It's also worth remembering that "student" does not always mean "child currently undergoing mandatory education". I would think that adults who return to complete their diplomas/degrees or add a graduate-level program on top of the undergraduate one are comparatively more likely to choose to maximize knowledge rather than just grades. It's mostly commonly expressed as "now that I'm personally paying for it, I want to get my money's worth".
I remember a never ending discussion when I was in college about why the premeds tended to get better average grades in organic chemistry than the chemistry majors, even though the chemistry majors seemed to have a much better grasp of the material.
She fears for the day she wakes up on a gurney and sees one of her former pre-med students.
What they'll profess in public and what they'll admit "off the record" aren't always the same thing.
Scientists at least have the advantage that, even if they can't see any practical application of their research, other people can (and do!).
Instead, I think the phrase is being used here as a term of the art, referring to something closer to "postmodern critical theory".
There are definitely those who wonder if this is useful. I too would be interested in hearing a defense.
>Instead, I think the phrase ["critical literary analysis"] is being used here as a term of the art,
There is no such term of art, as a quick google scholar search would tell you, so I see no reason not to interpret the OP literally.
Well, luckily even a casual adherence to postmodernism gives you that right! But in my old fashioned manner, I still think intentionality counts for something, and I don't think the author intended to say that we should give up on reading. :)
Most of the people who whine about postmodern critical theory haven't even read any
I actually have read a fair bit, and periodically urge it on others, likely in the same way that some people turn their friends onto LSD. Much of it is junk, but some of it is gold. For example, Michel Foucault's "History of Sexuality Volume 1" and "Discipline and Punish" permanently changed the way I see the world around me.
So when I said I'd like to see a defense, I meant only that -- that I'd enjoy it. And, of course, that John F. Kennedy was not a homosexual: http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html
He did, however, seem to be saying that we should give up on literary criticism, which is a different thing -- you shouldn't even need a google search to tell you the difference between reading and analyzing :) It was s a stupid thing of him to say, but then I've heard quite a few scientists say it, and I'm quite willing to believe that he meant it.
>Much of it is junk, but some of it is gold.
So, why are you asking for a defense of it? Isn't the fact that some of it "changed the way you see the world around you" enough of a defense?
Personally, I find it a question I have no answer to. I clearly see the value of medical doctor's, physicists, engineers. They all contribute to society in obvious ways. Liberary criticism may very well be of great value to society, but it is not in any way that is obvious to me and I sincerely would be interested if someone could provide an explanation for how it is of value to society.
It's valuable because people are, and have always been, interested in discussing and analyzing literature in order to gain a better understanding of it. I'm not sure why you think that it has to "contribute" some definite thing to society in order to be valuable. Music and art don't obviously contribute anything either, but presumably you don't think these are without value.
>The question is, have they added anything of value to society?
Yes, they have added a greater knowledge of literature and how it works. I don't think it's necessary (or possible, really) to argue that knowledge is valuable to society. But I think the way you pose the question is a bit odd. Why does literary criticism have to "add" something distinct from itself to society in order to be valuable? Some things are valuable in and of themselves.
But people can discus and analyze literature without there being a formal discipline for it. In fact arguable your average person could do it better without the formal discipline because they would not have be concerned about if they were doing it "right"
The analogy to music and art appears false, they do contribute things other than themselves. They contribute first entertainment, second the ties that bind culture together, and third (at least in some cases) they provide an introspection on society. Art and music add all of those things, but at least as I understand it now, literary criticism as an academic discipline provides none of them. As I have very limited knowledge of literary criticism please let me know if I am missing something.
* Some things are valuable in and of themselves.*
An interesting possibility, but it is not obvious that it is true. (I am not claiming it is false, merely that it demands justification). At least one argument is that things are valuable precisely in proportion to their utility to mankind. Excluding those people who make their living at it directly, I am unclear as to what value literary criticism provides to anyone else.
People can do anything without there being a formal discipline for it. I'm not sure what your point is here. As with most other subjects (e.g. physics, chemistry, history) extensive training in a professional environment is one moderately effective means of getting people to produce high quality work.
> In fact arguable your average person could do it better without the formal discipline because they would not have be concerned about if they were doing it "right"
No, this is not arguable. Average people suck at literary criticism in more or less the same way that average people suck at theoretical physics. Given that you admit to knowing nothing about literary criticism, so I'm curious to know how you can be so sure of what you say here.
> They contribute first entertainment, second the ties that bind culture together, and third (at least in some cases) they provide an introspection on society.
At the very least, literary criticism provides introspection on society. The first two things you mention are a little more vague (and in any case, don't apply to most work in the sciences).
>An interesting possibility, but it is not obvious that it is true.
It is obviously true in the sense that if nothing has value in itself, then you get an infinite regress. It can't be that everything is valuable only in terms of some other thing. (Of course, an infinite regress is mathematically conceivable, it just doesn't seem plausible in this particular case.)
>At least one argument is that things are valuable precisely in proportion to their utility to mankind
If you think this then you clearly agree with me that there is something that is valuable in and of itself (i.e. utility to mankind). But valuing utility above everything else is clearly wrong. For example, beauty, love and compassion would be valuable whether or not they had utility.
>Excluding those people who make their living at it directly, I am unclear as to what value literary criticism provides to anyone else.
It provides value to people who value literary criticism. And there are certainly some such people who are not literary critics. (You yourself are clearly not one of these people, but you are not the only person in the world...)
In theoretical physics there is an absolute authority by which to judge what is good and bad, namely the degree to which it conforms to reality. Appealing to this authority may be challenging and may not ever be practical, but it exists and it therefore means something specific to say something is wrong in theoretical physics. Also, when that theoretical physics is later applied being wrong about it can be have real negative consequences.
It is not clear to me that saying something is wrong in literary criticism even has a meaning, and even less clear that it would ever matter if something was wrong.
If you think this then you clearly agree with me that there is something that is valuable in and of itself (i.e. utility to mankind). But valuing utility above everything else is clearly wrong. For example, beauty, love and compassion would be valuable whether or not they had utility.
I actually do agree with you that some things (including beauty, truth, and love) have intrinsic value. But I take that belief starting from a Christian view point. If one were to examine it a priori or from an athiestic viewpoint it is not at all obvious or clear that anything has a value outside of its practical utility to mankind.
There might be an absolute authority of this sort if we could just ask God whether or not a given theory conformed to reality, but in practice there is no absolute authority for judging work in science -- and you certainly find plenty of disagreement between scientists once you go beyond textbook material. Personally, I'm not a complete subjectivist about aesthetic and critical judgments, so I think that an "absolute standard" exists in principle for a lot of work in the humanities. For example, I think it is a fact that Jane Austen wrote good novels. However, I'm a little uneasy about your reliance on the correspondence theory of truth (the idea that a true theory is one which is some obscure sense "conforms" or "corresponds" to reality). Although I am not a skeptic or subjectivist about truth, there are well known problems with conceiving truth in this way.
> Also, when that theoretical physics is later applied being wrong about it can be have real negative consequences.
Being wrong about the kinds of subjects that the humanities touches on (e.g. relations between human beings) can also have real negative consequences, if you are not a robot.
>It is not clear to me that saying something is wrong in literary criticism even has a meaning, and even less clear that it would ever matter if something was wrong.
I'm sorry that these things aren't clear to you, but the notion that critical and aesthetic judgments are "meaningless" is one that's been thoroughly discredited over the past 50 years. Logical positivism has been dead for quite some time now.
>If one were to examine it a priori or from an athiestic viewpoint it is not at all obvious or clear that anything has a value outside of its practical utility to mankind.
Again, if you believe that, then you believe that there is something which has intrinsic value -- utility. In any case, it's not clear to me why someone looking at things from an atheistic viewpoint would choose utility as his yardstick for value. I'm an atheist and I value a whole bunch of different things. I do value things for being useful, but I don't give utility any privileged place, or see any reason to do so.
There might be an absolute authority of this sort if we could just ask God whether or not a given theory conformed to reality, but in practice there is no absolute authority for judging work in science -- and you certainly find plenty of disagreement between scientists once you go beyond textbook material.
Yes, you certainly do, even in the text book material. In fact, we have much better theories than Newton's Three Laws of Motion, but they are still taught because they are close enough for almost all practical applications and much simpler than appeals to relatively. But, even if reality does not always yield its secrets easily we know it has them. It is not at all clear to me that there is an objective to literary criticism.
Being wrong about the kinds of subjects that the humanities touches on (e.g. relations between human beings) can also have real negative consequences, if you are not a robot.
We have been talking about literary criticism. Some areas of the traditional humanities are clearly of great practical value at least in some cases. I did considerable research into certain areas of history as military intelligence analyst at one time and it was of tremendous value. Similarly, the study of languages is of obvious utility, and I have already provided an overview of why I see utility in art. I do not see how a knowledge of literary criticism would help someone relate to human beings in general though and I do not yet understand any value to it other than to those who make their living at it.
I know you said that it has value to those who value it. And there is certainly some truth to that, but that is circular and does not explain why.
* but the notion that critical and aesthetic judgments are "meaningless" is one that's been thoroughly discredited over the past 50 years.*
Could you provide a reference or explanation? I am not at all trying to argue that they are meaningless, but that is far from obviously true.
gain, if you believe that, then you believe that there is something which has intrinsic value -- utility.
Actually I am saying that things which have utility have value because of that utility. That is not precisely the same thing, though I will admit at that point I am splitting hairs. I do take it as obvious (and you do not seem to disagree) that something which has utility clearly has value, but I do not see any intrinsic reason why anything without utility must have value.
Again, I personally believe from a Christian standpoint that there are such things, but it is not obvious to me.
In any case, it's not clear to me why someone looking at things from an atheistic viewpoint would choose utility as his yardstick for value.
I'm certainly not trying to say that they would. What I am saying is that there is no obvious reason that they would value other things, while it is obvious they would value utility.
He worked for a company that would buy residential land, he'd design a commercial building for that land, the company would take the plans to the local city council and get it rezoned, then the company would flip the newly rezoned land at a significant profit.
I liked him, but not his job or employer.
The corresponding statement for academia would be: "the main product of academia is not the production of ___ but..."
But what do we fill in the blank with? With structural engineering, the answer is obvious. With academia, particularly humanities academia, not so much.