The Promise of the Humanities

by Robert Mejia

Reflecting on his experience as a diplomat to France, on May 12, 1780, John Adams wrote to Abigail Adams (his wife) that he “could fill Volumes with Descriptions of Temples and Palaces, Paintings, Sculptures, Tapestry, Porcelaine, &c. &c. &c.—if I could have time. But I could not do this without neglecting my duty.”(1) Believing that it was not “the fine Arts, which our Country requires” but rather the “Usefull, the mechanic Arts,” Adams wrote in an influential and often quoted passage that his duty was to study “Politicks and War [so] that my sons may have the liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine.”(2) In this passage, as the political scientist Michael Lienesch argues, the future second President of the United States “had outlined the role of future Americans in securing national development.”(3) The point I wish to make is that Adams’ vision denies the public of the promise of the humanities, and is one that continues to haunt the present.

In positioning the study of the painting, poetry, music, etc., as contingent upon the mastery of politics, warfare, mathematics, philosophy, and other natural and social sciences, Adams had framed the arts and humanities as luxuries (with political philosophy being the lone exception). The proper course of the nation, for Adams, was the establishment of a strong political foundation, “followed by socioeconomic improvement, which would be followed in turn by cultural and artistic advances.”(4) Then and now, Adams’ words have been interpreted to mean that culture and art are an effect of political and socio-economic superiority, meaning that the value of the humanities are that of the study of what the influential nineteenth century British cultural critic Matthew Arnold termed “the pursuit of our total perfection by means of getting to know, on all the matters which most concern us, the best which has been thought and said in the world.”(5) The humanities, as such, are conceived by Adams, Arnold, and those who share these sentiments, not as sites of knowledge production but rather as a storehouse for the preservation of a nation’s culture. Because culture and art are an effect of political and socio-economic superiority, the role of the humanities is to preserve and transmit the best that has been thought and said to future generations.

Those following this tradition find it absurd to believe that the humanities could make any meaningful contributions to politics, economics, or culture on its own terms. The eminent British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, for example, wrote that it was fine for the “best that has been thought and said” to be “questioned perhaps, improved upon if possible” but that the proper role of the humanities was to respect “the highest achievements of the human mind.”(6) The reason, Thatcher argued, is that “as [John] Adams knew, civilization is a fragile thing, which, once lost, takes generations to regain. We must constantly reaffirm that our Western civilization is worthy of an unfaltering and unapologetic commitment to its perpetuation.”(7) Like Adams and Arnold before, Thatcher believed that culture is an effect of a superior society and that since those studying these great works are not the producers of these great works, who are those in the humanities to believe them their equals? Put more simply, Thatcher believed it “simply preposterous” to believe anyone—let alone students and professors of the humanities—could be equal to the minds of “Plato and Locke, Homer and Shakespeare, Burke and Bryce.”(8) What makes “those great works great,” according to Thatcher, “is that they seek to penetrate the deepest mysteries of the human condition and to elevate mankind.”(9)

The consequence of this conception of the humanities as a storehouse for the preservation and transmission of a nation’s culture is that it marks as illegitimate any attempt by those in the humanities—whether as professors, students, or workers—to affect any area of public life outside of replicating that which has already come before (and been granted political and socio-economic approval). As Lienesch argues, there is “a paradox [in Adams’ vision of national development], in that socio-economic development was possible only with political stability, future Americans having the responsibility to build the private realm while remaining outside the public, their role economic, not political. Even where they were allowed the chance for political action, it was limited.”(10) In practice, this means that the humanities are allowed to recognize the political contributions of the philosophy of Plato and Locke but postmodern philosophy is too transgressive. The humanities can analyze how Homer and Shakespeare leveraged poetry and theater to explore the pressing political and socio-economic issues of the day—and how their words can inspire the present—but the musicians, actors, artists, and other entertainers of today are criticized for making art political. To be clear, the students, professors, and workers associated with the humanities deserve to have their works engaged and criticized—but so too do the works of Plato, Locke, Homer, and Shakespeare. And such engagement and criticism ought to be grounded in the merit of our contributions and not whether those of us in the humanities even have the right to speak in the first place. There is more value to be found in our work than just our ability to preserve, transmit, and incrementally improve upon a small selection of historical works.

The problems of the past continue to be problems of the present, and these problems can only be resolved if we take seriously the problems we have inherited from those who have come before us. Doing this means moving beyond friendly questioning or incremental improvement of any revered text. It means engaging with these works as historical equals. This does not mean that any one of us is better (or worse) than the historical figures we are engaging but rather that we have the right to interrogate and debate the merit of these works. For instance, anti-Semitism has a long, terrible, and unfortunately enduring history, and if we are committed to ending this atrocious history, we need to recognize and challenge anti-Semitism in all its forms. If culture is the best that has ever been said and done, then what are we to make of the Merchant of Venice? Is Shylock, a Jew who lends money to Antonio, the titular merchant, the victim or villain in Shakespeare’s work? Even if we agree with those who believe that Shakespeare was using the play to analyze anti-Semitism, moving beyond friendly questioning allows students to think through the possibilities and limitations of particular forms of confronting anti-Semitism. (11) In essence, if we are to take the problem of anti-Semitism and other contemporary problems seriously, we need to look at how these issues have been challenged or enabled in the past.

Similarly, if we are to challenge the problems of the present, we need to be open to the prospect that the proposed solution may exist (or at least partially exist) in the past. Just as today, there are incredible voices that have been historically silenced or granted limited audience. In 1903, W.E.B. Du Bois famously wrote, “the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color-line.”(12) Fifty years prior, in 1852, Frederick Douglass said in a speech, “Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men, too [….] and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. [….] The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me.”(13) Like anti-Semitism, anti-Black racism has a long, terrible, and unfortunately enduring history, and if we are committed to ending this atrocious history, we need to look to those who survived—and those who did not—for guidance. This does not mean we ought to uncritically revere these historical voices but rather if we are to take seriously that culture is the best that has ever been said and done, then we ought to learn from the successes and failures of those who sought to end the terrors of Anti-Black racism, anti- Semitism, and other ongoing forms of atrocity.

There are of course those problems which are perhaps unique to our own historical moment, and so too are the humanities well equipped to address these contemporary political and socio-economic challenges. Scholars working in media studies, communication studies, and the digital humanities more broadly, for instance, are important contributors to the understanding of algorithmic bias, data ethics, media concentration, and other contemporary concerns. Safiya Noble, Associate Professor of Information Studies and African American Studies at UCLA, published the 2018 New York Times best seller Algorithms of Oppression, for example, and was recently recognized as one of the 100 most influential people of 2020 by TIME. Similarly, scholars working in rhetoric, cultural studies, and the medical humanities more broadly are important contributors to the understanding of epidemiology, doctor-patient relationships, and other health concerns. Mohan Dutta director of the Center for Culture- Centered Approach to Research and Evaluation (CARE) at Massey University in New Zealand is a widely respected expert in health communication, as illustrated by his recent contributions to the World Health Organization report “Pandemic Fatigue: Reinvigorating the Public to Prevent COVID-19.” These are just two of many examples regarding how scholars, students, and practitioners within the humanities are working alongside those in the sciences and social sciences to overcome the problems of the present.

The humanities have always mattered to society. Some have sought to limit the role played by the humanities in society. This is due to a lack of faith in the public. The belief that the public lacks the capacity to engage in matters of political concern, and thus that culture should only reflect the political and economic institutions for which they are believed to depend. This is a narrow understanding of culture, and one that forecloses the possibility of working towards the building of a better society. The objective is not to forget the past—to pretend it never existed—nor to presume that the humanities are superior (or inferior) to the sciences or social sciences but rather to understand that if the humanities are the study of the best and worst that has ever been said and done, then the humanities helps us to imagine what greatness looks like, and to see the promise that lies within us, those who have come before, and those whom will come after. The problems of the present need this promise of the humanities.

ROBERT MEJIA is an associate professor of communication at North Dakota State University. His teaching and scholarship focus is on the intersection of politics, economics, culture, communication infrastructure, and society. He is the past recipient of the 2018 National CommunicationAssociation's Critical and Cultural Studies Division's(CCSD) New Investigator Award and the 2019 NCA CCSDOutstanding Article Award.

Works Cited

1 Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams, post 12 May 1780 [electronic edition]. Adams Family Papers: An Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society. http:// www.masshist.org/digitaladams/

2 Ibid.

3 Michael Lienesch. "The Constitutional Tradition: History, Political Action, and Progress in American Political Thought 1787-1793." The Journal of Politics 42, no. 1 (1980): 25.

4 Lienesch, “The Constitutional,” 25.

5 Matthew Arnold. Culture and Anarchy: An Essay in Political and Social Criticism. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1869/1924: xi.

6 Margaret Thatcher. "The Value of American Studies." Society 34, no. 6 (1997): 51.7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.9 Ibid.10 Lienesch, “The Constitutional,” 25.

11 Brandon Ambrosino. “Four Hundred Years Later, Scholars Still Debate Whether Shakespeare’s ‘Merchant of Venice’ Is Anti-Semitic.” Smithsonian Magazine, https:// www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-scholars-still-debate-whether-or-notshakespeares-merchant-venice-anti-semitic-180958867/

12 W.E. B. Du Bois. The Souls of Black Folk: Essays and Sketches. Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co., 1903/1907, 13.

13 Frederick Douglass. “The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro.” (1852). https://www. pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2927t.html