Editor’s Note: This op-ed is part of an ongoing dialogue created by Project Humanities, a university initiative at Arizona State University that explores how we make meaning of our shared experiences.
Between traumatic experiences of late — whether it be Hurricane Sandy, the Aurora shootings, or a local tragedy in our family or neighborhood — are the everyday places where we dwell most often and try to make sense of our lives. As Americans ponder and strategize how not to plunge over the fiscal cliff back into economic recession, it is imperative that we arrive at plans and strategies within the context of a more complicated and nuanced sense of how we define and live our lives.
I am not one who imagines that money, economics, and finances don’t matter. Clearly, these matter and determine the quality of lives. I remain concerned about how our government will deal with the growing federal deficit in such a way that doesn’t strangle the futures of future generations. I am not fully convinced, however, that our successes in the world depend solely on global competition where science, business, and technology lead the way. That both Governor Romney and President Obama in their respective Time (Oct. 29, 2012) essays on the state of American higher education cite math, science, and technology as the ticket to America’s success and recovery both inside and beyond the classroom seems shortsighted.
Romney insists: “We are rightly proud of our extraordinary universities and other institutions of higher learning. Many of the most important scientific breakthroughs occur in their labs ... Their institutions promote inquiry, inspire creativity and ultimately prepare our citizens for success.”
Notably absent is the value of education in promoting good citizenship and civil behavior. Jobs can make us better citizens but jobs need not and cannot define us as individuals or be the only measure of our individual and collective successes.
Obama, while focusing on the value of good teachers, specifies adding “100,000 math and science teachers” to his plan for education reform. These are noble gestures indeed, and one would be hard pressed not to recognize the value of what is proposed. Yet proven leaders here make no mention of how humanities and arts do in fact lead to personal, economic and business success. Arts and humanities students are entrepreneurial and gain skills that businesses need. Critical inquiry, nurturing the imagination, and an awareness of the past are essential to any and all innovation. Conversations about economic recovery cannot and should not be devoid of acknowledging the vital role arts and humanities play in enabling us to understand, interpret, and assess progress on any front. Are success on the global market and a “good job” the only markers of success and progress? As one administrator has said, “Humanities do not teach us what to do; humanities teach us how to be.”
Whether it be learning another language, reading and analyzing a book, understanding the connection between language and critical thinking, or reflecting on a dance performance about surviving Hurricane Katrina, humanities and arts matter. A former Harvard University president says that, “Humans need meaning and perspective as well as jobs.” It is possible and essential that discussions of higher education and discussions of the financial deficit foreground the why of strategies and the impact that any and all decisions will have on everyday lives of everyday people every day. This is the value of the humanities, to underscore the ties that bind us as humans trying to make sense of the world; providing us with the tools to imagine the infinite possibilities of our everyday lives.
Upon the heels of shooter Jared Loughner’s life sentencing, be reminded that it was music, memory, and music therapy that opened the door to wounded Congresswoman Gabby Giffords’ miraculous recovery.
In matters of success and progress, humanities and arts matter.
Neal A. Lester is a Foundation Professor of English, Associate Vice President for Humanities and Art Director of Project Humanities at Arizona State University.
sockratties posted at 8:07 am on Wed, Nov 21, 2012.
Studies have shown that children who study music are better at math and science, perhaps because of stimulation and synaptic development between components of the brain. Study of literature and art may be the only way to relate history and human behavior to a modern world. There is no specific line defining where craft ends and art begins but at some point science, medicine, entrepreneurship and leadership all cross that line. Without skills of critical thinking, acute perception, and an ability to originate new concepts by cross-disciplinary synthesis, future generations will not be able to stand on the shoulders of giants of the past.
chatmandu002 posted at 8:27 am on Wed, Nov 21, 2012.
I say teach to the core, reading, writing and arithmetics. The second tier subjects should be science and history. I would put the humanities, art, music and physical education in the third tier of subjects to teach.
DonMey posted at 9:09 am on Wed, Nov 21, 2012.
A college professor of Arts and Humanities writing an article claiming his field of study (and his job) are just as important as other fields of study. What a shocker. Reminds me of the communications professor spending the entire first day explaining how important the "science" of communication was. And that was one of the most worthless classes I took in college.
Arts and humanities are important, and should be funded. But don't try and claim they are equal...
DonMey posted at 2:18 pm on Wed, Nov 21, 2012.
"music, memory, and music therapy that opened the door to wounded Congresswoman Gabby Giffords’ miraculous recovery".
Do you think the neurosurgeon had at least a little bit to do with it? Talk about huberis.
Cerulean posted at 6:40 pm on Wed, Nov 21, 2012.
DonMey, you are disappointing.
It is truly amazing how music therapy helps those with brain injury. Here is a short clip about Giffords and music therapy. http://youtu.be/tiJ9X_wLSWM
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:00 pm on Wed, Nov 21, 2012.
A well written, and thought out article. I like how Neal put BOTH Romeny and Obama under the microscope. What good is intellience if the person doesn't have the moral sense for guidance?
Rich posted at 8:00 pm on Wed, Nov 21, 2012.
Neal,
The question is not whether the Arts are equal to science and math, it is probably superior. The question is where is the best place to learn them. What college could have taught Hendrix guitar? Is Naked Lunch best produced by a grad student in the dorm, or a Junkie bumming his way through the world? Does a college prof HOWL? In other words is academia the proper place for it? If it's beneficial it's new, it's creation, not reproduction. The best at it fail in academia. And if it's important, it influences without education. Education is reproduction, art is creation. Mankind survives by both.
Mike McClellan another columnist here, taught a literature curriculum that would gag a maggot. He made Van Gogh, Kerouac, Claude Simon, good little opinionated Democrats. Academia tends to teach right and wrong, and in the Arts, that is only a regressive concept.
When I get down, I take my easel, set it in the backyard fill balloons with paint and throw them at a gessoed canvas, and contemplate my creations. If that doesn't work I play Pollack and whip them into shape. Study that!
Abstract01 posted at 11:59 pm on Thu, Nov 22, 2012.
As usual, the postings seem to have a mindset of one field of study being superior to the other.
This is not reality. Some people have skills in technical sciences, others have skills in the arts or in social sciences. And when it comes to funding, all these lose out to sports--big time.
Sonnettina posted at 12:58 pm on Wed, Nov 28, 2012.
As a former educator, I knew many students who stayed in high school only because of their classes in visual or performing arts. How many of those who are decrying Dr. Lester's article enjoy going to a movie, a play, a concert, etc.? People should stop to consider the role that arts and humanities play in their own personal lives before deciding that they have no place in educational institutions. Yes, natural talent plays a large role in the careers of many gifted entertainers; however, many others have had to do it the hard way--through training, practice, and diligence.
And, for the record, I taught one of the required core courses, not an elective course.