Restructuring Universities and the Two Cultures
A bit over a month ago, Mark C. Taylor–chair of the Religion Department at Columbia, and one of the most prominent philosophers of religion in the US– published an Op-Ed for the New York Times titled ‘The End Of The University As We Know It’. The essay created a buzz on the blogosphere (unfortunately almost only there) and produced different reactions, from complete agreement to hostile opposition. The core of the essay has been summarized well by Dan Coleman at Open Culture Blog:
Taylor proposes six ideas: 1) Getting rid of free-standing academic departments and making academic work cross-disciplinary, 2) developing multi-disciplinary programs that focus on “real” problems, 3) increasing collaboration among institutions, partly with the help of the internet, so that universities don’t have to develop redundant strengths, 4) moving away from traditional, citation-packed dissertations and instead having grad students communicate their research in more contemporary digital formats, 5) helping grad students plan for a life beyond scholarship itself, and 6) imposing mandatory retirement and abolishing tenure, essentially in order to keep faculty responsive and productive.
I completely agree with Taylor’s positions and propositions, but I want to acknowledge some limitations. There are a couple of interesting posts by Michael Mitzenmacher, Professor of Computer Science at Harvard Engineering School (here) and by his colleague Matt Welsh also Associate Professor of Computer Science at Harvard (here) which take an interesting poinf of critique. Summarizing their positions (hoping not to misinterpret them) the main point fundamentally is that Taylor’s argument might apply to a certain part of the University curricula (i.e. the Humanities) but his observations simply do not apply to scientific studies, which happily go on producing graduate students with an high market value. Mitzenmacher concludes:
I know these anti-University diatribes come out from time to time, but it’s sad to see such a poorly argued one. While it’s beneficial for universities to be self-reflecting, in this case the article just made we wish for some clearer, more rational, dare I say more SCIENTIFICALLY thought out criticism.
And Welsh, on similar lines
Even for students dead set on a faculty position, many can get a job straight out of graduate school — postdocs are still the exception rather than the rule. This situation could change, but I’m not sure it’s time to end universities as we know them. Religion departments are maybe another matter.
Now, I think that this is worthy of comments. Especially so since we have just passed the 50th anniversary of C.P.Snow’s famous lecture on the ‘Two Cultures’ (for a discussion see the recent public panel discussion at the Royal Society). I must admit my own position: I am, on the one hand, a grad student in a Study of Religions department (even though my work is more philosophy oriented, but the point is still valid) and, on the other, a part-time ‘undergraduate’ (inverted commas because its not exactly an UG degree) in a Physics department. It is hard to say where my loyalties lie, also because I think that to polarize the discussion like that is precisely the pitfall to avoid.
I agree with the two CScientists above, when they observe that Taylor’s exposition comes from the experience gathered in a career in one specific kind of department, especially when it comes to the restructuring of the ‘dissertation’ and to the future career prospects of grad students. BUT, I do not agree with the tone they use in these observations, as spite and sarcasm do not help the very cross-disciplinarity that Taylor proposes and that they agree it is an important goal (if, according to them, already achieved by scientific departments).
In my own personal experience, for what it is worth, I had to face the probably unconscious but almost ubiquitous skeptical reaction of physicists when they learn I am a grad student in a SoR department, as they seem to perceive you as a B-rated researcher (which becomes C-rated when I carefully introduce that I work also on postmodern critiques of science…). Honestly I resent that, just as I resent the tone of Welsh and Mitzenmacher: when I am in my ‘physics’ frame of mind, I do my homework and I respect and admire their work, and I would like to be reciprocated. For once, I think that it should be realized that to work towards a PhD in philosophy requires just as much intellectual effort as one in physics.
On the other hand, it is completely true that (many, not all–I am generalizing here) humanities scholars should get out of their offices (or at least turn on the PC) and start to break down some old and quaint academic ‘traditions’ that pollute our departments. First of all, they should learn to use technology and the Internet. I have never made a scientific survey of it, but as a general impression it seems to me that the great majority of blogs run by academics are written by ‘scientitsts’ of a variety of fields, and that there is a very very small quantity of , say, historians or anthropologists. Not to mention the quantity and quality of podcasts of courses to be found online or on YouTube (speaking of which, I cant refrain from advising [thanks Sean Carroll] the new lecture series on General Relativity by Leonard Susskind availlable on YouTube through Stanford University)
Taylor’s proposals are good ones, and if they have already been implemented in other fields and if his exposition is limited, then scholars from these fields should give constructive comments and advices, not trench themselves behind the ‘we are SCIENTISTS, of course we know better than you smoke-sellers humanities people’ attitude.
There could be much more to say but I don’t want to overflood this one post. Next time in fact I would like to go deeper into the issue of how can universities (and, mainly, the public) benefit from the aforementioned online offer of academic podcasts.
Fabio Cunctator
Very interesting… thanks.
[...] This is the problem of the ‘two cultures’ if you like, a point that I’ve previously made, the observation that for the average scientist philosophers, sociologists, historians and so on [...]
More of the same: ’science vs religion’ as a byproduct of ’science vs critical thinking’ « Hypertiling said this on June 27, 2009 at 1:31 pm |
Good points, thanks. Also, congratulations on your interesting choice of fields of study!
Welcome to the weird world of TechnoGroupThink and its nefarious ThoughtPolice.
The vast (and expensive) bureaucratic bloat of universities is as stunning as is that bureaucracy’s obliviousness to the need for proper accountability to the public and business interests that fund it (taxes, fees paid by student/parents)!
In plain terms, universities have become simply another place where the public is scammed. The organizational culture of universities has become increasingly and rigidly conformist. Scapegoating, politically-correct witch hunts and bullying of nonconformists, have all become common. People with new and different ideas are placed under suspicion, then if they persist, are marginalized and attacked. Risk aversion and fear of lawyers has morphed into cultural pollution such that there is an aroma of something akin to fascism/totalitarianism. The old arguments about whether or not “big business” (corporatism) was better than “big government” (socialism) are no longer meaningful because big business and big government (mainly meaning both political parties) are in bed with each other, operating on “stealth memes”, while the industrial mass media machine fogs and distracts minds with endless repetition of outdated ritualized ideological conflicts over sources of “authenticity”.
The original mission of public universities, to strengthen democratic and populist processes, has been misappropriated and placed in service of narrow special interests that have no problem descending into various forms of “paradigm regression” on both the left (politically correct witch hunts) and right (corporatism). Note: these memes do flip-flop across broad categories, which proves how the broad categories have lost meaning under the burden of paradigm regression.
Bias disclosure: I’m an integralist (Gebser, Aurobindo, Graves, Wilber), and I’m a amateur mystic, former bahai, currently “buddhist-oriented”, w/ 1960s california counterculture/anti-establishment influences. I became more “libertarian” in the 90s as I saw the damage of the “culture wars” between the left and right unfold. Thomas Frank’s work on the corruption of both conservatism and liberalism by “corporatist” “new economy” paradigm is an important source of descriptions of the dysfunctional memes causing the current, main psychosocial problems. Also see Ivan Illich’s “Vernacular Values”, Rabi Michael Learner’s “Tikkun”, Rheingold’s “Disinformocracy”.
I’ve worked as an IT “peon” at a public university for over 20 years, and have to say that it is *really* hard to take these silly CScience guys seriously. Their ignorance of conscious studies is typical of practitioners of narrow disciplines, and a perfect example of why dinosaur-like universities need to be “restructured” to face humanity’s new existential circumstances with effectiveness.
CScience is a mess. The IT industry is a mess, full of what Ken Wilber calls “Boomeritis” (narcissism/nihilism, “mean green memes”). It is full of “men of action” that loath contemplative reflection or holistic thought. Constant reinvention and relabeling of old ideas, in service of absurd marketing imperatives and “cool fads”, is a large part of what the IT industry is about. Such TechWorship consists of of a frenetic, ritual search for the next great, civilization-altering “innovation” ($$$). The lack of balance is as appalling is the obliviousness to social or environmental justice, or economic equity.
It should be no surprise that lots of inferior products and services come out of the IT industry.
The ease with which such CScience types make fools of themselves when discussing religion/society reveals their narrow arrogance and narcissism. The reason they don’t like religious studies is that it teaches people to be critical of the false gods and (economically self-aggrandizing) rituals of the Masters and Wizards of the Technological Universe.
And they simply can’t tolerate such criticism.