Postmodernism and the Humanities

Postmodernism: The Death of the Humanities

The central tenet of Postmodernist thought is that there is no such thing as overarching truth, or as Gertrude Himmelfarb has it in “Falling Into Theory” it is a “denial that there is any such thing as knowledge, truth, reason, or objectivity, and a refusal even to aspire to such ideals, on the ground that they are not only unattainable but undesirable—that they are indeed authoritarian and repressive” (86). Or as one of the professors in my English Department has it, “All you have is texts—everything else is just you talking.”

This model has been made popular recently, particularly with the fairly recent Stanley Fish era at Duke University, and though we've seen postmodernism before, it is “the first time that it has been done so with the approval of so many professors in so many disciplines—and not in the name of truth but in a show of disdain for the very idea of truth” (86).

What does this mean for the average humanities students, they who haven't been exposed to the ideological ramifications? To start with, a laugh. If there are no right answers, they don't have to worry about the answers they give, and celebrate with the class, which makes the professor feel good about themselves and their teaching style now that they're “reaching” the students and helping them to get “engaged.” Then, of course, the trap springs. The first exam comes and grades are posted. The theoretical stance of complete freedom of ideas runs into the hard wall of the practical university where, in the words of Alan Purves, “It's not supposed to be fun; it's supposed to be a mental discipline” (Falling Into Theory 214). The students then find themselves enmeshed in the absurd system where while there are no right answers, there are plenty of wrong ones. It dawns on the student that if every answer were “truly” equally ambiguous in terms of truth, there would be no point to the class, so the teachers have created this bizarre system of grading from Completely False on the low end to Acceptably Semi-True as the ideal.

The objective of the class quite naturally switches from finding true answers for the reward it introduces to their lives (the old, if unattainable, ideal) to finding the answer which pleases the professor for the only possible reward of the class (the higher grade). Which is to say nothing of the loss of credibility both the professor and department suffer. The end then, for the student, is that a degree becomes a marker of the success they've had at learning how to cynically manipulate the system, a kind of achievement through endurance, as opposed to a declaration by the University of the knowledge and skills (at least the officially promoted ones) gained by the student.

This doesn't leave the professor unscathed, either. As Dr. Mark Taylor from the University of Arkansas-Beede has it, “if school is not fun and does not have apparent meaning and/or benefit, young people will not participate, or participate in full and authentic ways.” To translate, if there is no apparent meaning (truth value) then all there is left in the classroom to engage students is “fun,” or as Dr. Taylor tactfully puts it, “variable” teaching. He goes on by trying to place the problems postmodernist teaching creates, or teaching “on what they found personally interesting without feeling significant responsibility to cover the entire content of the class,” firmly in the past, something that postmodernist teaching will somehow overcome by having the teacher do the rather vague “whatever is necessary.” In essence, once the student has learned how to perform an analysis the professor loses all forms of authority besides blatant grade-driven coercion. They are reduced to providing entertainment in the classroom as the only real alternative to answers.

Let's take a look at the logical development of Postmodernism. If there is no truth, there is no finally correct answer. If there is no right answer, there is only opinion. What is it then that qualifies one person to be a professor over another? The quality of their opinions? That, then is what the Humanities professor has reduced him/herself too—an armchair commentator no more worthy of being in their privileged position than any other high-school educated person. If this is the case then University Humanities Departments across the country have degraded into a massive testament to the vanity of the academic, while conveying nothing of value to future generations.

This is not, however, a call back to Formalism, or the time when “rather than provide correct answers, they provide tried and proven procedures that serve” (Purves 214). A reliance on form as the center as opposed to the opinion in postmodernism doesn't move us past High-School. This is a call for going back even further, when the purpose of the Humanities was a study of the Human Being, when poems and novels, songs and plays were studied for the truth they revealed about human character. Without that truth, without that insight, all you have is a dead text; the rest is just you talking.

http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/forum/spr05/mcliForumV9Sp05.pdf