„Ein freundliches Ende der Geisteswissenschaften? Würden es gebildete Zeitgenossen außerhalb der Universität bemerken, wenn die Geisteswissenschaften von der institutionellen Bildfläche verschwänden? Genau diese Situation ist bereits eingetreten“. — Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, 2013, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.(https://blogs.faz.net/digital/2013/10/04/freundliches-ende-geisteswissenschaften-379)
“A friendly end for the humanities? Would educated people outside the university notice if the humanities disappeared from these institutions? The process has begun.” — Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht.
The author is a professor of comparative literature, writing for a German audience about the decline and likely disappearance of the humanities at Stanford. Yet the subtitle shows the broader scope. He makes clear a basic hesitation to discuss the problem, in part out of loyalty to Stanford. A sense of resignation, rather than protest or outrage (Empörung) is also related. A final point is curiosity, as the subtitle suggests; will anyone notice if this happens?
The central event of Gumbrecht’s article is a proposed curriculum change. First, however, in part for German readers, he relates the US/UK “college” concept as a distinct educational approach. The pattern described is four years of study after high school, before starting work life (praktisches Berufsleben) or graduate school. The critical idea is the content of this study; it is coursework not strictly linked with a career, such as accounting. He notes: Ideally, the college student becomes a more complex individual/personality by following a broad/shared program of lectures and activities. („Idealerweise soll der College Student durch ein universell angelegtes Programm von Lehrveranstaltungen und Aktivitäten zu einer komplexeren Persönlichkeit werden“.) The author offers some elaboration of this central matter, but his intent is not a full outline. He relates rather the educational approach of a shared foundation with some advanced study; a “major”. This is well known in the US, but one notes this educational ideal – once considered especially valuable – is gradually (quickly?) being overtaken by largely economic considerations.
The replacement of the “college” ideal by economic considerations, or career preparation, is a pattern the author sees as increasing particularly in the last decade (writing in 2013). He notes this challenge as from students and parents. As evidence, he offers the constant, even drastic decline of enrollment in humanities classes. This group of features forms the context for the curriculum change event.
The arguably important but not very dramatic event concerns a curriculum meeting between a computer science professor and foreign language literature faculty. The CS teacher says there are now so many CS majors the faculty can hardly cope with increasing burdens. The solution offered to the foreign language group is for a major/minor combining CS with “German studies”, Italian, etc. With the total course number held constant, the foreign language area receives students and the CS department a reduced burden. Students follow a CS major with additional courses bringing them closer to the “college” ideal.
Under present circumstances, this seems a reasonable offer. The author notes the agreement, even enthusiasm from the literature group. While considering this understandable, he regards it as a clear sign of the end of humanities study (in such an academic context). A main reason is the role of humanistic study as purely secondary, perhaps markedly so. Such a role suggests a possible (strong) interest to students, or might, he notes, be more like stamp collecting, growing orchids, or tennis (– his list). Despite the reasonable aspects of the curriculum change offer, the shift of humanities study to such secondary status clearly marks its direction and decline. The interpretation of this as a step toward disappearance (in this setting) is not surprising.
It is important to note again the author’s accepting, resigned reaction to this “friendly end” to the humanities. He notes with nostalgia the times, some recent, when subjects like literature, philosophy, languages, and history were regarded quite differently. Several historical examples are given: the early years of the university in Paris, when students came from all over Europe to study Christian texts; the passion and acuity or keenness (Schärfe) concerning humanities organizations at universities in Berlin in the late 19th century; the student movements of the later 1960’s. Others are mentioned and seen as times of special intellectual intensity, where the humanities were at the center of participant’s lives. Though brief, his description of what he clearly sees as a terrific loss is impassioned, if also very measured.
Thus one might suppose, correctly, that the original is full of nuances not caught in this reduced, more “idea based” account. This is especially true in the final section. Yet some of the sense and feeling about this moment in humanistic studies can be related even in reduced translation:
I believe that an end, sooner and more final, with worthiness and pride, is preferable to survival based on the graciousness of others, and on the intellectual periphery.
(„Warum ich über dieses Ende mit soviel Affekt schreibe? Weil ich glaube, dass ein Ende in Würde und Stolz (und ich will diese Begriffe weder allzu sehr strapazieren noch durch Anführungszeichen relativieren) einem Über-Leben auf Gnade und an der intellektuellen Peripherie vorzuziehen ist, als existentielle Möglichkeit jedenfalls“.)
Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht was born in 1948 in Würzburg, Germany. When this article appeared in 2013, he was a literature professor at Stanford University. He is a US citizen.
Review by Edward Eggleston.
