Think Again, Stanley Fish

Stanley Fish's Jan. 6 blog post on his New York Times blog Think Again is a kicker; so far it has generated 425 comments, about four times as many as his typical posts. Entitled "Will the Humanities Save Us?", the post mostly concerns itself with a description and critique of the argument for a humanities education laid out by former dean of Yale Law School Anthony Kronman in his new book, "Education's End: Why Out Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life."

In the book, according to Fish, Kronman sees careerism, science and technology as obstacles to a meaningful life, and the study of the humanities as the solution to a "crisis of spirit" in American universities. Essentially, the humanities give students a number of competing answers to fundamental ethical questions, allowing them to achieve an Archimedean point whereby they can evaluate their own values and ideals and perhaps gear their lives toward the realization of new rationally conceived goals. This is precisely the argument I gave for a Great Books education in my first post on this blog, so Kronman is very close to heart on this issue. Indeed, Kronman seems to have a conservative canon in mind as the core of the humanities education. The ethical value of humanities study, even of unorthodox texts, is, I think, of paramount importance. As Fish himself concedes, this justification is neither "crassly careerist" nor straining to be utilitarian.

Fish identifies the premise of this "secular humanism" as the idea that "the examples of action and thought portrayed in the enduring works of literature, philosophy and history can create in readers the desire to emulate them." If you read Kant's "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals," you will want to use the categorical imperative in making ethical choices. This, I think, is a simplification of the argument Kronman is committed to. However, at base he's right: conscious study can affect conscious actions. In other words, the ideas that we glean from texts of philosophy, literature and history can be translated into beliefs that guide our interactions with the world. I don't think, even after Freud and the emotivists, that you can say that conscious thought does not affect action in a fundamental way.

But Fish rejects the argument for two reasons. First, in his experience the study of the great works does not make finer people in philosophy and literature departments. Second, to justify the humanities by referring to some other good is somehow to debase them.

The first argument is poppycock: not all scientists are good scientists, not all musicians are good musicians, etc. Anyway, the study of humanities doesn't ensure any fruitful result; the only point is that it has the potential for being of great value. Perhaps because there is too little emphasis on the application of ethical notions in academia, the full potential of humanities study isn't realized. Also, no one is saying this sort of study is sufficient to be an ethically grounded person, only that it is an extremely valuable instrument towards that end. It is extremely surprising (and depressing) to find a distinguished professor of the humanities writing, "The texts Kronman recommends are, as he says, concerned with the meaning of life; those who study them, however, come away not with a life made newly meaningful, but with a disciplinary knowledge newly enlarged." Even scientists talk about the meaning the practice of science gives to their lives. Why does Fish love the humanities? Apparently, for the same reason he loves, say, a Porsche: It gives him pleasure.

This brings me to the next argument. Fish says that people study the humanities because it gives them pleasure, not because it has any effect on their lives or anyone else's. What kind of pleasure is this? The pleasure of intellectual stimulation, perhaps, but how does this differ from the enjoyment of hobbies like chess-playing? Why dedicate your life, in other words, to the study of the humanities if your own pleasure is the only result? Fish goes even further by saying that to justify the humanities by relating it to the larger ethical good is to dishonor the humanities, that the humanities are their own good. The thought never occurred to him that the humanities may be an instrumental good and a good in themselves, just as the practice of science may be pleasurable to the practitioner but also have utilitarian value. I think it's actually, ironically, a bit of humanities elitism to elevate the humanities to a good in themselves while implicitly knocking science as only an instrumental good. The practice of science is both; the study of the humanities is both. Nothing wrong or dishonorable about that. That being said, Fish is being the provocateur he's always been, and the question of why we love literature, arts, and philosophy is an interesting one.