Thank you for this place to discuss the humanities!

Okay people, time to converse. What did you all think about Michael's talk? I wanted to take a stab at framing his talk at the Lab in the terms of the New Visions series, with an eye toward bringing the lecture into a single, ongoing discussion.

What Michael gave us last Thurs. was a vision of culture (defined very broadly) having significant effects *not* determined by an economic system (let's call it global capitalisim) or a political regime (let's call it the Bush administration). The example that he used to demonstrate this point came from his own experience as the father of a child with Down's syndrome. Does it matter, should it matter to people who think seriously about culture, that names like "mongoloid" and "retarded" are still being used in reference to people with Down's. Michael's response was that of course it should matter. We need not ask whether those words reinforce an economic imbalance (i.e. whether they require "redistribution"). They are damaging by virtue of how they can compromise the dignity of an individual (how they "misrecognize" the individual). So the damage that culture can do is not necessarily determined by global capitalism and by the same token, the measure of whether some cultural artifiact or some cultural activity is "reparative" (my word, not Michael's) does not depend on whether economic resources have been redistributed.

But why should we be returning to this theory of culture at this particular moment in time? Many of the people who commented enthusiastically on Michael's talk actually said that it brought them back to those halcyon days of grad school in the 1990s. I somehow doubt that Michael wanted his talk to tap into that well of academic nostalgia.

So my first question is this: Do people have any thoughts about why we should, or should not, feel a sense of urgency in reviving this theory of culture right now? (I did talk with Michael about this question on the way to the airport, but I'm interested in hearing other responses). On a related note, what are the current implications of this theory for teachers, activists, and artists? Does it translate into some kind of concrete change in current practices--whether these practices pertain to education, or to electoral politics, or to cultural production?

I understood Michael's talk as an attempt to negotiate between, on the one hand, the unquestioning belief in culture as agent of change and, on the other, the idea that culture is irrelevant in the face of economic realities. I took his point to be that culture matters, but maybe not as much some of the popular culture enthusiasts of the 1990s believed. We don't change the world by watching TV but real and meaningful battles are fought on the cultural stage. The talk made me realize how much the Lab at Belmar is an institution born out of 1990s theoretical debates that asked what is the political effectiveness of culture?

Philip,

In response to your question as to whether or not we should feel a sense of urgency in reviving the particular theories of culture promoted in the 1990's, I am not familiar enough with their specifics to comment. I do, however, find myself with a sense of urgency in promoting the humanities at this time.

The world finds itself in a time of perceived turmoil and anxiety over the possibility of a few people obtaining nuclear weaponry and using it in terribly destructive ways. The imagination of the culture is heavily affected by the belief that the destructive potential of a few individuals could lead to cataclysmic and species ending results. In such times, fears are high and public masses have a tendency toward relinquishing what may be, in less fearful times, their inclinations to challenge authority. They choose instead to trust those in power as a means of pacifying their fears. This is a natural response to the desire to feel safe.

When those in power abuse the authority they are given, or do not have sufficient wisdom to act prudently when responding to whatever real or perceived threat has led to public anxieties, the need for dialogue between those who study the humanities and the culture to which they belong increases. Whether we call the culture one "public" or many different "publics" does not seem important to me. What does seem important to me is whether or not those studying humanities have anything helpful to offer the culture which might positively affect the situation -- reducing fears, promoting wisdom, and reminding these publics and themselves in the process that compassion, the valuing value of human life, and the protection of human liberty are even more essential in these times of perceived turmoil than in times of perceived peace.

I believe, given that the perceived threat comes from a source that has tied itself, however inappropriately, to a religious understanding, that the discussion Stephen Prothero offers next week is an essential place to begin. There is an increased desire for understanding the historical aspects and realities of religious influences of every kind, and particularly the histories and religious influences of the three monotheistic religions. If the perceived enemy of our culture is to be understood, and if our cultural response to that perceived enemy is to be comprehended, res an understanding of these influential forces is required.

Fundamentalism in each of these religions has its own history as well and needs to be assessed and discussed in order to assuage the destructive tendencies of absolutism which can rise in each of these disciplines. Reminders of the many different perspectives within the histories of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism open up incredible possibilities toward a beneficial and healing influence being offered by those in the humanities. Finding the aspects of each of these religions which helped give rise to a concept of the humanities should help temper any prejudicial conclusions about the publics involved.

This beneficial influence can and will be rendered negligible if those in the humanities decide to promote their own agenda in an absolutist tone, or find tedious items upon which to blame or condemn any of the influential publics which they may have a need to address. It may be necessary to forsake our concern for issues such as what to call those with Down's Syndrome in order to keep the dialogue between publics more focused on the greater issues of compassion for humanity. If these larger issues can be addressed philosophically in the culture, the minor things cannot help but be influenced toward health in the process, and much more readily than any argument over particulars is bound to accomplish.

Looking forward to further discussions.

James Skene

James,

Part of the frustration that some of us felt after Michael's Lab's talk (and it sounds as if you are responding more to the event on campus??) was that it ended just before the "good part." Or to say that differently, he got us to the point of saying (to use Adam's reading) that "culture matters," and that some cultural practice matters more than other cultural practice. But he never really addressed how this insight might orient people working practically in the current world as scholars, activists, artists, humanities teachers, or what have you.

So I sympathize with your point about the need to sort out "tedious items" or "particulars" from humanities work that redresses the damagaing misunderstandings and illiteracies (Prothero's word) of our times. I think there's a place for thinking through theoretical conceptions of culture--whether culture matters, to what extent it matters, etc.--but, like you, I also feel the need, especially right now, for guidance and orientation on what to study, what to teach, what to emphasize as an artist or essayist or teacher, etc....in other words, for a certain stand on the specific kind of difference that the arts and humanities can make. I agree that Prothero's work weighs in on that issue. I'm looking forward to hearing what he has to say, also of more discussion on the relative importance of identifying a humanities practice that "counts."

Philip

Philip,

Well, I feel that Stephen Prothero's talk was a success in that he presented his views clearly, personably, and with some humor. It was kept at a level of discussion that was approachable, avoiding the erudition that can lead to exclusivity. There was, as someone pointed out in the discussion after his talk at The Lab, a hint of "here is yet another professor thinking their particular subject deserves more attention." Yet, their are times when events and circumstances in the world do, in fact, lead to a need for more study in particular areas. And what kind of professor would avoid the opportunity to respond when the culture is found wanting in knowledge of their field?

I was somewhat surprised at Professor Prothero's answer to the question asked about the need for studying other classics such as Greek history, mythology, and philosophy. For although the perceived threats to our culture may appear tied to what might be called "religion proper", this is a somewhat narrow definition of religion, and one that, at least in my mind, does not allow for a broad enough perspective to include other manifestations of religious experience.

This limited understanding of religion contains the ordinary concepts tied to the word: going to a place of worship, particular ideas of divinity, and ritual practice; it does not open up the discussion to a broader sense of religion. What I mean by this broader perspective would include other things which secular people find themselves primarily concerned with in their lives: Nationalism, Socialism, Capitalism, Democracy, Liberty, Humanitarian Liberalism. All of these are pursuits or principles which arouse feelings such as conviction, faith, conscientiousness, and zeal. To leave these outside the discussion is to invite the dangers of factionalism when inclusiveness seems most needed and to remove philosophies from the dialogue that offer unique and important contributions to the conversation between publics. The study of Hellenistic contributions to society seem to me among the chief influences of these broader concerns in the world. And Mr. Prothero's response may have been a sign that his concerns are more narrow than my own.

Of course, with all of this, I must be careful not to think my own concerns are sufficient either, and I hope to hear from many other voices on this site.

One other concern I had during Mr. Prothero's talk at The Lab was what appeared to be a casual response to the question regarding whether or not he believed the teaching of religion in schools would have a similar effect in the United States as it has in Europe; namely, an expansion of secularism. I agree with his answer -- that it would indeed have this effect. What troubled me was the lack of follow up to the question. And perhaps it was the forum and the need for concision that resulted in the shortened answer. However, my immediate thought was -- "Since secularization oftens leads to a sense of emptiness and lack of meaning, is there not a danger that harmful elements in the society may find fertile ground in the tilled, yet unplanted soil of religious abandonment? For example (and this is coming quite clearly from a place of bias on my part), I would not like to see a brash and overt Neoconservatism rise within the country as a result of religious teaching in the schools. Neoconservatism is one philosophy which many who are now religious in the narrower sense I mentioned above might well find themselves attracted to, abandoning fundamental religious attitudes for the severely narrow and demonizing "religion" of power as a means of national self-promotion. And in my mind, this would lead to greater and greater conflict, increasing the dangers that are important for us to mitigate if at all possible.

I have something to offer as a means of defining the things which I see as helpful for the humanities to offer, teach, promote and those things which appear to me to be harmful to the world's present situation of anxiety. I will withhold this for now because it seems too personally motivated, and hearing other voices first may help me to see some things I have overlooked. Definitions are always less than determinant anyway. Reality seems ever to break them as a means of some universal requirement toward mystery.

Until next time,

James Skene