Has the devaluation of the humanities contributed to the election of Trump?

Humanities help people to see from other points of view – but denigrating these subjects has resulted in reduced demand. What is being lost? 

Rosário Couto Costa
24 August 2017

Lecture hall. Image: Kai Schreiber, CC BY-SA 2.0. Some rights reserved.President Trump recently tried to eliminate the National Education Association and National Endowment for the Humanities. This proposal is another step in the already long process of marginalizing the humanities in society. According to Martha Nussbaum, an American philosopher, the effects of the devaluation of and growing disinterest in the humanities could jeopardise democracy itself. This a general tendency which can be observed in the academic context of several countries and particularly in the United States since the early 1980s. This raises the question: to what extent has such a shift served as a favourable factor to Trump’s election? 

Recent evidence (collected between 2000 and 2012 in a group of thirty countries) shows that the number of students who get degrees in the humanities area (graduates and PhDs) does not correlate with the increase of higher education attendance in general. The negligence of these fields was more pronounced at the doctoral level, with some countries registering a double loss: a decrease both in relative and absolute terms.

In the line with the German sociologist Norbert Elias’ thinking, the complexity underlying the issue of adherence to higher education by scientific fields has been kept in mind throughout this research. The question is double-edged: on the one hand, which courses and vacancies are available and, on the other, what are the choices made by students? Thus, greater or less adherence to the humanities results from a set of choices, determined by a large number of individuals with a wide range of interdependent interests and, therefore, under constant possibility to influence and be influenced.

In short, the humanities are held hostage to economic validation, inconsistent with the kind of knowledge they develop. 

In other words, it is possible to observe an incomprehension of the usefulness of humanities both in society and particularly in those by whom it is governed. Even humanities academics have difficulty convincing others of its relevance, and, when in competition for resources against other fields, the humanities are passed over. As a result, a growing misadjustment between these departments and the universities has been developing.

It is not surprising that neglect of the humanities has reached dimensions other than the demand for degrees. From a symptom we move to a syndrome: the decrease of funding, both in education and research; the limitation of its space in the structure of a university, through elimination of courses and even of departments; the consequent devaluation of human resources linked to them (through the reduction of vacancies, lower salaries, overtime in working hours); the reduction of specific resources in libraries; and, last but not least, the application of forms of evaluation of scientific activity that are not in line with the specificities of these domains. This process can degenerate into a vicious cycle of depreciation of the humanities.

In short, the humanities are held hostage to economic validation, inconsistent with the kind of knowledge they develop. In general, they are neither areas privileged by politicians nor sufficiently recognised by the academic community, and society adheres to this view. News from various parts of the world demonstrate that this problem, far from belonging to the past, remains prevalent.

The humanities, by their comprehensiveness, allow students to acquire a range of knowledge on the cultural heritage of humanity.

But what is lost when the humanities are neglected in this way? In the study referred to above, despite corresponding to secondary tendencies, different discourses of value recognition in humanities’ higher education have been analysed. Positions of consensus have surfaced. The humanities, by their comprehensiveness, allow students to acquire a range of knowledge on the cultural heritage of humanity, necessary in many circumstances. In these learning processes, students activate a set of cognitive capacities that promote in themselves the habits of questioning and analysing what surrounds them, of communicating with quality, and of recognising that, for the same reality, different understandings are always possible. By putting themselves in others' shoes (for example, when studying literature), those individuals can improve their social sensitivity and become more inclusive.

In contrast, the devaluation of the humanities makes it hard for society to impregnate itself with a knowledge that is marked by its cultural density, and with a way of thinking that encourages critical, open and socially innovative thought. Instead of the knowledge and the intangible social values promoted by this set of disciplines, a kind of ignorance is seeping into society.

In other words, are we now on fertile terrain to make our ears receptive to Trump’s rhetoric and his agenda? It was indeed in the early 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was elected, that a period especially critical for the humanities began in the USA. Between his mandate and 2012 – the period covered in the research mentioned earlier – there was a very visible negative trend in funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities: save for rare exceptions, its evolution was marked by alternating periods of decreasing available budgets and periods of stagnation. Meanwhile, almost four decades have passed.

Stop the secrecy: Publish the NHS COVID data deals

To: Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

We’re calling on you to immediately release details of the secret NHS data deals struck with private companies, to deliver the NHS COVID-19 datastore.

We, the public, deserve to know exactly how our personal information has been traded in this ‘unprecedented’ deal with US tech giants like Google, and firms linked to Donald Trump (Palantir) and Vote Leave (Faculty AI).

The COVID-19 datastore will hold private, personal information about every single one of us who relies on the NHS. We don’t want our personal data falling into the wrong hands.

And we don’t want private companies – many with poor reputations for protecting privacy – using it for their own commercial purposes, or to undermine the NHS.

The datastore could be an important tool in tackling the pandemic. But for it to be a success, the public has to be able to trust it.

Today, we urgently call on you to publish all the data-sharing agreements, data-impact assessments, and details of how the private companies stand to profit from their involvement.

The NHS is a precious public institution. Any involvement from private companies should be open to public scrutiny and debate. We need more transparency during this pandemic – not less.

By adding my name to this campaign, I authorise openDemocracy and Foxglove to keep me updated about their important work.

Had enough of ‘alternative facts’? openDemocracy is different Join the conversation: get our weekly email


We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.
Audio available Bookmark Check Language Close Comments Download Facebook Link Email Newsletter Newsletter Play Print Share Twitter Youtube Search Instagram WhatsApp yourData