents from the second Bush administration that justified waterboarding and other forms of torture against detainees deemed to be "dangerous" to national security. Brooks believes this to be the result of poor and unethical reading by those who formulated these memos (an assumption I question), and something that the humanities fundamentally address.
Following his introductory essay which overviews the symposium, Judith Butler talks about the instrumentalization of the humanities and uses as a case in point the term "deliverables". Her contention ultimately is that the humanities equip one well to deconstruct the use of this term and to engage in resistance to its application to the humanities.
Three panels follow, each with two presentations followed by two or three responses and further discussion. The symposium and book conclude with a general discussion with a number of the presenters and respondents participating.
The first panel explores the question closest to Brooks' heart, "Is there an ethics of reading?" Both presenters basically say yes, with Elaine Scarry arguing that reading literature and poetry can develop empathy for the human condition. Charles Larmore explores the act of interpretation and taking the author or communicative act serious in how one reads and derives meaning from a work.
The second panel considered the ethics of reading and the professions with Patricia Williams exploring the challenges of the vagaries of words and language that is often overlooked in various "legal fictions". Ralph Hexter explores similar challenges in the life of a university administrator.
The final panel took on the relation of the humanities to human rights. Jonathan Lear's essay, perhaps the most eloquent recounts living among the Crow Indians, not as a sociologist but as a story-teller listening to their words. A group that had been studied to death came alive when Lear simply expressed interest in their stories of identity lost and re-established, going so far as to adopt him into the tribe. Paul Kahn considers the broader domain of human rights and the ability of the humanities to interpret the languages of power governments use in human rights discussions, or evasions of those rights.
I was particularly interested in the discussion of ethical reading, something most readers don't think about, yet which is vital for those who study the works of another and review or criticize those works. Equally, as Brooks and others would maintain,it can represent the vital difference between careful adherence to versus distortion of the law. (And yet I wonder whether those who created the Torture Memos were in fact excellent readers who were looking for ways to deal with the vagaries of words to distort laws to justify their ends. Not ethical, but it may not be for the lack of "ethical reading skills".)
Much of this had for me the feeling of a "rear guard action", the tactics of a retreating force. Perhaps at times, the use of critical skills can indeed be used to resist authoritarian, or simply pragmatic forces. This quality, and the often jargon-laden character of presentations hardly seem adequate for a spirited public argument for the place of the humanities in higher education. For that, I might direct the reader to Anthony Kronman's Education's End. The title of this work suggested an elevated and challenging public argument but delivered nothing more than a refined academic discussion that seemed to me to offer little to check the erosion of the humanities in either public life or higher education.
(This review is based on an electronic version of this work made available compliments of the publisher through Netgalley.)
Peter Brooks, the editor of the book,and organizer of the symposium from which the articles and discussion in this book was drawn, starts with the "Torture Memos", a series of Justice Department documents from the second Bush administration that justified waterboarding and other forms of torture against detainees deemed to be "dangerous" to national security. Brooks believes this to be the result of poor and unethical reading by those who formulated these memos (an assumption I question), and something that the humanities fundamentally address.
Following his introductory essay which overviews the symposium, Judith Butler talks about the instrumentalization of the humanities and uses as a case in point the term "deliverables". Her contention ultimately is that the humanities equip one well to deconstruct the use of this term and to engage in resistance to its application to the humanities.
Three panels follow, each with two presentations followed by two or three responses and further discussion. The symposium and book conclude with a general discussion with a number of the presenters and respondents participating.
The first panel explores the question closest to Brooks' heart, "Is there an ethics of reading?" Both presenters basically say yes, with Elaine Scarry arguing that reading literature and poetry can develop empathy for the human condition. Charles Larmore explores the act of interpretation and taking the author or communicative act serious in how one reads and derives meaning from a work.
The second panel considered the ethics of reading and the professions with Patricia Williams exploring the challenges of the vagaries of words and language that is often overlooked in various "legal fictions". Ralph Hexter explores similar challenges in the life of a university administrator.
The final panel took on the relation of the humanities to human rights. Jonathan Lear's essay, perhaps the most eloquent recounts living among the Crow Indians, not as a sociologist but as a story-teller listening to their words. A group that had been studied to death came alive when Lear simply expressed interest in their stories of identity lost and re-established, going so far as to adopt him into the tribe. Paul Kahn considers the broader domain of human rights and the ability of the humanities to interpret the languages of power governments use in human rights discussions, or evasions of those rights.
I was particularly interested in the discussion of ethical reading, something most readers don't think about, yet which is vital for those who study the works of another and review or criticize those works. Equally, as Brooks and others would maintain,it can represent the vital difference between careful adherence to versus distortion of the law. (And yet I wonder whether those who created the Torture Memos were in fact excellent readers who were looking for ways to deal with the vagaries of words to distort laws to justify their ends. Not ethical, but it may not be for the lack of "ethical reading skills".)
Much of this had for me the feeling of a "rear guard action", the tactics of a retreating force. Perhaps at times, the use of critical skills can indeed be used to resist authoritarian, or simply pragmatic forces. This quality, and the often jargon-laden character of presentations hardly seem adequate for a spirited public argument for the place of the humanities in higher education. For that, I might direct the reader to Anthony Kronman's Education's End. The title of this work suggested an elevated and challenging public argument but delivered nothing more than a refined academic discussion that seemed to me to offer little to check the erosion of the humanities in either public life or higher education.
(This review is based on an electronic version of this work made available compliments of the publisher through Netgalley.)
June 26, 2016
The Arts strike back!
“The New Yorker... claimed that the Bush administration began its distortion of reality with the distortion of language”... “The ability to read critically the messages that society, politics, and culture bombard us with is needed training in a society in which the manipulation of minds and hearts is increasingly what running the world is all about”
In the face of an ongoing devaluation of the arts and humanities in both the US and the UK in favour of a cost-benefit analysis of education and an emphasis on the utility, ‘impact’, and ‘instrumentality’ of learning, finally proponents of the arts strike back. This book springs from a conference at Princeton where a range of academics from across the arts and humanities put forward a series of papers which engage deeply with the ethics of a humanist education, and the extent to which critical reading is a necessary component of both ethical and democratic society and, thus, a skill that every citizen should have.
For many of us who work in academia, the idea that what we are teaching English and Humanities students is not so much how to read Virgil or Homer or Shakespeare (though we certainly do that too) but how to think critically and interpret imaginatively, to deconstruct and reconstruct arguments, and to understand the social and cultural work that is done by texts, is nothing new – but it needs to be said again, and loudly, and upfront and as eloquently as these writers say it.
Judith Butler’s keynote is as strident and yet rational and passionate as we expect from her, and her essay is supported, contested, challenged throughout the book. The very dialogue that this conference prompted is itself the very picture of ideal democracy – multiple, diverse, questioning, open, self-aware and ethical. This is the sort of book that ought to be required reading for everyone – but, in practice, will most probably be preaching to the already converted. All the same, this is timely, exhilarating, passionate and engaging.
“The New Yorker... claimed that the Bush administration began its distortion of reality with the distortion of language”... “The ability to read critically the messages that society, politics, and culture bombard us with is needed training in a society in which the manipulation of minds and hearts is increasingly what running the world is all about”
In the face of an ongoing devaluation of the arts and humanities in both the US and the UK in favour of a cost-benefit analysis of education and an emphasis on the utility, ‘impact’, and ‘instrumentality’ of learning, finally proponents of the arts strike back. This book springs from a conference at Princeton where a range of academics from across the arts and humanities put forward a series of papers which engage deeply with the ethics of a humanist education, and the extent to which critical reading is a necessary component of both ethical and democratic society and, thus, a skill that every citizen should have.
For many of us who work in academia, the idea that what we are teaching English and Humanities students is not so much how to read Virgil or Homer or Shakespeare (though we certainly do that too) but how to think critically and interpret imaginatively, to deconstruct and reconstruct arguments, and to understand the social and cultural work that is done by texts, is nothing new – but it needs to be said again, and loudly, and upfront and as eloquently as these writers say it.
Judith Butler’s keynote is as strident and yet rational and passionate as we expect from her, and her essay is supported, contested, challenged throughout the book. The very dialogue that this conference prompted is itself the very picture of ideal democracy – multiple, diverse, questioning, open, self-aware and ethical. This is the sort of book that ought to be required reading for everyone – but, in practice, will most probably be preaching to the already converted. All the same, this is timely, exhilarating, passionate and engaging.
June 15, 2014
This is not an easy read but there's a lot worth delving into with the essays that make up this collection. Fruits of an academic conference, the materials range from the abstract to the painfully poignant. Despite that academic origins, the essays are not impenetrable. Prose is often crisp and clean. Each essay appears to remain true to each talk's original focus on some element of ethical concerns that the humanities can particularly illuminate in public life.
Highlights include Judith Butler's opening salvo about the purpose of the humanities and Jonathan Lear's on the conjunction between storytelling and listening that comes near the close. I took quite a time to complete the volume, not through any fault of the essays but because each was so discrete and sometimes they required time to digest.
ARC from Netgalley in return for an honest review.
Highlights include Judith Butler's opening salvo about the purpose of the humanities and Jonathan Lear's on the conjunction between storytelling and listening that comes near the close. I took quite a time to complete the volume, not through any fault of the essays but because each was so discrete and sometimes they required time to digest.
ARC from Netgalley in return for an honest review.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews