What do you think?
Rate this book
The Public Square
賱賷爻 賱賱乇亘丨 : 賱賲丕匕丕 鬲丨鬲丕噩 丕賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞 廿賱賶 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丕鬲
賷賵丨賷 丿丕賮毓 丕賱乇亘丨 賱賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賯丕丿丞 丕賱賲賴鬲賲賷賳 兀賳 丕賱毓賱賵賲 賵丕賱鬲賯賳賷丞 丨丕爻賲丕 丕賱兀賴賲賷丞 賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱 爻賱賷賲 賱亘賱丕丿賴賲. 賱賷爻 賱丿賷賳丕 丕毓鬲乇丕囟 毓賱賶 鬲毓賱賷賲 毓賱賲賷 賵鬲賯賳賷 噩賷丿. 賵賱賳 兀賯鬲乇丨 鬲賵賯賮 丕賱亘賱丿丕賳 毓賳 賲丨丕賵賱丞 丕賱鬲丨爻賳 賮賷賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘匕賱賰. 賯賱賯賷 賴賵 兀賳 丕賱賯丿乇丕鬲 丕賱兀禺乇賶 丕賱賲爻丕賵賷丞 賮賷 丕賱兀賴賲賷丞 賴賷 毓乇囟丞 賱賱賮賯丿丕賳 賮賷 賮賵乇丞 丕賱鬲賳丕賮爻貙 賯丿乇丕鬲 丨丕爻賲丞 賱爻賱丕賲丞 兀賷 丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞 丿丕禺賱賷賸賾丕貙 賵賱禺賱賯 孬賯丕賮丞 毓丕賱賲賷丞 賲丨鬲乇賲丞 賯丕丿乇丞 亘卮賰賱 亘賳賾丕亍 毓賱賶 賲毓丕賱噩丞 兀賰孬乇 賲卮賰賱丕鬲 丕賱毓丕賱賲 囟睾胤賸丕.
184 pages, Paperback
First published May 2, 2010
180 people are currently reading
4415 people want to read
About the author
Martha C. Nussbaum
168听books1,307听followersMartha C. Nussbaum is Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, appointed in the Law School and the Philosophy Department. Among her many awards are the 2018 Berggruen Prize, the 2017 Don M. Randel Award for Humanistic Studies from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the 2016 Kyoto Prize in Arts and Philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 239 reviews
August 25, 2013
Indian parents take pride in a child who gains admission to the Institutes of Technology and Management; they are ashamed of a child who studies literature, or philosophy, or who wants to paint or dance or sing.
Nussbaum wants to change this situation with this manifesto, with this call to action. With the very poignantly titled Not for Profit, Nussbaum alerts us to a 鈥渟ilent crisis鈥� in which nations 鈥渄iscard skills鈥� as they 鈥渢hirst for national profit.鈥�: a world-wide crisis in education. She focuses on two major educational systems to illustrate this: one in the grips of the crisis and in its death row. The other carelessly hurtling towards it, undoing much of the good done before (and worse, the USA is a leader in most fields, and rest of the world may well follow where it leads).
What is this developing crisis? Nussbaum laments that the humanities and the arts are being cut away, in both primary/secondary and college/university education, in virtually every nation of the world. Seen by policy-makers, parents and students as nothing but useless frills, and at a time when nations must cut away all useless things in order to stay competitive in the global market, they are rapidly losing their place in curricula, and also in the minds and hearts of parents and children.
This is most prevalent and inevitable in the placement-based institutions, especially the IITs and the IIMs and the newspapers that hawk their successes, that measure their success purely on the drama of placements and on the excesses of the pay-packages. This sort of a higher education orientation also changes the early school cultures, with parents having no patience for allegedly superfluous skills, and intent on getting their children filled with testable skills that seem likely to produce financial success by getting into the IITs and the IIMs.
Nussbaum says that in these IITs and IIMs, instructors are most disturbed by their students鈥� deficient humanities preparation. It might be heartening that it is precisely in these institutions, at the heart of India鈥檚 profit-oriented technology culture, that instructors have felt the need to introduce liberal arts courses, partly to counter the narrowness of their students.
But it is not really so. Even as professors struggle to introduce such courses, as students at IIM, we have an all-encompassing word for anything that comes anywhere close to the humanities: 鈥淕尝翱叠贰鈥� , and boy don鈥檛 we love using it. This throughly derogatory terms sums up the purely career-minded, profit-driven orientation of education in India鈥檚 elite institutions. I now feel a sense of complete despair at every laugh shared in the use of this expression. With the standards of success thus set, is it any wonder that the culture is seeping across the education spectrum?
After this dispiriting survey of Indian education, Nussbaum says that the situation is not as bad yet in the US due to an existing strong humanities culture in the higher institutions, but issues the below caveat:
We in the United States can study our own future in the government schools of India. Such will be our future if we continue down the road of 鈥渢eaching to the test,鈥� neglecting the activities that enliven children鈥檚 minds and make them see a connection between their school life and their daily life outside of school. We should be deeply alarmed that our own schools are rapidly, heedlessly, moving in the direction of the Indian norm, rather than the reverse.
January 15, 2011
I'm Reading this because of an assignment. It's not the sort of thing or author I'd generally bother with.
The book is trite, simplistic, poorly written, poorly argued - and that from one who is basically in sympathy with her general position. She draws a simple-minded distinction between "education for growth (which is bad; business or technology oriented) and education for critical thinking and self-development (Humanities; though this book, like much of the Humanities today, in fact, exhibits precious little of such allegedly "critical" thinking) -- she confuses NeoLberalism and NeoMercantilism, neither of which term she seems to be familiar with, lumping them together as "old paradigm" and "collectivist", and claims that the hyperdrive towards economic growth that one sees in India and South Africa (and presumably China?) will undercut democracy in the Western World (non-sequitur, anyone...?) -- this, by the way, at a time when the West has itself entered what is perhaps terminal economic decline and when the political consequences of that decline in growth are becoming clearer day by day (today, for example....: ) -- a threat she seems to be quite unaware of.
Basically a rehashing of ideals that were cutting edge in 1917 (Tagore, Dewey), but whose breathless espousal today... is something of an embarrassment. The intellectual narcissism of the Humanities in America is on full display here --
Though very bright, Nussbaum was a lousy classical scholar -- who had been feted and coddled by institutions (and by her 'mentor', Gwill Owen) since early days. Her work on Plato was awful -- not surprising, coming from the school she comes from (Owen and Vlastos); Aristotle, she thinks, was basically an 'essentialist' (which is incorrect: see, e.g., her dissertation, on the de motu animalium, was a fairly strong piece of work, as philosophical commentary goes... -- though her knowledge of Greek was always suspect. I could go on... But people are already angry at me for speaking the truth too loudly....
Anyway, the book is basically a waste of time -- BAG IT.
The book is trite, simplistic, poorly written, poorly argued - and that from one who is basically in sympathy with her general position. She draws a simple-minded distinction between "education for growth (which is bad; business or technology oriented) and education for critical thinking and self-development (Humanities; though this book, like much of the Humanities today, in fact, exhibits precious little of such allegedly "critical" thinking) -- she confuses NeoLberalism and NeoMercantilism, neither of which term she seems to be familiar with, lumping them together as "old paradigm" and "collectivist", and claims that the hyperdrive towards economic growth that one sees in India and South Africa (and presumably China?) will undercut democracy in the Western World (non-sequitur, anyone...?) -- this, by the way, at a time when the West has itself entered what is perhaps terminal economic decline and when the political consequences of that decline in growth are becoming clearer day by day (today, for example....: ) -- a threat she seems to be quite unaware of.
Basically a rehashing of ideals that were cutting edge in 1917 (Tagore, Dewey), but whose breathless espousal today... is something of an embarrassment. The intellectual narcissism of the Humanities in America is on full display here --
Though very bright, Nussbaum was a lousy classical scholar -- who had been feted and coddled by institutions (and by her 'mentor', Gwill Owen) since early days. Her work on Plato was awful -- not surprising, coming from the school she comes from (Owen and Vlastos); Aristotle, she thinks, was basically an 'essentialist' (which is incorrect: see, e.g., her dissertation, on the de motu animalium, was a fairly strong piece of work, as philosophical commentary goes... -- though her knowledge of Greek was always suspect. I could go on... But people are already angry at me for speaking the truth too loudly....
Anyway, the book is basically a waste of time -- BAG IT.
May 27, 2018
How many times can one say the exact same thing but phrased slightly differently? Read this book to find out.
September 16, 2021
賲丕乇孬丕 賳賵爻亘丕賵賲 賴賷 賮賷賱爻賵賮丞 兀賲賷乇賰賷丞 賵兀爻鬲丕匕丞 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 賵丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賮賷 噩丕賲毓丞 卮賷賰丕睾賵.
鬲賳丕賯卮 賳賵爻亘丕賵賲 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲賮丕乇賯丞 亘賷賳 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱廿賳鬲丕噩 丕賱乇亘丨賷 賵賳賵毓 賲賳 丕賱賲賵丕胤賳丞 兀賰孬乇 卮賲賵賱丕賸. 賵鬲乇賰夭 毓賱賶 賲丕賴賵 賳賮賷爻 賵賲賴丿丿 亘卮賰賱 賰亘賷乇 " 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丕鬲 賰丕賱賮賳賵賳 賵丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賵睾賷乇賴丕" 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賰賮賱 鬲賰乇賷爻 丨乇賷丞 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇貙 丕丨鬲乇丕賲 丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮 賵鬲賮賴賲 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳. 賵賰匕丕 鬲賳鬲噩 廿賳爻丕賳丕賸 賷噩賷丿 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱賳賯丿賷貙 賵賷丨丕賵乇 賵賱丕 賷爻賱賲 丿賮鬲賴 賱賱丌禺乇 亘爻賴賵賱丞. 廿賳爻丕賳 賷賲鬲賱賰 亘丿賷賴賷丞 丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 亘鬲兀賲賱 毓賳 賳賮爻賴 賵毓賳 賯氐丞 丨賷丕鬲賴 丕賱禺丕氐丞 .
賵鬲匕賰乇 賳賵爻亘丕賵賲 亘兀賳賳丕 賱爻賳丕 賲噩亘乇賷賳 毓賱賶 鬲亘賳賷 賳賵毓 毓賱賶 丌禺乇 賮賷 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 ( 鬲毓賱賷賲 賷丨賮夭 毓賱賶 丕賱乇亘丨 賵 丌禺乇 賷丨賮夭 毓賱賶 丕賱賲賵丕胤賳丞 丕賱噩賷丿丞) 亘賱 丕賱噩賲毓 亘賷賳賴賲丕 賴賵 賲丕 賷丨鬲丕噩賴 兀賷 亘賱丿 賰賷 賷賳賲賵 賵賷夭丿賴乇 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丕賸 賵廿賳爻丕賳賷丕賸 賱賷囟毓 賯丿賲 亘賷賳 丕賱兀賲賲 賵丕賱丨囟丕乇丕鬲 丕賱賲毓丕氐乇丞 . 賮賲丕 賳賮毓 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 丕賱亘賱丿 賲夭丿賴乇 廿賯鬲氐丕丿賷丕賸 賵賮賯賷乇 丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丕賸. 賳丨賳 亘丨丕噩丞 賱鬲睾匕賷丞 丕賱賯賵賶 丕賱賲丐丿賷丞 廿賱賶 孬賯丕賮丕鬲 鬲賯賮 毓賱賶 賯丿賲 賵爻丕賯 賱賱賲爻丕賵丕丞 賵丕賱丕丨鬲乇丕賲.
"賲毓 丕賱丕賳丿賮丕毓 賱賱乇亘丨 賮賷 丕賱爻賵賯 丕賱毓丕賱賲賷 賮廿賳 賯賷賲 睾丕賱賷丞 賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱 丕賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞 賲毓乇囟丞 賱賱賮賯丿 禺丕氐丞 賮賷 毓氐乇 丕賱賯賱賯 丕賱丿賷賳賷 賵丕賱廿賯鬲氐丕丿賷 . 賷賵丨賷 丿丕賮毓 丕賱乇亘丨 賱賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賯丕丿丞 丕賱賲賴鬲賲賷賳 兀賳 丕賱毓賱賵賲 賵丕賱鬲賯賳賷丞 丨丕爻賲丕 丕賱兀賴賲賷丞 賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱 爻賱賷賲 賱亘賱丕丿賴賲 ." 賵賴賷 賲丕 鬲毓丕乇囟賴 賳賵爻亘丕賵賲 賮賷 賲毓乇囟 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 . 賵丕毓鬲乇丕囟賴丕 賱賷爻 毓賱賶 兀賴賲賷丞 鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱毓賱賵賲 賵丕賱鬲賯賳賷丞 亘賱 賴丕噩爻 丕賱禺賵賮 賱丿賷賴丕 賳丕亘毓 賲賳 兀賳 丕賱賯丿乇丕鬲 丕賱兀禺乇賶 丕賱賲爻丕賵賷丞 賮賷 丕賱兀賴賲賷丞 鬲賰賵賳 毓乇囟丞 賱賱賮賯丿丕賳 賮賷 賮賵乇丞 丕賱鬲賳丕賮爻. 賵賴匕賴 丕賱賯丿乇丕鬲 賲賴賲丞 賱爻賱丕賲丞 丕賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞 賱禺賱賯 孬賯丕賮丞 毓丕賱賲賷丞 賲丨鬲乇賲丞 賯丕丿乇丞 毓賱賶 賲賵丕噩賴丞 囟睾賵胤丕鬲 賵賲卮賰賱丕鬲 丕賱毓丕賱賲. 賰(丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱賳賯丿賷貙 丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱爻賲賵 毓賳 賵賱丕亍丕鬲 賲丨賱賷丞 賵丕賱鬲毓丕賲賱 賲毓 賲卮賰賱丕鬲 丕賱毓丕賱賲 "賰 賲賵丕胤賳 毓丕賱賲賷 " 賵兀禺賷乇丕賸貙 丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 鬲禺賷賱 賵乇胤丞 丕賱卮禺氐 丕賱丌禺乇 毓丕胤賮賷丕賸.)
" 賮廿賳 廿賳鬲丕噩 賳賲賵 廿賯鬲氐丕丿賷 賱丕 賷毓賳賷 廿賳鬲丕噩丕賸 賱賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞"
賳丨賳 賮賷 丨丕噩丞 賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞 鬲賳賲賵賷丞 鬲毓夭夭 丕賱賰乇丕賲丞 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵丕賱賲賳丕馗乇丞 丕賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞 亘丕賱賲孬賱 .
賵鬲賱賰 丕賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞 賱丕 鬲鬲兀鬲賶 丿賵賳 丕賱丕賴鬲賲丕賲 亘鬲丨爻賷賳 噩賵丿丞 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 賵丕賱丕賴鬲賲丕賲 亘鬲丿乇賷爻 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳賷丞 賱賰賱 丕賱胤賱亘丞 賵 亘賲乇丕丨賱賴賲 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞貙 亘賲丕 賷賳毓賰爻 毓賱賶 賵毓賷賴賲 賮賷 丕爻鬲卮乇丕賯 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賵丕賱丨賷丕丞 賵丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賲毓丕賸 貙 賰睾丕賷丞 賱賮賴賲 兀賳賮爻賴賲 賵毓丕賱賲賴賲 . (賮賴賲 丕賱兀賲賲 - 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 丕賱毓丕賱賲賷- 丕賱鬲毓丕賲賱丕鬲 丕賱毓乇賯賷丞"丿乇丕爻丞 丕賱丿賷賳 丕賱賲賯丕乇賳 賵鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱兀丿賷丕賳"-丿賷賳丕賲賰賷丞 丕賱噩賳爻- 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賴噩乇丞 賵賰賮丕丨 丕賱噩賲丕毓丕鬲 丕賱噩丿賷丿丞 賱賱丕毓鬲乇丕賮 賵丕賱賲爻丕賵丕丞.)
廿賳 爻賵亍 賳馗丕賲 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱匕賷 賷乇賰夭 毓賱賶 丕賱賲禺乇噩丕鬲 丕賱賲賴賳賷丞 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 丕賱賲賴丕乇丕鬲 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 (鬲賲噩賷丿 丕賱毓賱賵賲 賵丕賱鬲賯賳賷丞) 賷賮乇禺 賱賳丕 亘卮乇 賴夭賷賱賷 丕賱賮賰乇貙 賲賳 丕賱爻賴賱 丕賳賯賷丕丿賴賲 賵鬲丿噩賷賳賴賲貙 賰賲丕 兀賳賴賲 賷囟丨賵賳 賲卮丕乇賷毓 賳丕噩丨丞 賮賷 毓氐亘丞 丕賱廿乇賴丕亘.
"廿賳賾 丕賱胤賱亘丞 丕賱兀賰孬乇 丕爻鬲賯胤丕亘丕 賲賳 胤乇賮 丕賱丨乇賰丕鬲 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲賷丞 丕賱賲鬲胤乇賮丞貙 賴賲 胤賱亘丞 賰賱賷丕鬲 丕賱毓賱賵賲貙 賲賯丕亘賱 賳爻亘丞 兀賯賱 賮賷 賰賱賷丕鬲 丕賱丌丿丕亘." 賵賴賵 賲丕 兀卮丕乇鬲 廿賱賷賴 丌禺乇 丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱卮兀賳 . 賮賳馗賲 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓鬲賲丿 賮賷 賳賴噩賴丕 毓賱賶 丕賱兀丨丕丿賷丞貙 丕賱鬲亘爻賷胤 賵丕賱鬲丨賮賷馗賷丞 鬲賳鬲噩 賯賵丕賱亘 噩丕賲丿丞 鬲賮鬲賯乇 賱賱丨爻 丕賱賳賯丿賷.
賵賲丕 兀丨賵噩 毓丕賱賲賳丕 丕賱毓乇亘賷 丕賱賷賵賲 賱賴匕丕 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱賲爻鬲賳賷乇 賱廿氐賱丕丨 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲賷 丕賱亘丕卅爻 丕賱匕賷 兀禺乇噩 賱賳丕 賴賵賷丕鬲 賲賮賰賰丞 賮賷 噩賵賴乇賴丕. 廿賳 丕爻鬲賲乇丕乇 丕賱兀賳馗賲丞 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲賷丞 賰賲丕 賴賷 丕賱丌賳 賷乇丕丿 賲賳賴丕 噩賲賷毓丕 爻噩賳 丕賱賮賰乇 賮賷 丕爻鬲賱丕亘丕鬲 鬲毓賷丿 賳賮爻賴丕 亘丕爻鬲賲乇丕乇貙 賵丕賱禺丕爻乇 丕賱兀賰亘乇 賴賵 丕賱兀賵胤丕賳.
氐賳丕毓丞 廿賳爻丕賳 匕賵 賴賵賷丞 賰賵賳賷丞 賲鬲氐丕賱丨丞 賲毓 匕丕鬲賴丕 賵丕賱丌禺乇 賰丕賳鬲 乇爻丕賱丞 賳賵爻亘丕賵賲 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 .
賰鬲丕亘 賯賷賲 噩丿丕賸 賱賱賲卮鬲睾賱賷賳 賮賷 丨賯賵賱 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 賵賲賳丕賴噩 鬲胤賵賷乇賴.
鬲賳丕賯卮 賳賵爻亘丕賵賲 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲賮丕乇賯丞 亘賷賳 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱廿賳鬲丕噩 丕賱乇亘丨賷 賵賳賵毓 賲賳 丕賱賲賵丕胤賳丞 兀賰孬乇 卮賲賵賱丕賸. 賵鬲乇賰夭 毓賱賶 賲丕賴賵 賳賮賷爻 賵賲賴丿丿 亘卮賰賱 賰亘賷乇 " 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丕鬲 賰丕賱賮賳賵賳 賵丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賵睾賷乇賴丕" 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賰賮賱 鬲賰乇賷爻 丨乇賷丞 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇貙 丕丨鬲乇丕賲 丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮 賵鬲賮賴賲 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳. 賵賰匕丕 鬲賳鬲噩 廿賳爻丕賳丕賸 賷噩賷丿 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱賳賯丿賷貙 賵賷丨丕賵乇 賵賱丕 賷爻賱賲 丿賮鬲賴 賱賱丌禺乇 亘爻賴賵賱丞. 廿賳爻丕賳 賷賲鬲賱賰 亘丿賷賴賷丞 丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 亘鬲兀賲賱 毓賳 賳賮爻賴 賵毓賳 賯氐丞 丨賷丕鬲賴 丕賱禺丕氐丞 .
賵鬲匕賰乇 賳賵爻亘丕賵賲 亘兀賳賳丕 賱爻賳丕 賲噩亘乇賷賳 毓賱賶 鬲亘賳賷 賳賵毓 毓賱賶 丌禺乇 賮賷 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 ( 鬲毓賱賷賲 賷丨賮夭 毓賱賶 丕賱乇亘丨 賵 丌禺乇 賷丨賮夭 毓賱賶 丕賱賲賵丕胤賳丞 丕賱噩賷丿丞) 亘賱 丕賱噩賲毓 亘賷賳賴賲丕 賴賵 賲丕 賷丨鬲丕噩賴 兀賷 亘賱丿 賰賷 賷賳賲賵 賵賷夭丿賴乇 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丕賸 賵廿賳爻丕賳賷丕賸 賱賷囟毓 賯丿賲 亘賷賳 丕賱兀賲賲 賵丕賱丨囟丕乇丕鬲 丕賱賲毓丕氐乇丞 . 賮賲丕 賳賮毓 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 丕賱亘賱丿 賲夭丿賴乇 廿賯鬲氐丕丿賷丕賸 賵賮賯賷乇 丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丕賸. 賳丨賳 亘丨丕噩丞 賱鬲睾匕賷丞 丕賱賯賵賶 丕賱賲丐丿賷丞 廿賱賶 孬賯丕賮丕鬲 鬲賯賮 毓賱賶 賯丿賲 賵爻丕賯 賱賱賲爻丕賵丕丞 賵丕賱丕丨鬲乇丕賲.
"賲毓 丕賱丕賳丿賮丕毓 賱賱乇亘丨 賮賷 丕賱爻賵賯 丕賱毓丕賱賲賷 賮廿賳 賯賷賲 睾丕賱賷丞 賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱 丕賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞 賲毓乇囟丞 賱賱賮賯丿 禺丕氐丞 賮賷 毓氐乇 丕賱賯賱賯 丕賱丿賷賳賷 賵丕賱廿賯鬲氐丕丿賷 . 賷賵丨賷 丿丕賮毓 丕賱乇亘丨 賱賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賯丕丿丞 丕賱賲賴鬲賲賷賳 兀賳 丕賱毓賱賵賲 賵丕賱鬲賯賳賷丞 丨丕爻賲丕 丕賱兀賴賲賷丞 賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱 爻賱賷賲 賱亘賱丕丿賴賲 ." 賵賴賷 賲丕 鬲毓丕乇囟賴 賳賵爻亘丕賵賲 賮賷 賲毓乇囟 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 . 賵丕毓鬲乇丕囟賴丕 賱賷爻 毓賱賶 兀賴賲賷丞 鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱毓賱賵賲 賵丕賱鬲賯賳賷丞 亘賱 賴丕噩爻 丕賱禺賵賮 賱丿賷賴丕 賳丕亘毓 賲賳 兀賳 丕賱賯丿乇丕鬲 丕賱兀禺乇賶 丕賱賲爻丕賵賷丞 賮賷 丕賱兀賴賲賷丞 鬲賰賵賳 毓乇囟丞 賱賱賮賯丿丕賳 賮賷 賮賵乇丞 丕賱鬲賳丕賮爻. 賵賴匕賴 丕賱賯丿乇丕鬲 賲賴賲丞 賱爻賱丕賲丞 丕賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞 賱禺賱賯 孬賯丕賮丞 毓丕賱賲賷丞 賲丨鬲乇賲丞 賯丕丿乇丞 毓賱賶 賲賵丕噩賴丞 囟睾賵胤丕鬲 賵賲卮賰賱丕鬲 丕賱毓丕賱賲. 賰(丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱賳賯丿賷貙 丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱爻賲賵 毓賳 賵賱丕亍丕鬲 賲丨賱賷丞 賵丕賱鬲毓丕賲賱 賲毓 賲卮賰賱丕鬲 丕賱毓丕賱賲 "賰 賲賵丕胤賳 毓丕賱賲賷 " 賵兀禺賷乇丕賸貙 丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 鬲禺賷賱 賵乇胤丞 丕賱卮禺氐 丕賱丌禺乇 毓丕胤賮賷丕賸.)
" 賮廿賳 廿賳鬲丕噩 賳賲賵 廿賯鬲氐丕丿賷 賱丕 賷毓賳賷 廿賳鬲丕噩丕賸 賱賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞"
賳丨賳 賮賷 丨丕噩丞 賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞 鬲賳賲賵賷丞 鬲毓夭夭 丕賱賰乇丕賲丞 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵丕賱賲賳丕馗乇丞 丕賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞 亘丕賱賲孬賱 .
賵鬲賱賰 丕賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞 賱丕 鬲鬲兀鬲賶 丿賵賳 丕賱丕賴鬲賲丕賲 亘鬲丨爻賷賳 噩賵丿丞 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 賵丕賱丕賴鬲賲丕賲 亘鬲丿乇賷爻 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳賷丞 賱賰賱 丕賱胤賱亘丞 賵 亘賲乇丕丨賱賴賲 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞貙 亘賲丕 賷賳毓賰爻 毓賱賶 賵毓賷賴賲 賮賷 丕爻鬲卮乇丕賯 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賵丕賱丨賷丕丞 賵丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賲毓丕賸 貙 賰睾丕賷丞 賱賮賴賲 兀賳賮爻賴賲 賵毓丕賱賲賴賲 . (賮賴賲 丕賱兀賲賲 - 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 丕賱毓丕賱賲賷- 丕賱鬲毓丕賲賱丕鬲 丕賱毓乇賯賷丞"丿乇丕爻丞 丕賱丿賷賳 丕賱賲賯丕乇賳 賵鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱兀丿賷丕賳"-丿賷賳丕賲賰賷丞 丕賱噩賳爻- 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賴噩乇丞 賵賰賮丕丨 丕賱噩賲丕毓丕鬲 丕賱噩丿賷丿丞 賱賱丕毓鬲乇丕賮 賵丕賱賲爻丕賵丕丞.)
廿賳 爻賵亍 賳馗丕賲 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱匕賷 賷乇賰夭 毓賱賶 丕賱賲禺乇噩丕鬲 丕賱賲賴賳賷丞 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 丕賱賲賴丕乇丕鬲 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 (鬲賲噩賷丿 丕賱毓賱賵賲 賵丕賱鬲賯賳賷丞) 賷賮乇禺 賱賳丕 亘卮乇 賴夭賷賱賷 丕賱賮賰乇貙 賲賳 丕賱爻賴賱 丕賳賯賷丕丿賴賲 賵鬲丿噩賷賳賴賲貙 賰賲丕 兀賳賴賲 賷囟丨賵賳 賲卮丕乇賷毓 賳丕噩丨丞 賮賷 毓氐亘丞 丕賱廿乇賴丕亘.
"廿賳賾 丕賱胤賱亘丞 丕賱兀賰孬乇 丕爻鬲賯胤丕亘丕 賲賳 胤乇賮 丕賱丨乇賰丕鬲 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲賷丞 丕賱賲鬲胤乇賮丞貙 賴賲 胤賱亘丞 賰賱賷丕鬲 丕賱毓賱賵賲貙 賲賯丕亘賱 賳爻亘丞 兀賯賱 賮賷 賰賱賷丕鬲 丕賱丌丿丕亘." 賵賴賵 賲丕 兀卮丕乇鬲 廿賱賷賴 丌禺乇 丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱卮兀賳 . 賮賳馗賲 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓鬲賲丿 賮賷 賳賴噩賴丕 毓賱賶 丕賱兀丨丕丿賷丞貙 丕賱鬲亘爻賷胤 賵丕賱鬲丨賮賷馗賷丞 鬲賳鬲噩 賯賵丕賱亘 噩丕賲丿丞 鬲賮鬲賯乇 賱賱丨爻 丕賱賳賯丿賷.
賵賲丕 兀丨賵噩 毓丕賱賲賳丕 丕賱毓乇亘賷 丕賱賷賵賲 賱賴匕丕 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱賲爻鬲賳賷乇 賱廿氐賱丕丨 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲賷 丕賱亘丕卅爻 丕賱匕賷 兀禺乇噩 賱賳丕 賴賵賷丕鬲 賲賮賰賰丞 賮賷 噩賵賴乇賴丕. 廿賳 丕爻鬲賲乇丕乇 丕賱兀賳馗賲丞 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲賷丞 賰賲丕 賴賷 丕賱丌賳 賷乇丕丿 賲賳賴丕 噩賲賷毓丕 爻噩賳 丕賱賮賰乇 賮賷 丕爻鬲賱丕亘丕鬲 鬲毓賷丿 賳賮爻賴丕 亘丕爻鬲賲乇丕乇貙 賵丕賱禺丕爻乇 丕賱兀賰亘乇 賴賵 丕賱兀賵胤丕賳.
氐賳丕毓丞 廿賳爻丕賳 匕賵 賴賵賷丞 賰賵賳賷丞 賲鬲氐丕賱丨丞 賲毓 匕丕鬲賴丕 賵丕賱丌禺乇 賰丕賳鬲 乇爻丕賱丞 賳賵爻亘丕賵賲 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 .
賰鬲丕亘 賯賷賲 噩丿丕賸 賱賱賲卮鬲睾賱賷賳 賮賷 丨賯賵賱 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 賵賲賳丕賴噩 鬲胤賵賷乇賴.
July 9, 2020
賮賰乇丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘爻賷胤丞 賱丕 兀丿乇賷 賱賲賻 毓賯賾丿鬲賴丕 丕賱賲丐賱賮丞 賵丕爻鬲胤乇丿鬲 亘賰賱丕賲 賱丕 胤丕卅賱 鬲丨鬲賴!
丕賱賮賰乇丞 鬲賯賵賱: 賱賰賷 賳丨氐賱 毓賱賶 賲賵丕胤賳賷賳 毓丕賱賲賷賷賳貙 賲丿乇賰賷賳 賱賱賵丕賯毓貙 毓賱賷賳丕 兀賳 賳丨賵賾賱 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 賲賳 鬲毓賱賷賲 "賱賱爻賵賯" 廿賱賶 鬲毓賱賷賲 "賱賱丨賷丕丞".
賮賯胤!
賵賮賷賴 丨卮賵 胤賵賷賱貙 賵睾賷乇 賲賳馗賲 賱賱兀爻賮.
丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 噩賷丿丞
丕賱賮賰乇丞 鬲賯賵賱: 賱賰賷 賳丨氐賱 毓賱賶 賲賵丕胤賳賷賳 毓丕賱賲賷賷賳貙 賲丿乇賰賷賳 賱賱賵丕賯毓貙 毓賱賷賳丕 兀賳 賳丨賵賾賱 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 賲賳 鬲毓賱賷賲 "賱賱爻賵賯" 廿賱賶 鬲毓賱賷賲 "賱賱丨賷丕丞".
賮賯胤!
賵賮賷賴 丨卮賵 胤賵賷賱貙 賵睾賷乇 賲賳馗賲 賱賱兀爻賮.
丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 噩賷丿丞
July 30, 2010
Nussbaum calls her book 'a manifesto'. Her manifesto on why democracy needs the humanities is made up of 6 interlocking propositions: (1) there is a crisis going on in education today; (2) this crisis is the shedding away of the humanities, which produce the necessary espirit de corps and competencies for an active and productive democracy; (3) this shedding away of the humanities can be attributed to the growth-oriented economy, which prefers professional skill-ism rather than the critical thinking skills and the imaginative empathy cultivated by the humanities; (4) at the same time, events in the world today are heading in the direction where more international cooperation and collaboration is needed, which must surely demand critical thinking and imaginative empathy for cross-cultural work; (5) however, we are heading in the opposite direction through our present attention on standardized testing and technically oriented education directives, which produce "useful machines" (pp. 2) but not imaginative and empathetic human beings; (6) hence, not only do we ultimately undermine our own cherished democracy, but ultimately too we undermine the solidarity needed for a universal democracy that can solve universal problems affecting all.
To be fair, we will have to take Nussbaum's argument one step deeper: that societies, and hence to a certain extent also publicly funded universities in many places, prefer practical skill-ism rather than the humanities. Since the growth-oriented economy requires skillful workers who can obey and work rather than to question and think, classes oriented to imparting practical or applied skills are much more favored by policy-makers, bosses, parents and students alike--because everyone in this squarish ecology seemed well-pleased. However, even growth demands people who possess the abilities to think and imagine creatively, and the humanities can help to cultivate that. Therefore, it is according to Nussbaum, never an 'either/or' for or against the humanities; rather, we can have both growth and the humanities. As a matter of her opinion, to have growth we ought to invest and grow the humanities.
I leave you to ponder on Nussbaum's surprising acquiescence. But the strangeness of this acquiescence to incorporate the humanities into the growth-oriented economy is surely, and only, because of Nussbaum's paradoxical nullification of the very thing she sought to defend in this book: how is it possible to defend the humanities by deliberately subjecting, and designing the humanities so that it can support growth (i.e., economically oriented growth laced with many externalities)? Thankfully Nussbaum's did not say how, beyond these hints, and to what extent this can be done. But at least one thing is clear: the kind of growth Nussbaum criticizes is also the kind of growth that bears no special allegiance to anything or anyone; as long as something expands the economy in the short-term, this something is valued. Thus to expect growth to value the humanities because the humanities seem to impart valuable fundamental and hence, somewhat long-term competencies with uncertain outcome is naive at best.
And half expecting this book to fulfill its large graphical and title promise on the critique of the for profit system (i.e., "NOT FOR PROFIT..."), Nussbaum unfortunately did not venture into the intricacies of the 'FOR PROFIT' teleology working at every level of the society today. Instead what Nussbaum presented is a defense for Socratic pedagogy and a fastpaced clip through the ideas of several education progressivists, names like Rousseau, Dewey and Tagore. I don't think Socrates needs to be defended again; and I certainly don't think Rousseau is as innocent as Nussbaum made him to be, or Dewey so easily and swiftly understood. Rather, I think that both Socrates and Rousseau et al.--the progressivists--are misplaced as two whole chapters in a book with a more critical and urgent mission. For these reasons, I am also not convinced.
In more than a few places Nussbaum makes uncritical statements that seem at odds with the overall thesis in her manifesto, for example, "knowledge is no guarantee of good behavior, but ignorance is a virtual guarantee of bad behavior" (pp.81). Well, that depends on what kind of ignorance one speaks of. Arrogant and inconsiderate ignorance, yes, of course. But humble and considered ignorance: isn't that the goal of Socratic teaching and the beginning of knowledge? Similarly but on a broader interpretation, Nussbaum's uncritical call for the 'universal citizen' or the cosmopolitan citizen demands a very careful review: who and to what extent, can be a citizen of the world today and for what purpose or mission? And what are the underlying ethos of such a global citizenship? What are its underlying binding values? Without answering these questions, we can only suspect that what Nussbaum has in mind as the underlying ethos is the ideal form of democracy that she is familiar with. This is unlikely to go well with everyone in the world today. Not only so, Nussbaum's uncritical call is likely to exacerbate her very quest for a productive citizenship of the world.
In all, I think this manifesto is a missed opportunity for a stronger and a more convincing call-to-arms in the humanities today. Insofar as Nussbaum's premise is concerned, I think it is relevant for the complex crisis the world is facing today: what to do at the limits of the market economy and how to deal with the threats of the environment at its limits. However, Nussbaum's subsequent arguments stray too often from the deeper and much more urgent mission that her premises promised.
To be fair, we will have to take Nussbaum's argument one step deeper: that societies, and hence to a certain extent also publicly funded universities in many places, prefer practical skill-ism rather than the humanities. Since the growth-oriented economy requires skillful workers who can obey and work rather than to question and think, classes oriented to imparting practical or applied skills are much more favored by policy-makers, bosses, parents and students alike--because everyone in this squarish ecology seemed well-pleased. However, even growth demands people who possess the abilities to think and imagine creatively, and the humanities can help to cultivate that. Therefore, it is according to Nussbaum, never an 'either/or' for or against the humanities; rather, we can have both growth and the humanities. As a matter of her opinion, to have growth we ought to invest and grow the humanities.
I leave you to ponder on Nussbaum's surprising acquiescence. But the strangeness of this acquiescence to incorporate the humanities into the growth-oriented economy is surely, and only, because of Nussbaum's paradoxical nullification of the very thing she sought to defend in this book: how is it possible to defend the humanities by deliberately subjecting, and designing the humanities so that it can support growth (i.e., economically oriented growth laced with many externalities)? Thankfully Nussbaum's did not say how, beyond these hints, and to what extent this can be done. But at least one thing is clear: the kind of growth Nussbaum criticizes is also the kind of growth that bears no special allegiance to anything or anyone; as long as something expands the economy in the short-term, this something is valued. Thus to expect growth to value the humanities because the humanities seem to impart valuable fundamental and hence, somewhat long-term competencies with uncertain outcome is naive at best.
And half expecting this book to fulfill its large graphical and title promise on the critique of the for profit system (i.e., "NOT FOR PROFIT..."), Nussbaum unfortunately did not venture into the intricacies of the 'FOR PROFIT' teleology working at every level of the society today. Instead what Nussbaum presented is a defense for Socratic pedagogy and a fastpaced clip through the ideas of several education progressivists, names like Rousseau, Dewey and Tagore. I don't think Socrates needs to be defended again; and I certainly don't think Rousseau is as innocent as Nussbaum made him to be, or Dewey so easily and swiftly understood. Rather, I think that both Socrates and Rousseau et al.--the progressivists--are misplaced as two whole chapters in a book with a more critical and urgent mission. For these reasons, I am also not convinced.
In more than a few places Nussbaum makes uncritical statements that seem at odds with the overall thesis in her manifesto, for example, "knowledge is no guarantee of good behavior, but ignorance is a virtual guarantee of bad behavior" (pp.81). Well, that depends on what kind of ignorance one speaks of. Arrogant and inconsiderate ignorance, yes, of course. But humble and considered ignorance: isn't that the goal of Socratic teaching and the beginning of knowledge? Similarly but on a broader interpretation, Nussbaum's uncritical call for the 'universal citizen' or the cosmopolitan citizen demands a very careful review: who and to what extent, can be a citizen of the world today and for what purpose or mission? And what are the underlying ethos of such a global citizenship? What are its underlying binding values? Without answering these questions, we can only suspect that what Nussbaum has in mind as the underlying ethos is the ideal form of democracy that she is familiar with. This is unlikely to go well with everyone in the world today. Not only so, Nussbaum's uncritical call is likely to exacerbate her very quest for a productive citizenship of the world.
In all, I think this manifesto is a missed opportunity for a stronger and a more convincing call-to-arms in the humanities today. Insofar as Nussbaum's premise is concerned, I think it is relevant for the complex crisis the world is facing today: what to do at the limits of the market economy and how to deal with the threats of the environment at its limits. However, Nussbaum's subsequent arguments stray too often from the deeper and much more urgent mission that her premises promised.
September 2, 2012
I am not entirely sure what to make of this except to note that it is disappointing, and that may be because 1) these are debates that I find myself in the middle of, as a humanities scholar working in a Science Faculty, and 2) Nussbaum did not really go far enough for me. There is no doubt, this is a political manifesto, and there is a real need for lucid, compelling and powerful defences of the humanities in the current climate where we are repeatedly told that higher education should be developing critical inquirers, but also more forcefully told that it is all about employability, about making sure our graduates get jobs 鈥� and in this context critical inquiry is unlikely to be seen as job training, about skills for work.
The current world of higher education is intended to ensure that we educate for profit (in the UK we have seen in recent years an increasingly powerful discourse of students-as-consumers) rather than education for citizenship 鈥� to draw on Nussbaum鈥檚 distinction. This is a cunning sleight of hand that shifts the focus of higher education, plays into the neo-liberal argument that it is a private good (that is, that students gain more from it individually than society does collectively) and therefore students should pay for it directly; this in a context where university fees have risen 300% in the last ten years. This is not how it has always been (although we do romanticise and nostalgise the recent past) and more importantly this is not how it should be.
The problem for me is not the case she makes in defence of the humanities as a source of sustained critical inquiry and scepticism, although she seems to limit herself to a liberal conception of democracy. She suggests (on pp 25-6) seven crucial aspects of education for democracy (where democracy equals the promotion of 鈥渓ife, liberty and the pursuit of happiness鈥�):
鈥� the ability to think well about political issues affecting the nation, to examine, reflect, argue, and debate, deferring to neither tradition nor authority;
鈥� the ability to recognise fellow citizens as people with equal rights, even though they may be different in race, religion, gender, and sexuality: to look at them with respect, as ends, not just tools to be manipulated for one鈥檚 own profit;
鈥� the ability to have concern for the lives of others, to grasp what policies of many types mean for the opportunities and experiences of one鈥檚 fellow citizens, of many types, and for people outside one鈥檚 own nation;
鈥� the ability to imagine well a variety of complex issues affecting the story of a human life as it unfolds: to think about childhood, adolescence, family relationships, illness, death, and much more in a way informed by an understanding of a wide range of human stories, not just by aggregate data;
鈥� the ability to judge political leaders critically, but with an informed and realistic sense of the possibilities available to them;
鈥� the ability to think about the good of the nation as a whole, not just that of one鈥檚 own group;
鈥� the ability to see one鈥檚 own nation, in turn, as a part of a complicated world order in which issues of many kinds require intelligent transnational deliberation for their resolution.
which is all well and good but adds up to a depressing and limited list 鈥� if this is seen as the things that need to be defended in contemporary US political culture then things are much worse than I expected even on my most cynical days. There is little here that amounts to a call for a critical politics of higher education or socially transformative politics that build a freer, more equal or more people-centred world.
What bugs me most, though is that her vision of how and where this might occur seems restricted universities in the Ivy League/Oxbridge model despite her community-based India-centric activism and that for a manifesto it seems depressingly short of things that can be done 鈥� that is, it is a manifesto without a plan. As a liberal defence of the humanities, this is OK as far as it goes 鈥� but for more politically analyses and manifestos for action (albeit from the eastern side of the Atlantic) Michael Bailey & Des Freeman鈥檚 collection The Assault on Universities: A Manifesto for Resistance and John Holmwood鈥檚edited A Manifesto for the Pubic University are much more rewarding.
The current world of higher education is intended to ensure that we educate for profit (in the UK we have seen in recent years an increasingly powerful discourse of students-as-consumers) rather than education for citizenship 鈥� to draw on Nussbaum鈥檚 distinction. This is a cunning sleight of hand that shifts the focus of higher education, plays into the neo-liberal argument that it is a private good (that is, that students gain more from it individually than society does collectively) and therefore students should pay for it directly; this in a context where university fees have risen 300% in the last ten years. This is not how it has always been (although we do romanticise and nostalgise the recent past) and more importantly this is not how it should be.
The problem for me is not the case she makes in defence of the humanities as a source of sustained critical inquiry and scepticism, although she seems to limit herself to a liberal conception of democracy. She suggests (on pp 25-6) seven crucial aspects of education for democracy (where democracy equals the promotion of 鈥渓ife, liberty and the pursuit of happiness鈥�):
鈥� the ability to think well about political issues affecting the nation, to examine, reflect, argue, and debate, deferring to neither tradition nor authority;
鈥� the ability to recognise fellow citizens as people with equal rights, even though they may be different in race, religion, gender, and sexuality: to look at them with respect, as ends, not just tools to be manipulated for one鈥檚 own profit;
鈥� the ability to have concern for the lives of others, to grasp what policies of many types mean for the opportunities and experiences of one鈥檚 fellow citizens, of many types, and for people outside one鈥檚 own nation;
鈥� the ability to imagine well a variety of complex issues affecting the story of a human life as it unfolds: to think about childhood, adolescence, family relationships, illness, death, and much more in a way informed by an understanding of a wide range of human stories, not just by aggregate data;
鈥� the ability to judge political leaders critically, but with an informed and realistic sense of the possibilities available to them;
鈥� the ability to think about the good of the nation as a whole, not just that of one鈥檚 own group;
鈥� the ability to see one鈥檚 own nation, in turn, as a part of a complicated world order in which issues of many kinds require intelligent transnational deliberation for their resolution.
which is all well and good but adds up to a depressing and limited list 鈥� if this is seen as the things that need to be defended in contemporary US political culture then things are much worse than I expected even on my most cynical days. There is little here that amounts to a call for a critical politics of higher education or socially transformative politics that build a freer, more equal or more people-centred world.
What bugs me most, though is that her vision of how and where this might occur seems restricted universities in the Ivy League/Oxbridge model despite her community-based India-centric activism and that for a manifesto it seems depressingly short of things that can be done 鈥� that is, it is a manifesto without a plan. As a liberal defence of the humanities, this is OK as far as it goes 鈥� but for more politically analyses and manifestos for action (albeit from the eastern side of the Atlantic) Michael Bailey & Des Freeman鈥檚 collection The Assault on Universities: A Manifesto for Resistance and John Holmwood鈥檚edited A Manifesto for the Pubic University are much more rewarding.
December 18, 2020
Um livro muito interessante para todos aqueles que gostam da 谩rea da pedagogia/ci锚ncias da educa莽茫o. Martha Nussbaum tece duras e variadas cr铆ticas aos paradigmas da educa莽茫o do nosso s茅culo. Seguindo muito de perto as formula莽玫es pedag贸gicas de Dewey e Tagore, a autora tra莽a um perfil dos actuais sistemas de ensino em alguns pa铆ses e prop玫e um novo paradigma de aprendizagem.
O desaparecimento das 芦humanidades禄 dos curr铆culos escolares e acad茅micos tem prejudicado muito a forma莽茫o do ser humano; a pedagogia do s茅culo XXI orienta-se pelos valores do PIB e n茫o por valores 茅ticos e democr谩ticos.
N茫o reformular os actuais modelos educativos 茅 permitir que a escola, a academia e a 芦arqueologia do saber禄 fiquem reduzidas "脿 arte de pastorear homens". [Plat茫o].
O desaparecimento das 芦humanidades禄 dos curr铆culos escolares e acad茅micos tem prejudicado muito a forma莽茫o do ser humano; a pedagogia do s茅culo XXI orienta-se pelos valores do PIB e n茫o por valores 茅ticos e democr谩ticos.
N茫o reformular os actuais modelos educativos 茅 permitir que a escola, a academia e a 芦arqueologia do saber禄 fiquem reduzidas "脿 arte de pastorear homens". [Plat茫o].
February 4, 2018
Este texto me pareci贸 brillante.
Un an谩lisis aterrador del sistema educativo actual y una exposici贸n de las razones por las que necesitamos en nuestra educaci贸n y en la vida las humanidades.
Un libro muy provechoso para maestros y padres de familia que encontrar谩n una gu铆a para educar, desde una edad temprana en el respeto, la equidad, la compasi贸n y el pensamiento individual proyectado hacia el colectivo con argumentos muy fuertes y v谩lidos de lo que estamos construyendo en las escuelas, los hogares y finalmente en una sociedad desenfocada y ego铆sta.
Pero adem谩s de ser una alerta, lo maravilloso de este libro es que nos hace conscientes de que podemos cambiar las cosas desde la educaci贸n y desde la crianza. Todos cometemos muchos errores por desconocimiento, pero esta es una herramienta que nos permite entender las bases en las que estamos fundamentando la vida actual y las armas para cambiar lo que nos asusta tanto de nuestra realidad.
La autora habla del sistema educacional socr谩tico, sustenta con ejemplos, da recomendaciones, alertas y menciona otros libros que pueden ser interesantes para ahondar m谩s en el tema.
Un an谩lisis aterrador del sistema educativo actual y una exposici贸n de las razones por las que necesitamos en nuestra educaci贸n y en la vida las humanidades.
Un libro muy provechoso para maestros y padres de familia que encontrar谩n una gu铆a para educar, desde una edad temprana en el respeto, la equidad, la compasi贸n y el pensamiento individual proyectado hacia el colectivo con argumentos muy fuertes y v谩lidos de lo que estamos construyendo en las escuelas, los hogares y finalmente en una sociedad desenfocada y ego铆sta.
Pero adem谩s de ser una alerta, lo maravilloso de este libro es que nos hace conscientes de que podemos cambiar las cosas desde la educaci贸n y desde la crianza. Todos cometemos muchos errores por desconocimiento, pero esta es una herramienta que nos permite entender las bases en las que estamos fundamentando la vida actual y las armas para cambiar lo que nos asusta tanto de nuestra realidad.
La autora habla del sistema educacional socr谩tico, sustenta con ejemplos, da recomendaciones, alertas y menciona otros libros que pueden ser interesantes para ahondar m谩s en el tema.
February 28, 2021
Miksi demokratia tarvitsee humanistista sivistyst盲? Vai tarvitseeko sit盲 kukaan? Viime aikoina on uutisoitu, ett盲 mm. Helsingin yliopiston taiteiden tutkimus on pulassa, koska rahoitusta on v盲hennetty ja lehtoraatteja ei voida t盲ytt盲盲. T盲m盲 on maailmanlaajuinen ilmi枚. Humanististen alojen ja taidealojen opetusta v盲hennet盲盲n, koska t盲hd盲t盲盲n vain taloudellisesti kannattavien alojen koulutukseen, eli panostetaan vain matemaattisiin tieteisiin. Martha C. Nussbaum varoittaa, ett盲 samalla heikennet盲盲n demokratiaa. Kun lapsia ei opeteta mielikuvituksen, empatian ja luovuuden k盲ytt枚枚n, my枚s demokratiat murtuvat. Milt盲 n盲ytt盲盲 Euroopassa, milt盲 n盲ytt盲盲 Yhdysvalloissa? Liiallinen hy枚tyajattelu kaventaa ihmisyytt盲.
Nussbaum vakuutti n盲kemyksill盲盲n. Humanistina en voinut kuin ny枚kk盲ill盲 ja toivoa, ett盲 mahdollisimman moni lukisi t盲m盲n kirjan.
Nussbaum vakuutti n盲kemyksill盲盲n. Humanistina en voinut kuin ny枚kk盲ill盲 ja toivoa, ett盲 mahdollisimman moni lukisi t盲m盲n kirjan.
September 9, 2018
I give the author an A for passion and a C overall. The fact鈥攁nd I agree鈥攖hat the humanities are useful to individuals and societies is an insufficient and unconvincing argument. No one鈥攐ther than humanists鈥攚ill buy this argument. We need a more convincing argument for parents and increasingly savvy students. Expand the mind _and_ have a successful career鈥攏ow that is convincing! Finally, I object to the author calling her work a manifesto. That politically charged word does not help. Less hyperbole will lead to more readers and more buy in. To paraphrase MJ, Republicans pay tuition too.
January 5, 2025
This is an interesting and challenging book in which the author argues that the continued existence of a true liberal arts education in a nation is necessary for the survival of Democracy. Little time is dedicated to explaining why Democracy is more desirable than other forms of government. Basically she affirms that it is only, or especially, within a Democracy that individual rights and freedoms are valued and defended, and she points to the idea that it is only within a Democracy that the human being can truly flourish. She does not, however, spend much time really explaining what human flourishing looks like. These, of course, are enormous questions and would need more space to discuss them sufficiently. So, assuming that we are pursuing human flourishing in general, and that we accept the claim that this is best achieved in a Democracy, then, we can move forward reading her book.
She presents two ways of looking at the progress of a civilization (economic growth versus human flourishing), and argues that though economic growth can be achieved in most forms of government, only Democracy truly allows for human flourishing.
She then discusses, in four chapters, four key characteristics which we might see as contributing to human flourishing which are only learned through the study of the Liberal Arts.
We are also warned about the decline of the Liberal arts in the world, and the dangers of such a decline, she also makes clear suggestions about how to promote the study of the Liberal arts, how to teach them, what to include, etc.
She presents two ways of looking at the progress of a civilization (economic growth versus human flourishing), and argues that though economic growth can be achieved in most forms of government, only Democracy truly allows for human flourishing.
She then discusses, in four chapters, four key characteristics which we might see as contributing to human flourishing which are only learned through the study of the Liberal Arts.
We are also warned about the decline of the Liberal arts in the world, and the dangers of such a decline, she also makes clear suggestions about how to promote the study of the Liberal arts, how to teach them, what to include, etc.
January 8, 2022
Nussbaum and his clan make a good living out of Governmental grants and subsidies. Hence, this is not a philosophic exercise, but rather a used philosophy salesman explaining why God-the-Government needs to take your money and distribute it to the Nussbaum clan and their academic minions.
January 4, 2019
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩賲賷賱 噩丿丕 賵丕爻鬲賲鬲毓鬲 賮賷 胤乇丨 賵賲賳丕賯卮丞 賯囟賷丞 丕亘鬲毓丕丿 丿賵賱 丕賱毓丕賱賲 毓賳 丿毓賲 賵鬲卮噩賷毓 丿乇丕爻丞 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱兀賳爻丕賳賷丞 .
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丨丿賷孬 丕賱氐丿賵乇 賳爻亘賷丕 賵賷賳丕賯卮 賯囟丕賷丕 賲毓丕氐乇丞 賵賷卮乇丨 丕賱兀孬丕乇 丕賱爻賱亘賷丞 賲賳 丕亘鬲毓丕丿賳丕 毓賳 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱兀賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵兀孬乇賴丕 毓賱賶 鬲賵丨卮 丕賱兀賳爻丕賳賷丞 亘賷賳賳丕 賵丕賳毓丿丕賲 丕賱卮毓賵乇 亘丕賱兀禺乇 賵賷賵賰丿 毓賱賶 兀賳 賳賴賵囟 丕賱兀賲賲 亘丿毓賲 賴匕賴 丕賱毓賱賵賲 賵賷禺胤賶 賲賳 賷馗賳 兀賳 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱鬲賯賳賷丞 賵丕賱賲賴锟斤拷賷丞 賰賮賷賱丞 亘賳賴賵囟 丕賱兀賲賲 丿賵賳 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱兀賳爻丕賳賷丞 .賵鬲爻鬲毓乇囟 丕賱賰丕鬲亘丞 毓丿丞 丿賵賱 鬲乇丕噩毓鬲 賮賷賴丕 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱兀賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵丕賱兀孬丕乇 丕賱爻賱亘賷丞 丕賱賱鬲賷 丨賱鬲 毓賱賷賴丕 鬲丿乇賷噩賷丕 .
氐毓賵丿 丕賱賷賲賷賳 丕賱賲鬲胤乇賮 賮賷 卮鬲賶 亘賯丕毓 丕賱兀乇囟 賴匕丕 兀丨丿 丕賱兀丿賱丞 賵丕賱毓賱丕賲丕鬲 毓賱賶 丕睾賱丕賯 賰賱賷丕鬲 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱兀賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賵鬲賯賱賷氐 賲賷夭丕賳賷鬲賴丕 賵丨氐氐賴丕 賮賷 丕賱賲丿乇丕爻
賷毓賷亘 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓丿賲 爻賱丕爻丞 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 禺丕氐丞 賮賷賲丕 賷禺氐 丕賱賲氐胤賱丨丕鬲
兀賳氐丨 亘賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賱賲賴鬲賲 賵睾賷乇 丕賱賲賴鬲賲
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丨丿賷孬 丕賱氐丿賵乇 賳爻亘賷丕 賵賷賳丕賯卮 賯囟丕賷丕 賲毓丕氐乇丞 賵賷卮乇丨 丕賱兀孬丕乇 丕賱爻賱亘賷丞 賲賳 丕亘鬲毓丕丿賳丕 毓賳 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱兀賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵兀孬乇賴丕 毓賱賶 鬲賵丨卮 丕賱兀賳爻丕賳賷丞 亘賷賳賳丕 賵丕賳毓丿丕賲 丕賱卮毓賵乇 亘丕賱兀禺乇 賵賷賵賰丿 毓賱賶 兀賳 賳賴賵囟 丕賱兀賲賲 亘丿毓賲 賴匕賴 丕賱毓賱賵賲 賵賷禺胤賶 賲賳 賷馗賳 兀賳 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱鬲賯賳賷丞 賵丕賱賲賴锟斤拷賷丞 賰賮賷賱丞 亘賳賴賵囟 丕賱兀賲賲 丿賵賳 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱兀賳爻丕賳賷丞 .賵鬲爻鬲毓乇囟 丕賱賰丕鬲亘丞 毓丿丞 丿賵賱 鬲乇丕噩毓鬲 賮賷賴丕 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱兀賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵丕賱兀孬丕乇 丕賱爻賱亘賷丞 丕賱賱鬲賷 丨賱鬲 毓賱賷賴丕 鬲丿乇賷噩賷丕 .
氐毓賵丿 丕賱賷賲賷賳 丕賱賲鬲胤乇賮 賮賷 卮鬲賶 亘賯丕毓 丕賱兀乇囟 賴匕丕 兀丨丿 丕賱兀丿賱丞 賵丕賱毓賱丕賲丕鬲 毓賱賶 丕睾賱丕賯 賰賱賷丕鬲 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱兀賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賵鬲賯賱賷氐 賲賷夭丕賳賷鬲賴丕 賵丨氐氐賴丕 賮賷 丕賱賲丿乇丕爻
賷毓賷亘 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓丿賲 爻賱丕爻丞 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 禺丕氐丞 賮賷賲丕 賷禺氐 丕賱賲氐胤賱丨丕鬲
兀賳氐丨 亘賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賱賲賴鬲賲 賵睾賷乇 丕賱賲賴鬲賲
January 27, 2017
I am not the only reviewer who begins discussing the book with the phrase "I really, really wanted to like this book." But the book is quite awful on many levels. There is no defense of the Humanities. There is almost no talk about for-profit education. The thesis is extraordinarily vague (the humanities make good democratic citizens). The supporting information was disorganized. Finally, I thought this book did more to condemn the humanities, than to defend them. Ultimately, if I was anti-education and wanted to write a pro-education book, this may be the result.
There are seven chapters. The first and last chapters try to summarize and conclude. That means the book is a basic five chapters that can be summarized as follows. Chapter One: why the humanities should focus on class, race, and gender. Chapter Two: how is philosophy relevant to babies? Chapter Three: Socrates was great; be sure to enroll your kids in schools that support Socratic instruction like Pestalozzi or Montisorri. Chapter Four: why the humanities should study class, race, gender, and ethnicity. And Chapter Five: 100 years ago in India there was a great dance choreographer and teacher.
I am being extra harsh in describing the book; but the focus is not on the Humanities; but a rambling lecture trying to connect philosophy, class, race, gender, ethnicity, and the Indian philosopher without really discussing any of these ideas. Considering all of the available lines of organization and structure, Nussbaum chose to go with chaos and randomness. There was no discussion about ethics in business or health sciences. There was no discussion about research, analysis or writing. There was nothing about creativity or emotional growth. No, it was an authoritarian argument similar to "believe me. I have great academic wisdom."
Nussbaum spent so much time discussing the Indian choreographer and philosopher Tagore, that the book could be more about him than the humanities. However, she does not adequately discuss Tagore or his school. There is just a vague reference to Socrates. Yes, the Socrates condemned to die for leading youth astray in ancient Athens. He does not seem to be much of a role model. I could have learned something from the book if she bothered to focus even a chapter on just Tagore. Nope. She rambles on in a vague disorganized way like so many demagogues against whom she supports the humanities.
I suspect that most people read the book to reinforce their views that the humanities are relevant. Her emphasis on class, race, gender, and ethnicity surely will not change minds who already do not favor the humanities in education. I am surprised at the number of positive reviews. I racked my brain to even recall which subjects she actually discussed in the book. She mentions her own discipline (philosophy) and she mentions after school choir. That is it. There is no defense for anything else. Nor is there really a defense for them. The choir program relies on private philanthropy, so there is some defense there. Only in the last chapter is there a vague discussion about charging students extra for studying the humanities - in Europe.
Overall, this is a terrible book and very disappointing because it comes from an academician. I really expected a coherent argument from a professor at the U of Chicago. Instead, I have a weapon for anyone railing against the ivory tower of academe. This book brings out the worst in higher education. The fact that this book is (or was) the main voice against the conservative attack on the humanities is more worrisome.
There are seven chapters. The first and last chapters try to summarize and conclude. That means the book is a basic five chapters that can be summarized as follows. Chapter One: why the humanities should focus on class, race, and gender. Chapter Two: how is philosophy relevant to babies? Chapter Three: Socrates was great; be sure to enroll your kids in schools that support Socratic instruction like Pestalozzi or Montisorri. Chapter Four: why the humanities should study class, race, gender, and ethnicity. And Chapter Five: 100 years ago in India there was a great dance choreographer and teacher.
I am being extra harsh in describing the book; but the focus is not on the Humanities; but a rambling lecture trying to connect philosophy, class, race, gender, ethnicity, and the Indian philosopher without really discussing any of these ideas. Considering all of the available lines of organization and structure, Nussbaum chose to go with chaos and randomness. There was no discussion about ethics in business or health sciences. There was no discussion about research, analysis or writing. There was nothing about creativity or emotional growth. No, it was an authoritarian argument similar to "believe me. I have great academic wisdom."
Nussbaum spent so much time discussing the Indian choreographer and philosopher Tagore, that the book could be more about him than the humanities. However, she does not adequately discuss Tagore or his school. There is just a vague reference to Socrates. Yes, the Socrates condemned to die for leading youth astray in ancient Athens. He does not seem to be much of a role model. I could have learned something from the book if she bothered to focus even a chapter on just Tagore. Nope. She rambles on in a vague disorganized way like so many demagogues against whom she supports the humanities.
I suspect that most people read the book to reinforce their views that the humanities are relevant. Her emphasis on class, race, gender, and ethnicity surely will not change minds who already do not favor the humanities in education. I am surprised at the number of positive reviews. I racked my brain to even recall which subjects she actually discussed in the book. She mentions her own discipline (philosophy) and she mentions after school choir. That is it. There is no defense for anything else. Nor is there really a defense for them. The choir program relies on private philanthropy, so there is some defense there. Only in the last chapter is there a vague discussion about charging students extra for studying the humanities - in Europe.
Overall, this is a terrible book and very disappointing because it comes from an academician. I really expected a coherent argument from a professor at the U of Chicago. Instead, I have a weapon for anyone railing against the ivory tower of academe. This book brings out the worst in higher education. The fact that this book is (or was) the main voice against the conservative attack on the humanities is more worrisome.
June 23, 2017
Nussbaum challenges the current push in education to make everything we learn submissive to a specific career. This view sees education as a benefit to our economy, largely to those who profit from the labor of others. Nussbaum reminds us that education is a public good 鈥� it benefits the learner, the teacher, and the communities we live in. The Humanities teach us not just valuable skills like problem solving and critical thinking that we need in our jobs, but empathy and compassion that we need to live in a functioning democracy. She draws from various approaches inside and outside the US, to provide a broad context. Yet, reading this during the 2016 presidential election shows us exactly what is at stake when we fail to have compassion for others. Not only the ignorant and hateful speech of the Republican candidate, but the failings of the DNC to understand the validity of different perspectives within their own party. Our democracy is a mess, this books helps us understand why. More importantly it is a manifesto calling for a change in how we think about education. Nussbaum makes it clear that we need to recognize the power of narratives, play, art, and cultural exploration.
November 6, 2020
An essay from which I expected much more, to be honest. I agree with her view on the fact that the education system, not merely in the US, is economized, with deplorable results. However, she barely gives any support to her arguments, make strong oversimplifications of her cases, and worst of all, it becomes clear that she is too overly convinced of her own conclusions that she feels there is no need to do so, e.g. the philosophy of Tagore (which is barely reflected upon but take as truth) of the notion of clash of civilization. Given the urgency of this topic, this is a sad realization.
January 14, 2013
I found this book to be a disappointing read. Rather repetitive and not terribly insightful, I question the reference to this book as a manifesto. It seems to me that there could be a much more thoughtful, broad survey of the decline of the humanities than what is offered here. While I'd hoped this book would do that, I guess I have to look elsewhere.
September 25, 2021
鈥淐omo est谩 se saindo a educa莽茫o para a cidadania democr谩tica no mundo de hoje? Receio que muito mal.鈥�
Talvez seja um mal de professor, de conferir bibliografia citada como se tudo fosse um TCC mas, abordando o tema que aborda, como pode n茫o haver nenhuma cita莽茫o a Paulo Freire neste livro? Isso 茅 ainda mais desconcertante quando sabemos que a autora, Martha Nussbaum, formou-se (e foi professora) em Harvard, institui莽茫o na qual Freire lecionou em 1969 e que adota seus preceitos educacionais. E eu poderia parar aqui: em vez de ler esse livro, leia qualquer coisa do Paulo Freire. Dito isso, n茫o 茅 que a obra de Nussbaum seja ruim; apenas n茫o arranha o que j谩 foi dito pelo brasileiro 鈥� e dito de modo muito mais contundente.
Ainda assim, h谩 valor neste trabalho. Nussbaum toma o grande fil贸sofo, poeta e pol铆mata bengali Rabindranath Tagore como seu paradigma. Foi bem interessante ver como as ideias dele 鈥� primeiro n茫o europeu a receber o Nobel de Literatura 鈥� j谩 traziam preocupa莽玫es que encontramos em Freire e que s茫o n茫o apenas atuais, mais de cem anos depois, mas cada vez mais prementes. Para al茅m de diagnosticar o problema exposto no in铆cio da resenha, Tagore propunha uma solu莽茫o: o ensino das artes e das humanidades. Para ele, a chave para a cidadania global era a capacidade de cada sujeito se colocar no lugar do outro.
John Dewey, a outra refer锚ncia central para Nussbaum, segue na mesma linha. 鈥淒ewey insistia que, para as crian莽as, o que importa n茫o s茫o as 鈥榖elas-artes鈥�, querendo dizer com isso um exerc铆cio contemplativo no qual as crian莽as aprendem a 鈥榓preciar鈥� as obras de arte como objetos desligados da realidade. Nem elas deveriam ser levadas a acreditar que a imagina莽茫o s贸 茅 admiss铆vel no dom铆nio do irreal ou do imagin谩rio. Em vez disso, elas precisam perceber que existe uma dimens茫o criativa em todas as suas intera莽玫es e considerar que as obras de arte s茫o apenas uma das esferas nas quais se cultiva a imagina莽茫o. 鈥楢 diferen莽a entre brincar e o que se considera uma ocupa莽茫o s茅ria n茫o deve ser a diferen莽a entre a presen莽a e a aus锚ncia da imagina莽茫o, mas a diferen莽a entre os materiais com os quais se ocupa a imagina莽茫o鈥欌€�, segundo Dewey.
O problema 鈥� tanto ent茫o quanto agora 鈥� 茅 que esses conhecimentos n茫o geram lucro. Nussbaum reflete: 鈥渙 que teremos se essas tend锚ncias continuarem? Na莽玫es com uma popula莽茫o tecnicamente treinada que n茫o sabe como criticar a autoridade e geradores de lucro competentes com uma mente obtusa. Como Tagore observou, um suic铆dio da alma. Poderia haver algo mais assustador? Na verdade, quando contemplamos o estado indiano de Gujarat, que adotou esse modelo h谩 bastante tempo, onde impera uma aus锚ncia total de racioc铆nio cr铆tico nas escolas e um foco decidido na capacidade t茅cnica, podemos entender claramente como um bando de engenheiros submissos pode se transformar numa for莽a assassina para estabelecer as pol铆ticas mais horrivelmente racistas e antidemocr谩ticas.鈥�
De t茫o caricato, isso soa verdadeiro para o interior da 脥ndia. Mas Nussbaum n茫o pouca nem os Estados Unidos do tecnocrata Obama: 鈥淸a]inda mais problem谩tico, o presidente Obama frequentemente elogia pa铆ses do Extremo Oriente 鈥� Singapura, por exemplo 鈥�, que, do seu ponto de vista, nos deixaram para tr谩s em educa莽茫o tecnol贸gica e cient铆fica. E elogia esses pa铆ses de forma agourenta: 鈥楨les est茫o empregando menos tempo ensinando coisas que n茫o s茫o importantes e mais tempo ensinando coisas que s茫o. Eles n茫o est茫o preparando seus alunos apenas para o curso m茅dio ou para a universidade, mas para uma profiss茫o. N贸s n茫o.鈥�
鈥淪em fins lucrativos鈥� atesta o 贸bvio (e n茫o referencia quem seria 贸bvio鈥�). Mas, relembrando Brecht, vivemos um tempo absurdo em que temos de defender o 贸bvio. 脡 na den煤ncia de uma educa莽茫o neoliberal, macabra atualiza莽茫o da educa莽茫o p贸s-revolu莽茫o industrial, que Nussbaum adere 脿 resist锚ncia.
Talvez seja um mal de professor, de conferir bibliografia citada como se tudo fosse um TCC mas, abordando o tema que aborda, como pode n茫o haver nenhuma cita莽茫o a Paulo Freire neste livro? Isso 茅 ainda mais desconcertante quando sabemos que a autora, Martha Nussbaum, formou-se (e foi professora) em Harvard, institui莽茫o na qual Freire lecionou em 1969 e que adota seus preceitos educacionais. E eu poderia parar aqui: em vez de ler esse livro, leia qualquer coisa do Paulo Freire. Dito isso, n茫o 茅 que a obra de Nussbaum seja ruim; apenas n茫o arranha o que j谩 foi dito pelo brasileiro 鈥� e dito de modo muito mais contundente.
Ainda assim, h谩 valor neste trabalho. Nussbaum toma o grande fil贸sofo, poeta e pol铆mata bengali Rabindranath Tagore como seu paradigma. Foi bem interessante ver como as ideias dele 鈥� primeiro n茫o europeu a receber o Nobel de Literatura 鈥� j谩 traziam preocupa莽玫es que encontramos em Freire e que s茫o n茫o apenas atuais, mais de cem anos depois, mas cada vez mais prementes. Para al茅m de diagnosticar o problema exposto no in铆cio da resenha, Tagore propunha uma solu莽茫o: o ensino das artes e das humanidades. Para ele, a chave para a cidadania global era a capacidade de cada sujeito se colocar no lugar do outro.
John Dewey, a outra refer锚ncia central para Nussbaum, segue na mesma linha. 鈥淒ewey insistia que, para as crian莽as, o que importa n茫o s茫o as 鈥榖elas-artes鈥�, querendo dizer com isso um exerc铆cio contemplativo no qual as crian莽as aprendem a 鈥榓preciar鈥� as obras de arte como objetos desligados da realidade. Nem elas deveriam ser levadas a acreditar que a imagina莽茫o s贸 茅 admiss铆vel no dom铆nio do irreal ou do imagin谩rio. Em vez disso, elas precisam perceber que existe uma dimens茫o criativa em todas as suas intera莽玫es e considerar que as obras de arte s茫o apenas uma das esferas nas quais se cultiva a imagina莽茫o. 鈥楢 diferen莽a entre brincar e o que se considera uma ocupa莽茫o s茅ria n茫o deve ser a diferen莽a entre a presen莽a e a aus锚ncia da imagina莽茫o, mas a diferen莽a entre os materiais com os quais se ocupa a imagina莽茫o鈥欌€�, segundo Dewey.
O problema 鈥� tanto ent茫o quanto agora 鈥� 茅 que esses conhecimentos n茫o geram lucro. Nussbaum reflete: 鈥渙 que teremos se essas tend锚ncias continuarem? Na莽玫es com uma popula莽茫o tecnicamente treinada que n茫o sabe como criticar a autoridade e geradores de lucro competentes com uma mente obtusa. Como Tagore observou, um suic铆dio da alma. Poderia haver algo mais assustador? Na verdade, quando contemplamos o estado indiano de Gujarat, que adotou esse modelo h谩 bastante tempo, onde impera uma aus锚ncia total de racioc铆nio cr铆tico nas escolas e um foco decidido na capacidade t茅cnica, podemos entender claramente como um bando de engenheiros submissos pode se transformar numa for莽a assassina para estabelecer as pol铆ticas mais horrivelmente racistas e antidemocr谩ticas.鈥�
De t茫o caricato, isso soa verdadeiro para o interior da 脥ndia. Mas Nussbaum n茫o pouca nem os Estados Unidos do tecnocrata Obama: 鈥淸a]inda mais problem谩tico, o presidente Obama frequentemente elogia pa铆ses do Extremo Oriente 鈥� Singapura, por exemplo 鈥�, que, do seu ponto de vista, nos deixaram para tr谩s em educa莽茫o tecnol贸gica e cient铆fica. E elogia esses pa铆ses de forma agourenta: 鈥楨les est茫o empregando menos tempo ensinando coisas que n茫o s茫o importantes e mais tempo ensinando coisas que s茫o. Eles n茫o est茫o preparando seus alunos apenas para o curso m茅dio ou para a universidade, mas para uma profiss茫o. N贸s n茫o.鈥�
鈥淪em fins lucrativos鈥� atesta o 贸bvio (e n茫o referencia quem seria 贸bvio鈥�). Mas, relembrando Brecht, vivemos um tempo absurdo em que temos de defender o 贸bvio. 脡 na den煤ncia de uma educa莽茫o neoliberal, macabra atualiza莽茫o da educa莽茫o p贸s-revolu莽茫o industrial, que Nussbaum adere 脿 resist锚ncia.
January 5, 2024
I read this for my Digital and Public Humanities class. Nussbaum argues humanities education is vital for democracy. She says schools increasingly teach profit-focused skills, instead of teaching abilities like critical thinking that sustain healthy democracies. I definitely agree with this, but her argument feels repetitive and overstated throughout the book. More examples of humanities programs successfully cultivating democratic citizenship could strengthen the book. I liked that she also included historical figures who wrote on this matter like Rousseau and Dewey.
May 25, 2023
Concordo que "[a] busca do racioc铆nio cr铆tico, das ideias ousadas, da compreens茫o emp谩tica das diferentes experi锚ncias humanas e da compreens茫o da complexidade do mundo em que vivemos" (NUSSBAUM, pp. 8-9) deve ser fomentada. Al茅m disso, 茅 evidente que uma estrutura de ensino voltada 脿s demandas do mercado est谩 fadada a gerar um trabalho alienado e precarizado. No entanto, a Martha Nussbaum 茅 t茫o reticente em dizer "o capitalismo vai destruir o mundo" (que 茅 algo que ela nunca diz) que eu fiquei me perguntando se n茫o seria melhor ir logo ler Paulo Freire, pois ele, al茅m de mais direto, ainda faz uma reflex茫o sobre o contexto brasileiro (ao inv茅s do estadunidense).
August 31, 2024
De vertaling naar het Nederlands is echt slordig. Dat daar gelaten, een prima pleidooi voor het belang van geesteswetenschappen, ik moet weer allemaal dingen die ik op hoge poten heb uit lopen kramen herzien. Leuk!
January 6, 2011
Nussbaum recommends Philosophy for Children as an exemplary program of 鈥淪ocratic pedagogy,鈥� which, she argues, is a necessary component of education in democratic societies. Nussbaum calls attention to a 鈥渨orld-wide crisis in education鈥� (2): making national economic growth its primary purpose. This crisis involves 鈥渞adical changes 鈥� in what democratic societies teach the young,鈥� (2) and in particular, the de-emphasis and even elimination of teaching the humanities and the arts. Nussbaum鈥檚 own philosophy gives education three aims: to prepare people 鈥渇or [democratic] citizenship, for employment and, importantly, for meaningful lives鈥� (9). As her title indicates, the book鈥檚 focus is on the first of these aims, and its argument may be summed up in two statements: democracy requires three broad kinds of abilities - 鈥渢he ability to think critically; the ability to transcend local loyalties and to approach world problems as a 鈥渃itizen of the world鈥�; and ... the ability to imagine sympathetically the predicaments of another person鈥� (7); and a liberal arts education, with emphasis on the arts and humanities, is necessary to cultivate these abilities.
December 17, 2014
I really liked Nussbaum's book Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law, so I looked forward to reading this more recent book of hers. As she says, this is a 'manifesto' on the relevance of the humanities to the future of our democratic society in the United States. This is a manifesto, much shorter and to the point than Hiding from Humanity. One of my favorite quotes is: "But educators for economic growth will do more than ignore the arts, They will fear them. For a cultivated and developed sympathy is a particularly dangerous enemy of obtuseness, and moral obtuseness is necessary to carry out programs of economic development that ignore inequality. It is easier to treat people as objects to be manipulated if you have never learned any other way to see them." (pg 23).
January 25, 2012
Nussbaum wrote this as if it were directed to a broad audience, incapable of following careful and detailed arguments. In place of detailed arguments, pallid exposition of classic psychology experiments (Milgram, Zimbardo, etc.) alongside near constant urging of Tagore's ideas (an Indian philosopher). I expected to come away from the book knowing more about education, and more about the role of education in democracy, but the book accomplished neither.
March 18, 2011
She makes excellent points about education, but her presentation is unfocused.
February 9, 2015
Nussbaum makes some good points but takes way too long to argue her case, which makes it a somewhat tedious and repetitive read.
November 8, 2018
A fairly random collection of anecdotal history, very slanted assumptions about what is needed for "democratic citizenship," and precious little in the way of argument.
Best avoided.
Best avoided.
March 2, 2021
賱賷爻 賱賱乇亘丨
鬲鬲賰賱賲 賲丕乇孬丕 賳賵爻亘丕賵賲 毓賳 賯賷賲丞 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 亘丿兀 丕賴鬲賲丕賲 丕賱丨賰賵賲丕鬲 亘賴丕 賷賯賱 賮賷 馗賱 丕賱鬲爻丕亘賯 毓賱賶 丕賱廿賴鬲賲丕賲 亘丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱賲亘賳賷 毓賱賶 丕賱賰爻亘 賮賷 丕賱爻賵賯 丕賱毓丕賱賲賷 賲賵囟丨丞 丕賱丿賵乇 丕賱賲賴賲 丕賱匕賷 鬲賱毓亘賴 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丕鬲 賮賷 亘賳丕亍 丕賱鬲賮賴賲 賵丕賱鬲毓丕胤賮 賵丕賱鬲卮丕毓乇 亘賷賳 丕賱孬賯丕賮丕鬲 賵丕賱兀毓乇丕賯 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮賴 賲丕 賷賳鬲噩 毓賳賴 鬲乇爻賷禺 丕丨鬲乇丕賲 丕賱丌禺乇 賵鬲賯丿賷乇賴 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 鬲毓夭賷夭 孬賯丕賮丞 匕丕鬲 賯賷賲 丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷丞 鬲爻丕毓丿 毓賱賶 鬲兀氐賷賱賴丕 賵丕賱丨賮丕馗 毓賱賷賴丕貙 賲兀賰丿丞賸 兀賳 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱噩丕賲丿 丕賱匕賷 賷賴丿賮 賱丨卮賵 丕賰亘乇 賰賲賷丞 賲賳 丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 賮賷 匕賴賳 丕賱胤賱丕亘 賱睾乇囟 丕賱丨氐賵賱 毓賱賶 賵馗賷賮丞 鬲賲賱兀 賲賰丕賳丕賸 卮丕睾乇丕賸 賮賷 爻賵賯 丕賱毓賲賱 賱睾乇囟 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷 毓賱賶 丨爻丕亘 鬲毓賱賷賲 賷賳賲賷 卮睾賮 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵賲毓乇賮鬲賴 亘丕賱丨賷丕丞 賵鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱卮毓賵亘 賵賲毓丕賳丕鬲賴丕 賵丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賵丕賱賮賳 賷丐丿賷 亘丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 廿賱賶 鬲賯賵賷囟 兀購爻爻 丕賱賳馗賲 丕賱丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷賴 賵鬲賮賰賰賴丕 賲賳 丕賱丿丕禺賱 亘毓丿 鬲賰乇賷爻 丕賱賳夭毓賴 丕賱賳乇噩爻賷賴 賵鬲賯丿賷賲 丕賱廿賯鬲氐丕丿 賵丕賱乇亘丨賷賴 毓賱賶 丨爻丕亘 賲丕 賷噩毓鬲 丕賱丨賷丕丞 噩丿賷乇丞 亘兀賳 鬲毓丕卮貙 賵賱賱兀爻賮 賴匕丕 賲丕 賷丨氐賱 丕賱賷賵賲 鬲丨鬲 賵胤卅丞 丕賱鬲賳丕賮爻 丕賱廿賯鬲氐丕丿賷 亘賷賳 丕賱丿賵賱 賲丕 丨匕賶 亘丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱丿賵賱 丨匕賮 丕賱賲賵丕丿 睾賷乇 匕丕鬲 丕賱賮丕卅丿賴 丕賱鬲賷 賱丕 鬲噩賱亘 丕賱乇亘丨 賵睾賷乇 賲賮賷丿丞 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丕賸 (丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞) 賲丕 賷噩毓賱 丕賱丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷丕鬲 鬲丨鬲 鬲賴丿賷丿 賲爻鬲賲乇.
賰鬲丕亘 噩賷丿 賵賲賮賷丿 兀賳氐丨 亘賯乇丕亍鬲賴 賵賷毓賷亘賴 囟毓賮 丕賱鬲乇噩賲賴.
鬲鬲賰賱賲 賲丕乇孬丕 賳賵爻亘丕賵賲 毓賳 賯賷賲丞 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 亘丿兀 丕賴鬲賲丕賲 丕賱丨賰賵賲丕鬲 亘賴丕 賷賯賱 賮賷 馗賱 丕賱鬲爻丕亘賯 毓賱賶 丕賱廿賴鬲賲丕賲 亘丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱賲亘賳賷 毓賱賶 丕賱賰爻亘 賮賷 丕賱爻賵賯 丕賱毓丕賱賲賷 賲賵囟丨丞 丕賱丿賵乇 丕賱賲賴賲 丕賱匕賷 鬲賱毓亘賴 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丕鬲 賮賷 亘賳丕亍 丕賱鬲賮賴賲 賵丕賱鬲毓丕胤賮 賵丕賱鬲卮丕毓乇 亘賷賳 丕賱孬賯丕賮丕鬲 賵丕賱兀毓乇丕賯 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮賴 賲丕 賷賳鬲噩 毓賳賴 鬲乇爻賷禺 丕丨鬲乇丕賲 丕賱丌禺乇 賵鬲賯丿賷乇賴 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 鬲毓夭賷夭 孬賯丕賮丞 匕丕鬲 賯賷賲 丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷丞 鬲爻丕毓丿 毓賱賶 鬲兀氐賷賱賴丕 賵丕賱丨賮丕馗 毓賱賷賴丕貙 賲兀賰丿丞賸 兀賳 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱噩丕賲丿 丕賱匕賷 賷賴丿賮 賱丨卮賵 丕賰亘乇 賰賲賷丞 賲賳 丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 賮賷 匕賴賳 丕賱胤賱丕亘 賱睾乇囟 丕賱丨氐賵賱 毓賱賶 賵馗賷賮丞 鬲賲賱兀 賲賰丕賳丕賸 卮丕睾乇丕賸 賮賷 爻賵賯 丕賱毓賲賱 賱睾乇囟 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷 毓賱賶 丨爻丕亘 鬲毓賱賷賲 賷賳賲賷 卮睾賮 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵賲毓乇賮鬲賴 亘丕賱丨賷丕丞 賵鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱卮毓賵亘 賵賲毓丕賳丕鬲賴丕 賵丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賵丕賱賮賳 賷丐丿賷 亘丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 廿賱賶 鬲賯賵賷囟 兀購爻爻 丕賱賳馗賲 丕賱丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷賴 賵鬲賮賰賰賴丕 賲賳 丕賱丿丕禺賱 亘毓丿 鬲賰乇賷爻 丕賱賳夭毓賴 丕賱賳乇噩爻賷賴 賵鬲賯丿賷賲 丕賱廿賯鬲氐丕丿 賵丕賱乇亘丨賷賴 毓賱賶 丨爻丕亘 賲丕 賷噩毓鬲 丕賱丨賷丕丞 噩丿賷乇丞 亘兀賳 鬲毓丕卮貙 賵賱賱兀爻賮 賴匕丕 賲丕 賷丨氐賱 丕賱賷賵賲 鬲丨鬲 賵胤卅丞 丕賱鬲賳丕賮爻 丕賱廿賯鬲氐丕丿賷 亘賷賳 丕賱丿賵賱 賲丕 丨匕賶 亘丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱丿賵賱 丨匕賮 丕賱賲賵丕丿 睾賷乇 匕丕鬲 丕賱賮丕卅丿賴 丕賱鬲賷 賱丕 鬲噩賱亘 丕賱乇亘丨 賵睾賷乇 賲賮賷丿丞 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丕賸 (丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞) 賲丕 賷噩毓賱 丕賱丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷丕鬲 鬲丨鬲 鬲賴丿賷丿 賲爻鬲賲乇.
賰鬲丕亘 噩賷丿 賵賲賮賷丿 兀賳氐丨 亘賯乇丕亍鬲賴 賵賷毓賷亘賴 囟毓賮 丕賱鬲乇噩賲賴.
May 14, 2016
One of the main arguments of our era on behalf of public funding of education is the economic benefit it will produce. In the current 2016 Australian election, the Labor Party has argued its education spending policy will add up to 2.8% to growth. US President Barack Obama made a similar case a few years ago that 鈥楩or every dollar we invest in these [education] programs, we get nearly ten dollars back鈥�.
In 鈥楴ot for Profit: Why democracy needs the humanities鈥�, Martha Nussbaum argues this is a fundamentally impoverished view of the role education plays in the functioning of a democratic society. Instead she provides a compelling 鈥榤anifesto鈥� for a larger role for humanities (arts, literature, world history, religious studies and economic history) in the education of democratic citizens.
Nussbaum worries that in many countries around the world, and increasingly in the West, a 鈥榯each to the test鈥� model of rote and repetition seems to be gaining control. Professional skills are the demand, and opportunities for play, curiosity and questioning authority are reduced. While a digital world does require specific skills in science, maths, and technology, I would agree with Nussbaum that such skills will not solve or even salve our contemporary problems unless accompanied by an education in philosophy, politics and history.
It鈥檚 easy to see why centre-left parties have however moved to argue for the economic benefits of their desire for higher education spending. They must feel this is sometimes the only safe ground on which they can defend anything anymore. But it鈥檚 a poor argument any way you look at it. The economic benefits are likely to be far 鈥攅specially if diverted into the 鈥榝ads鈥� of the day鈥� and because very few voters will thus conclude that the left are strong on the economy because of this argument.
This is a slightly strange book. The title suggests a much more post-captialist mumbo-jumbo style than it actually offers. And at times the argument could have been prosecuted much more strongly.
While I agree with Nussbaum鈥檚 arguments on the need for empathy and imagination through teaching art and literature, the most invigorating part of this book for me was the focus on Socratic dialogue. Explored via the work and careers of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Johann Pestalozzi, Rabindranath Tagore and John Dewy, Nussbaum argues that reasoning, debate and argumentation are foundational skills in the citizen body for a democracy to survive.
I鈥檝e long admired the notions of civic republicanism with the emphasis on having citizens who are expected to participate in the decisions of a society, being both trained to engage, as well as having the responsibility to do so. This is a tradition which has been perhaps richest in the modern world in America 鈥攁 self-proclaimed republic鈥� and Australia.
Chief among its 20th century advocates is a man many have mistakenly seen as a one-sided liberal or conservative. Instead Australia鈥檚 longest serving Prime Minister, Robert Menzies was 鈥攁s a colleague and I have argued 鈥� .
Menzies worried in his own day that if 鈥樷€榦ur view of education is 鈥榟ow much can I get for myself out of it . . . in terms of financial advantage or social position鈥� that we shall see the material advancement of the nation matched by moral decay, and ultimately destroyed by it鈥欌€�. Universities thus had the role and honour of training 鈥樷€榯he recognition of values which are other than pecuniary鈥欌€�. (quotes from article)
Rather than treat education as economics policy 鈥攁s many critics believe liberal capitalists must do鈥� Menzies firm support for liberal capitalist economic measures to grow the economy provided him with the resources and space to fundamentally expand the university system in Australia and stress the importance of civic virtue.
Nussbaum has since provided an afterword to 鈥楴ot for Profit鈥�, written two years after the books鈥� initial 2010 release. In it she relates the global response to the book, and her travels since, including to places like Australia. While she is reassured that liberal arts courses remain vibrant in the USA, she worries that Australia is one of the weakest western states for this style of teaching. Not just because of the funding issues, but more fundamentally due to culture:
Returning to a democratic citizenship model 鈥� with a commitment to equality and the questioning of authority 鈥� is thus a move Nussbaum feels may have a fundamental appeal in Australian society. Indeed we already know it does, given the of civic republicanism in this country.
It would be tempting therefore to conclude with another kick at our politicians for their misguided notions. But ultimately, the education and democratic training of a nation is far more reflective of the community than its leaders. So rather than bemoan today鈥檚 small politics which is a consequence of a shrinking notion of democratic citizenship, let me pledge here to encourage its return wherever I can.
In my own behaviour in the public space, in the behaviour I encourage to my classes on Australian foreign and defence policy at University and over the coming years in the behaviour I teach my son. A commitment from us all to do so, would truly be to our national profit.
In 鈥楴ot for Profit: Why democracy needs the humanities鈥�, Martha Nussbaum argues this is a fundamentally impoverished view of the role education plays in the functioning of a democratic society. Instead she provides a compelling 鈥榤anifesto鈥� for a larger role for humanities (arts, literature, world history, religious studies and economic history) in the education of democratic citizens.
Nussbaum worries that in many countries around the world, and increasingly in the West, a 鈥榯each to the test鈥� model of rote and repetition seems to be gaining control. Professional skills are the demand, and opportunities for play, curiosity and questioning authority are reduced. While a digital world does require specific skills in science, maths, and technology, I would agree with Nussbaum that such skills will not solve or even salve our contemporary problems unless accompanied by an education in philosophy, politics and history.
It鈥檚 easy to see why centre-left parties have however moved to argue for the economic benefits of their desire for higher education spending. They must feel this is sometimes the only safe ground on which they can defend anything anymore. But it鈥檚 a poor argument any way you look at it. The economic benefits are likely to be far 鈥攅specially if diverted into the 鈥榝ads鈥� of the day鈥� and because very few voters will thus conclude that the left are strong on the economy because of this argument.
This is a slightly strange book. The title suggests a much more post-captialist mumbo-jumbo style than it actually offers. And at times the argument could have been prosecuted much more strongly.
While I agree with Nussbaum鈥檚 arguments on the need for empathy and imagination through teaching art and literature, the most invigorating part of this book for me was the focus on Socratic dialogue. Explored via the work and careers of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Johann Pestalozzi, Rabindranath Tagore and John Dewy, Nussbaum argues that reasoning, debate and argumentation are foundational skills in the citizen body for a democracy to survive.
I鈥檝e long admired the notions of civic republicanism with the emphasis on having citizens who are expected to participate in the decisions of a society, being both trained to engage, as well as having the responsibility to do so. This is a tradition which has been perhaps richest in the modern world in America 鈥攁 self-proclaimed republic鈥� and Australia.
Chief among its 20th century advocates is a man many have mistakenly seen as a one-sided liberal or conservative. Instead Australia鈥檚 longest serving Prime Minister, Robert Menzies was 鈥攁s a colleague and I have argued 鈥� .
Menzies worried in his own day that if 鈥樷€榦ur view of education is 鈥榟ow much can I get for myself out of it . . . in terms of financial advantage or social position鈥� that we shall see the material advancement of the nation matched by moral decay, and ultimately destroyed by it鈥欌€�. Universities thus had the role and honour of training 鈥樷€榯he recognition of values which are other than pecuniary鈥欌€�. (quotes from article)
Rather than treat education as economics policy 鈥攁s many critics believe liberal capitalists must do鈥� Menzies firm support for liberal capitalist economic measures to grow the economy provided him with the resources and space to fundamentally expand the university system in Australia and stress the importance of civic virtue.
Nussbaum has since provided an afterword to 鈥楴ot for Profit鈥�, written two years after the books鈥� initial 2010 release. In it she relates the global response to the book, and her travels since, including to places like Australia. While she is reassured that liberal arts courses remain vibrant in the USA, she worries that Australia is one of the weakest western states for this style of teaching. Not just because of the funding issues, but more fundamentally due to culture:
鈥淎ustralia, like Britian, has long thought of education as commercial and instrumental, and there is a further issue in that profoundly egalitarian society: people have grown used to thinking of the humanities as elitist鈥� (p.153)
Returning to a democratic citizenship model 鈥� with a commitment to equality and the questioning of authority 鈥� is thus a move Nussbaum feels may have a fundamental appeal in Australian society. Indeed we already know it does, given the of civic republicanism in this country.
It would be tempting therefore to conclude with another kick at our politicians for their misguided notions. But ultimately, the education and democratic training of a nation is far more reflective of the community than its leaders. So rather than bemoan today鈥檚 small politics which is a consequence of a shrinking notion of democratic citizenship, let me pledge here to encourage its return wherever I can.
In my own behaviour in the public space, in the behaviour I encourage to my classes on Australian foreign and defence policy at University and over the coming years in the behaviour I teach my son. A commitment from us all to do so, would truly be to our national profit.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 239 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.