YEBIGA,

I fail to see what's objectionable about the course--apart from the commercial pitch. All history and study of the past is necessarily retroactive, seen through the lens of the present. Howevermuch you object to relativism, there's no escaping it. The past is dead to us and can only be re-animated in contemporary terms. This is why we have historiography, and why history is recurrently obsolete and rewritten. It's not just that new evidence comes to light, but because our illusions are repeatedly dispelled/upgraded--though it's doubtful we can ever cast off the final illusion and look objectively at past. Just as scientists recurrently refine and reinvent knowledge of their respective disciplines(though they will probably always understand phenomena in cultural, or at least "human" rather than omniscient terms), so in the humanities we improve our understanding of society past and, more importantly, present.
The focus on gender, sexuality and other group identities acknowledges the fall of the concept of an individual and independent self, which there is no empirical evidence for and every reason to doubt according to academic strictures (as opposed to religious scriptures). If anything, this recognition of our "cultured" identities undermines the liberal doctrine of individualism and ought to alert us to its commodification.

What exactly do you object to in any of this? How is it pandering to the neo-liberal ascendency? And if it is, why do the liberals object to it? How exactly should the humanities comport itself? Should it have a direct radical agenda (which it does not)? Should it shy away from radical findings about ourselves and stick to the party line? Should it passively translate inconvenient findings into contemporary, politically-correct values, as the Liberals and Quadrant do?
How would you reorder the Humanities?
Your turn to say something constructive.

to add further, I had one arts/commerce student, trying to get me to do commerce, tell me that my thinking was in line with rational choice theory.

Well to this day, I don't know what rational choice theory means, nor do I care.

My starting point, albeit I am still criticised by some for bias, is the collection of evidence and the identified trends, whether positive or negative.

That is my starting point with my current attempt at analysis of the Abbott govt's first term.

I have some concerns, but in line with my feeling that we live in difficult times, I will not make the judgment until the first term if finished and all evidence (within reason) is assessed in line with my ability to do so.

piorot/Yebiga: Your braggadocio is kinda funny in that case..... because you're way off the mark.

The two, poirot & Yegiba overlays of other Topics Posts about Asylum Seekers match's exactly.

I think, like me, you have read through Marks. I found it boring & contempory with the 19th Century. You have picked out the bits which match the ideology of the Koran & gone with that.

I find if strange that no-one has mentioned Mao's "Little Red Book" which I have in my Library somewhere. I read it a long time ago. Hey, it had some good bits I agreed with. A lot I didn't. Now that's something worth studying in Humanities, & only 60 years old.

Chris,

"Like I said previously, exposure to theory should be in humanities, but only as part of a course designed to get students to think critically about issues to weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of different perspectives in accordance to the evidence."

I'm interested in how we form our perspectives of human behaviour. I have a 12 year-old whose major interest is history. He loves to poke around and discover what he can - and regarding more recent history, already heads straight for primary documents if it's possible to access them online. We homeschool, but I don't bother formally teaching him history as his delvings far surpass anything I could toss at him.

The main theme that comes through is that he is always forced to factor in all the themes of existence. Whether he's learning about Victorian England or the Spartans, he is obliged to take into account the realities of life at the time - and the spirit of the times, etc.

His perspective is constantly being renewed and refreshed, and together with discussion with those around him, I'm sure it must help to round his understanding of humanity.

I also believe all his critical faculties are enhanced by his freedom to pursue his research at will, he gains a sense of continuity by being able to forge his own way ahead - one thing leads to another - and he absorbs them as they arrive.

Poirot, it's good to see you son is self-educating. I guess he realizes that there's not much future in studying the Koran all day in Australia. Maybe he could help you come to terms with Australian Culture.

Squeers thank you for the question. Chris, it is not actually possible to ignore the past, as it will unwittingly inform your ideas. Poirot thank you for the encouragement.

“There but for the grace of god (circumstances or luck) walk I”

This perspective, informs the humanities from the ancient world until the 20th century. Thus even within a fundamentally conservative and even despotic prescription like Plato’s Republic all of society -everyman is present. In Shakespeare, the subject maybe the King but King Lear is every father, Lady Macbeth every wife. Ditto in Dickens, Dostoyevsky, Descartes or Nietzsche.

For Universities to focus on ethnicity within the ancient world of Rome/Greece is more than ignorant. You cannot interpret a single ancient text by ethnicity. The distinguishing feature of the rise of Rome is precisely its lack of ethnicity: Roman Emperor or Slave was as likely to be Italian as African, Middle Eastern or Gay. Ethnicity is a modern or post enlightenment construct.

Chris may attempt to ignore the past, but it lives within us and is passed on. For example, the morality, underpinning our entire socio-political structure, is informed by Christianity, Neo-Platonism, the enlightenment and post masturbation. You may choose to be unaware of it but you cannot choose to be uninfected.

Back to Squeers question. The humanities, in propagating sectarianism, elevating and deifying our differences; has thereby – with all the best intentions – undermined our civic and communal affinities. Thus, divided society becomes pliable to malevolent oligarchical forces. In a democratic system, being able to win over a single sect is often decisive in the passing of any legislation.

My prescription will no doubt fail to impress because of its simplicity. The humanities must return to the perspective of there but for the grace of god, walk I. It must cease sectarianism; even the narrative of evil oligarchs is wrongheaded. There is an accessible truth and discovering it our endless task; even the most despicable must not be demonized but understood.

Why do Neo-conservatives object to the Humanities? The same reason the Military Industry needs Terrorists