On the First Things website, Creighton’s RR Reno shares his thoughts on Harvard’s Final Report of the Task Force on General Education.
In a word, Reno isn’t impressed.
Students liberally educated a la Harvard, Reno concludes, are prepared only for living in “an intellectual and moral banana republic.”
He quotes from the report:
“The aim of a liberal education is to unsettle presumptions, to defamiliarize the familiar, to reveal what is going on beneath and behind appearances, to disorient young people.”This, Reno asserts, represents “the dominant view of contemporary academia.” As advocates of the Great Books approach to liberal education, which differs markedly from Harvard’s curriculum, we nevertheless feel obliged to point out that this “view” is not new. The statement above succinctly describes Socrates’ dealings with the young men of Athens.
Reno seems to lament the fact that in the report “there is a nod toward the objectivity of scientific knowledge,” while in other areas “the emphasis falls on the therapy of critique.” Since he approvingly mentions the “objectivity” accorded the sciences several times, we got the impression that he would like it extended to the humanities as well.
This is unfortunate. We share his concerns about the discrepancy between how the report respectively views the sciences and humanities. But instead of “objectivity” we would prefer a more historical, even critical approach to the sciences, too.
(The public debate between “creationists” and Darwinists only underlines the need for historical perspective in understanding the sciences. Such bogus debates obscure the real challenges presented by scientific theories.
In the case of evolution, for example, the challenge posed has little to do with Genesis and whether the universe was created in six days or not. Evolution calls into question the metaphysical status of “species.” If biological differences are incidental, they cast doubt on the concept of nature, and particularly human nature. That is a real problem worth wrestling with. Not whether Adam had a belly button.
But back to Reno.)
What’s wrong with bringing a critical attitude to the humanities? Reno says dismissively:
the emphasis falls on becoming aware of hidden assumptions, learning how to live with people whose “value systems” differ, and acquiring the critical detachment necessary for students to “choose for themselves what principles will guide them.”This kind of heavy critique, according to Reno, amounts to a “postmodern” version of liberal education. Instead of teaching the student that she’s “a rational animal,” the aim is now:
knowing one’s self as a cultural animal, as a product of the machinery of meaning that constantly operates in the background of art, literature, philosophy, and religion.To know one’s self as a “cultural animal,” we submit, is another way of saying “I know that I know nothing.” In both cases, the student comes to the realization that up till now she has unthinkingly received her opinions and desires – her very identity – from the outside.
Reno considers this a negative realization. And indeed it is. It’s the via negativa of knowledge. Only after the student has seriously called her identity and life-world into question can she enter the positive phase of her education. That’s what Socrates calls “the examined life.”
(It's worth noting that this negativity is also a positivity. Mired in culture or ignorance, the awakened student nevertheless transcends culture and ignorance.)
There are many reasons to quibble with Harvard’s curriculum. Harvard’s aim, however, to unsettle presumptions, etc., isn’t one of them.
Reno doesn’t mention the place of religious faith and practice in liberal education, but we suspect that’s his real problem with Harvard’s program – and Socrates’ as well.
|