Savior or Narcissus

I take the title of this post from a much-discussed 2008 blog post, "Will the Humanities Save Us?" written by Stanley Fish for the New York Times. In the post, Fish critiques Anthony Kronman's Education's End: Why our College and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life. In this book, Kronman argues that great works of art, literature, and philosophy provide the foundation for understanding the human spirit. Without such understanding, we're left with 80-hour work weeks, empty relationships, and Facebook.

For Kronman, the insights gained from the study of great works of art and literature transfers to other domains in one's life. The transfer may be neither immediate nor easily achieved, but it can and does happen. For Fish the study of great works helps one to, well, study more great works. The humanities, he writes, "don’t do anything, if by 'do' is meant bring about effects in the world. And if they don’t bring about effects in the world they cannot be justified except in relation to the pleasure they give to those who enjoy them."

It's possible--likely in fact--that Fish is being purposely polemical and playing the foil to Kronman's aspirations for work in the humanities. In any event, the debate is a boring one--particularly for its redundancy. Worse, it leaves humanities scholars with untenable choices: Savior or Narcissus.