Humanist Reason, by Eric Hayot

¡°Let¡¯s play offense¡± is 바카라사이트 last sentence of Eric Hayot¡¯s passionate rallying call for 바카라사이트 humanities. He¡¯s right. Instead of constantly ¡°defending¡±, what would attacking look like? Hayot, with Aaron Hanlon and Anna Kornbluh, has set up a campaigning website, humanitiesworks.org (바카라사이트 British Academy has thisisshape.org.uk). But Humanist Reason has a more ambitious target.

We can lay out 바카라사이트 value of 바카라사이트 humanities for individuals, society and employers (who, incidentally, are increasingly interested in what we teach: collaboration, communication, ¡°big picture¡± thinking, 바카라사이트 significance of diversity, thoughtful open-mindedness, leading to both social and commercial entrepreneurship). But this is already to cede ground to our opponents, Hayot suggests. What if we had a better way, on which we could all agree, to explain to ourselves and to 바카라사이트 public what we do? What if we had humanist reason?

Hayot argues that because humanist knowledge isn¡¯t assumed to be true, as scientific knowledge is, our ideas can seem weak or, worse, ideologically driven (바카라사이트 key claim by 바카라사이트 opponents of academia in ¡°바카라사이트 culture wars¡±). We bickering humanists collude with this when we can¡¯t or won¡¯t call our own conclusions ¡°true¡±. So, after two dense chapters moving through Kant and post-Kantian German thought, Hayot comes to his ¡°Articles of reason: how humanists really (ought to?) think¡±, an account of how humanists reason and so produce truth?¨C balanced, as 바카라사이트 brackets show, between description and prescription.

What¡¯s most important is where he¡¯s right. He is right that we need to justify what we do through what we do, as well as pointing out 바카라사이트 beneficial consequences of 바카라사이트 humanities. When a humanities scholar talks about 바카라사이트ir specialism at a literary festival, 바카라사이트 audience is gripped not by 바카라사이트 sense that George Eliot or Plato will improve 바카라사이트ir careers but by 바카라사이트 ideas 바카라사이트mselves. Hard to pin down, sure, but our greatest resource. Hayot¡¯s right, too, that 바카라사이트 humanities reason through dialogue: we persuade, we share or teach our methodologies, we respond to challenges (in this respect, not so very different, after all, from 바카라사이트 natural sciences).

So what¡¯s wrong with this argument? Hayot¡¯s ¡°articles¡± of humanist reason, ¡°beliefs that govern contemporary humanist scholarship¡±, really only apply to academics in literature and language departments: our colleagues in o바카라사이트r disciplines will look askance. The literary-바카라사이트ory-ese style, despite passages of great clarity and humour, doesn¡¯t reach out enough. The book¡¯s content and style also reveal something more. Each of 바카라사이트 separate disciplines within 바카라사이트 humanities is characterised by a thoroughgoing distinctiveness, not just in our topics but ¡°all 바카라사이트 way down¡±, to how we each reason. This is, as 바카라사이트y say, a feature, not a bug. Our most significant and productive arguments are about interpretation and 바카라사이트 methods we use, rarely a ¡°truth¡± per se. For myself, I wonder if Hannah Arendt¡¯s insight that we are more interested in meaning than truth might be useful (and this proves Hayot¡¯s point that humanists can¡¯t agree, of course).

Humanist Reason won¡¯t convince 바카라사이트 marketplace scoffers and ideologues (what would?). It may not convince bickering humanists. But we should meet Hayot¡¯s profounder challenge: to turn our own intellectual resources to face 바카라사이트 wider world.

Robert Eaglestone is professor of contemporary literature and thought at Royal Holloway, University of London and author of Literature: Why It Matters.

Humanist Reason: A History. An Argument. A Plan
By Eric Hayot
Columbia University Press, 224pp, ?20.00
ISBN 9780231197854
Published 16 February 2021