Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Review of Ricardo Nirenberg's "The Long Agony of the Humanities"

2021, Academia Letters

Nirenberg elegantly shows how the battle between humanities and timeless sciences has always been with us. That fact alone tells us something. Human beings can’t make do without both kinds of truths, despite the row that results. That tells us monolithic theories can’t be right: neither the ones (like Nirenberg’s) that oppose the good truths of time to the specious truths of eternity, nor the ones (like Alan Sokal’s) that oppose the good truths of eternity to the specious truths of time.

Review of Ricardo Nirenberg’s “The Long Agony of the Humanities”1 Anderson Weekes Without question, this should be published. If for no other reason, Nirenberg’s perspective is valuable because his extraordinarily broad learning acts like a wide-angle lens. Few of us can enjoy seeing such a big picture from our own vantage. Historically, Nirenberg's learning vouchsafes a view of the western intellectual tradition that appears to be nothing less than synoptic. His tracing of the hostility between disciplines of unchanging truth and disciplines of changing truth from modern times through the Renaissance and the High Middle Ages and back to Greek antiquity is masterful and a delight to read. Nevertheless, the idea that the humanities suffer from a lack of vigor because we have sold our souls to the confidence men of eternal verities is a stretch. It’s an awfully abstract diagnosis for a very concrete problem. I’d like help imagining the supposed domino effect that would start with people believing truth is “what becomes” rather than “what is” and ending with a rejuvenation of the humanities. Somewhere along the line, do human beings start caring more about poetry than the profits to be obtained from business management and engineering? I don’t say it’s impossible, but it’s a grand proposition. I’d like to know how Nirenberg imagines the ripple effect, or sea change, or whatever it is that supposedly will happen if we all commit ourselves to thoroughgoing historicity. This is a “hedgehog” theory if there ever was one. It might be too much of a big idea. Let’s remember another hedgehog theory. In the ‘90s, Alan Sokal made a stir claiming the humanities were suffering because their practitioners reject eternal truths, thereby selling their souls to the confidence men of relativism. The argument looks something like this: Objectivity is impossible unless its conditions are defined by eternal truths. Rejecting eternal truths therefore commits the humanities researcher to relativism. So whether it’s acknowledged or not, the humanities researcher is left with no better standard for evaluating theoretical claims than the obviously self-defeating standard of “anything goes as long as it’s my opinion.” Nirenberg elegantly shows how the battle between humanities and timeless sciences has always been with us. That fact alone tells us something. The truths of time and the truths of eternity rub each other the wrong way: putting them together creates a row. If we could have banished either one of them, we would have done it long ago. Apparently, human beings can’t make do without both kinds of truths, despite the row that results when we keep them both around. That tells us neither of these monolithic theories is right: neither the one opposing the good truths of time to the specious truths of eternity, nor the one opposing the good truths of eternity to the specious truths of time. We need a fox to figure this out. 1 Nirenberg, R. (2021). The Long Agony of the Humanities. Academia Letters, Article 1234. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL1234.