Education: SOS humanities
"Even if our sole concern were national economic growth, we would have to protect humanistic education." This is stated by the American philosopher Martha C. Nussbaum (New York, 1947), according to whom, in schools and universities worldwide, the opposite is happening: the humanities (literature, history, philosophy, etc.), as well as the arts, are increasingly disdained, if not directly eliminated. What is happening to us? Nussbaum is not against hard sciences or technological knowledge in any way. But she warns of the mistake of despising humanistic knowledge and the critical thinking associated with it. And she warns that, at the same time as the curriculum is being stripped of humanistic elements, the pedagogy of memorization is being reimposed (obviously, this does not mean she rejects all memorization either).
In the essay "Not for Profit" (translated by Dolors Udina for Arcàdia), the author asks "why democracy needs the humanities" and analyzes how, on the contrary, they are being sidelined, particularly focusing on the United States and India, two realities she knows well. "If we do not insist on the crucial importance of the arts and humanities, we will let them die because they do not make money." At least they do not make money directly: but indirectly they greatly improve private and public organizations because they form creative people, with the capacity to innovate, to dialogue and work in teams, to combine practical spirit with ethical values, to commit themselves to the common good, to give meaning to their work. In short, to give meaning to life.
Nussbaum constructs this work with the help of Socrates and Rabindranath Tagore. She also focuses on the pedagogical ideas of Rousseau and John Dewey. "From the 18th century onwards, various thinkers from Europe, North America, and especially India, began to move away from the educational model based on memorization and to propose experiences in which children were active and critical participants." All were inspired by the Socratic ideal: to know oneself internally, to be responsible for one's own actions, to think for oneself. Knowledge and critical thinking. "Not even the most intelligent and well-prepared [university] students learn to dismantle an argument without patient preparation," with much dedication from the faculty, and not only through lectures, but also through intensive exchange in small seminar groups.
Tagore, Nobel Prize winner in literature in 1913, was a Socratic. He promoted educational change in India, especially by introducing music, fine arts, theater, and dance into schools. Today in his country, governed by the conservative ultranationalist Modi, his ideas are ignored with impunity. He was a great dancer and choreographer. Amita Sen, mother of Nobel laureate in economics Amartya Sen, was a student at Tagore's school from a very young age: her father (Amartya's grandfather), an expert in the history of Hinduism, taught there. She was also a good dancer and in adulthood dedicated a book to her school experience and to Tagore, where she notes that artistic training "demands discipline and ambition." One cannot let children play and dance alone. In both humanities and arts, the Socratic secret lies in cultivating the "inner eyes" of students: making them ask questions about who they are, what they are doing in the world, and what they want to do with their lives. This requires a lot of work, both for teachers and students.
Why did the United States progress so much in the 20th century? Because "they have not had an educational model oriented solely towards economic growth." University education, even today, despite Trump's attacks, which are doing great harm, is based on the arts and humanities. For the first two years, students, whatever they study, must take compulsory courses in these subjects. It is not a matter of elitism, but of democracy: of creating informed, independent citizens, receptive to new developments and the plurality of the world.
On the contrary, according to Nussbaum, today in both India and Europe, universities are focused on "economic growth", on creating technology and a competent business elite. Education for democracy is ignored, human development (the fight against inequality) is ignored. Ultimately, (critical) thought and social and human complexity are ignored.
How is all this ignored? Well, according to Nussbaum, with myths of purity, with the simplicity of a world of good and bad guys. She explains this through the "pathology of disgust" stemming from the basic narcissistic anxiety of infants, "His Majesty the Baby", as Freud called it. With the complicity of parents, everything that does not conform to their desires for perfection is rejected: thus, a flawless, pure "self" or "us" is created, against a dirty, bad, contaminated "you" or "them".
Well, the humanities and arts vaccinate us against this feeling of purity, they lead us towards empathy, towards coexistence with difference. Rousseau showed this with his Émile, teaching him to negotiate with the world he inhabited. We fill our mouths with freedom of expression and respect for difference, but "distracted by the pursuit of wealth, we increasingly demand that our schools [and universities] become useful generators of profit instead of forming reflective citizens". Are we in time to save education and democracy? Are we in time to recover the taste and pleasure for the humanities?