The outgoing president of the Modern Language Association Robert Scholes [pictured] used his farewell speech to admonish literature professors from around the country about the state of their field. Scholes spoke on the evening of December 28 to MLA convention attendees. Scholes is a Research Professor in the Department of Modern Culture and Media at Brown University, where he has been since 1970. He retired from a full-time teaching post in 1999.
Scholes spoke on a subject, the future of the humanities, of much contention and discussion at the MLA. His message was earnest and urgent: how to teach and maintain “The Humanities in a post-Humanist World.” His remarks considered the questions “Are we in a post-humanist world?” and “Is there any use for the humanities?”
While it may be too soon to determine whether this is a post-humanist world, it is not premature to declare it an “anti-humanist world,” according to Scholes. The humanities have lost their authority, and the keepers of the humanities are not without fault. Scholes cited the “inanities of political correctness” and the perils of the deconstructionism that the academy has embraced for the past few decades.
The public, said Scholes, has lost faith in the humanities and has turned to science. The deconstructionist bent of the academy has fostered a not baseless perception of an atmosphere where “anyone can say anything.” As a result, the public has gravitated towards the truth-seeking hard sciences.
If the academy can save the humanities, Scholes believes that the conception of the subject warrants reconsideration. “The concept we have of literature is from the Enlightenment concept of belles lettres,” Scholes said. The academy should discard their “belles-lettres syndrome,” and resist the temptation to turn literature into “sacred texts.” The academy must not, however, resist studying controversial materials. “We must read and discuss important religious and sacred texts,” he said.
If academics consider anything sacred, it is critical theory, and, as a result of the academy’s genuflection to theory, “theory became self-absorbed and failed.” The intent of critical theory was to justify the work of academics to the public. “Theory failed to achieve its ends in this respect,” Scholes confessed. Moreover, on account of the “anyone can say anything” mode of criticism, the humanities have not only failed to justify their place in the public sphere, but also increasingly in the academic sphere.
The humanities, Scholes urged, should develop a broader scope, moving away from the theory-laden provincialism that has come to define the study. The role of the humanist in this anti-humanist world should be as expositors of cultural history. He recalled the writing of Cardinal John Henry Newman whose Idea of a University argued against the notion that a liberal education gives virtue. While Scholes did not endorse Newman’s view, he did suggest that humanities scholars might back away from the proselytizing that has earned public scorn. “We can illuminate the question of what virtue is,” Scholes said. The humanities can “make minds, not morals.”
Humanists can prove their relevance by “show[ing] how our heritage can help us through the present.” The humanities, however, face an increasingly difficult fight, as the generation of future professors hardly deviates from the status quo. The profession, according to Harvard’s Louis Menand, who spoke earlier at the MLA conference, “does not allow iconoclasm.”
“The profession is cloning itself,” Menand said.
The Modern Language Association met December 27-30 in Philadelphia for its 120th annual conference. The MLA consists of graduate students and professors of languages and literatures. The conference features nearly 800 panel discussions and reception and welcomes over 9,000 students and professors.
Larry Scholer is a staff writer at Accuracy in Academia.
