LIL 420 – Elia's Site

For Journal #2 Part 1:

After reading Small’s introduction to The Value of the Humanities I started to think about this aspect of being held accountable for the work that I have done. On a personal level, I do not think I could ever study anything but something that deals with the human condition and I feel that the humanities is able to ask serious questions about how we got to where we are now that both critiques and appreciates what the past has provided us with. To an extent I do fall into this category of defending the humanities out of just this basis of their existence – or more specifically, how Small starts her introduction by saying, “The humanities might ideally find justification simply in our doing them”. Nonetheless, coupling this idea of how to really explain what I will have done for four years and considering Durings arguments, I do think that it could be a bit lazy on my end to just say I feel compelled and enriched by doing this work.

To better sum up why I am so drawn to the humanities I would explain that they help me become better equipped to understand the things that I want to do – legal advocacy, writing, and politics. I think that by studying English, writing, feminist/gender theory and political science, I have been able to grapple with why others have found meaning in particular texts, theories, societies, etc. and piece together a more holistic context. Personally, I feel better knowing that the questions I have about society today are recursive throughout time and that there has always been someone wishing to better their life through writing, political theory, and pushing progress on. Professionally, I do think that studying the humanities improves essential skills that are lacking today in the work environment such as listening to others’ arguments or perspectives, knowing how to communicate effectively – especially in written form – and being more empathetic to those around me. Those five central claims that Small uses to frame her discussion of the value of the humanities are really intriguing because I do think there is a lot to be said on how connected happiness is to individuals, society, democracy and why these values have been so long-lasting.

Part 2: Part 2 may feel somewhat disconnected, but one of our course goals is precisely to create bridges from your academic study to your professional work. Write a brief description of the kind of work you enjoy doing and/or think you’re well equipped to do. In general, you want to think about the nature of the work, its specific responsibilities, the environment you’d work in, who you’d work with, and your qualifications and temperament/disposition

The work I have done within my humanities courses and what I love to do are working with texts of the past and find out why at this particular moment did this particular person decide to write, speak, etc. about a specific subject – how was it relevant to their time and goals and what can it provide to me in the struggle to understand the problems of the present.Within the contemporary sources I have worked with, having those deeper contexts to help bolster critical thinking about a work enables me to read with greater understanding. I believe that I am well equipped to form meaningful interpretations, organize and execute an argument in written form and write both critically and analytically about a variety of subject matter from literary such as novels, prose, poetry, works of criticism, archival

In the work I hope to do as a lawyer it is essential to be able to read efficiently while not at the expense of deeper meaning and to actively listen to what others are saying that is not always clear. Appreciating the narrative and power positions in play – to dig into the layers and subtleties of what others express. Collaboration is also crucial in the work I have done in English and Writing courses with workshopping, giving and receiving constructive criticism/feedback, and having a sense of responsibility for the work I have done and having experience in a practical professional setting. In a more experiential learning environment my skills acquired as a writing fellow is something I look to when I assess the various atmospheres I might work within in future such as legal writing.

For this post, think about how you would describe the humanities to someone outside this area (how this field is different from, say, the social sciences or natural or physical sciences) AND think about the part of During’s article that best helps you do this. (Of course, you can discuss parts of his article that muddy things for you, too). You’ll need to do some work with During first, and this is where Harris comes in. Focus on “Projects” (p. 25) in Harris and write a paragraph that “expresses your understanding of During’s ‘project.’” Harris wants you to paraphrase and use at least one direct quotation, so do that.

What are the humanities?

If I were aiming to describe the humanities to someone totally outside this area, I think, as During’s article discusses, it’s important to be able to explain its expansive qualities while not minimizing the richness of each discipline that falls within the humanities. For instance, I might try and list different fields of study or thought like literature, history, philosophy, anthropology, arts, etc., just to give a sense that there are very real and rigorous discourses within each one of these fields and just because academia has agreed to group them within humanities it doesn’t mean each one lessens or becomes soft as some critics say. I also have a bone to pick with these connotations of soft and hard skills or discipline and the gendered subtext it brings.

Nonetheless, I would much rather try and appeal to my audience with this underlying love that humanity has had with trying through numerous angles to try and understand why we do and like what we do, why we want to know what others before us thought and how we can gain such valuable insight in our present from digging into the cultures we have created. While the natural/physical sciences might be easier for someone outside academia to get behind because of their quantifiable qualities, I would push against this idea and quote Karl Popper, a philosopher of science and someone whose ideas on the modern scientific method are evident today. He said, “I do not care what methods a philosopher (or anybody else) may use so long as he has an interesting problem and so long as he is sincerely trying to solve it.” I might urge others to view the humanities in the same way – it is neither more nor less than other scientific inquiries. It is just an interesting way to go about solving questions that humans have pondered since our existence.

During’s article helped me with this idea, and he urges us to first adequately understand this over-aching world of the humanities through its own history. Especially this idea that, “…the humanities cannot be defined by reference to a limited set of objectives they cannot be defined by a single purpose, either”(4). This makes me think of Oscar Wilde and this era of ‘art for art’s sake’ where he said, “Art is useless because its aim is simply to create a mood. It is not meant to instruct or to influence action in any way” (https://www.victorianweb.org/authors/wilde/artforartsake.html). Why do we have to quantify or make the knowledge and feelings that emerge from the humanities official? A helpful and interesting idea to grapple with that During raises is the concept of critique to construction – “In doing stuff, they make stuff”(6).

During’s project…

I would restate During’s project by saying that it is an endeavor to clarify the discussion surrounding the humanities from defensive, loosely defined history to one of a storytelling project that gives a lineage of the humanities history as a reflective analysis. He helps us see this through the organization of his work, which explains why it has been so hard to define the humanities and what has been said thus far and forces us to look at its ambiguity. After doing this groundwork, During can expand out become more specific in how the discipline has changed over time and where we can usually encounter the humanities such as academia, political theory, literature, etc. During’s project can seem to overwhelm us with all these unanswered questions of how to figure out what the humanities are. Still, in doing so, it opens a discussion of how interconnected they are and all the areas it touches upon, from objects, purpose, knowledge, ethos, or construction. Yet the analysis of those histories in showcasing the layers makes his point that there are barriers of what they were and what they are now. Braiding in narratives surrounding the humanities from the past to the present creates a more wholistic understanding of the term and where I think During’s central aim lies -telling the story of the humanities that assesses where it has been to feel more comfortable in the future of its abilities. For instance, During says, “The humanities exists as an archive which continually throws up “monuments” – works worthy of commentary – but no less continually demotes them”(9). By grounding the humanities in its actual history rather than abstract notions of what it does, During’s project allows the weight of the humanities tradition to be felt without neat borders and definitions because it wouldn’t accurately reflect its expanse.

Category: LIL 420

Journal #2

Journal #1

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories