Scholar and literary critic Stanley Fish argued in a recent column in The New York Times that the humanities have no practical use whatsoever in our society (“Can the Humanities Save Us?” Jan. 9, 2008).

The humanities, Fish maintains, are “their own good;” one cannot argue that “a state’s economy will benefit by a new reading of ‘Hamlet,’ or that “a graduate who is well-versed in the history of Byzantine art will be attractive to employers.” Fish also dismisses the traditional humanistic premise proposed by Aristotle, Sir Philip Sydney and others that the humanities create better and more rounded individuals by exposing them to the ideas and expressions of humanity.

Fish’s charge is a serious one which, if true, means that a significant portion of university professors and students seem to be wasting their time. History, philosophy, English and religion could be removed as commoncurriculum requirements with no harm done.

Of course, Fish is wrong. The humanities are necessary not just because ignorance is rarely a successful or long-lasting solution, but because the humanities, in fact, play an enormous role in the development of individuals, societies and nations.

Fish’s narrowly materialistic position is based on a compartmentalized view of reality in which the acquisition of wealth and advancement of society can be separated from the acquisition and advancement of human ideas and expressions.

Experience suggests otherwise. The fact is that each individual develops a worldview (about themselves, about their relationship to others and about the nature of humanity and reality), and this developing worldview is one of the most crucial determining factors in their lives.

In turn, individuals, to a large extent, determine the economic, political, and scientific movements that occur within their society.

Consider, for example, the philosophy of Social Darwinism, prevalent in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Social Darwinism was used to justify racism, imperialism, elitism and economic monopoly. It was without question one of the key driving forces behind many major events in that era.

One cannot get rid of the presence of ideas and expressions about humanity; the only alternative is to educate oneself about these expressions and ideas. The humanities are not noble, but they are necessary.

In a world in which globalization shapes economics, national security, conservation and information-sharing, it is more important than ever that we human beings understand each other, and it has always been the business of the humanities to foster this type of understanding. The world would be better off if its kings were philosophers, not cowboys. Yet Fish believes that the humanities are – and ought to be – insular.

Evidently the humanities cannot save us; no, it is up to those who operate within the mass media, those fit few who are most qualified to sway the seas of public opinion, to turn our course and set us swimming in the right direction. The question then is not whether the humanities can save us. The real question is: will Stanley Fish save us, or the readers’ response to Fish?

Nate Thacker is an English literature junior and can be reached at [email protected].