Thinkers
have been lamenting the disappearance of the Humanities from universities for
decades now. Books and articles have
been written on the subject, and for the most part, all of them are quite clear
in presenting the issues at universities.
And even as a lowly TA who is working on her PhD, I see the issues in “humanities/writing”
classes that I teach.
I
was tempted to write yet another essay on the state of Humanities but I decided
against it. I have written on it before
on my blog, and I have said everything I wanted to say about the problems. Instead, I have chosen to focus on the
culture-at-large and the descent into the pits of anti-intellectualism which is
present in the United States at the moment.
And
so, I have decided to present here a few rules for people, who would like to
see an improvement in culture, and who would like to raise the level of thought
in the public sphere. One of the reasons
why I choose not to focus on universities only
is because I think that we have to begin from a larger exteriority
(society-at-large) and move toward a specific interiority (e.g., state of the Humanities
in universities, etc.). Despite the fact
that I am calling this “Rules for Intellectuals,” my objective is not to create
a rigid, immovable set of rules – the title is more of a jab at Saul
Alinsky. My objective is to move from an
ideological and “group think” approach into an intellectual and individual
thinking whereby two or more human beings can come together in an encounter in
order to exchange ideas.
1. Establishing that
there is an order of things
2. Bringing in a
higher level of a conversation, in other words, challenging your intellectual
opponent
3. Before you even
engage in an attack of ideology, attack the sloppy scholarship of an
ideologue. Ideologues, by their very
nature, do not engage in stable scholarship precisely because they rely on the “shock”
of their statements and the inversion of what is good and orderly
4. Don’t be afraid of
what might be a “mad” idea. You should
be secure in your own thoughts and conclusions.
Keep in mind that sometimes a “mad” idea is the best thing which could
happen. The difficult task of thinking
is to discern whether the supposed madness is grounded in reality and the order
of things, or whether it has the potential to contribute to the erosion of
culture, and more importantly to the suppression of human spirit
5. Use facts and do
not be afraid to agree with your interlocutor if in fact you do agree. It is quite helpful to establish a
commonality as well
6. Do not get
flustered. Emotions can be intelligent,
but visible agitations are not
7. Recognize your
interlocutor as a human being first, and understand that you are attacking the
ideas, not the personhood. Only then can
you be both intelligent and charitable
8. Do not force a “conversion”
on your interlocutor. Remain
steady. You are arguing for your
position – that is true – but your dialogue partner (as well as yourself) should
arrive at the truth by him or herself in their own time, in their own journey,
in their own arrival
9. Never make comments
or conclusions on a book or an article or a film until you’ve read it or seen
it. This kind of approach will make you
weak.
10. Lastly, ideas do
have consequences, be they good or bad.
Take the thinking and the dialogue seriously, but never lose a sense of
humor or wonder.
No comments:
Post a Comment