Comments on: On the Humanities, in Theory http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/on-the-humanities-in-theory/ falling indelibly into the past Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:14:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: KF http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/on-the-humanities-in-theory/#comment-2204 KF Sat, 19 Jul 2003 16:15:07 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=904#comment-2204 <p>I think that’s absolutely true, Rory—the social sciences have suffered under the same pressures to be “rigorous” (which seems to be translated as “empirical"), and in certain ways did so first, when the humanities were given some kind of moral “out” from such considerations.  I think, though, that the turn from social “studies” to social “sciences” has only added to the positivist sentiment of the academy overall—real knowledge is produced scientifically—thus calling attention to the apparent divide between the humanists and everyone else. </p> <p> Thanks for the links; I’ll look forward to reading the report. </p> I think that’s absolutely true, Rory—the social sciences have suffered under the same pressures to be “rigorous” (which seems to be translated as “empirical”), and in certain ways did so first, when the humanities were given some kind of moral “out” from such considerations.  I think, though, that the turn from social “studies” to social “sciences” has only added to the positivist sentiment of the academy overall—real knowledge is produced scientifically—thus calling attention to the apparent divide between the humanists and everyone else.

Thanks for the links; I’ll look forward to reading the report.

]]> By: Rory http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/on-the-humanities-in-theory/#comment-2203 Rory Fri, 18 Jul 2003 11:15:44 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=904#comment-2203 <p>Good points, although I’d add that social science suffers just as much from these pressures to be rigorous (hence social “science"), though in different ways: over-reliance on statistics, for example. Stanislav Andreski’s Social Sciences as Sorcery is an excellent read on that; published in the ‘70s and still highly relevant. </p> <p> If you’re looking for evidence in support of humanities research, you could do worse than look at a report I, ahem, worked on in an editorial/support capacity in 1996-97: </p> <p> <a href="http://www.humanities.org.au/review/RevTitle.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.humanities.org.au/review/RevTitle.html</a> </p> <p> or in PDF here: </p> <p> <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/98_03v1.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/98_03v1.pdf</a> <br /> <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/98_03v2.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/98_03v2.pdf</a> <br /> <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/98_03v3.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/98_03v3.pdf</a> </p> Good points, although I’d add that social science suffers just as much from these pressures to be rigorous (hence social “science”), though in different ways: over-reliance on statistics, for example. Stanislav Andreski’s Social Sciences as Sorcery is an excellent read on that; published in the ‘70s and still highly relevant.

If you’re looking for evidence in support of humanities research, you could do worse than look at a report I, ahem, worked on in an editorial/support capacity in 1996-97:

http://www.humanities.org.au/review/RevTitle.html

or in PDF here:

http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/98_03v1.pdf

http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/98_03v2.pdf

http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/98_03v3.pdf

]]> By: vika http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/on-the-humanities-in-theory/#comment-2202 vika Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:33:00 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=904#comment-2202 <p>Yes, frustrating, isn’t it?  It seems to me that our [Western] focus has shifted from wanting to understand ourselves to arrogantly believing that we mostly <i>have</i> understood ourselves, and wanting primarily to understand the world.  We need both, of course, but I think it’s actually the humanities that will more readily acknowledge that we cannot understand one without the other, and must study both together, intertwined. </p> <p> But we don’t study both together, we <i>study</i> the sciences and <i>appreciate</i> literature, and are getting closer and closer to destroying our world and ourselves. </p> Yes, frustrating, isn’t it?  It seems to me that our [Western] focus has shifted from wanting to understand ourselves to arrogantly believing that we mostly have understood ourselves, and wanting primarily to understand the world.  We need both, of course, but I think it’s actually the humanities that will more readily acknowledge that we cannot understand one without the other, and must study both together, intertwined.

But we don’t study both together, we study the sciences and appreciate literature, and are getting closer and closer to destroying our world and ourselves.

]]>