I just read an article correcting some common assumptions about witchcraft — from LiveScience. Look, I’m really glad that someone is trying to present fair and balanced coverage, and it was a good article. But it really bothers me that this is presented under the aegis of SCIENCE, and not religion, or history, or any of the other humanities. This reporter read some books, then interviewed a Wiccan. Decent journalism, but not freaking scientific research. Not even pop science. In fact, some might call it “writing well,” as taught by your local English department. And the only improvement I would suggest to the science writer would be contact some actual religion experts, like say the kind you would find in humanities departments.
Some might object to me presenting this as a turf war, but I’m sorry, it really has become one. Scientists have a lot more street cred in the outside world — I saw tons of the Science Channel while I was traveling, including ad after annoying ad telling me how science is going to save the earth, or at least help my community. The History Channel, what should be our channel, just tells cool stories, often fictionalizing them, pretty much guaranteeing that they are not going to seem valuable, relevant or “real.” Great television, lousy PR for the humanities. And of course the actual departments aren’t doing anything to help either.
It’s worse at the university level, where science departments have the potential to bring in millions to their schools, both through patents and through government grants. And sure, humanities can bring in some government money, but trust me when I say it looks like a welfare check compared to the bling the NSA is handing out. Seriously, we’re just done for at this point.
I guess what really irked me about the a LiveScience reporter covering religion was the confirmation that any good research — the kind involving “facts” like those about Wicca — is now destined to be called “science,” while the humanities are apparently only good for writing poetry and talking about your feelings. Granted, I already knew that people thought this, and that’s part of why I’m outie — damn the torpedoes, boys, I’m going over to the other side!
Money talks. Especially at university level. That’s why athletes get book vouchers, cheap/free tuition/housing/food, “excused absences” from class, etc– because they bring in the $$. And that is why sciences get money, too. (As you said, grants, patents, research, etc.)
I mean, sure, humanities might get a book or two published, might come up with something just as brilliant, but it will get a much quieter applause, and it won’t bring as much attention back to the school, will it?
Bleh. The athlete thing bothers me more than the science thing. Perhaps because I went to a fun, fun school that (basically) guaranteed their athletes good grades in exchange for winning the games.
Ah, but it could bring glory if humanities people would get off their butts and start selling themselves. To me the athlete/science this is part and parcel of the same phenomenon, namely that you demonstrate your value to the school by generating revenue. Rather than complaining about this (it’s too far gone to change) humanities people need to get with the program and make some money. Though I agree, it’s really not fun to be a professor when the “athletic facilitator” is basically there to get you to pass students who shouldn’t.
Nor is it fun to be the kid who’s having to decide which textbooks they can and can’t afford when athletes who won’t even open them get them all for free. (I’m sure you can tell that this is a long term gripe of mine.)
I did have some humanities professors who were big on getting off their asses and doing things. Most wrote (some wrote Y.A. fiction– I plan on locating their books eventually), some did lecture circuits, many just wrote silly research books that nobody will read. Of course, my school was never renowned for their sciences, either. (Though it is apparently known for its MBA program, especially internationally…) Rather, it was known for Men’s Basketball.
Hmm, it’s a reasonable gripe. But in general I find it helpful to think of “life’s not fair” as a premise and not a conclusion. So, re: humanities profs, it’s not fair that that they are required to write boring books that no one reads if they want tenure. But the question is what to do about it. Some accept that it’s a stupid exercise to get tenure, planning their post-tenure novel. Some delude themselves into thinking it’s the “important contribution” the university tells them it is. Some just leave.
And yes, speaking of financial inequality, the business school phenomenon is generally infuriating. But writing YA fiction is a cool thing to do — were they planning their way out? Or already tenured? Or not tenure track? God, I’d love to get on the lecture circuit! Bet it’s more fun than actual teaching…no papers to grade is always a bonus.
I went to two football schools myself. Very proud that I never went to a single game. And being in Classics minimized the contact with sports types, though there was no way to avoid it entirely. Especially while TAing. [Shudder]
I’m not sure about tenure. I imagine at least one of them was tenured, since she was department chair while I was there, though that was a rotating position.
The other novelist was a Creative Writing teacher (which is actually a BA program…) so I suppose it was like writing academic books in other departments.
I went to a basketball game because I felt like I should. I was unimpressed. I actually enjoy watching football, so I’d likely have gone to football games if we had them.
Ironically, I went to a few basketball (and hockey) games, and enjoyed them quite a bit. But I’ve never been a football person.
I guess that would be the benefit of being in a Creative Writing dept., you could actually publish fun stuff and get credit for it!
In the 17th century they said science would save the world. Then they ended up with bloody revolutions. Then in the 19th century they said they Really had it figured out this time, NOW science would fix everything. Then we got the 20th century.
Don’t get me started on History Channel.
This is a great post. I hope readers understand what you are talking about without having to ask a scientist.
Thanks, and yes, the History Channel has a lot to answer for. And I’ll admit I’m skeptical (but hopeful) about the readers.