Okay, I got my bachelors in Psychology with a minor in English. Right now I’m going for my doctorate in Psych, while doing creative writing exercises in what free time I have. So, I consider myself to be in both worlds to a degree…
But I do think there’s value in keeping them at least a little bit separate. Some things like philosophy and ethics occupy a nice middle ground and don’t need to be firmly in either camp. But I don’t think any of my literature studies did a very good job teaching science. The inverse was also true. That’s okay, because they weren’t really the same line of inquiry or the same methods. When you try to treat them both the same, you wind up with people who think that because something has artistic value it can make empirical claims (which I seem to run into a lot these days) or people who ignore any artistic value in a work so they can gripe about how the physics doesn’t line up.
We already live in a world where most people get their knowledge of science from the arts. Most people are deeply misinformed about science. Correlation doesn’t mean causation, but that approach, anyway, doesn’t seem to be working very well.
I’m not convinced that’s true – people freak out about where liberal academics are taking society all the time. Consider the reactions to feminists talking about video games, or to a professor talking about painted statues, to pick some recent examples. Sure, nobody imagines a sonnet will destroy the world, but it’s not hard to find people who think gender studies will, and such fields get attacked accordingly when they’re not simply getting dismissed.
I was lucky, had Chip Delaney for a professor. The thing about fantasy worlds (from him, more or less, but I agree) is they mostly still have to have physics and such, even magical physics have to have a consistency or they fail to hold a narrative. I don’t know what science taught me about literature, but its informed my photography and painting (like, pigment mixing and making) quite a lot, and my printing experience is at least as much chemistry as it is creativity. I really appreciate your pov, thank you.
larger context: I don’t see right and wrong as concepts too useful in a discussion like this, and I am impressed so many people are avoiding them! back to listening now.
Fair point, but humanities also gets its own outreach center in the form of… well all media. The people who make entertainment products are typically humanities type people, for obvious reasons. Popular entertainment, movies, music, television, books, whatnot, are not slow to talk about the virtues of art. Evil scientists are a dime a dozen. As are well meaning scientists whose “hubris” leads to disaster. And your neutral Doc Brown scientists who aren’t evil, but are clearly irresponsible…
I guess what I’m saying is that the sciences have an active bad press to counteract where the humanities don’t have that problem to nearly the same extent… because it’s the humanities who tend to be the ones generating the press.
I have a master’s degree in creative writing and wrote a collection of poetry for my final project. Now I work in a research center that studies cybersecurity. My study of poetry has definitely helped me be more concise in language, and has helped me parse difficult passages that required careful attention. It has also helped me translate difficult theoretical language to be more understandable for a layperson, because I am a layperson myself. I didn’t expect to find myself here, but it’s been eye-opening to see how my previous studies are applicable.
Oh sure cross knowledge is helpful. I’m certainly not arguing against that. I’ve argued for it several times actually. I used to tutor writing and I had to deal with students who would complain that their degree required them to take X class even though they were a Y major.
What I’m arguing against is the push to try and meld humanities and science together, or that they’re equivalent fields. I think they should be closer, and play nicer with each other, but still be separate entities. Science offers a mode of investigation for discovering that which is true. Humanities offers perspectives by which to interpenetrate that which is true. Obviously both those things are important, but there a certain element that seems determined that either humanities can discover objective truth, or that empirical knowledge is worthless and art is the only real truth (actually had my Short Story professor try to argue that one, sadly). And perhaps the more humanities inclined have similar complaints about the sciences.
I wouldnt be surprised if that category was purely political in nature, created to satisfy an agenda. Effectively if a person who is legally married chooses to stay out of the workforce to either be a home maker and or care for children or other dependent family members, they too are understood as a dependent, effectively “paid” by whomever is the primary earner of the family.
If a housewife works part time, are they still considered “unpaid labor”? Probably depends who is doing the counting.
How then to explain how so many opera companies, orchestras, dance troupes, etc. etc. are in fact largely financed by private donations from the rich in the US?
Clear ever since the Romans. They are also useful to the state on their own for moving state resources such as militaries, administrators, etc.
I’d go see that movie!
I wish! You know how expensive it is to hire a really genuinely evil scientist these days? Most of them flake out of the job really quickly when they find out that they are tasked with building doomsday devices or breeding an army of atomic powered super monsters, whinging about their “ethics” and whatnot.
That there is are only really BA and BS courses of study rather forces the point to come out that way as one or the other. I’m enjoying your points very much, and agree mostly all.
I do worry that one of those degrees doesn’t indicate a well roundedness it’s supposed to. That we now have BEng and BMus and BMed is, to my mind, totally counterproductive.
I think we should teach people as much to open their minds and broaden their experiences as is possible while they are young - as it doesn’t quite get easier to learn as time goes on. We should insist, without pushing them into boxes, that they dip toes in lots of waters - that’s the strength of a University - lots of waters, and not as many lifeguards.
The nice thing about most universities is that, regardless of what degree you’re getting, BA or BS, you still have to take distribution courses, so you need to sample a little from all over. (And, in my case, the requirements for a BS in psychology were basically identical to the requirements for a BA in psychology, so it really came down to which one you happened to like better. Not entirely sure why they offer a BS and a BA in psych if they’re the same thing, but they do, at least in some places.)
The problem is, most people don’t want to do more studies outside their field, because university is seen as a job training thing now. It’s not supposed to be, unless you have a very specific job in mind, but now everyone wants their prospective employees to have a college degree. That pushes universities out of the role of being a place where people go to be better and more well rounded, and into the roll of job training. Hence people complain about courses that aren’t in their field, and take the most practical approach possible. And there’s nothing much the universities can do to control the motives behind the people enrolling. They can’t tell the job market to relax its standards.
In a way, part of the issue comes down to a social issue. We live in a time where jobs are a scarce resource. People have to do more to secure a job, and employers can raise their standards to try and weed out people they see as less fit for a job (regardless of the fact that having a college degree is no indication of ability to perform many jobs). Which is why I’m not certain that a solution to this problem can really come from a change in academic culture, but rather a change in the political and economic landscape.
It’s still unpaid labor. And not to mention work done by women who work full time AND still end up doing much of the house work and family care. Some men, too, of course, but it still falls primarily on the shoulders of women. Back in the early part of the century, more radical feminists wanted a mother’s pension as part of the the New Deal reforms. They didn’t get it, mainly because stay at home work isn’t valued as much (or it’s just expected because we are “nurturing” or some other BS). It’s not just that it’s not “financially” compensated (as this is a major measure of what we value in America) but that it’s not considered actual labor. I’m sorry, but raising children, taking care of a household, and often taking care of parents is real work that should be understood as that.
You know, I really hate that. I know you don’t mean it that way, but it’s basically saying to stop complaining. the world changes, we can make it change into something better. People have done it before, and we can do it again. Our social structures are just that - SOCIAL - and hence are malleable. Once you realize that, and you get enough others to see that, you can push for meaningful change on a societal level.
Yes, that is why we have taxes. But our country (or some faction of the people we elected to run it, anyway) have decided to it’s more important to cut taxes, especially on the so-called “job creators” (the 1% or whatever you want to call them) and to get rid of deficits rather than provide services for its citizens. We’re not winning by cutting taxes, we’re just making out country fall apart faster.
They might be into it personally, giving to local arts organizations, but with few exceptions (Warren Buffet, probably Bill Gates, maybe Zuckerberg?) tax cuts are more important to the current business class. I’d suspect that many of the companies that give money to, say, PBS would love to see it all funded privately, rather than through the state at all. Then of course, it ceases to be a public institution and can be employed for either virtue signaling or profiteering.
Because curiosity and knowledge seeking are some what the base motivations of humanity?
We should raise taxes.
continue to cut funding for the arts and humanities on the federal and state levels, then guess who the only people who are going to get those opportunities. You’re basically saying only the rich “deserve” to have access to those things. Democratization of education and access to the arts (and the ability to define that for our society in some way) has been a major part of the enlightenment project. We all deserve more than just basic democratic participation, we deserve the ability to enjoy what that can bring.
Well, duh. Of course. What category isn’t, actually.
Yes, actually. It’s not that sorted as you imply. I mean, god forbid that some people actually be concerned with some respect in our society. I mean, what horrible people must they be, focusing on that?
I think that’s valuable work which is not understood as such. It’s just often expected because “that’s how women are” and “what they naturally want to do.” Well, no, maybe not.
Historically, the role of housewife went along with not being considered a full citizen, with all the rights, privileges, and obligations that go along with that. We didn’t have the vote historically until fairly recently, we didn’t have as greater access to property, nor full protection under the law. Since in a capitalist society, we equate value with $$$, women’s work had lost it’s value in the running of a household (from what we’d consider traditional society).
And note that some of this is only speaking to a rather thin strata of women. Many women (black women, working class women) worked outside the home out of necessity. I can say that was certainly true in my house growing up - there wasn’t much of a question of whether or not my mom would work, she had to work in order that we could pay our rent, put food on the table, etc. So in some sense, it turns into a real white, middle class woman problem.
Precisely! And this is why I see the STEM VS Humanities as only operative if you’re there as part of a career path rather than a personal journey. I suppose people all go to college for different reasons, but I don’t think that a) they’re doing a very good job because they’re not really teaching work ethic (sticktuitiveness) and that’s 75% of any job, and b) they’re turning out people who need to make six figures to stay afloat (or have wealthy parents, or other lottery winnings) and that’s just not real most places!!
To be fair, that’s not really their fault, is it? They can’t fix the rising costs of a college education, inflation, or pretty much anything going on related to the cost of living. It’s a collective problem that we all need to be addressing, yeah?
Well yeah. You’re an educated educator. How many vice chancellors are requited to run a University well? How many would it take to drive down costs? I think you see where I am heading with this.
The young uns have been given bad expectations. There are few paths like that, they’re encouraging millions to get on it, and there is only room for 10s of thousands at those levels of success and reward. What do we do when we realize we’re not going to play professional ball? We’re grateful for the athletic scholarship that reduced our costs to learn that.
Know any students who take on mega mega debt to try to prove to the coaches that they can play? Students who join the team and make it big, without having been spotted in high school, recruited, and given resources? They don;t really make a team most places anymore. Intramural, sure, but not professional track.
No, the coaches have the eye for who might make it, who has potential to make it down (or at least towards) one of the few paths to success through sport, and while their feelings might get hurt in the end, if they don’t make the NFL, the damage to their credit isn’t so bad (traumatic brain injuries notwithstanding). I think Chemistry and Economics and Lit departments would be well served to stop accepting students who are taking on too large a debt for their talent/the job market they are entering. I know a lot of people who wound up real bitter in their 30s because they still had to pay for their dashed hopes of becoming an art detective or marine biologist. I also know an art detective, and two marine biologists.
I have no idea why college costs money, so I may sound a little awkward in trying to explain what I think could change. Not at all sure how to do it, but somethings gotta give (*other than the adjunct professors, they’re already bearing the brunt of it).
So I’m reading Consilience by EO Wilson, and one of his early points (to my reading, anyway) is how these different fields of study/interest should be treated with equal respect. Couldn’t agree more.
I think it would help me if you could give me what your ideal economic model is. Pretty much all of your points are good ones, but at the same time, how exactly is one to change things in a realistic way?
Right, this role was traditionally done by women. The whole unfair balance of domestic work is real. It’s a societal norm that will have to change over time, but I don’t know how. I suppose it will take exposure and shifting attitudes through awareness, because too many people are clueless.
I don’t think there is a realistic scheme to make it a financial compensation. Staying at home is cheaper than day care and bought lunches and maid service, etc, (plus, like I said, the raising of children aspect.) I think more people realize its actual “work”, though too many, because they aren’t exposed to it directly, probably have a different attitude. Like I said, it’s a societal norm that needs shifting. I wasn’t even a very good stay-at-home-dad, but it certainly keeps you busy.
I never meant to suggest one shouldn’t complain, but it also helps to say HOW it should change - specifically. Trump won partly on a lot of vague promises to make things better. Sanders promised a lot too, but I don’t recall a detailed plan on exactly HOW to make that work. Personally I am open to some government sponsored things like education and the like - but I really need a clear road map on how they will do it. I don’t think that is too much to ask.
My sister had a big deal about fairness growing up. As a child I wondered why everyone couldn’t just make the same amount of money - whether you’re a trash man or a doctor, as long as you’re doing your job well. I suppose if we had that sort of system, we might have more jobs that were based solely on academic/knowledge based pursuits.
But then again, look at it from the flip side. Would some guy pouring concrete or hammering nails all day be keen that his tax dollars to pay some egg head to site in a library reading old books all day. Or a mom to sit on her ass smoking and eating bon-bons occasionally yelling at her crotch fruit to quiet down so she can watch her shows. (note, I am not saying those two scenarios are reality, but perception.) Or the doctor who busted his/her ass for 8 years with a shit ton of debt and has to deal with bodily fluids on a daily bases and over time having a bitter attitude that they owe someone else something.
This might surprise you, but I am in partial agreement about raising taxes. First I think we need to drastically simplify the tax code. The stated corporate tax is much higher than what most corporations end up paying on. Second we need to relook at the corporate tax and income tax, as well as things like capital gains. Clearly the fact that the wealth gap is greater and greater shows that our current tax rates aren’t the huge burden some are crying foul about.
The hated 1% is something that I try to temper peoples’ aggression against. I agree we should do more to tax them as they are the ones who can easily pay it, but one has to be careful to not run them out of Town, and it has to be done in a semi-fair manner. At the same time, when others accuse the state of theft, I remind them that too often the super rich got there like in a game of Monopoly when they just dominate the board. There is a point where if you have enough money, and invest it properly, its about impossible to lose and your wealth just grows. Though a lot of them are doing good with that wealth too, specific examples would be the Gates Foundation.
It would be cheaper to replace the keyboard. It isn’t super hard, but I am super lazy… and really broke from taking a week off work and taking the kiddo to Oklahoma for our tribes heritage festival. Hey, I should post some pics on that, I’ll tag you. Go to see their eagle rescue this time and I traced our lineage back to my great-great-great-great-grandparents.
I didn’t? Fine. Tax havens and shifting the burden of support to the private rather than public sector. The more you have the “alternative” of having it funded by the rich, the more you can cut taxes and cut funding for shared resources.
GIFs or not, your “suspect” sounds like you have some inside knowledge to the foundations and corporations which help fund PBS. Or you just are going with “money means evil” type thing?
How is the Dallas Opera for example a tax haven? I’m sorry but you arent making sense, especially in the context of actual US history (your particular ballpark) where lots of arts organizations for the public good have been created and or endowed by private funding.
I don’t have one. I do think that taxation isn’t an evil. I don’t think there is any perfect model of running an economy. It’s about balancing what people think is necessary for us to live together in a civilization. We’re moving away from taxation funding public resources and a safety net. Given that we live in a capitalist society, I believe that’s a mistake. At our most prosperous, we had a pretty strong progressive tax system and at the same time a prosperous private sector. Moving back to something more like that would be helpful, I think.
It has changed already. For example, women can now own property in their own right, they are no longer completely subject to the whims of their husbands or fathers. They can’t be fired for getting pregnant. We’ve already come far, and we can keep moving in the right direction if we keep the pressure up.
Maybe there isn’t. But compensation isn’t just about the economics, it’s also about the culture. Again, I don’t think I have all the answers, but we need to understand house work as what it is and respect it as such, no matter how is doing it.
I imagine you vacuuming and doing dishes while rocking out to some 90s industrial!
I’d guess that there are lots of scholars who have devoted work to this and have ideas about what could be done. I do think that the road map for education is pretty clear, since we did that already. There is a reason why so many of the people who grew up during the depression and went to war in WW2 were able to come home, buy houses, go to college, and carve out prosperous lives (even without college). it’s because it was underwritten by the federal government (albeit in an incredibly racist and sexist way, but still). Cutting taxes to the barest of minimums means there is just less $$$ for collective projects.
I’m not suggesting we all get the exact same amount of money, more that we have some floor by which we decide is a comfortable living and we make sure that pretty much anyone working a full time job has that. This needs regulation by the federal government.
why not? Do you think that one is more valuable than the other? Why aren’t both kinds of labor considered equally valuable and necessary to the creation of a generally healthy society? There are TONS of things I can’t do. My cousin, for example, is a mechanic. I can’t do shit with cars, but he’s amazing at them. I see no reason why both me and my cousin can’t be fairly compensated for our labor. I think we both contribute to society in our own ways, yeah? It isn’t some competition as to who is more valuable, because both are valuable.
Uh oh, you’re hedging!
No. In fact, many of the wealthy probably pay a lower percentage of taxes than you or I do, because of where their wealth rests - they don’t pay income taxes, because they get their $$$ from capital gains and the like, not from an income (go read your Piketty on that). I think that some of his argument would address these issues.
