This thing called "Leftism" (whether of the Marxist or Social Justice variety) pronounced a death sentence against European civilization and capitalist liberal democracy over a century ago and has worked nonstop to put it into effect, and now that it has entered into an marriage of convenience with global capitalism it is (ironically?) about to achieve its goal.
The reasons why Western Civ had to die have shifted depending upon time and place, first it was because of the crimes of the capitalists against the "proletariat", then once the working class raised its standard of living it became about escaping traditional conformity and achieving a post-Freudian sexual/spiritual liberation, and lastly the reason is Bigotry, or the crimes of Europeans against women, blacks/browns & gays.
Either way, the reasons shifted but the leaders were always the same: secular mostly non-creative intellectuals who imagine themselves a tribe of enlightened philosopher-kings who promised "socialist liberation" and a ticket to the Promised Land if only we gave them unlimited power.
At a certain point post-60s the New Leftists decided that their best hope of fulfilling their power fantasies was invading and conquering the Academy and gradually converting people to their belief system, one student at a time. They styled themselves as "official defenders of the Oppressed" which allowed them to seize the moral high ground and smear any opponents with all sorts of promiscuous bigotry accusations.
And now their victory is complete: young scholars only choose a specialty so they can denounce and demolish it, and there are very few works of art, thought or scholarship that are not infused with their propaganda.
The only consolation is that these termites of civilization can only destroy, not build. Art, art history and scholarship thrived and survived before American academia existed, and will do so once again after American academia commits suicide.
One of the scriptwriters for The Wire, a former inner city school teacher, remarked that class attendance and participation soared whenever there was a Greek myths unit. Kids who hadn't been to school in weeks suddenly started showing up, eager to hear about Achilles and the Illiad.
I taught upper elementary school (grades 4 and 5) for many years. Each year I would do a mini-unit on Greek mythology, and this was always a class favorite. I can recall that one year when I was doing a daily read-aloud of a children's version of The Odyssey, there was a school assembly scheduled for the afternoon. I told the class we wouldn't be doing the read-aloud that day because our reading time conflicted with the assembly schedule. One of my students, who rarely showed any interest in books, raised his hand and asked if "we could just skip the assembly" so the class wouldn't have to miss out on the read aloud. The class wholeheartedly agreed. Students generally viewed assemblies as a welcome reprieve, but the kids loved The Odyssey so much, they didn't want to miss one day of reading.
Great essay and very balanced, I have to say. I went through a similar experience as a student. In 2011, I was a student in the Integrated Humanities Program at the University of Vermont. The program was modeled on what I believe is called the “great books” program from the University of Chicago. We spent the first semester taking English, History, and Religion courses treating the time period from around 500 BC to 500 AD and largely centered on Greece and Rome. Think Aeschylus’ “Oresteia,” “The History of the Peloponnesian War” from Thucydides, “Gilgamesh,” and of course “The Iliad” and “The Odyssey.” The second semester was all about the Renaissance up to the 20th Century. “Anna Karenina,” “Frankenstein,” Hegel, Marx, Rousseau, Freud...the list goes on. God, I wish I could find those old syllabi now. The program only had 30 students and in addition to taking classes together, we also lived together in a block of suites in the residence hall. You can imagine what that was like. The program attracted the best sort of student, not strivers or grade conscious, but kids who actually wanted to learn. We’d spend late nights “symposifying” in the Greek sense of the word.
A few years ago, I heard the program had been disbanded. Part of the reason was that the professors who ran it had all retired or passed away. Without them, there was no one to pull the program along. Maybe there were no younger professors passionate enough about antiquity and “the classics” to keep the program going, maybe there was less demand among incoming students, maybe trying to justify a year long program that views “the canon” as an essential part of a liberal arts education was a non-starter with the administration. Whatever the case, the program that shaped my understanding of the world and gave me one of the best years of my life is gone. Thanks for the trip down memory lane.
I wish you good luck with your job search. 25 yrs. ago I graduated with an academic doctorate from an Ivy League school in the humanities in my mid-40s. There were hundreds of applicants for every job for which I applied, such that the committees could select on the basis of hair color if they were so inclined, and they were. After years of futility and bouncing around in adjunct jobs I ruefully observed to my wife that there were more openings for her as an RN in a small town than there were for me on the planet. So I hope that you, too, have married well. I eventually found other things to do, but never made serious money.
Thank you for this essay. As a fellow relatively green teacher of cannon in the arts (philosophy for artists) there is much that rings true here, not least the excitement and joy of that first semester.
I teach the modern classics — Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Baudelaire, Adorno etc — heavily supplemented by contemporaneous contributions from less canonical "non-white-dudes" (as my students would say). Even still, it's the old way, and I'm well aware that the days of this syllabus are numbered. But oh boy has it been worth it.
Nice work. Inserting a bit of the elegiac into the mix without ranting about the sky falling on our gilded past is no mean trick. I’m a high school art teacher in LA w/an art history MA from a low-profile st. U commuter school and I feel ya. 2 points: opening up the scope of art history survey courses isn’t a bad thing and, truth be told, isn’t likely to be very consequential. Anyway there isn’t exactly a dearth of material available to the truly interested. Also, most right wingers have generally sternly re-directed their children away from serious study of the humanities for generations now, and are witnessing the consequences of that. Point 2: the Greeks refuse to go away, and people still want to know more. How cool is that?
But at what point does Global Art History unravel into a pointless exercise of spotting cross-cultural superficialities? It reminds me of how Hume botched the understanding of “religion” by seeking to bring it all under the same umbrella, only to have recast everything as another form of Protestantism, with “belief” at the center. The sad fact is that “dismantling” the canon is just recasting the same vocabularies and assumptions to object to which they don’t belong.
I remember taking a modern art class taught by an Indian (South Asian) woman prof. While I was expecting we would start with Impressionism, pointillism or even Turner, she started in the renaissance with the revival of classical (Ancient Rome/Greece) subjects (art, literature, sculpture), explaining that the history preserved by the Byzantine and Muslim world was being rediscovered by Western Europe and also introduced a bit about scientific experimentation and observation. She showed the progression/evolution into modern art from there.
So a non-white, non-male full prof (so she can choose how to teach) decides to spend a couple classes mentioning the Greeks and Romans and covering the European renaissance whilst ostensibly teaching modern art, but what will happen now? Will such allusions be banned?
I earned a B.A. in history from UC Berkeley about a 100 years ago and while I was never given an opportunity to focused on his writings, I am still inspired by historian Martin Gilbert. I would imagine this philosophy would apply to Art History just as it applies to a traditional study of history. It was not always easy, even back then, to separate historical fact from opinion. One had to dive deep (something Martin suggests) in order to do so -- not always popular with those who graded your papers.
“It would be wrong to judge a historical figure solely by the standards of the present day. Every generation has its own morality. The historian is not primarily a judge who drags people from out of their environment and places them before a contemporary tribunal. His first aim is to see whether the people he studies acted for the good of their own society, as they envisaged that good. His second aim is to ask whether the ideas which he is examining are valid in terms of present values.” -- Sir Martin Gilbert.
I really liked this. I especially like the bit (and subsequent replies) about how everyone simply wants more Greek mythology. I shared it with my Thai-by-way-of-Texas wife and it's no mystery to her: Greek myths are endlessly fascinating and relatable.
One nitpick: The Romans invented concrete not cement. I think of it like this: cement bonds like glue--concrete is hard like stone. We use cement to make concrete.
I enjoyed reading this so much. Your students are very lucky.
This thing called "Leftism" (whether of the Marxist or Social Justice variety) pronounced a death sentence against European civilization and capitalist liberal democracy over a century ago and has worked nonstop to put it into effect, and now that it has entered into an marriage of convenience with global capitalism it is (ironically?) about to achieve its goal.
The reasons why Western Civ had to die have shifted depending upon time and place, first it was because of the crimes of the capitalists against the "proletariat", then once the working class raised its standard of living it became about escaping traditional conformity and achieving a post-Freudian sexual/spiritual liberation, and lastly the reason is Bigotry, or the crimes of Europeans against women, blacks/browns & gays.
Either way, the reasons shifted but the leaders were always the same: secular mostly non-creative intellectuals who imagine themselves a tribe of enlightened philosopher-kings who promised "socialist liberation" and a ticket to the Promised Land if only we gave them unlimited power.
At a certain point post-60s the New Leftists decided that their best hope of fulfilling their power fantasies was invading and conquering the Academy and gradually converting people to their belief system, one student at a time. They styled themselves as "official defenders of the Oppressed" which allowed them to seize the moral high ground and smear any opponents with all sorts of promiscuous bigotry accusations.
And now their victory is complete: young scholars only choose a specialty so they can denounce and demolish it, and there are very few works of art, thought or scholarship that are not infused with their propaganda.
The only consolation is that these termites of civilization can only destroy, not build. Art, art history and scholarship thrived and survived before American academia existed, and will do so once again after American academia commits suicide.
One of the scriptwriters for The Wire, a former inner city school teacher, remarked that class attendance and participation soared whenever there was a Greek myths unit. Kids who hadn't been to school in weeks suddenly started showing up, eager to hear about Achilles and the Illiad.
I taught upper elementary school (grades 4 and 5) for many years. Each year I would do a mini-unit on Greek mythology, and this was always a class favorite. I can recall that one year when I was doing a daily read-aloud of a children's version of The Odyssey, there was a school assembly scheduled for the afternoon. I told the class we wouldn't be doing the read-aloud that day because our reading time conflicted with the assembly schedule. One of my students, who rarely showed any interest in books, raised his hand and asked if "we could just skip the assembly" so the class wouldn't have to miss out on the read aloud. The class wholeheartedly agreed. Students generally viewed assemblies as a welcome reprieve, but the kids loved The Odyssey so much, they didn't want to miss one day of reading.
I believe Victor Davis Hanson has said the same thing about many of his working-class Hispanic students in the Central Valley of California.
Thank you for posting this. I couldn't find this with a quick google, but am interested in hearing what else was said. Do you have a reference?
Only my memory, and I am a cat so my memory isn't always on point.
Great essay and very balanced, I have to say. I went through a similar experience as a student. In 2011, I was a student in the Integrated Humanities Program at the University of Vermont. The program was modeled on what I believe is called the “great books” program from the University of Chicago. We spent the first semester taking English, History, and Religion courses treating the time period from around 500 BC to 500 AD and largely centered on Greece and Rome. Think Aeschylus’ “Oresteia,” “The History of the Peloponnesian War” from Thucydides, “Gilgamesh,” and of course “The Iliad” and “The Odyssey.” The second semester was all about the Renaissance up to the 20th Century. “Anna Karenina,” “Frankenstein,” Hegel, Marx, Rousseau, Freud...the list goes on. God, I wish I could find those old syllabi now. The program only had 30 students and in addition to taking classes together, we also lived together in a block of suites in the residence hall. You can imagine what that was like. The program attracted the best sort of student, not strivers or grade conscious, but kids who actually wanted to learn. We’d spend late nights “symposifying” in the Greek sense of the word.
A few years ago, I heard the program had been disbanded. Part of the reason was that the professors who ran it had all retired or passed away. Without them, there was no one to pull the program along. Maybe there were no younger professors passionate enough about antiquity and “the classics” to keep the program going, maybe there was less demand among incoming students, maybe trying to justify a year long program that views “the canon” as an essential part of a liberal arts education was a non-starter with the administration. Whatever the case, the program that shaped my understanding of the world and gave me one of the best years of my life is gone. Thanks for the trip down memory lane.
I wish you good luck with your job search. 25 yrs. ago I graduated with an academic doctorate from an Ivy League school in the humanities in my mid-40s. There were hundreds of applicants for every job for which I applied, such that the committees could select on the basis of hair color if they were so inclined, and they were. After years of futility and bouncing around in adjunct jobs I ruefully observed to my wife that there were more openings for her as an RN in a small town than there were for me on the planet. So I hope that you, too, have married well. I eventually found other things to do, but never made serious money.
Your students are lucky to have you, T!
Ha! I thought if you when I read this and was hoping you'd see it!
Thank you for this essay. As a fellow relatively green teacher of cannon in the arts (philosophy for artists) there is much that rings true here, not least the excitement and joy of that first semester.
I teach the modern classics — Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Baudelaire, Adorno etc — heavily supplemented by contemporaneous contributions from less canonical "non-white-dudes" (as my students would say). Even still, it's the old way, and I'm well aware that the days of this syllabus are numbered. But oh boy has it been worth it.
One of my favorite lines (if I'm remembering it correctly):
"The study of beauty is a duel in which the artist shrieks with terror before being overcome."
C.Baudelaire
Nice work. Inserting a bit of the elegiac into the mix without ranting about the sky falling on our gilded past is no mean trick. I’m a high school art teacher in LA w/an art history MA from a low-profile st. U commuter school and I feel ya. 2 points: opening up the scope of art history survey courses isn’t a bad thing and, truth be told, isn’t likely to be very consequential. Anyway there isn’t exactly a dearth of material available to the truly interested. Also, most right wingers have generally sternly re-directed their children away from serious study of the humanities for generations now, and are witnessing the consequences of that. Point 2: the Greeks refuse to go away, and people still want to know more. How cool is that?
But at what point does Global Art History unravel into a pointless exercise of spotting cross-cultural superficialities? It reminds me of how Hume botched the understanding of “religion” by seeking to bring it all under the same umbrella, only to have recast everything as another form of Protestantism, with “belief” at the center. The sad fact is that “dismantling” the canon is just recasting the same vocabularies and assumptions to object to which they don’t belong.
I remember taking a modern art class taught by an Indian (South Asian) woman prof. While I was expecting we would start with Impressionism, pointillism or even Turner, she started in the renaissance with the revival of classical (Ancient Rome/Greece) subjects (art, literature, sculpture), explaining that the history preserved by the Byzantine and Muslim world was being rediscovered by Western Europe and also introduced a bit about scientific experimentation and observation. She showed the progression/evolution into modern art from there.
So a non-white, non-male full prof (so she can choose how to teach) decides to spend a couple classes mentioning the Greeks and Romans and covering the European renaissance whilst ostensibly teaching modern art, but what will happen now? Will such allusions be banned?
As a young cat, I took a course on Islamic Art. Feminist students in the class were perennially butthurt over the lack of Islamic Women's Art.
Fantastic essay, thanks and good luck in your new role and coming works
Is it really eccentric to get a PhD in your fourties? Seems like your students will benefit from your life experience and accumulated wisdom.
I earned a B.A. in history from UC Berkeley about a 100 years ago and while I was never given an opportunity to focused on his writings, I am still inspired by historian Martin Gilbert. I would imagine this philosophy would apply to Art History just as it applies to a traditional study of history. It was not always easy, even back then, to separate historical fact from opinion. One had to dive deep (something Martin suggests) in order to do so -- not always popular with those who graded your papers.
“It would be wrong to judge a historical figure solely by the standards of the present day. Every generation has its own morality. The historian is not primarily a judge who drags people from out of their environment and places them before a contemporary tribunal. His first aim is to see whether the people he studies acted for the good of their own society, as they envisaged that good. His second aim is to ask whether the ideas which he is examining are valid in terms of present values.” -- Sir Martin Gilbert.
Good luck in your future career. I know it will be a hard road.
I really liked this. I especially like the bit (and subsequent replies) about how everyone simply wants more Greek mythology. I shared it with my Thai-by-way-of-Texas wife and it's no mystery to her: Greek myths are endlessly fascinating and relatable.
One nitpick: The Romans invented concrete not cement. I think of it like this: cement bonds like glue--concrete is hard like stone. We use cement to make concrete.
Anyway, great essay and good luck with teaching!
updated, thank you!
What a wonderful article! From one history nerd to another, thank you. Your students are incredibly fortunate.