[„Vom Aufstieg und Niedergang der Geisteswissenschaften“, von Clemens Albrecht — Content review]

Rise and fall, or ascent and decline of the humanities 1 : Dr. Albrecht offers this title as description, for analytic elaboration, and to mark a new academic and social phase. Universities in Europe, especially Germany, are the focal areas; but the issues apply also to the US.2 Most analytic attention falls on historical context, central university disciplinary/teaching matters and changes, and the humanities and society relation. The humanities are presented as a distinct institution reliant on key elements, developing in a specific historical period to explain their rise; the diminishing or (near total) loss of these elements signals their institutional fall. Suggestions for resistance conclude the essay.

Albrecht describes the humanities as emerging in European universities of the early 19th century. He concedes the prior existence of the subjects of course, but stresses their distinct institutional form and historical context. Central internal activities (research, teaching) and external social functions are largely interpreted through this developmental framework. While natural science and technology revolutionized daily life, the humanities analyzed and explained this developing modern world; not restricted to this role, they nonetheless participated in critical ways through guidance and interpretation of a new and dynamic social context.

Europäische Orientierungs- und Bildungsmacht (European orientation and educational authority)

The range of these interpretive activities in this dynamic environment resists summary, yet Albrecht offers central features contributing to the rise of European educational authority. Subject areas were gathered in one physical location, and conceptually balanced (“relativized”) in the study of a developing, improving social order. Teaching conveyed the materials developed for individuals to understand and participate in this process. A critical general feature of these academic activities is their non-bureaucratic, career, or technology orientation; the special interpretive role was understood as developing ideas outside the improvement or efficiency of daily, business affairs. (Indem die Geisteswissenschaften sich nicht als Instanz der zweckrationalen Optimierung von bestehenden Daseinsapparaten (Berufen, Bürokratien, Technologien) verstanden, konnten sie zur Bildungsmacht werden, die den modernen Menschen nach dem Ausfall der alten sozialen Autoritäten befähigte, die Entstehung der modernen Welt nicht nur als äußeren Sachzwang, sondern als sinnhafte Aufgabe zu begreifen.)3 Other features are noted. All are viewed as aspects of a special European social process (“Sonderweg”), with the humanities offering a uniquely valuable non-utilitarian perspective.

The central analytical sections describe this perspective further. Three categories are chosen: Universitas (university), Autonomie (autonomy), and Bindung (ties, relationships, commitment). These are discussed first as original form (or rise), then emerging form (fall).

Universitas. The humanities emerged as a distinct institutional area, separate from practical career forms (law), while establishing patterns of intellectual exchange. The development of this internal intellectual program (“inneren Programmatik“) seen from a group perspective therefore reflects a combination of differentiation and connection. A key connection element was the cross disciplinary adoption of leading theories; Albrecht gives examples like pragmatism, socialism, and the linguistic turn. Such adoption linked subject areas, thus internally, with considerable external social influence by teaching. Again we note the historical dimension as theories developed and spread, shaping both society and the humanities.

Autonomie. For the researcher, theoretical streams might provide orientation; to accept, reject, to revise – these decisions reflect an ideal of independence or autonomy. Work driven by intrinsic value and personal interest can also have more flexible application. Rather than limited to some immediate problem, a different type of potential is available; work might be recognized for immediate value, or as Albrecht remarks, yield more future benefit instead. The somewhat time independent quality of intrinsic is key; and suggests a certain freedom of individual judgment. These features of independent research suggest in part the special nature and potential of the humanities. The cultivation of intrinsic worth has implications as well for teaching.

Bindung. The author emphasizes engagement with subject matter, the combining of passionate interest with intrinsic value, as a special binding quality for faculty and students. Not a rejection of narrower ideas of external social utility, but a recognition of teaching and research centered on material important “for its own sake” – traditionally, idealistically perhaps, directed also to developing in students a larger, deeper cultural awareness – as part of a civilizing role for universities. One may react to this cynically of course. The author concedes a noticeable gap between ideals and actuality. Despite this shortfall, the important qualitative (subject matter) differences between job market training and education for cultivating better citizens reflect rather different commitments between faculty and students.

Institution ohne Zukunft (Institution without a future)

The author insists that traditional humanities education will not survive current university changes. The transition to schools increasingly focused on economic methods, aims, social interests – a shift from education to training – marks a new academic phase. The institutional humanities form that rose in the 19th century is now falling.

In the emerging university (Europe, Germany), following current directions, traditional humanities degrees will be largely replaced by career programs in areas like teaching and law. Humanities faculty and courses will remain in reduced form, without the special academic mission previously noted. Emphasizing even more the topical/trend-based nature of current studies, humanities scholars will address, for example, the social dimensions of climate change, or Islamic studies. Thus, although the humanities were always notably shaped by historical contingency, current developments show a heightening of topical and economic features/interests. Related concerns, especially economic, mark the author’s return to the categories of Universitas, Autonomie, and Bindung.

Universitas. Universities are now consolidating more humanities disciplines, and again, reflect increasing external economic pressure. Few examples are listed here, and the number (with analysis) by Albrecht is not extensive; yet the direction is clear.  Universities now need a “profile” to offer. This means increasing subject concentrations for a better marketing image. The wish to convert academic activity into economic value works against the humanities, encouraging instead subjects with more external financial support. (Heute wird an die Universitäten die Forderung herangetragen, sich ein „Profil“ zuzulegen. Praktisch bedeutet dies eine Fächerkonzentration, die häufig auf Kosten der Geisteswissenschaften die drittmittelstarken Fächer bevorzugt, von denen man sich eine direkte Umsetzung ihrer Erkenntnisse in ökonomische Wertschöpfung erhofft (Biowissenschaften).)4 Humanities areas are frequently compelled to support interdisciplinary degrees rather than traditional disciplinary types. The broader sense of the university mission is therefore diminished in favor of narrower socioeconomic concerns.

Autonomie. These newer social concerns extend naturally to ideas about independent research. External pressures mount, supporting a “work and business” character in modern academic pursuits. Research is more “managed” than independent, subject to increasing social controls of evaluation and quality assurance. All told, far more bureaucratic.

Bindung. The managed or bureaucratic tone, signaling less independent research, is reflected also in teaching. Set study programs leave less room for instructors to share research in courses. Program rigidity decreases student choice for following interests. These features suggest that previous forms of intrinsic motivation or personal engagement, with greater potential (in part) for linking students and teachers, have a much diminished role. It is hard to miss the “training system” character of this more regulated environment.

Gemeinschaften des Widerstands (Communities of resistance)

Education displaced by training; growing regulation, bureaucracy – the sheer scale of such institutional changes, however gradual or partial, raises difficult questions of appropriate response. The eventual size and finality of the fall, however, is not in doubt in Albrecht’s view. His fall of the Roman Empire analogy makes this clear.

The suggested response follows the collapsing empire model: like monks in cloisters, try to maintain past achievements and practices. Inside or outside the university, as individuals or groups; the general flood of people5 implementing these highly questionable changes may not be stoppable, but can be resisted. For this the author provides a list, here given in full, translated in part.

  • Diene der Wissenschaft, nicht ihrem Marketing! (Serve the discipline(s), not marketing.)
  • Betrachte die Wissenschaft als Lebensform, nicht als Job! (Consider your discipline as a way of life, not a (mere) job.)
  • Folge deinem Interesse, nicht den Ausschreibungen! (Follow authentic interests, not topics for show/advertising.)
  • Erforsche Themen, nicht Projekte!
  • Arbeite an Deinem Buch, nicht an verschiedenen Publikationen!
  • Werde klassisch, nicht exzellent!
  • Lasse Dich rezensieren, nicht evaluieren!
  • Sichere Qualität, nicht Qualitätssicherung!
  • Lehre Inhalte, nicht Kompetenzen!
  • Bilde Schüler aus, nicht Nachwuchs! (Educate students, not trainees.)

by Edward Eggleston

Notes

1 „Vom Aufstieg und Niedergang der Geisteswissenschaften“, von Prof. Dr. Clemens Albrecht, Universität Koblenz · Landau (http://www.kas.de/upload/dokumente/verlagspublikationen/Geisteswissenschaften/geisteswissenschaften_albrecht.pdf)

2 „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.“ von Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, 2013. (“A friendly end for the humanities? Would educated people outside the university notice if the humanities disappeared from these institutions? The process has begun“. By Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht)(https://edwardeggleston.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/a-content-review-of-ein-freundliches-ende-der-geisteswissenschaften-by-hans-ulrich-gumbrecht/)

3 Albrecht, p.2

4 Albrecht, p.6

5 The author is less sparing in his description: “barbarians before the gates of science”, (“Die Barbaren vor den Toren der Wissenschaft“), Albrecht, p.9