In Defense of the Humanities: an English Major's Stance

This is a friendly response of accordance to the post, "For the Last Time, College is NOT a Waste of Time" by Julianne from Carnegie Mellon University. Her post argues against an article in which William H. Gross states that our universities and colleges need to move toward more technical and job-tailored training programs, meanwhile pushing humanities out of the picture. It is articles like this that have - to put it bluntly - quite literally pissed off a lot of people in the humanities departments of universities and colleges across the country. I applaud Julianne's article in defense of her college experience and will now add my own two ranting cents.

-::-

One of the best parts about being an English major is the fact that I get to study a little bit of everything. It's not just literature. It's an overall study of history, politics, sociology, economics, science, art, religion, education, architecture, psychology, anthropology - you name it, there's a way to work it into an English major's interests and studies. The English major is the Renaissance (Wo-)Man of the 21st century. You can't tell me that that isn't valuable.

In the past year alone, I've written papers that cover various topics including: the origins of the American kindergarten, feminist agendas of the 14th and 19th centuries, Machiavellian power principles, the effects of consumerism on social and interpersonal exchanges, environmentalism in the films of Hayao Miyazaki, and others. All of these are examinations of literature and other materials from my English classes. That's right. English classes. Not even for sociology or environmental studies or political science courses. All English. Now, can you honestly say that my Women Writers of the Renaissance course this summer was a waste of time? Would you dare to tell me that the Major Works of Shakespeare is useless drivel? That Early 20th Century American Literature has nothing useful to offer?

I am sorry, sir, if I do not meet your expectations. You insist on specializing people into drones that can put car parts together alongside of a conveyor belt. Yes, we need people who can do those things, but I am not and will not be one of them.

Henry David Thoreau wrote in his essay "Walking,"

"I am reminded that the mechanics and shopkeepers stay in their shops not only all the forenoon, but all the afternoon too, sitting with crossed legs, so many of them - as if the legs were made to sit upon, and not to stand or walk upon - I think that they deserve some credit for not having all committed suicide long ago."

I plead with you, do not insist on taking my legs out from under me.

I insist on grooming myself for a broad, human-based understanding of the world. You eliminate the human aspect of our world, cultures, and societies by eliminating the humanities. If we reorganize our college experience to be nothing but the studying of static data and rote exercises, we risk turning what should be promising, positive students into nerveless, unfeeling zombies. I leave you with this passage to consider.

-::-

"The official report was a collection of cold, hard data, an objective 'after-action report' that would allow future generations to study the events of that apocalyptic decade without being influenced by 'the human factor.' But isn't the human factor what connects us so deeply to our past? Will future generations care as much for chronologies and casualty statistics as they would for the personal accounts of individuals not so different from themselves? By excluding the human factor, aren't we risking the kind of personal detachment from a history that may, heaven forbid, lead us one day to repeat it? And in the end, isn't the human factor the only true difference between us and the enemy we now refer to as 'the living dead'?"

-Max Brooks, "World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War"

-::-