I don’t usually respond to feedback of my columns, especially when it is ridiculous. But an attack on my last column deserves a defense. I won’t defend the attacks on myself (with “the mind of a two-year-old”), or my family (which is apparently “independently wealthy enough to send my spoiled, whiney ass off to college”) — after all, I make the same comments about our current president. But the author of this letter also attacked my English major — calling it a “lame study” and useless because “everyone in this country has spoken English for more than 200 years anyway.” I was better at math and science in high school than the humanities, but I chose to study English and politics in college because I thought they had more value in everyday life. Therefore, I felt compelled to defend the humanities against this ignorance.
This author is not the only one to feel this way about the humanities; science majors often hold almost visible enmity toward humanities majors, particularly the night before a chemistry exam or the day semester grades are handed down. They criticize the humanities and humanities majors themselves in essentially three basic arguments:
1. The humanities have no practical application
This may be the first argument to come to mind, since there are few jobs out there for Civil War experts or interpreters of Hemingway. But in looking strictly at the vocational aspect, these critics are missing the point: the humanities offer education for every part of life.
Of course we need doctors, engineers and researchers. But we also need people with perspective on life, with the ability to appreciate the search for meaning. Why build the Statue of Liberty if no one can write about the beauty, understand the historical significance or appreciate the symbolism? Otherwise, it is merely a hunk of copper with certain dimensions and angles.
2. The humanities are easy.
The grass is always greener on the other side, and science majors may think writing papers and having class discussions is easier than working on a problem set. They simply do not understand that neither is inherently more difficult, merely different — and if one does require more actual thought, it is surely the humanities.
After all, in science (at least in undergraduate studies) there is usually one right answer. It might be a pain in the ass to find, but like the needle in the haystack, if you spend enough time sifting you can eventually find it.
In the humanities, however, there is rarely one right answer, or any right answer at all. It takes creativity rather than programmed training, original thought rather than regurgitated mathematical processes and the ability to persuade rather than simply show the steps.
As far as grades go, it is true that there are probably more A’s and B’s handed down in humanities classes than the sciences. But grades are relative, and any employer or grad school admissions officer with half a brain will realize that courses graded on a curve are going to produce lower GPA’s than those that aren’t.
3. The humanities are full of directionless, time-wasting students
This criticism may have the greatest hint of truth, since many English or history majors decided on their major because: a) they found it interesting and b) they didn’t know what else to do. I’m not afraid to admit that I’m one of them.
The study of the humanities is designed to encourage self-realization and actualization, since the study of humanity lends itself to self-discovery among its students. How can you know what you really want to do before you know all the possibilities?
I am certain some 18- or 19-year-olds realize their calling as engineers immediately, and that calling persists throughout life. But many more make this decision without really knowing themselves, only to realize later that haste in choosing a line of study — particularly specialized as engineering or biochemistry — may have been the wrong choice.
Great leaders throughout time have understood the value of the humanities, from Alexander the Great to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. No one would argue the directionless time-wasting of their youth carried over into their adulthood.
Neither Alexander nor FDR could have been great without the work of scientists and engineers; the sciences are important, and mutual respect between the sciences and the humanities brings mutual benefit. Disrespect for the humanities simply overlooks the larger picture: humanity without perspective and self-awareness is shallow and incapable of greatness.
English may have been spoken in this country for the last 200 (actually more like 400) years, humanities majors may get better grades and the humanities might not directly get anyone into a job. But if we want to preserve some semblance of meaning for life, culture, personality and relationships, we cannot simply replace the humanities with hard science.
Humanities majors are all grateful for advances in science — I wouldn’t be alive right now without them. But without the humanities, I couldn’t really appreciate what it means to be alive in the first place.
Matt Lynch ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in English and political science.
