Those of you who read this blog frequently will know that I often gas on about why I think Harvard professors (and professors in general) should blog—as a tool for pedagogy, a way to translate the process of thinking and writing into a daily exercise, and a means of communicating intellectual passions to the world beyond the gated walls of academe. This is particularly true, I’ve suggested, for the humanities, which need to work harder to convey relevance and value in an increasingly competitive world than do the social sciences and sciences.

An article in yesterday’s Times raises this issue anew. It’s called, “In Tough Times, Humanities Must Justify Their Worth.”

...in this new era of lengthening unemployment lines and shrinking university endowments, questions about the importance of the humanities in a complex and technologically demanding world have taken on new urgency. Previous economic downturns have often led to decreased enrollment in the disciplines loosely grouped under the term “humanities” — which generally include languages, literature, the arts, history, cultural studies, philosophy and religion. Many in the field worry that in this current crisis those areas will be hit hardest.

Of course, tenured professors may have job security, and therefore feel they don’t need to blog—but that doesn’t mean they have cultural relevance.

…“Although people in humanities have always lamented the state of the field, they have never felt quite as much of a panic that their field is becoming irrelevant,” said Andrew Delbanco, the director of American studies at Columbia University.

Former president Derek Bok argues that the humanities justify themselves plenty.

Derek Bok, a former president of Harvard and the author of several books on higher education, argues, “The humanities has a lot to contribute to the preparation of students for their vocational lives.” He said he was referring not only to writing and analytical skills but also to the type of ethical issues raised by new technology like stem-cell research. But he added: “There’s a lot more to a liberal education than improving the economy. I think that is one of the worst mistakes that policy makers often make — not being able to see beyond that.”

This is common sense, of course, and inarguable. Anyone who’s spent any time in the private sector has seen the value of a liberal arts education in the workforce, even if it’s just in the ability (or often shocking lack thereof) to write a decent paragraph.

(A few days ago, for professional reasons, I met with the head of a boutique investment bank, and he threw some Emerson at me; I asked if he remembered the lines from college, and he said no, he frequently re-read Emerson. I conveyed my opinion that Emerson is the most overrated American thinker, and we had a nice little chat.)

But Bok’s tone, at least, is also faintly anachronistic (as is so much about Bok, and I mean that as a compliment).

The reason that policymakers often fail to see why the humanities are relevant to the work of public policymaking is because the humanities are often so inward-looking; its practitioners don’t feel the need to justify themselves, to demonstrate their social import. The value of their work is simply seen as self-evident. Or, they’d rather not bother; easier to write books that their peers, if no one else, will read.

But like the members of any profession, humanists need to market themselves, or what may just be a failure of insight on the part of policymakers will prove to be a reality by default. If everyone thinks the humanities are irrelevant, then even if they aren’t, they may in effect become so….

As the Times article warns,

As money tightens, the humanities may increasingly return to being what they were at the beginning of the last century, when only a minuscule portion of the population attended college: namely, the province of the wealthy….

Bennington, anyone?