The Clare Spark Blog

November 13, 2010

“Humanities, Anyone?”

Filed under: Uncategorized — clarelspark @ 11:12 pm
Tags: , , ,

Jascha Kessler

Thanks to Jascha Kessler for this guest blog. He is a poet, essayist, and Emeritus UCLA Professor of English.

Communication and Knowledge, two terms commonly attributed to the finest of benefits bestowed by the World Wide Web, do not of themselves suggest what today troubles professors of the Humanities. Speaking of whom, reminds me of a cartoon I saw in 1954, , showing the usual nondescripts at a cocktail party.  One brisk, bow-tied fellow asks another, *Read any good books lately?”  The shabby, grizzled tieless and round-shouldered other replies, *Wrote one.” Further to that, when in the summer of 1947 my 10 year-old kid brother paid me a visit at a resort hotel where I was a waiter that summer, I asked him what he had been reading.  “The Iliad,“ he answered.  And recited a passage.  “Good for you!” I exclaimed.  That honest child, abashed, giggled, *Well, no. CLASSIC COMICS, actually.”]

  Which digression at the outset leads me to the following observations. It’s loudly lamented our colleges are losing faith in, and (funding) support for, the Humanities. At the same time, people seem universally excited and entranced, deliriously engrossed by instant electronic communication and what they think is knowledge enhanced and ubiquitously available on their portable screens.  The scene today is almost like Caliban’s speech in Shakespeare’s THE TEMPEST, wherein he wonderingly tells of music and voices unseen around him everywhere on that desert isle — Ariel‘s and kindred angelic benevolent beings.

 I remind college students that what the WWW provides is mainly INFORMATION.  Well and good.  I am immensely grateful for the resources that can be called down with a click or two.    When I am at work writing or studying, I need but a ”keyword” to summon information I don’t clearly or exactly recall. Marvelous!  Wonderful! However, I read books in the several decades that formed my education.

 The students I greet in my UCLA classes, bright, willing, and eager though they are, haven’t the foggiest.  I find they mostly, like my grandchildren, have not read and digested too many books, or even stories or poems or history’s tales.  To say the least.  They seem to have been informed on the fly.  The world they live in affords downloads of a million or more “songs.”  It seems difficult to tell them one from another., as any shopper in a drugstore or supermarket knows.  Whereas at 81,  I find that the music, for instance of a Schubert song I’ve heard now and then since my teens, offers notes and phrases I’d not heard before.  Let alone the newfound sense of a line or two in a sonnet of Shakespeare!  I see for instance in my seminar titled, WHAT A POEM SAYS, that our 18-20 year olds cannot hear or grasp a simple word, let alone a phrase, though they try to guess.  They suppose the sound and spelling constitutes the word. They speak, sweetly and modestly themselves, yet seem not to know what the speech of poetry is.  They understand what they hear as familiar merely as TV chatter; they can apprehend the announcements of politicians and statesmen; yet au fond they do not,or cannot comprehend them as anything more or less than communication or information.

 Personally, I am perpetually astonished by the simplest phrase, say in a poem such as I have gone over with them word by word: what it imports, what it contains of the writer’s experience of the world in which it was uttered, and the history of that language’s aura, so to say.  It is no wonder clerics sermonize weekly, expounding a sentence or phrase ancient and familiar, yet essentially mysterious though it contains a well of feelings and thoughts and facts of life.  

 That is what teaching in the “Humanities” means.  True, a college major in Humanities is but the first step into the possible and potential recognition of one’s own being — or of one’s having been — in life itself.  I remind students that we do in fact see darkly, as in a mirror. That mirror is what Matthew Arnold once held up to show us what was the best thought and said … and written by larger lives and souls than youth recognizes.  Or age, for that matter.  History may be tales of sound and fury, narratives written by victors and their historians, as the cynic says.  Nevertheless the records of thoughts in the subjects labeled  Humanities are not labile or friable, or passing; whereas the discoveries of scientific research are, necessarily, always altering, superseding, or abandoning what has been thought to be the case yesterday.  

 It is so difficult to convey what  a sentence of poetry says.  The kids seemed to think the other week, for instance, that they understood what Emily Dickinson said in the first lines of her poem, which run “Hope is the thing with feathers/That perches in the soul …. “  Just to get at what hope may be, what the word as spoken says, not “means,” took an hour.  As for the poem’s 12-lines, they gradually constitute themselves as an extraordinary artefact, uttered as it were sotto voce if uttered at all, not immediately to be comprehended; indeed in reflection it suggests itself as almost anti-Gospel.

 At the other end of life: I have a acquaintance who travels frequently to international conferences, is a molecular biologist at UCLA commanding a top-flight lab maintained by today’s rich funding for a redhot field.  A modest man in his 60s, he has taken to asking what there is to do in those exotic venues where he does the panelists’ tango, having days of free time before, during and after sessions of science congress.  Lately he has become curious to learn something of the arts and architecture of those cultural capitals.  In short, he has not a clue regarding the Humanities. Surprised, he finds himself suddenly old enough — and eager — to begin to see and hear, perhaps to “experience” what the old poet Yeats called “monuments of unageing intellect.”  Better late than never?  Late, or too late! to paraphrase an apothegm of William Blake’s.

 Those “things” are what we profess who have been students of the Humanities wish to maintain.  Digitization of texts and images notwithstanding, though stored [safely?] and downloaded on request from the Great Cloud to be “experienced” virtually, are not events that will be melded into in our very marrow so to say.  Education requires their absorption over time.  For example, another cartoon recalled from 1954 may illustrate what is supposed our profession.   A young fellow picks up a heavy valise labeled, say, HUMANITIES.  He carries it ten years; is drawn looking older in the next frame; in another 10 years older still, etc.  At last he is seen bearded,  bent, a broken-winded geezer sitting on that luggage … unopened lifelong.  Caption: “The Professor as intellectual porter. Sardonic?  Yes.  Nevertheless it also describes the vast repository now filling with the 0s and 1s that represent whatever that remains of the past, nowadays called Knowledge, though more accurately termed Information.

 Most of our university and college disciplines, larded with pelf and power, carry on their backs  what might be called The Old Man of the Sea — whole buildings stuffed with suites of administrative officials. They with their hugely-funded professional schools, Engineering, Medicine, Law, and Social Sciences like Psychology, tend to regard HUMANITIES as the leaden burden of a portmanteau not worth the effort to schlep along or trouble unpacking, sorting, and demonstrating its content of millennia-old lives to ignorant youth.  They would prefer our wide-eyed, wondering kids deafened by ear-buds to try to hum one or two of the millions of downloadable “songs” — how many of those tunes are electronically potted? than to try to THIMK! as that IBM office poster once had it.  To welter drowned in noise seems preferable to those who haven’t the wispiest notion of what any one “thing” might be, let alone the cost of learning what it is.

I suppose it comes down to this: There is a growing consensus by our budgeteers that confuses the HUMANITIES, whatever they may be, were, or could be, with vocational training, necessary though that is to earning a living.   Professional schools are essentially vocational.  The proper term for them is Technology. the origins of which begin with the first flaked knife or arrowhead, the spark that was struck from a flint to make the fire that cooked our raw foods.  Like Science, like Theology, the Humanities are no mere luxury to be discarded or trimmed away to nothing because they cost a few bucks.  

 As for Technology, what engineering students are not taught is that after 10 years’ work at their speciality, they are usually obsoleted, the grant funds and investors’ cash having been directed elsewhere. For some the reward is being kicked upstairs to a manager’s.  Necessary, but not what they put their best years into.  And even manager’s slot and desk, itself soon obsoleted.    Discarded, they come to resemble the broken ones whom Mr. O’Brien in 1984 sent off to a dingy cafe to play chess and drink Victory gin while awaiting the hour when a bullet would be blasted into their head from behind one ear.

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: