Profesor Stanley Fish's argument against the study of the humanities may have a good deal of logos, but I am not sure how I feel about his lack of ethos. To say I disagree with him on a few levels would be putting it nicely. It is interesting to me that despite his background, Fish makes his argument against the study of the humanities quite persuasively, in a matter-of-fact tone.
I would like to ask Stanley Fish what his definition of "worth" is. If studying the humanities is worthless because no movements or enlightenment comes upon society as a whole, or even on an individualistic level, I would like to ask what comes from the studying of mathematics then as well? I mean, who sits down and uses trigonometry everyday? Once a month? Or what about chemistry, physics, or even biology? Does the average American use that to change their lives or anyone elses for that matter? And since when did learning how to write and compose blogs, emails, proper papers, and such become worthless? One used to be considered educated when he knew Shakespeare and poets and the histories of other countries. When exactly did that change? What you have us study, Mr. Stanley?
Furthermore, I would just like to mention that nobody really wants to take advice from a hypocrite. If Fish is going to make his living and famous name from the very thing he later refutes, why on earth would anyone listen to the man? There seems to be some ethos lacking there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
After reading this blog about 10 times, I think I'm ready to leave a comment.
I think that we, as people who study in the humanities, need to take the advice of those who have come before us - even if some of the things they say are hypocritical. I am not saying, however, that Fish is right or wrong. I think that a big reason for his posts are to have people think about the humanities. There are lots of people who read The New York Times - and by posting an idea that many may find as intersting (considering Fish's background), Fish has made people to think about how our culture values the study of the humanities.
I also think that it's interesting that he posted these blogs as blogs and not in scholarly journals. Because it's in a blog, Fish can say anything he wants.
Fish presents an interesting argument. On the one hand he has studied and taught literature for so long that it seems crazy for him to minimize their importance in the academic world. Yet, I kind of pictured Fish as reflecting back on his life and asking "what have I accomplished, and was it worth all the time and effort?" Apparently he doesn't feel that his life's work has made much of a difference to anyone except himself. So I both disagree with Fish and also agree with him on some level. Yes, disciplnes that produce measureable outcomes are critical in our society today, but I still can't let myself believe that all the centuries of literatue, philosophy and history have been studied in vain. Pleasure they do bring us, but I am not satified yet that they cannot bring about something else as well.
The fact that you are letting an academic elite stir your pot to the effect that it has, says a lot about why he posted such a blog in the first place. People like Fish need a cachet. His cachet is being such a big fish (pardon the pun) in a little pond, that all the other fish in that pond would like to take a nibble. Yeah he is a hypocrite. The humanities have been his bread and butter for more years than he would want to count. It would be interesting to ask him what he would have done if the field he had chosen to shine in wasn't available to him at that time, go into chemistry? I doubt he has the chops for it. One reason, other than the fact that the humanities are the lifeblood of any culture, to keep them around is the fact that some people don't naturally excel in the sciences.
Why bite the hand that feeds you, Fish? Why?
I find it very interesting and appropriate to call out Mr. Fish on being a hypocrite. How can he criticize the study of the very topic he teaches his students? It is unclear about the message he is trying to send when his readers know his profession. Does he honestly think that his classes have no intellectual value for him or his students? In my opinion the study of the humanties helps build character and gives individuals the motivation to form their own opinions, and Mr. Fish is a prime example of just that. It is his extensive study of the humanities that gives him the skills to express his thoughts in the form of blogs. Mr. Fish wouldn't even have the creative drive to write a controversial blog post if he didn't study the humanities. What an odd twist!
i agree with ryan, he did write this article/journal as and on a blog, not in an important magazine. So by people having raging comments, and not liking Fish for his writing, it i think the kind of feedback he wanted to get. He wanted to get a rise out of people, and try to in some messed up way, get people to talk about their ideas on humanities. With Fishing going against what he teaches, is ok, becasue he doesn't necessarily need to believe in what he teaches. We would hope he does, but he is trying to get people to realize the importance of humanities and using his writings as the flame to the fire.
Fish as a hypocrite! He does come off as a bit of a turncoat, given that he’s devoted his professional life to examining humanistic texts. But his argument hit a nerve, and if there is anyone out there “measuring” the number of responses his posts elicited, then we might argue that reading about the humanities produced quantifiable results. Maybe Fish is covertly implying that writing about such issues in a public forum like a blog is what humanities departments must do to alert people to their importance. Far fewer people would have read his opinion had he published it in a scholarly journal, and no one would have had a chance to respond directly to him.
Post a Comment