Mark+Edmundson

Humanities professors have come up with a seemingly foolproof1） defense against those who trash degrees in， say， English literature or philosophy as wasted tuition dollars， one-way tickets to unemployment. Oh no， we say—the humanities prepare students to succeed in the working world just as well as all those alleged practical majors， maybe even better.

We offer tools of thought. We teach our students to understand and analyze complex ideas. We help them develop powers of expression， written and verbal. The lengthy essays we assign enhance their capacity to do independent work. At our best， we teach them how to reason—and reasoning undergirds2） every successful professional project.

In the short term， such a defense may seem effective. But it is dead wrong.

In the Chronicle of Higher Education， a distinguished humanities scholar recently wrote with pride about a student of his， a classics major， who wrote brilliantly on Spinoza3） yet plans to become a military surgeon. A recent article in Business Insider offered “11 Reasons to Ignore the Haters and Major in the Humanities.” For example： Youll be able to do things machines cant do in a service economy. Youll learn to explain and sell an idea. Youll stand out in the crowd in the coming STEM4） glut5）. In the same publication， Bracken Darrell， the chief executive of Logitech， talked about why he loves hiring English majors： “The best CEOs and leaders are extremely good writers and have this ability to articulate and verbalize what theyre thinking.”

Some of my colleagues are getting quite aggressive about this line of reasoning. “I think we actually do a better job getting people ready for law school and business than the people in economics do，” a good friend who teaches humanities told me not long ago.

It seems that theres no problem， then. Want success？ Come on in， our tent flap is open.

But the humanities are not about success. Theyre about questioning success—and every important social value. Socrates taught us this， and we shouldnt forget it. Sure， someone who studies literature or philosophy is learning to think clearly and write well. But those skills are means to an end. That end， as Plato said， is learning how to live ones life. “This discussion is not about any chance question，” Platos Socrates says in The Republic， “but about the way one should live.”

Thats whats at the heart of the humanities—informed， thoughtful dialogue about the way we ought to conduct life. This dialogue honors no pieties6）： All positions are debatable； all values are up for discussion. Ralph Waldo Emerson7） speaks for the spirit of the humanities in “Self-Reliance” when he says that we “must not be hindered by the name of goodness， but must explore if it be goodness.” He will not accept what the world calls “good” without consideration： Hell look into it as Socrates did and see if it actually is good. When Montaigne8） doubts received opinion and asks himself what he really knows and what he does not， he is acting in the spirit of the humanities. “Que sais-Je？9）” or “What do I know？” was his motto.

Socrates， who probably concentrates the spirit of the humanities better than anyone， spent his time rambling around Athens asking people if they thought they were living virtuous lives. He believed that his city was getting proud and lazy， like an overfed thoroughbred10） horse， and that it needed him， the stinging gadfly， to wake it up. The Athenians had to ask themselves if the lives they were leading really were good. Socrates didnt help them work their way to success； he helped them work their way to insight and virtue.

Now， Americans are in love with success—success for their children in particular. As a parent of sons in their 20s， I understand this and sympathize with it. But our job as humanists isnt to second11） whatever values happen to be in place in society. Were here to question those values and maybe—using the best that has been thought and said—offer alternatives.

We commonly think in binaries. Vanilla is the opposite of chocolate. The opposite of success—often defined today as high-status work and a big paycheck—is failure. But the great books tell us that this is not necessarily true. Think of Henry David Thoreaus life of voluntary poverty and his dedication to nature and writing. Some of my students have cultivated values similar to Thoreaus and have done so at least in part through the study of the humanities. Theyve become environmental activists and park rangers12）. Or they have worked modestly paid jobs to spend all the time they can outdoors. They are not failures. Nor are those who work for the poor， or who explore their artistic talents， or who enlist in the military. These students are usually not in pursuit of traditional success. They have often been inspired by work theyve encountered in humanities courses—and， for a time at least， they are choosing something other than middle-class corporate life.

The humanities are not against conventional success； far from it. Many of our students go on to distinguished careers in law and business. But I like to think they do so with a fuller social and self-awareness than most people. For they have approached success as a matter of debate， not as an idol of worship. They have considered the options. They have called “success” into question and， after due consideration， they have decided to pursue it. I have to imagine that such people are far better employees than those who have moved lockstep13） into their occupations. I also believe that self-aware， questioning people tend to be far more successful in the long run.

What makes humanities students different isnt their power of expression， their capacity to frame an argument or their ability to do independent work. Yes， these are valuable qualities， and we humanities teachers try to cultivate them. But true humanities students are exceptional because they have been， and are， engaged in the activity that Plato commends—seeking to understand themselves and how they ought to lead their lives.

If some of our current defenders have their way14）， the humanities will survive， but in name only. The humanities will become synonymous with unreflective training for corporate success.

What would Socrates think？

有些人詆毀英語文學或哲學等學科的學位，說這是浪費學費，是通向失業(yè)的單程票。對此，人文學科的教授們已經(jīng)提出一種貌似萬無一失的辯解。哦，不對，我們會說——和所有那些號稱很實用的專業(yè)一樣，人文學科也能讓學生做好準備，在職場獲得成功，甚至可能讓他們做得更好。

我們提供思維的工具。我們教學生怎樣理解和分析復雜的觀點。我們幫助學生培養(yǎng)表達能力，包括書面表達和口頭表達能力。我們布置的長篇論文增強了他們獨立工作的能力。我們在最佳狀態(tài)時教他們?nèi)绾瓮评怼评硎撬袑I(yè)項目成功的基礎。

短期來說，這種辯解也許看似有效，但卻是大錯特錯。

最近有一位著名的人文學者在《高等教育紀事報》上撰文，驕傲地談及他的一個學生。這位古典文化專業(yè)的學生撰寫了關于斯賓諾莎的優(yōu)秀論文，卻打算成為一名軍醫(yī)。最近在“商業(yè)內(nèi)幕”網(wǎng)站上，有篇文章提出了“忽視厭惡者并選擇人文專業(yè)的11個理由”。例如：在服務型經(jīng)濟中，你將能做機器做不到的事情；你將學會解釋和推銷一個想法；在即將出現(xiàn)的科學、技術(shù)、工程和數(shù)學人才過剩的局面中，你將脫穎而出。在同一個網(wǎng)站上，羅技公司首席執(zhí)行官布萊肯·達雷爾談論了為什么他喜歡聘用英語專業(yè)的學生：“最好的首席執(zhí)行官和領導都是非常出色的寫手，具有用語言表達其想法的能力?！?/p>

在這種論證思路下，我的某些同事正變得相當具有挑釁性?！拔艺J為，我們其實比經(jīng)濟學專業(yè)的人更能讓學生為進入法學院或商界做好準備?！币晃唤倘宋膶W科的好友不久前這樣告訴我。

那么，似乎就不存在問題了。想要成功？來吧，我們的大門向你敞開。

但是人文學科并非關乎成功，人文學科的內(nèi)容是質(zhì)疑成功——以及每一個重要的社會價值觀。蘇格拉底教給了我們這一點，我們不應忘記。的確，研究文學或哲學的人在學習如何清晰地思考以及如何寫好文章，但那些技能是達到目的的手段。而目的，正如柏拉圖所言，是學習如何度過自己的一生?！斑@個討論并不是針對任何一個偶然的問題，”柏拉圖筆下的蘇格拉底在《理想國》中說道，“而是關于一個人應當怎樣生活?！?/p>

這就是人文學科的核心——關于我們應該如何生活的有見地、深思熟慮的對話。這種對話不崇尚虔誠：所有立場都是可商榷的；所有價值觀都在討論之列。在《論自助》一文中，拉爾夫·沃爾多·愛默生道出了人文學科的精神，他說我們“不應被善的名義羈絆，而是必須探求其是否為善”。他不會不假思索地接受世人所謂的“善”：他會像蘇格拉底那樣對其進行探究，弄清楚它是否真的是善。當蒙田對人們普遍接受的觀點進行質(zhì)疑，并自問自己到底知道什么、不知道什么時，他正在踐行人文學科的精神?！癚ue sais-Je？”（即“我知道什么？”）是他的座右銘。

蘇格拉底想必比任何人都能體現(xiàn)人文學科的精神。他經(jīng)常在雅典四處漫步，詢問人們是否認為自己過的是有德行的生活。他認為自己的城市正變得傲慢而懶惰，就像一匹吃得過飽的純種馬，需要他這只能將其蟄痛的牛虻來把它喚醒。雅典人必須捫心自問，自己正在過的生活是否真的好。蘇格拉底并未幫助他們走向成功；他幫助他們獲得洞察力和美德。

如今的美國人熱愛成功——特別是他們孩子的成功。作為幾個20多歲男孩的父親，我理解這一點，也有同感。但作為人文學家，我們的工作不是贊同社會中恰好大行其道的任何一種價值觀。我們的存在是為了質(zhì)疑這些價值觀，并且或許——利用已有的思想和言論的精華——提供其他選擇。

人們的想法往往非此即彼。與巧克力相對的是香草，與成功——今天往往被定義為社會地位高的工作和豐厚的薪水——相對的是失敗。但那些偉大的著作告訴我們，事實未必如此。想想亨利·戴維·梭羅甘于清貧的生活和他對自然與寫作的投入。我的一些學生也樹立了類似于梭羅的價值觀，這其中至少有一部分原因是學習了人文學科。他們成了環(huán)保積極分子和公園管理員，或者為了盡一切可能待在室外而從事收入一般的工作。他們并不是失敗者。那些為窮人工作的人、發(fā)掘自己藝術(shù)天分的人和參軍的人都不是失敗者。這些學生通常并不是在追求傳統(tǒng)意義上的成功。他們往往是在學習人文專業(yè)的課程時讀到某些作品，從而受到啟發(fā)——至少在一段時間內(nèi)，他們選擇的是與中產(chǎn)階級公司上班族所不同的生活。

人文學科并不反對傳統(tǒng)的成功，絕非如此。我們的很多學生后來在法律界和商界的職業(yè)生涯非常出色。但我傾向于認為，他們之所以如此是比大多數(shù)人有著更全面的社會意識和自我意識。因為他們將成功視為一種可商榷的東西，而非崇拜的偶像。他們已經(jīng)考慮過多種選擇。他們質(zhì)疑過“成功”，在充分思考之后，他們決定了要追求成功。我能想象，與那些按部就班選擇職業(yè)的人相比，這樣的人會成為好得多的員工。我也相信從長遠來看，了解自己并且富有質(zhì)疑精神的人往往會取得更大的成功。

人文專業(yè)學生的獨特之處不在于其表達能力，也不在于其構(gòu)建論點或是獨立工作的能力。沒錯，這些都是可貴的素質(zhì)，我們?nèi)宋膶W科的老師也努力培養(yǎng)這些素質(zhì)。但真正的人文專業(yè)學生之所以出類拔萃，是因為他們做過并且正在做柏拉圖所推崇的事——力圖理解自己以及搞明白自己應該怎樣生活。

如果我們當前的某些辯護者得逞，那么人文學科會生存下來，但名存實亡。人文學科將與致力于職場成功卻不用思考的訓練無異。

如果這樣，蘇格拉底會做何感想呢？

1. foolproof [?fu?l?pru?f] adj. 十分安全的，笨人也能用的

2. undergird [??nd?（r）?ɡ??（r）d] vt. 從底部加固；對……給予支持

3. Spinoza：即巴魯赫·斯賓諾莎（Baruch Spinoza， 1632～1677），荷蘭哲學家，西方近代哲學史上重要的理性主義者，代表作為《倫理學》（Ethics）。

4. STEM：指科學（science）、技術(shù)（technology）、工程（engineering）和數(shù)學（mathematics）。

5. glut [ɡl?t] n. 過量；供應過剩

6. piety [?pa??ti] n. 虔誠；虔誠的行為（或話語、信仰等）

7. Ralph Waldo Emerson：拉爾夫·沃爾多·愛默生（1803～1882），美國散文作家、思想家、詩人、演說家。下文提到的《論自助》（“Self-Reliance”）是愛默生的一篇著名散文。

8. Montaigne：即米歇爾·德·蒙田（Michel de Montaigne， 1533～1592），文藝復興時期法國作家，以《隨筆集》（Essays）三卷留名后世。

9. Que sais-Je？：法語，意為“我知道什么？”，同時也是法國知名普及性百科知識叢書的書名。

10. thoroughbred [?θ?r??bred] adj. （馬、犬等）良種的，純種的

11. second [?sek?nd] vt. 贊同，支持

12. ranger [?re?nd??（r）] n. 〈美〉國有森林護林員，國家公園管理員

13. lockstep [?l?k?step] adj. 因循守舊的

14. have ones way：隨心所欲，得逞