Customer Reviews

Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities (The Public Square)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I was very much looking forward to this book as I have enjoyed and learned from Martha Nussbaum's writing in the past. Moreover, I strongly believe in the general thrust of this book -- that the humanities are being undervalued as our colleges and public schools become more and more career oriented. I teach humanities (English and Philosophy) myself, so I was predisposed to her thesis before I even picked it up.

But I found the argument to be mediocre at best; in fact, the whole book read like it was a journal article that had been stretched, padded, and embellished to meet the minimal page count to be credibly marketed as a book. There's also something of a dashed-off quality to the prose, lots of repetition from chapter to chapter along with loose sentences, incomplete thoughts, vagueness, and other signs of haste.

The book makes a decent case for critical thinking, but seems to lack that quality itself -- it unhesitatingly endorses the educational thinking of Rousseau, Dewey, and Tragore without critically engaging their thought or methods. Nussbaum argues that we need critical thinking in order to challenge traditions without seeming to be aware that she is simply making claims based on authorities that form a tradition, and, indeed, lots of educators and philosophers challenge these approaches. And she nowhere critically engages the possibility that some traditions might be valuable.

I am reminded that Mark Edmundson cogently observed that what passes for critical thinking these days is using methods of thought and vocabulary that one doesn't really believe to debunk world views one would rather not be challenged by. I fear that Nussbaum's approach to critical thinking would probably lead to that kind of superficiality.

Nussbaum's desire to mold students into "citizens of the world" whose perspective is global is, to me, naive idealism (and revealing of the political agenda behind her thinking). I'm all for students learning as much as they can about other cultures and political systems -- at least there we agree -- but there is no all-encompassing global perspective that can embrace, say, strict Sharia laws that force women into subservience and Western feminism (I could give a legion of other examples). Moreover, Nussbaum casually drops in the tired old trinity of "race, gender and class" enough to make me think that she would embrace crass West-bashing, such as we have seen in culture studies programs for decades now -- the kind that forgets that critical thinking is foundational to the Western tradition (indeed, she invokes Socrates at several junctures). (And please, I know that the West is not without fault, and that its faults should be exposed and corrected; but the West is not without virtue, and all too often those virtues are ignored or denigrated.)

I agree entirely that our students (and future workers, managers, leaders) need to be skilled at critical thinking and have educated imaginations, and I wholeheartedly endorse the book's title and theme: "Not for Profit." Among the great things about the humanities is that they help us to live complete and meaningful lives and to see things from other perspectives beyond that of "how is this going to make me money." In fact, I like to joke with my students that the great benefit of a humanities degree is that I can B.S. myself into believing I am happier with my pittance of a salary than I would be as a millionaire tycoon.

I simply don't think this book is worthy of Martha Nussbaum's powers as a thinker and a writer. She's better than this, and I expect she'll prove that on her next outing.

Nussbaum calls her book 'a manifesto'. Her manifesto on why democracy needs the humanities is made up of 6 interlocking propositions: (1) there is a crisis going on in education today; (2) this crisis is the shedding away of the humanities, which produce the necessary espirit de corps and competencies for an active and productive democracy; (3) this shedding away of the humanities can be attributed to the growth-oriented economy, which prefers professional skill-ism rather than the critical thinking skills and the imaginative empathy cultivated by the humanities; (4) at the same time, events in the world today are heading in the direction where more international cooperation and collaboration is needed, which must surely demand critical thinking and imaginative empathy for cross-cultural work; (5) however, we are heading in the opposite direction through our present attention on standardized testing and technically oriented education directives, which produce "useful machines" (pp. 2) but not imaginative and empathetic human beings; (6) hence, not only do we ultimately undermine our own cherished democracy, but ultimately too we undermine the solidarity needed for a universal democracy that can solve universal problems affecting all.

To be fair, we will have to take Nussbaum's argument one step deeper: that societies, and hence to a certain extent also publicly funded universities in many places, prefer practical skill-ism rather than the humanities. Since the growth-oriented economy requires skillful workers who can obey and work rather than to question and think, classes oriented to imparting practical or applied skills are much more favored by policy-makers, bosses, parents and students alike--because everyone in this squarish ecology seemed well-pleased. However, even growth demands people who possess the abilities to think and imagine creatively, and the humanities can help to cultivate that. Therefore, it is according to Nussbaum, never an 'either/or' for or against the humanities; rather, we can have both growth and the humanities. As a matter of her opinion, to have growth we ought to invest and grow the humanities.

I leave you to ponder on Nussbaum's surprising acquiescence. But the strangeness of this acquiescence to incorporate the humanities into the growth-oriented economy is surely, and only, because of Nussbaum's paradoxical nullification of the very thing she sought to defend in this book: how is it possible to defend the humanities by deliberately subjecting, and designing the humanities so that it can support growth (i.e., economically oriented growth laced with many externalities)? Thankfully Nussbaum's did not say how, beyond these hints, and to what extent this can be done. But at least one thing is clear: the kind of growth Nussbaum criticizes is also the kind of growth that bears no special allegiance to anything or anyone; as long as something expands the economy in the short-term, this something is valued. Thus to expect growth to value the humanities because the humanities seem to impart valuable fundamental and hence, somewhat long-term competencies with uncertain outcome is naive at best.

And half expecting this book to fulfill its large graphical and title promise on the critique of the for profit system (i.e., "NOT FOR PROFIT..."), Nussbaum unfortunately did not venture into the intricacies of the 'FOR PROFIT' teleology working at every level of the society today. Instead what Nussbaum presented is a defense for Socratic pedagogy and a fastpaced clip through the ideas of several education progressivists, names like Rousseau, Dewey and Tagore. I don't think Socrates needs to be defended again; and I certainly don't think Rousseau is as innocent as Nussbaum made him to be, or Dewey so easily and swiftly understood. Rather, I think that both Socrates and Rousseau et al.--the progressivists--are misplaced as two whole chapters in a book with a more critical and urgent mission. For these reasons, I am also not convinced.

In more than a few places Nussbaum makes uncritical statements that seem at odds with the overall thesis in her manifesto, for example, "knowledge is no guarantee of good behavior, but ignorance is a virtual guarantee of bad behavior" (pp.81). Well, that depends on what kind of ignorance one speaks of. Arrogant and inconsiderate ignorance, yes, of course. But humble and considered ignorance: isn't that the goal of Socratic teaching and the beginning of knowledge? Similarly but on a broader interpretation, Nussbaum's uncritical call for the 'universal citizen' or the cosmopolitan citizen demands a very careful review: who and to what extent, can be a citizen of the world today and for what purpose or mission? And what are the underlying ethos of such a global citizenship? What are its underlying binding values? Without answering these questions, we can only suspect that what Nussbaum has in mind as the underlying ethos is the ideal form of democracy that she is familiar with. This is unlikely to go well with everyone in the world today. Not only so, Nussbaum's uncritical call is likely to exacerbate her very quest for a productive citizenship of the world.


In all, I think this manifesto is a missed opportunity for a stronger and a more convincing call-to-arms in the humanities today. Insofar as Nussbaum's premise is concerned, I think it is relevant for the complex crisis the world is facing today: what to do at the limits of the market economy and how to deal with the threats of the environment at its limits. However, Nussbaum's subsequent arguments stray too often from the deeper and much more urgent mission that her premises promised.

In this book the author reminds us that a successful democracy requires citizens who can engage in reasoned argument and who have the ability to see issues from multiple points of view. Liberal education fosters both abilities, and therefore is essential to democracy. So runs Nussbaum's straightforward argument in this educational manifesto. Nussbaum also points out that liberal education is under threat in the few countries where it has been established at all, an observation that is confirmed by recent events taking place at British universities (the attempt to make philosophy professors redundant at Kings College and the closing of the philosophy department at Middlesex). Overall this is good piece of writing, combining passionate enthusiasm with calm arguments and informative examples. Not for Profit reminds us all that the deeper purposes of liberal education go well beyond personal advancement or national competitiveness. A thoughtful and important book.

I started this little book about a month ago and just got around to reading the last chapter of it last week. It was pretty good, I would say. Nussbaum describes it as a manifesto, and this is most certainly a correct characterization. Generally, she argues that the humanities and liberal arts education are vital to democracy because they help to cultivate informed, empathetic, and critical world citizens: the sort of people necessary to sustain democratic societies. She criticizes the growth-oriented model of education in which the natural sciences and engineering (among other disciplines) are promoted at the expense of history and literature and philosophy; the former set increases GNP whereas the latter only contributes to the full realization of its students' humanity, which does not directly increase GNP. Nussbaum's own values are evident in her arguments, but this is no criticism, as (1) that her book is a manifesto does not compel her to conceal her values and (2) I agree with much of what she says. I am skeptical that her arguments will have much impact in places where liberal arts education is not already the norm, and I only hope that they will help to sustain it in places where it is. After all, the growth-oriented model is steamrolling ahead.

I share the disappointment of certain other reviewers with this book. While Martha Nussbaum's position here -- a defense of the value of a humanities education -- will appeal to many (me included), based on her eminence and her admirable previous work one would expect her case to be better argued than it is.

Nussbaum stresses how the humanities strengthen democratic citizenship by fostering critical thinking, encouraging us to transcend mere local loyalties, and exercising our ability to imagine sympathetically the predicaments of others.

One troubling deficiency is that she gives us primarily just opinions, little significant empirical evidence, that the humanities indeed do these things. Nor does she even consider that there might be other means to achieve the same ends, either through formal education (doesn't science require critical thinking, for instance?) or otherwise (how about transacting business as a means of broadening understanding of others, for example?).

Further, as it turns out, it is not just the humanities per se that she is advocating. A good part of her argument revolves around the merits of Socratic inquiry, including for young children. She also promotes the value of play and cooperative activity. Her educational formula is a concoction of the ideas of Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Alcott, Mann, Froebel, Dewey, Winnicott, and Tagore.

She touches lightly and uncritically on the programs of each of these men, giving somewhat more attention to Tagore. Her knowledge of him and of education in India are areas where I gained some value from this book, as I suspect may be true for many other American readers.

Nussbaum believes that liberal arts education has been better rooted in America than in Europe or India, where a single-subject emphasis has been the norm. Yet she does not tell us whether she thinks that democratic practice is relatively stronger in the U.S. than in those other nations as a consequence (the conclusion that would seem to follow from her premises, unless there are other unmentioned factors that outweigh educational content, which there may well be).

Her chief concern is that the arts and humanities apparently now face cuts all over the world, including the U.S., in favor of technical programs aimed at economic growth. She does not say just how this trend might be reversed, but even those who share her views may be skeptical that books like Not for Profit will do much to sway policy-makers.

There is a great deal of irony in the size of this book and the cost of it and the title. By far the smallest book, it weighs less than "Poetic Justice" and all of the others I have I consider Tomes, I was surprised how small it was when it arrived in the mail with Frances Fukuyama's "The Origins of Political Order" - I always want to order enough to get free shipping. But despite the irony of this, the book reads clearly and summarizes the great arguments for Bildung and explains why this seems in danger because of economic cutbacks. I find it interesting to contrast it with Charles Murray's "Real Education". Thing is Murray is not concerned with the impact tech training has on citizenship and Nussbaum is. We might also tie this in with Ronald Dworkin's "Is Democracy Possible Here?" Putting these together seems to argue that Democracy is a luxury and with the economic situation getting worse we may see the end of luxury in even those places that have had it. I have students who are from Sudan. It has been a great experience getting to know them and learning a bit about their culture and trying to help them learn English and get a sense of what "our culture" is like. Knowing better, but wanting to make a point, I asked them if they have and orchestra in Sudan. You can imagine the look of disbelief they gave me - but mostly because they were at a loss regarding what an orchestra was. Imagine the infrastructure, the social networks, the security, and the kinds of childhoods all involved in creating an orchestra! Of course there are none. (It is also interesting to see where there are orchestras and where there are not and this would be an even more intriguing statistic than Thomas Friedman's "Golden Arches" theory.) I suspect that until you have a functioning society that is capable of creating an orchestra you will not be able to create a democracy either. But the orchestra comes first. Now Nussbaum brings up the question in my mind of what happens to a democracy that can no longer field an orchestra.

This concise and well-written book thoroughly debunks two of the main areas of focus in American education: 1) That education is primarily important for creating good workers, and 2) That math and science are the most important subjects. This book makes a strong case that education should primarily serve to create better and more able citizens and more fulfilled humans and that the humanities are every bit as important as math and science. The author provides a brief history of progressive education from the late 18th century up through Dewey and Tagore. The latter is an interesting figure, having introduced many progressive ideas into Indian education (on top of being an accomplished dancer, choreographer, and artist). In a time when corporate education reformers are running roughshod over American education, this book is valuable and timely.

Not for Profit should be entitled Not the Correct Title. While Nussbaum presents a compelling and interesting argument, she simultaneously and repeatedly contradicts her own very basic, overarching point. According to Nussbaum, the public is in "the midst of a crisis of massive proportions and grave global significance" due to the "cutting away" of the humanities and arts programs in our global education systems. Nussbaum argues that instead, our global education systems are placing extreme importance upon generating profit making students, interested only in preparing them for future careers by skilling and drilling, teaching to the test, and failing to encourage critical, rational and imaginative debate and questioning of policies and authorities. Nussbaum believes that by cutting away these programs, we are failing to create "suitably educated global citizens." However, the point of title contention emerges when Nussbaum explicitly suggests, that in fact, an education that incorporates and encourages the humanities and arts actually does support "a strong economy and a flourishing business culture." So, then, according to Nussbaum, the humanities and arts are actually "for profit" because they cultivate a particular kind of thought process and critical engagement among students that then allows for a thriving economy and business culture, both of which operate around money, or profit. By entitling her book Not for Profit, I fear that Nussbaum falsely presents the fundamental argument of the entire piece. This seemingly simplistic mis-titling could in fact deter the primary audience that I feel Nussbaum is attempting to reach (or should be attempting to reach) from picking the book up in the first place. That specific audience would likely include the educators, politicians and lawmakers who are pushing for the humanities and arts programs to be cut from our education systems in order to make more room for profit making programs. Since Nussbaum repeatedly acknowledges these people and their ultimate goal of providing profit making educations for students, it seems incredibly counterproductive to entitle your book Not for Profit, when in fact, you are presenting a very solid, articulate and well thought out argument for why these areas of studies are in fact very valuable and very profitable, indeed.

At a time when the domination of scientism reigns unchecked this discourse on the imbalance in much current education is both timely and important. Especially in the current debates over religion, evolution, and the issues of secularism, an observer becomes suspicious that scientifically trained authors are concealing a kind of rank ignorance of cultural history, philosophy, literature, and anything not included in a standard science track. Nothing else can explain the 'smart' stupidity in the cult of scientism now in high tide. Nussbaum's book is therefore important reading for those considering the condition of contemporary education. The slant of the book is on the economic aspects of education, and this is also of utmost importance. The dollar value of specialized, usually scientific, education has created an insufferable arrogance and complacency in the technical cadres, and the result is a kind of 'half an animal' romping through all forms of social discourse.
The remedy is unclear, and requires something more than a sprinkling of humanities courses. The entire history of cultural duality, viz. the geisteswischenshaften/naturwissenschaften streams, since the Enlightenment and Romantic movement suggest the need for an extra-scientific domain of discourses that can challenge, transcend and outsmart the current floodtide of scientific overspecialization.
That requires also a new and more basic kind of humanities.

This book is part essay on the history and meaning of a liberal arts education and part manifesto to advocate that society, schools, and other interested parties get back to educating instead of administering standardized tests. For Nussbaum, one of the most influential contemporary philosophers, the major goal of education is to create thoughtful citizens who can make intelligent and informed decisions about their own lives as well as about the society they live in. Much of current education, instead, is about mindless repetition, teaching to the test, and other insanities exacerbated (though, to be fair, not created) by the so-called "no child left behind" policy of the Bush years (which is being continued by Obama). One would be only slightly paranoid, of course, if one began to suspect not just incompetence behind the sorry state of education in the US, but a more deliberate and systematic attempt at demolishing it (especially the public part) to make more room for the ideological nonsense of the extreme right and the ability of our plutocracy to exploit an ignorant citizenry. Nussbaum doesn't go quite that far, but her voice is loud and clear, if at times not as incisive as it could have been. The author draws from the classical educational approaches of pragmatist American philosopher John Dewey, as well as from parallel explorations and experiments being carried in India during the same period. She is not simply arguing for a return to the Western canon as the measure of education, but articulating a vision of all that education should and could be, if we only paid more attention and less lip service to what we teach our kids. A must read for university administrators and politicians, as unlikely it is that they actually will read it.