Over at CHE-Brainstorm there's another one of these discussions about how or whether to argue for the generalized social value of the humanities. Most of these kinds of discussions are framed as follows:
1) The humanities are radically different from the sciences (C.P. Snow). And
2) the sciences are thought to be useful and the humanities are not. And
3) people have a general sense that the humanities are good somehow, but don't know how. Therefore
4) the argument is made to justify the use-value and/or goodness of the humanities. So
5) the humanities are either useful because they make us better citizens and teach us important skills (Nussbaum) or
6) the humanities are good because they are beautiful and magical and transcendent.
Some of these arguments are good and some are bad. Some are helpful for humanities scholars and some are not. Some are more convincing to non-humanities scholars (i.e. scientists) than others. If you've read PMB on these issues in the past, you'd know that he generally favors Item 5 above against Item 6, largely rejects Item 1, sympathizes with Item 2 but finds it flatly unjustified, treats Item 3 with less attention than he should, engages avidly in behaviors pertaining to Item 4 (as perhaps now).
Ultimately, though, these arguments are getting stale. All of them, really. And beyond that, it just doesn't look all that great for Team Humanities that we've somehow allowed ourselves to begin negotiations from a largely self-imposed disadvantage, rather than from even ground. What PMB means by this is that most in the humanities--the ones who are really supposed to know why this stuff is supposed to be so great--are themselves the first to begin arguing from the defensive.
Frankly, in no radical departure from the empiricist tradition, if people want to understand the value of the humanities, they ought to just pick up their heads from these tired arguments and look around with their own eyes. The government funding isn't exactly rolling in, but that political problem doesn't negate the observable fact that the world is full of examples of people crediting the humanities for their success, using humanities products as ways of explaining or relating problems to a broad populace, successfully extending their humanities training, talents, and skill-sets in the worlds of science and finance themselves, or, simply, just sitting and reading on a park bench with a level of literacy that goes beyond absolute baseline comprehension. Sure, PMB can make (and has made) more sophisticated arguments tailored to address particular popular criticisms of the humanities that put humanities advocates on the immediate defensive; but perhaps a better place to start--a better place to have started all along--is with the very kinds of empiricism and democratization of information that the world so seems to crave.
One side of this approach, then, is to be open about what the humanities (and the people who study them) do each and every day (and marvel at the range of impressive things that these people do each and every day). Stop condensing all fields to a self-sealing cost-benefit ratio of tuition in/salary out, and recognize that people take all sorts of paths to productive employment and successful careers, and that tying these outcomes to a particular disciplinary type is a really messy business.
The other side, of course, is recognizing exactly what the sciences are, and what science people do every day. This means taking account of, in addition to all the wonderful and laudable things we hear about in the news, all of the waste, the exploitation of labor, the unethical practices, the failures, the dead ends, the corporate and monetary drivers, the fudging and distortion of data...do I leave anything out?
I suppose the point here is that once you get sick of being on the defensive, you might consider going on the attack. Make no mistake about it: PMB does not advocate academic warfare and/or unwarranted disrespect of other longstanding and legitimate fields of inquiry. But if you live in world in which you're constantly being demeaned, ridiculed, marginalized, and bullied--and oh yeah, they're taking your lunch money too--is it always wrong to swing back?
