Tue 15 Jan 2008
In the second chapter of the book, Tony Kronman gives us a 53 page (pp.37-90) summary of the three phases of the life of the humanities in American higher education and he certainly doesn’t leave the reader in suspense about his assessment of the current relationship between the humanities as taught and the meaning of life.
It has been stripped of its legitimacy as a question that teachers of the humanities feel they may properly and competently address with their students in a formal program of instruction. It has been exiled from the classroom and kicked out of school, so that today it survives only in private, in pianissimo, in the extracurricular lives of teachers and students, even those in liberal arts programs whose distinctive purpose presupposes the vital importance of this question itself (p.45)
Phase 1, which I like to call “The Christian Gentleman Phase”, started in 1636 at that other college at the Eastern end of Route 2. The Puritans were quite keen on education, but it was much more focuses on shaping the character of their students than producing original scholarship. Everybody pretty much memorized the same thing (Latin, Greek, the classics, the Bible), and were to use these works and the men in them as sterling examples of behavior. (Given my limited knowledge of the classical world, I do wonder if Aristophanes, Catullus, Terrence or Petronius got much play in these classrooms. Also, the lives of Alcibiades and Caligula were probably what financial analysts like to call contrary indicators) There wasn’t much distinction between areas of study, the faculty were the staff, and generally the president of the college taught the senior capstone of the course. (More on this in a moment) Dr. Kronman lays out the two assumptions that girded this world.
1) Teachers have an unassailable authority on matters moral thanks to their experience.
2) Every branch of study is connected to everything else, so don’t leave out anything.
Williams was, at this time, more or less a little po-dunk college out in the sticks of the Berkshires, but it did have one Mark Hopkins of “the log” fame, who pretty much lived up to all of this. He was the president of Williams, he taught the capstone course and it is fair to say that he was much more interested in the character of his students than their (or his to be honest) intellectual accomplishments.
His (Hopkins’) triumph as one of the old-time college presidents must be attributed, in no small degree, to the success with which he refused to permit learning to assume an ascending importance in his life. (p.27, Mark Hopkins and the Log, Yale, 1956)
I must admit that the thought of a 19th century Christian madrassa came to mind while reading this part, though the greater tension was probably between the education itself, based on the liberal arts, those subject fit for the study of “free” men, which meant the gentry in Europe, and the useful arts, for the study of artisans, which was championed by Ben Franklin and probably quite a bit more useful in the development of the continent. This leads to the second phase in the life of the humanities, “The Secular Humanist Phase”.
As the 19th century progressed, America saw the ideal of the German research university transferred to its soil (Dr. Kronman will go into more detail on this in the third chapter. Here’s a bit of foreshadowing, the research ideal has a lot to answer for). Cornell, Johns Hopkins, even Harvard got the fever under President Eliot, and, boom, out goes character formation as the goal of a college education and in comes learning and scholarship. The explosion of knowledge in the 2nd half of the 19th century put to bed any idea that a student could come out in four years with a grasp on the totality of knowledge, which meant that some things had to be left out, which eventually led to the ideas of majors and electives and to the formation of distinct academic disciplines.
If we use Williams nomenclature and say that knowledge was being divided into divisions 1,2 and 3, then 2 and 3 were prospering in the new world thanks to their use of the scientific method. Div 1, however, doesn’t use the method, so it had to pay its way in this new world by continuing to talk about the purpose and value of human life. What separated these new humanists from the Mark Hopkins type? Well, each believed there is a common human nature, but the secularists:
1) Thought that a common human nature did not preclude pluralistic beliefs about the meaning of life.
2) Thought that human nature, though open and malleable, still followed a discrete number of life paths (warrior, artist, priest, etc) and that these paths could be studied.
3) Thought that transcendence could no longer chalked up to the supernatural, but to rather Platonic values that were larger than any one person.
The great conversation among western thinkers, from Biblical to current time is essentially how each person was trying to sort out how their lives and thoughts related to these timeless values. Unfortunately, while the age of secular humanism was advancing, forces were gathering that led to Phase 3, The Death of the Dead White Male (my terminology, not Dr. Kronman’s)
In Phase 3, the Great Conversation itself is attacked as the limits it proscribes: a singular core human nature, a limited number of patterns to human life, and an elite, though slowly growing canon, are held up as illusory and masked expressions of power used to marginalize other cultures and ideals. This, accompanied by the spread of the research ideal from the sciences into the humanities, sounded the death knell for the search for life’s meaning in the humanities department. Chapters 3 and 4 will go into this in far more detail.
I would have liked Dr. Kronman to spend a bit of time talking about how this change in higher ed mirrored the economic changes going on in the country as a whole, since Phase 1 to Phase 2 rather neatly follows the model of artisan/apprentice work in antebellum America to the rise of the factory and mass production in the second half of the 19th century and Phase 2 to Phase 3 from mass production/consumption to customized production/consumption in the second half of the twentieth century. Were the humanities just following the money?
Print
• Email
| « The sound you hear is an Eph’s heart breaking | This should be fun » |
17 Responses to “Education’s End, Chapter 2, “Secular Humanism””
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
kthomas says:
I find a contradiction here: how can we form and direct the character of humans, if we do not encounter history, and address our unique positions between past and future? In Kant’s terms, how can we form morality, and moral instruction, without confronting the structures of human events.
While I sympathize and agree greatly– at points– with Kronman, there is a difference between the (far too generalized and century-spanning spectre of the) “German research ideal,” which meant confronting reality, and the very specific and contemporary anti-historicism of someone like Stanley Fish.
Speaking of Stanley… can we address Stanley’s argument, without looking at the history of what Stanley has done in the educational institutions where he has been given the role of custodian and caretaker?
January 15th, 2008 at 3:15 amDavid says:
Hey!
What is with the slur on Mark Hopkins’ intellectual accomplishments? For his era, Hopkins was actually as intellectually accomplished as, say, Morty Schapiro is today. Wikipedia notes that:
I don’t have my copy of Fred Rudolph’s book, but he makes clear that Hopkins was one of the most important college presidents of his era. His books were widely read, his lectures extremely popular. Although I don’t know as much as I should about 19th century US university education, I believe that Hopkins was one of the dozen or so most important figures, precisely because of his intellectual accomplishments. His writings were certainly more widely read by other university leaders than, say, Morty’s are today. (Not as a dig on Morty! He is a leading scholar on the topic.)
I recommend a correction.
January 15th, 2008 at 9:32 amGondo says:
David,
The last thing I want to turn this into is a referendum on Mark Hopkins’s intellectual achievements. I present the book and page number for all to look at to see Professor Rudolph’s assessment for themselves.
I don’t think anyone is denying the importance of Mark Hopkins to the ideal of 19th century education in America. He was an important figure, his books were read widely, his lectures were extremely popular. Then again, if fame, book sales and lecture appearances are the criteria we use for professional excellence, then I am afraid I’ll have to take back my comment yesterday about Donald Trump, for he must be the greatest real estate developer the world has ever known.
Who reads Hopkins today? I came away with the impression that his books are cogently argued statements of the 19th century status quo.
BTW, Hopkins was an MD, one of the last MD’s Williams produced thanks to a rather shaky deal with a medical college in Pittsfield. He was never trained as a moral philosopher or received any sort of graduate training in his academic field. This does not dismiss him as incapable of intellectual achievement, but just points out he wasn’t trained in his topic.
No correction, DK. You gotta do better than:
January 15th, 2008 at 9:47 am<blockquote cite=”Although I don’t know as much as I should about 19th century US university education, I believe that Hopkins was one of the dozen or so most important figures, precisely because of his intellectual accomplishments.” A little more evidence, please.
FROSH mom says:
Gondo:
Kronman’s writing,(for me!) was difficult to tie up into a neat little package. So, I commend you! Your summary is really good…and a very tough act to follow. (gulp)
Having limited knowledge of the history of formal education, it is also a hard chapter for me to make a comment on, but I’ll take a shot.
Your question about whether or not the humanities were following the money, is a good one. Kronman suggests that universities were set up to provide a practical setting for the Research Ideal. If all this money was being poured into these lavish settings (not so lavish if you compare them to what we have now), then maybe there was some emphasis on a style of teaching that justified all that expense. Chronologically, I’m not sure if that makes any sense. Maybe its putting the cart before the horse. But in many ways it makes more sense to me than some of Kronman’s reasoning as to why we abandoned one style of learning for another.
And to just slightly address something Ken said…Kronman’s book would suggest that he feels the need for radical change, when in an interview, his approach is quite moderate. When asked what three things a college could do right away, he suggests;
“First, consider an elective program modeled on the humanities course at Reed, or Yale’s Directed Studies Program. Second, give the faculty who teach in the program special recognition for doing so (perhaps in the form of some additional leave time to insure that they don’t feel torn between research and their commitment to the program). Third, require students to read three books that deal with the question of life’s meaning during the summers before each of their four college years. Fourth, make the subject an issue in your own talks, especially your talks to parents, and try, whenever possible, to damp down student and parental anxiety about the need to prepare for a career.”
In that paragraph, I find a lot to agree with, especially his fourth suggestion. Students, at the very least, need to be encouraged to explore education, rather than looking for the fastest track to the $$$$.
January 15th, 2008 at 9:52 amGondo says:
One last point on M Hopkins. I am not saying his books are jokes. Given how difficult writing is in any century, his output and the public’s reaction obviously shows that this was an intelligent man who knew his topic. The question I ask is how intellectually curious was he, or in fact, most professors of his time. Rudolph paints a picture of man who was brilliant at defending and teaching the values important to mid 19th century America, and particularly Berkshire County, but not someone who was that curious about other ideas.
As I have not read Hopkins, it would be presumptuous of me to draw any conclusions from his work. I merely pass along what I got out of Rudolph and point out how it fits with Kronman’s views of the Christian Gentleman era.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:00 amDavid Broadband says:
The present gulf facing ED is derived in the change in the concept of the manner in which we come to knowledge and truth. Today ED is seen as a force for social change.
Prior to the latter half of the 19th century, one never had to spend much time in thinking about one’s presuppositions (A belief or theory which is assumed before the next step or logic is developed. Such a priori postulates often consciously or unconsciously affects the way a person subsequently reasons.), such as absolutes. which was in accord within the area of epistemology (That part of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge, its nature, limits and validity.) and methodology. This was particularly so within Christian Europe and the United States.
The flood waters of secular humanist thought and their new theology with their false set of presuppositions. Absolutes( whose antithesis is relativism) imply antithesis (Direct opposition of contrast between two thins, as in joy which is the antithesis of sorrow.). The presupposition of antithesis permeated our understanding in all of our disciplines, particularly philosophy, art, music, our general culture and our theologies. Thus man looks at truth differently now.
The unifying factor underlying all these disciplines is rationalism, or if you prefer, “humanism”, whereby man, beginning with himself, attempts to rationally build all knowledge, meaning and value out of himself. Today man believes that they will find “unity in total diversity.” However with the realization that man cannot find a unified rationalization answer, thinkers, scholars, departed from the classical methodology of antithesis, and altered the concept of truth, and thus the modern era of man with his monolithic thought forms was born, where the lack of absolutes and antithesis leads to pragmatic relativism.
A true education is an education whereby one thinks by association across several disciplines. The uniformity of our modern culture fails to educate modern man.
The new theology has two positions: faith and rationality, whereby faith has no rationality or contact with science, and rationality includes scientific evidence and history.
In our non-logical, non-rational faith system man claims that there are no means of assigning man any value or meaning while within our rational world, man is machine.
Man as an organism needs to gain control of himself through through an understanding of his/her educational concepts through imagination, inspiration and intuition. Renewing an interest in the humanities in how we are connected to life.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:29 pmkthomas says:
Gondo,
I (also) now have twenty or so responses to our CGCL threads written, and none really finished. Both the Fish post, and this one, stymie me with ‘where to go’ amid various possibilities.
I agree with Kronman that there is a problem in our educational system, and it is one of meaning– and what professors do. I however find his “three eras” narrative, and the attack on ‘the importation of the research ideal,’ simply too cartoon-characturesque to be compelling. Whatever is happening in the modern university, I do not think it is “the death of God,” and for that matter, I think that the narrative of “authority used to come from God, then…” is about as accurate as “everyone thought the world was flat, until Columbus.”
My point above is simply that the German research ideal, at its highest, was about study and inquiry which ennobled… I don’t see the point of drawing a line between this ideal, and what Mark Hopkins pursued… and franking I find using Hopkins Christianity… well, really, claiming that there was a vast period of time in which professors possessed ‘God-given’ authority is absurd. When, where? Perhaps at Oxford here and there, but at Goettingen, Basel, Tuebingen, Praha, Lubjana– much less the University of Utah? Are we kidding?
Part of one response I wrote included (I’ll overquote the point):
January 15th, 2008 at 6:33 pmFROSH mom says:
Hey, listen up CGCL commentators.
I will be one unhappy camper, if by Thursday, you have all worn out your interest in the Research Ideal!
That said, I do think there was a point, Ken, where God was no longer invited to the (academic) party. I have my own thoughts as to why this happened, but am pressed for time at the moment, so will save it for later.
January 15th, 2008 at 7:59 pmDarcy Dalrymple says:
ED is home to the log in your brain. The minor adjustment to a bad experience when you thought you knew it all. The culmination of a great orgasm soured in the seizure of that moment when all else seemed perfect. Respite to the labours of love that went unrequited and desperate for fulfillment of that fateful hour now gone, but sought much afterwards. Yes you know what I mean when you meant that which was unheard nor remembered.
Listen to the languish of deftly played intonations reflect the mood of somnabulists’ clever renditions. You are truly the void that we all aspire to, the emptiness of long drunken bottles waiting for an answer to a bouquet yet to be distinguished among the many vintages long in wanting discovery.
Yes, you are the one and only one. The one I chose over others to convey that which you can ill afford to lose. Thus convey your utmost charm to my seemly court of intention out of which nature unfolds its damascene cover of unreality.
Bring forth the matter before the being of our discussion. Bring forth the bane of the banality that you have predestined others to partake and yet have held sacred before the bearers of destiny.
Speak as spoken before the assembly amidst the craft of weavers of the state whose sole possession precedes the assembly where notables gather in the court of compromise as beggars of feigned deception.
Truth lies within the corner of the eyes’ discerning glare from a corner to espy you with.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:51 amfrank uible says:
That hum you hear is Harry Truman spinning.
January 16th, 2008 at 6:33 amGondo says:
Umm, D’arcy, could you maybe…restate your postion in a less baroque manner. Subject, predicate, that sort of thing. Maybe a little more Hemingwayesque.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:47 amkthomas says:
@EM, Gondo,
Can I get away with continuing to hum a tune that may not be recognizable?
Explicit reference to God may have been banished from most decision-making contexts at Williams and Yale, but certainly not from, say, the boardrooms of the University of Florida or the White House. Therein lies another tale.
One point of my rantish comments above is that the sort of story told in Kronman is what, in the first year of grad school or so, we would refer to as a “meta-narrative” or “master narrative:” a general, easy-to-remember– in fact polemical and politically motivated– and catchy tale that explains a long, complex period of history, with plenty of gloss over the chaotic events within it.
The tale above, does not, I think, do much justice to the reality and complexity of actual events, viewed from any perspective other than the present. When I look over the landscape of Kentucky and Tennessee in the nineteenth century– when I read the newspapers, literature, personal journals– I see a series of isolated cities whose populations had very different ideas and lives than those encompassed by today’s notion of mainstream Christianity. Supposedly, I think, Christianinty speaks against sex outside of marriage– well, I’m not sure, as there were nationally known evangalists who spoke of free love (and who clearly influenced Hopkins) and had numerous and known affairs; in Kentucky and Tennessee, I could name numberous towns where the literary record clearly demonstrates “Christian folk” who engage in various relationships, without, evidently, seeing a contradiction with religious principle– and in fact often articulating rationales for their action in terms of those very religious, ‘biblical’ principles.
Recently, an occasional author here wrote on his own blog, “Belmont University… the sort of right-wing, fundamentalism Christian University which frightens Democrats.” I can see where this phrase comes from, and sure enough, some of the trustees have what might be seen as extreme views… but the reality is that the characterization of Belmont is part of a national political discourse that has little to do with the autual institution. The reality is also that the Belmont student body, by-and-large, is far more liberal and leftist than Williams’, far more counter-cultural and ‘experiemental,’ … and often grounds this lifestyle in a ‘Christianity’ that is far different than the ‘Christianity’ we see spoken of on the national media scene, or the version of Christianity we get from, say, professors of literature at Berkeley and Yale.
Not that the above isn’t over-generalizing: Belmont is a complex place and I can’t speak for all its students, and there is no unified “student body” when comes to religious belief and doctrine. Regardless, they will vote 85% or more democratic…
Similiarly, and somewhat therefore, I think the characterization of Hopkins above is somewhat “presentist,” in that it takes present-day criteria and applies it to Hopkins. No, Hopkins was not the ideal research professor of the 1990s and 2000s US university, nor could he be. But if we look at him closely in the terms of his time– and other times– I think we find a figure, and a body of thought, which is incredibly curious and complex, and however embedded in “the Berkshires,” and whatever his failings, far more than just a “Christian gentleman” or a “dead white male.”
As for Christianity (and criticism), my “beef” with the narrative above is that, in addition to being highly reductionist, it seems on the one hand generally the cross-product of individuals with “something against Christianity,” so to speak, and the current fad of ‘criticism’ aimed against ‘the tradition of dead white males’ and at blaming this invented tradition for all that is evil and oppressive in the world.
When you look at the details, it just ain’t true. While the idea of “unitary human nature,” or such, is definitely there– it’s not all there is to Descartes’ famous assertion, after all (much less Leibnitz, Hume, Kant and the many others– not all of whom where white); it’s an idea that gets quite a bit of derision in Plato or, say, Ecclesiates or any of a number of books– when we look at the early “British empire,” as it is now called, for one instance, we see an entity that openly embraces other religions and brings them back to the isles, to mix with pagan traditions… and if we want to look closely at Christianity, we might as well see a religion that argues that there is no common human nature, no essence, no ideal forms, but only this changing existence which an inscrutable, unknowable, fundamentally inhuman G-d has afforded us…
And the “research ideal,” in that view, is sort of finding G-d via action in the world.
Nonetheless, why this focus on the narrow view and interpretation of Christianity and authority, above? Why not the alternative, an approach to Hopkins which tries to explain him not as an instance of an overarching ‘master narrative’ of authority, but rather, through the complex threads of ideas which intersect his life and work, through their connection to the throughs of others in worlds ancient and modern, to the similar, overlapping issues of his world, those other worlds and our own?
…
In any case, if we look back at Hopkins, “small” perhaps as his corner of the world was, and keep looking until the actual details emerge from the cartoon figure our popular tales project on him, I think we’ll find someone far more complex.
And that is a research project that exceeds the definition of ‘text…’ usually ascribed to Stanley Fish.
And speaking of Stanley: isn’t what his article really says, that the study of literature trumps all, not just because people like Stanley are ‘good technicians’ of reading literature, but, essentially, because literature is a reflection of a holy otherworldly realm– thus, in essence, that he has a direct line to God and lesser mortals such as Kronman shouldn’t question him?
If you’ll pardon the reductionism…
January 16th, 2008 at 3:07 pmGondo says:
KT- I followed you every step of the way.
Started to make me think about separating Kronman’s argument from his conclusion. Actually, what is his conclusion, that undergraduates begin to discuss and think about texts that discuss “the meaning of life” or that humanities professors reclaim their authority lost to the twin forces of the research ideal and political correctness? The first is rather like being for apple pie and motherhood, the second is a bit more problematic.
I keep chewing on Leo Strauss and the idea of the useful myth, but I can’t put anything into words yet. More later, maybe.
January 16th, 2008 at 3:34 pmkthomas says:
Gondo,
Are you sure you want to follow this? As soon as I posted, the pain of not having edit capacities became apparent.
But as to your second (or para. 2-1, 2-1…) points: at least the narrative myths (which is distracting and even painful to me) has to be separated from the … what is the right term?… diagnosis and prescription? ;
‘Meaningful authority’ and how to ‘reclaim’ it is certainly one part of the question– assuming that there are enough of us who would be interested in that, ahem, project, versus the (excuse what may be an unfair ad hominem) “Fishes of the world.” But I kept wondering– is Rudolph’s narrow characterization of Hopkins, in some way, an artifact of the (now much accelerated) niching into disciplinary “sub-specializations,” and concurrent withdrawal from an attempt at “learning about everything” (which, IMHO, gives us enough breadth to recognize the ‘forms of things’).
How did disciplinary niching happen (we’ll need Europe as well as the US), and is it a tale that requires the half-millenium meta-narrative of the fall of (so-called) Christian fundamentalism in West, or much more specific to … to envoke some other myths just to get them out there, the rise of bureaucracy or population demographics….?
… IMHO as well, we can’t get anywhere without talking about the evolving funding of higher education, and the massive expansion of the ‘multiversity…’
…to pause briefly there: there will be roughtly 500K ‘seats’ added in US universities by 2012, 80K or so of them at the University of Arizona alone… does anyone really think that those students will receive anything like the Kronman or Williams’ ideal? Or, for that matter, ‘an education’ worth the public expense?
… finances, careerism…
But let me stir a few other fires here…
January 16th, 2008 at 4:13 pmFROSH mom says:
Dang,,,you guys are going to be all talked out by tomorrow and my little summary will be sitting high-and-dry…..
Anyway,,,I think there is discrepancy between the content of the book and Kronmans assessment. I have felt all along, every time I pick up the book, that I could hear the publisher’s voice saying “Stretch it out…make it more dramatic, should be close to 300 pages….” In my opinion, it could have been kept much simpler and more effective, by focusing on the existing conditions and what to do about it.
I do think Kronman is spot on about a certain…skewed atmosphere in the humanities. The careerism etc…all of that plays into it. And how to change it is complicated…and certainly way over my head.
But it seems to me, that one place to start, would be to take a hard look at the program. It was originally designed for white, mostly Christian, gentrified males from similar background. As diversity of religion was introduced, God was carefully removed from the discussion. And now, you have basically the same material..(.which, although made up of great thinkers, is yet, white, western, and male) ….within a classroom of equally mixed gender, mixed race, mixed religion, mixed nationality (americanized or not, the family background and cultural differences are still important). How do you encourage discussion about the meaning of life under these circumstances? How about a bit of diversity in the program?
I base this comment on the list of books on the Yale Directed Studies Program. From a quick scan, it appears to be all white men, and only one woman.
January 16th, 2008 at 7:34 pmGondo says:
Don’t worry, FM. We’ll all be chatty tomorrow.
BTW, does your handle change to SOPH mom in June or in September?
January 16th, 2008 at 8:51 pmFROSH mom says:
Let’s hope so…at least the part about my frosh becoming a soph!
As far as my moniker? I didn’t think that through very well when I took it on. Especially the part about how odd it would be to have people I don’t really know, many of them grown men at that, calling me Mom. It has taken some getting used to. FM is good.
But when I become Soph mom then I would be SM?
January 16th, 2008 at 11:08 pmHmmm, I need to think about this. Suggestions are welcome.