all this humanities bashing and "accessibility" talk is giving me the Alan Sokal déjà vu :)
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Christopher M. Kelty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > dude, did you fail your english lit class or something? I've never > seen so much resentment in one post. Sorry for being such a parasite > on society. Usually people on this list want to kill all the lawyers > :) > > > ck > > > > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:10:42AM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > > > "Christopher M. Kelty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I mean do you really thing that people in the humanities are > > > somehow more disconnected from reality and commercial pressure than > > > engineers or scientists? > > > > I actually do think that. > > > > The study of, say, literature, is not particularly demanded by the > > market. The economy would not collapse if all the world's professors > > studying Victorian English novels vanished without a trace. The > > principle natural demand for such professions comes from academia > > itself, which is highly subsidized by the government at the moment and > > thus not operating particularly according to normal market dictates. > > > > Demand for academics in the humanities is largely synthetic, being > > generated by redistributions of money from taxpayers by > > governments. This synthetic demand is created both directly via > > payments to fund academics and academia, and indirectly through the > > subsidy of college educations. The latter is an especially important > > subsidy, since without it many more seeking such educations would feel > > tremendous pressure to learn things that would be of benefit in the > > job market, and might not otherwise spend much time on the study of > > poetry and the like. > > > > There is precious little objective test for the quality of such > > academic work in any case, but in the current environment, a lack of > > practical value in the work done will go largely unnoticed. > > > > A century ago, there was little to no government subsidy of professions > > like the academic study of literature, and as a consequence there was > > fairly little of it done -- those who might have been so inclined > > found other ways to occupy their time, be it the practice of law or > > running lumber mills. The few who did manage to get such work usually > > had to pass a very high barrier in order to do so. It is not clear > > that society was radically worse off as a result. > > > > Now, engineering *is* in high market demand, without subsidy. People > > want their cars and heart-lung machines and fire suppression systems > > and bridges, and for good reason -- without such things they might > > live very uncomfortable lives. There is thus a considerable amount of > > market pressure on the profession of engineering -- and considerable > > market judgment about the quality of the output. No amount of > > posturing will alter the objective qualities of an engineered artifact > > -- vigorous argument will not make a car more fuel efficient, and a > > thorough command of arcane jargon will not make a bridge stand up. > > > > > The humanities today are more like (US) reality than ever before, > > > namely in the economic distribution of wealth, with a handful (less > > > than 1%) making more than say, 100K per year, and whose names are > > > known by the New York Times or the TLS, and the 99% living in near > > > poverty (starting salaries for a tenure track job are still around > > > 30-45K), our outright poverty (adjuncts teaching 4 classes per > > > semester for $3000 or less per class). > > > > That's not being "more like (US) reality than ever before", that's > > far less like reality than ever before. The average person in the US > > has to convince other people to trade hard won resources for their > > labor in order to earn their bread. The average academic survives > > because of subsidy. > > > > The "pressure" on academics is not actual market pressure at all. > > It is, in fact, a very luxurious state of affairs. > > > > There is, of course, dramatic competition for academic jobs in the > > humanities, and why shouldn't there be? If you can get a tenured job, > > you have a lifetime of doing more or less only what you enjoy, devoid > > of any need to actually do terribly much other than the indifferent > > teaching of a class or two. (You might have to read the student's > > papers and grade them, but that's hardly onerous compared to any real > > job.) You even get your entire summer off, sabbaticals, funded trips > > to conferences, carnal access to the occasional undergraduate if you > > are so inclined, etc. The pay may not be fantastic, but the job itself > > is, so why wouldn't there be huge numbers of people striving to get > > in? > > > > Now, if you compare the current state of affairs to that a century or > > so ago, and the contrast is fairly stark. There just wasn't enough > > money flowing in to the marketplace to support a large class of > > academics in the humanities. > > > > Of course, even in the modern situation, far more try to get in than > > actually manage, and so we have the academic underclass that is forced > > to actually work hard, at the behest of actual market demand, doing > > such "demeaning" tasks as teaching remedial English composition > > classes at community colleges (a task held in contempt in spite of the > > fact that it actually is of substantial benefit to society). > > > > > > > > Perry > > > > -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - does the frog know it has a latin name? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
