Every now and again I am sure that just about anyone runs into a line of thought that leaves that person flabbergasted. Though I have spent considerable time engaged in thoughts about the Heart of Darkness in us all, the nature of evil, what each of us is capable of in extreme circumstances, etc., I had, until recently, been reasonably protected from hostility about the humanities. What do I mean by “hostility”? I mean, people questioning the validity of a PhD in English, or why have an English Department at a university at all, or denigrating the idea of anyone needing to be a specialist in Proust.

Maybe until recently I have been horribly, terribly naive, which would not be the first time. But here are some things I think I do know.

Beyond all the push for 21st century communications skills touted as a precondition for hiring by big corps, etc., in the modern age, or maybe, in any age, without strong communication skills coupled with strong skills to sort through information and discern what is useful, valid, and what is bunk, a person is left less able to defend a position, or, him/herself. Now, here I must confess that I ended up with a BA in History rather than a BA in English or another language in college… but the last time I checked, history really was in the humanities. Further, it was my deep preparation in textual analysis of literature that prepared me to learn how to conduct a historical analysis (to transfer learning from one field to another), which prepared me how to analyze the fine details and the larger picture of a situation, how to research, how to think critically, etc.

Thus, I am flabbergasted that those skills are not seen as a useful contribution to anyone’s education, whether or not that person ends up a humanities major.

However, after being in and around mostly people from the sciences this past year, here is where I want to put some strong words out to my fellow folks with mostly humanities backgrounds:

1. Nope. Academia is not a safe place for you anymore either,  my artist, writer, or polyglot friend. These programs are being cut at many universities. I am guessing they are not coming back.

2. The feeling is not mutual.

I have heard many an American with a humanities background talk about how difficult and tedious math or science had been for them and thus, how much they hated it. Among the same set from Europe, for example, or Asia, I have yet to hear of artists/writers/etc. complain about not being able to do math or hating math (but, I have not surveyed everyone– this is just my amateur take). In those countries and cultures, my guess is that learning is not binary–everyone is expected to be able to do science and math–why wouldn’t they? Then, why, in our culture, are people broken down, at an early age, into people who can do humanities stuff, and people who can do math/science stuff, and ne’er the twain shall meet?

However, by the same token, I want to put the word out there to the humanities folks to start reaching across the aisle, fast and furiously, first! My liberal arts education allows me to see how liberal arts fits into science and math, and vice versa. Regardless of field, communications skills are necessary.However, though fiction and poetry have become central features in my life, and I am a much richer person and analyst, and hell, maybe a more informed citizen, for having studied cultural history, I can’t expect everyone to develop those appreciations and loves that I have.

Yet!! In an educated society, everyone has to read. Everyone has to write.  The classics and core curriculum discussions of the early 90s have long ceased (of a need for a literature common to us all). The Science Technology Engineering and Math (or Medical, depending on whom you ask) people have won–that is where the gov’t spending is, where industry growth is, where academia growth is. Luckily, for the foreseeable future, even those folks have to read, write, communicate, analyze, etc. The humanities folks are up to the task of teaching and imparting those skills. But here is where the humanities folks need to cross the aisle.

The folks in the Humanities need to show that reading, writing, communicating, analyzing doesn’t only have to be fiction, poetry, or political/cultural history. The bulk of what most people receiving college educations will read or will need to read include:

academic articles

nonfiction texts

periodicals

critical analyses

The bulk of what they will need to write will include:

academic articles

nonfiction texts

presentations

critical analyses

My word of advice, then, is, my fellow writer, artist, polyglot instructor friends– you need to figure out fast, furiously, and first, how to incorporate these elements into your teaching, and, to go out of your way again and again to show how these elements contribute to the building of all students into critical thinkers, writers, communicators, etc.

Here are some short thought exercises to demonstrate.

French and German programs are being cut on many college campuses. Imagine if French and German programs also included curricula on scientific articles in those two languages, the history of these two cultures’ immense contribution to technology and science, and/or how to write academic articles in those languages? I know. I know. Maybe you just don’t wanna. The departments have long been built around the study of literature. But, if in reaching across the aisle to STEM meant keeping the department alive, would that be enough of an incentive to give something like this a try?

Similarly, English and art departments can reach across the aisle to incorporate readings, writing, thinking, and design related to STEM. Art is a natural background for anyone interested in manufacturing, product development, civil engineering, etc. to have.

Last but not least, a ready fit exists between history and STEM. NYU communications professor Neil Postman argued in his text Technopoly for a mandatory inclusion of the history of a field in the undergraduate major of any field. He asserted that the deep knowledge of a history of a field is key for understanding the way to move forward in said field. On that note, the innovation literature points to depth of knowledge as a key factor in innovative competitive advantage with respect to R & D (research and development) departments. Many history departments offer specialists on the history of the Industrial Revolution, Labor History, or of women and work, etc. It is not a far leap to take to include classes in the History of Biology, the History of Engineering, the History of Math, the History of Manufacturing, the History of Technology, etc. and potentially not have to stretch far to find competent instructors in history willing to create curriculum around such subjects.

I can hear the criticism coming my way for suggesting that what Liberal Arts already offers is somehow not good enough. I am not saying that at all. I am saying that folks in Liberal Arts have more to offer a wider academic community than they are currently being given credit for. Further, in my small amount of time in the sciences and tech field, I have heard people genuinely perplexed about what the humanities has to offer any more in terms of professional and academic relevance, AND in 2011 I  have witnessed one of the languages I minored in at college (German) get cut entirely from many universities under budget duress.

Taking people’s actions and thoughts at face value, the message I have been getting is clear: Humanities is not relevant like it used to be. I could argue till I’m blue in the face about how every American should read Faulkner or Morrison or be exposed to the root of the English language (German) or really understand the history of our country and the world, but, I may be arguing with myself, and, other people already like me–I would be preaching to the converted.

The way to make new converts is to bring them a message they have not yet heard in a way that meets them where they are. That is supposed to be part of what we teach in the humanities. Communication skills, persuasive reading and writing, new trains of thought, new paradigms, paradigm shifts, re-imagining the future, bridging fields, is what we are supposed to be about in Liberal Arts. If we can’t change and advocate for ourselves, then maybe we ARE no longer relevant.

Moreover, I want to take a moment for how I was personally done a disservice by the American binary of being good in Liberal Arts or good at STEM. As a kid, I loved science. I unfortunately had a terrible science education from the seventh grade forward (but a solid education in my English classes). My junior high school science teacher talked non-stop about his football playing son and cheer-leading daughter; we did no science the whole year. My subsequent teachers were inexperienced, at best. I had one lab my entire secondary school experience. My dad was on top of things at least enough to order Omni and Discover for me– that is where I learned initially what I know about science. In college, I was hungry to take a science class–BUT, I knew I could not compete in College Biology with the pre-med majors. So, for twenty years, I stayed far, far away (Okay, not totally true. I did teach Life Science for a year at a junior high and I taught science for two years as part of an elementary curriculum. But I had to relearn high school science on my own in order to be able to do that. I know now that my teaching would have been greatly improved by more higher ed. classes in science and math.).

If the STEM folks are as serious as they claim about getting more Americans involved in science and technology, they, too, have to reach across the aisle to the students in Liberal Arts that have a lot to contribute to scientific thought and knowledge, but may have been discouraged by ill-prepared teachers or by binary thinking. Introductory classes in science and math should also be made available and required at Liberal Arts schools that focus on the non-STEM major or potential major.  You also should get some people capable of bridging the binary to reach out. Do not just send your math PhD students to teach Math for Dummies to the artists. The STEM folks also need to learn how art is relevant to their endeavors, and how to reach humanities students where they are, and to search for areas of commonality between STEM and Liberal Arts as starting points.

In the last year, I have come back to an enthusiasm for science and technology that I had more than twenty years ago. My life has become much richer since taking on learning more about science and technology; truly, it is as if a veil has been lifted and much of the activity of the modern world makes more sense to me. I am simultaneously more aware and more able to be critical (and to support my criticisms) of this modern world. I am examining how technology through the ages has shaped human thought in each age, shaped what it has meant to be human, and shaped especially how we as humans communicate. In short, with no writing (a technology), I would not be a writer. With no keyboard (technology), I would not be the writer I am. Now, with no internet (technology), I may have never published a book. With no internet, I certainly wouldn’t have become a multimedia (technology) creator. Technology has impacted what I write as fiction, even what fiction is.

Thus, in every respect, any more, as creative practitioners, thought practitioners, academics, or employees, we in Liberal Arts can no longer afford to be STEM-ignorant or immune.