A former student of mine wrote in asking what we could do to save Classics in the wake of program after program being cut; they included a questionnaire of sorts and because I spent way too much time on it this weekend, I figured I’d share the answers. FYI, I also told them that we needed multimedia campaign, complete with apps, celebrity endorsements, and videos. Some of this is Classics-centric, but I think the question applies to all disciplines in jeopardy right now — so what do you think, readers? What can we do to promote our stuff to the world at large? (PS just to prove how much we’ve lost the Wikiality battle, I’m including the results of an image search for “Classics”…)
Well, a little depressing, but at least it's on message...Thanks {link: http://www.swarthmore.edu/classics.xml}Swarthmore{/link}!
1. Does Classics have a reputation problem in the first place? If not, why has its clout in academia been steadily declining?
Yes, I think it has two-pronged problem. Being one of the dead-est fields makes it seem distant and irrelevant to the average modern person, and the elite associations aren’t helping either. Even in the academic world, Classicists don’t play well with others; they only grudgingly explain what they do and why you should care, making sure to show their umbrage at even being asked — and this is incredibly stupid, given that most people are going to assume “Classics” means Charles Dickens you tell them otherwise. Nicely, I mean.
Second image for "Classics". QED.
More generally the problem is that classicists (and other supposedly smart people) act dumb when it comes to PR and politics — and that does NOT fly in a modern university. I guess I’d call it a failure to adapt and/or learn the lessons of your own material. For example, while I was still at Vanderbilt, a fellow prof once argued AGAINST promoting our lower-level civ classes, saying this was “prostituting our art” and confidently repeating some dean’s claim that “numbers didn’t matter.” I mean, this prof had read Cicero and Tacitus, right? How can you study Roman politics, yet remain so naive about the rhetoric and reality around you? It makes no sense.
2. What do you find sexy/fun about history?
Look, I’m a weirdo. I think paradox is sexy and fun. I LIKE having to reconcile (e.g.) Machiavelli’s “official” writings with his funny letters and plays. So I like history precisely because it’s messy and raises provocative questions: What’s universally human and what’s culturally relative? Given the force of cultural norms, how do we explain truly exceptional individual behavior? How much of human life is determined by Fortuna and how much by actions? How do we reconcile conflicting information, whether it be historical sources that contradict each other, or individual figures whose actions and words don’t match, or even our oversaturated media today? The answers aren’t either/or, they’re about the interplay of complex elements — just like life is now.
You can't deny these classics are sexy and fun.
Unfortunately, this aspect is lost when people mistake knowing facts and figures for doing history — like history is the same as an obsessive knowledge of baseball stats or movie trivia. Seriously, who cares about the dates of the Peloponnesian War? I don’t, particularly. Dates just help you put things in order, like folders in a directory; they tell you nothing interesting or meaningful.
Having to reconcile five different sources telling you ten conflicting stories about Cleopatra’s motivations, on the other hand — that’s doing history. The whole point is that it’s open to interpretation, and requires critical thinking. If you’re doing it right, you should find history confusing, amusing, inspiring, familiar, alien, depressing, horrifying and humbling. Pericles was awesome but died of the plague. Alcibiades’ charisma always won out against reasonable debate. Slavery was scientifically “proven” to be okay for centuries — and, it’s always worth asking, what does that imply for the present state of the human race? Given how slowly evolution works, are we so confident that our modernity equals progress? Do we feel lucky today?
So I like the big human questions, which is why I think it’s ridiculous when people act like history isn’t relevant to human life — but, unfortunately, other fields have come to monopolize “real” knowledge on this front. Why is it “scientific” for (e.g.) a psychologist to mine literature and history, but not for a historian to talk about how social norms inevitably influence scientists? Because people like definite answers, I suppose, and that is exactly what history (and life) won’t give you most of the time.
3. What can Thatcher the Trust Fund Baby Econ Major/Dave Matthews Band Completist find sexy/fun about history?
Well, as you can tell, I refuse to let people get away with using history to make themselves feel better about how awesome we are now — but that’s not something most people want to hear. So I always start from the universally human element. Some might call this the lowest common denominator; I just see it as good storytelling to focus on small, real-life details that suck people in: Ovid’s Cosmo-style dating advice, Seneca complaining about his noisy, weight-lifting neighbors, Aristophanes’ jokes about bikini line maintenance…things people can relate to, even now. My goal is to get everyone on board with thinking “hey, these were people just like us!” before moving on to potentially upsetting part, viz. that this has implications for our own human-ness, in that it requires us to turn the same critical eye to our culture.
I WISH Classics looked like this. From on article on {link:http://www.dezeen.com/2009/01/13/british-design-classics-stamps-by-royal-mail/}British design classics.{/link}
4. How do we prove that a dead language isn’t a useless one? No one seems to be listening to the SAT bump anymore.
I haven’t figured this out yet, but I’m working on it. The big question is how to get people to value an activity they personally don’t do, use, or enjoy on a regular basis; and in that regard, why do some fields (e.g. law, physics) get so much respect, while others don’t?
Perhaps this is barking up the wrong tree, but I’m trying to use computer languages as a parallel. So, not everyone knows HTML or CSS or Javascript, but these things are considered unquestionably valuable because they lay behind a visible product, namely, a website or app. So maybe the key is to emphasize that Greek and Latin do lay behind visible things. I think this is why people emphasized the SAT bump, or how many words in the Constitution are derived from Latin roots. But you’re right, it doesn’t seem to be working anymore, so we’re clearly at the point where we need celebrity endorsements.
...like this one! EW says {link: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20208834_20473636,00.html}Baywatch is a new classic.{/link}
That’s why I latch on to any pop culture reference I can, and say “Hey, do you know why that person could make that awesome joke/see the problem so clearly/write that great book? Because they’re a Classicist, that’s why!” Or maybe we should be bolder about taking credit for those big action movies — and everything else! You’re welcome, world, for the centuries of preservation and AWESOME historical figures!
I admit even I feel the urge to be an asshole Classicist sometimes, because I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say Classics underlies the “greatest hits” of Western culture. Like when some blowhard is talking about Nietzsche I’m tempted to say “Look, you can’t possibly understand where he was coming from unless you’ve got Classics”; or (more controversially) I often want to ask annoying Christians if they care enough to read the Bible in ancient Greek. But I know that a back-door brag would be much more effective — so that’s where I’d leave it, we definitely need to brag more but with a sense of humor (please!) and being extra-careful to be class-conscious and non-condescending. That, and the celebrity endorsements, are the only way we’re going to save Classics.
Okay, that’s my two cents. What do you think, peanut gallery?
Yup, this is exactly right combination: looks like it should be exciting, but turns out kind of pedantic and boring. From the website {link: http://www.classicscentral.com/list00.htm}Classics Central{/link}.
That it’s just like reality TV, only, in certain cases, even more profane (and always more profound, but that can come later).
We tend to learn the sanitized version of the Classics, devoid of all of the messiness, but overflowing with message. I think that that is our chief aversion to them today.
If our culture is no longer interested in the “high” and only the “low”, then by Zeus, we will make the Classics as low as possible in order to reel’em in.
That’s exactly the kind of thinking we need in our think tank. Maybe we can get a sponsorship deal from Judd Apatow and Anheuser-Busch!
Celebrity endorsers with Classics/archaeology backgrounds should not be too hard to find; using celebrity endorsements for the field is not an alien concept. The AIA pimped the hell out of Gabriel Byrne’s archaeological roots when they had him over for their April fundraising gala. Stephen Fry bitch-slapped the Powers that Be at Royal Holloway. Finding AMERICAN celebrity endorsers for Classics in the U.S. might be more tricky, but certainly worth the effort to track down and approach. Start with Hollywood and the directors/actors who’ve done recent Classics-inspired films, work your way into authors and celebrity thinkers (Tina Fey/John Stewart), and on into pop/rock/metal. Any Classics Dept. worth its sal, salis should be offering a 100-level Classics-in-pop-culture course to bring in students, pay the bills, and hopefully retain students to turn into majors or at least who will take the classes in history, mythology, art history, language, etc., because they are fun, engaging, and remain relevant. Forget SAT scores. Classics is just plain fun. Pitch that.
Couldn’t agree more, in fact taught a class on Romans in the movies myself! But I do think we need to find American icons if we’re talking greater public interest here in the Sates – I mean, I love Stephen Fry but I doubt most of the students know who he is.
I also agree about pitching the fun, but have seen some resistance to that approach in the trenches. God forbid we start from the premise that this could be enjoyable.
In terms of sponsors in the UK, easily the best known person to help is Boris Johnson who is already involved in promoting things like the Iris Project.
Okay, I’m going to have clarify my definition of celebrity as “someone I’ve heard of”; if a person makes it on to my supremely superficial radar, they’re officially famous. Unfortunately, I’d never heard of either of those names, but looking them up, the project seems cool: http://www.irismagazine.org/
There is quite a good chapter on the value of classics in the recent book ‘The Public Value of the Humanities.’
On the use of the humanities in general I do like utilizing comments that physicist Robert Wilson’s made before a Congress committee in 1969 as to why he thought funding should be continued to build a particle accelerator when the money could be used to fund national security. His reply was:
“It has only to do with the respect with which we regard one another, the dignity of men, our love of culture. It has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things we really venerate in our country and are patriotic about. It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending.”
Other than that I have come into the habit of pointing people to G. A. Petsko’s excellent letter: http://genomebiology.com/2010/11/10/138
Wow, that book title promises a supremely boring experience. I’m talking about something a little sexier, ideally. Also, Gen Y really doesn’t care what was said in 1969 because that’s all Boomer-y, and the letter is far too long for them to finish.
My point being, we need to find start from what they can handle (modern, brief materials) before challenging them. Yes, it’s pandering, but that’s all marketing has ever been.
How about through pretty pictures?
https://picasaweb.google.com/107016037887630884274/HESIODSMUSES
Those are lovely pictures, but the mere presence of anything white and marble bespeaks “old and boring” to young minds; I’m in favor of juxtposing images, text, and sound, not only because it’s the only way to keep our little ADD-ers focused (no, really, pedagogically that’s true) but also because this creates a new meaning, one is that is not by default “ancient history”.
Wopro, on a closer look you will find pointers to the “Scorpions”, harder staff like “Faith and the Muse” (see Musensaal Muse Melpomene, #18), all holding hands with Mozart, Bach and Richard Wagner…
Okay, but this is precisely my point: in UI, there is no such thing as “on a closer look”. You have a millisecond, maybe, to effect your desired response; and what I saw (from a UI POV) was a bunch of marble sculptures.
Amanda,
I’m not trained in classics, rather in social science; nor do I not recall how I found your site. Nevertheless, you define important issues in clear and clever fashion. From a macro-economic perspective many disciplines in higher education will contract or be eliminated. Indeed, the future of higher education is itself in question because it has marketed itself as a career trainer/provider and promised students that the debt they incur is a long-term investment. For brevity, the world has reached the limits to the physical expansion of the economy; we’ve got to solve our problems minus the taken for granted assumption/mythology that we’ll restart growth and once again all will be well. I wish I could give you optimistic news but the unfolding reality is that economic contraction is now underway and everyone will -naturally- argue that their profession is most important to the world. I’m in health care and absolutely no preparation for reductions in social and technological complexity are being considered or even understood by those who control medicine, nursing and public health. So I don’t have advice re the classics, just another question: “What can classics -maybe Apollonian and Dionysian contrasts- contribute to our culture coming to terms with the end of the mythology of perpetual economic growth?”
@Dan … What classics contributes is that it recognizes that you have set up a petitio principi situation which really is a dishonest form of argumentation which we know not to engage in because you’ve set up a losing situation no matter what we answer.
You are welcome to deny that we’ve reached the end of growth. There’s an economic and social-empirical world out there that is in fact contracting -what’s your explanation for this beyond offering rhetoric about question begging?
@RC Damn, Rogue, you snarky! But right.
@Dan Ha, you just said “end of growth”. I don’t know if you can understand how funny that sounds to Classicist but consider how many empires we’ve seen rise and fall; “end” only counts if you’re in that particular empire. If the global market implodes this second, it will suck for all of us — hell, maybe it’ll kill most of us — but something new will arise eventually and in a few centuries or so historians will be arguing about when/if the official end occurred, and whether the causes were social or economic or both or whatever, and they’ll most certainly be citing conflicting theorists from today if the material survives — which, to bring it to the present issue, is why critical thinking is necessary when people start telling you what’s happening and why it’s happening and what you should do about it. And it’s also why asking historians to use their subject to support your particular pet theory is irksome — and, come to think of it, it’s exactly what the Nazis did. Which makes it a pretty bad habit all around.
Well, from these two responses -and I don’t want to over-generalize- you guys will only be persuaded by experiential knowledge. This economy cannot return to growth; and using the concept of empire to predict another empire will follow does not address the ongoing loss of social land technological complexity. You need cheap energy to keep that level of complexity going -and to expand it. So the rise of another such complex society is wholly dependent upon finding a replacement for cheap abundant fossil fuels. If you look at the evidence there’s no such substitute now available. And, really, do you need to stoop to Nazi references to defend your magical belief that on a finite planet the perpetual physical expansion of economic activity is possible? Read “Limits to Growth”, it’s 41 year old research and forecasting that is coming true.
Yup, that’s beauty of critical thinking: YOU get to be the decider. And really, Dan, you need to be more imaginative about the relationship between human existence and fossil fuels. Who said anything about complex? I’m thinking Planet of the Apes or Escape from New York, here.
@rogueclassicist, here is a case for the “Classics” which does not put you in a circular argument predicament. About 20 years ago, when a true rogue classicist wrote a book about the “Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization” etc. (I am sure you remember it), I asked Prof. Stroud tongue-in-cheek “Why do I need the Classics”. He gave me a straight answer: “So that you will not have happen to you what happened to Agamemnon when he came back from Troy”; and then he added, “if it hasn’t already happened”…
LOL. That’s a real Classics zinger.
So speaking of promotion (on the tiny and probably silly end)…
My department wants to order a bunch of pencils, engraved with a catchy/funny/provocative slogan of some sort that will call attention to the study of Latin/Greek/Classics. We’d hand these out to incoming first-year students at the Academic Fair (where all the departments are out giving information about their programs). So what advice do you or your readers have for a catchy Classics slogan? I’m not really a fan of “dead languages” jokes myself — why accentuate the negative? — but maybe you disagree?
Hmm, I think it would depend on the joke. If it’s clever enough, it could be okay. But I’ll think about the slogan issue.
On the darker side, I’m not sure pencils are the way to go. A little low tech, though I understand that giving away engraved iPods is financially prohibitive.
If you want to ‘save’ Classics, then approach in a way that ignores history as such entirely. When it comes down to it, those who are interested in the historical side of things will remain so, while those who doubt the value of history – ancient or otherwise – will never realistically be persuaded to change their minds. Instead of a historical view point, go from a humanist one. Even in translation, Classical philosophy remains among the most easily accessible when it comes to discussing the most basic elements of human nature. While something like Horace’s Satires loses a degree of meaning when removed from historical context, and a further degree of subtletly and nuance when removed from its original language, the basic meaning of Satire 3 for example holds true to this day. Similarly, de rerum natura, while scientifically flawed, still includes the same basic thought patterns as can be seen today, especially regarding the issue of death. As for the likes of Cicero, stop treating speeches so exclusively as examples of rhetoric, and actually look at the arguments made, the emotions appealed to. Given greater political knowledge, much the same can apply to Tacitus, even Virgil.
This may be something of a contentious digression from traditional views of the point of history, but if Classics is, as you suggest, dying out, then a different approach has to have some benefits. I agree entirely that too much focus can be placed on dates, but the same can be said of individuals. While some people will eagerly pursue the aims of Cleopatra, the Classical world can provide a much more all encompassing (grammatically and stylistically questionable, but it will have to do) insight into human nature, both then and now. Celebrity endorsement and gimmicks will be seen as the empty efforts they ultimately are; if you want real success, you’re going to have to encourage people to start thinking. omnia ferre si potes et debes – as true today as it was in the second century.
“Will be seen”? Don’t use weasel words, yo, and shouldn’t that be a subjunctive?
Also I’ve got to tell you, I think Horace and Virgil are about the least accessible places to start as is philosophy (much as I love it myself). Why not Catullus? I’ve never seen a student struggle to understand his POV.
Oh, we do high tech too — we did a great promo video, we’ve got a top ten list on our website, etc. The idea behind the pencils is a) they’re CHEAP (as you imply); thus b) we can give them away in such quantities that people are likely to start just finding them around. If they have a clever catchy slogan, maybe they’ll even consider asking more about the department. The idea is to try to reach people who might otherwise not think about Classics enough to bother checking the website to see the video and read the top ten lists etc. Stealth advertising.
So if you think of any good pithy slogans — or know of any excellent source of such slogans — let me know!
Your wish is my command…http://worstprofessorever.com/2011/08/26/virtual-brainstorm-rebrand-classics/
I honestly think that pop-culture references and celebrity endorsements are not going to save Classics. The approach we take should be closer to that of Father Reginald Foster. Whoever has a love for learning the Latin language should be encouraged, and have the resources to pursue the love of the language. And as with any language, the only way to keep it alive is to speak it, which is a key ingredient of Foster’s curriculum. Classicists around the country should organize events/gatherings in their localities, where beginners and masters of the language can help each-other out by learning to speak and understand the language, discuss classical literature and its relevance to social life and history. This can be organized over the internet or through word of mouth.
If you leave it to “whoever has a love” for Latin you’re already making sure it’s going to flounder in small- numbered obscurity — and you know, that also sounds a lot like the “vocation”/elite crap that people use to make themselves feel better about being put-upon, misunderstood geniuses. Ugh.
I’m not talking about the languages, that is the single worst place to start. I’m talking big-picture, sexy, civ classes that MAKE people want to take Latin.
this isn’t my field, but my girlfriend is a so-called “information scientist” and is involved in “digital humanities”-type stuff that is very conducive to certain aspects of the Classics field.
This digital humanities stuff–digital reconstructions of ancient Rome and whatnot–can really appeal to the masses.
Now, my cup of tea is really some Plato dialogues, which requires no fancy technology and very little money. My suggestion for the future of the Classics and the humanities in general is make them CHEAP!!! Establish non-degree but accredited little side-institutions where students go to spend a semester or a year reading Plato etc. No stupid gyms and football teams. Not even a proper library filled with obscure monographs. Just cheap Hackett editions or computer printouts of texts. I still think that MOST people who end up in grad school for things like Classics and literature and some subfields of history (like mine, intellectual history) are really there because they want to teach some great books (not necessarily “the canon,” though), not because they want to be alone all damn day reading some dead person’s letters and grant applications in an archive, and not because they give a flying f*k about faculty committees and strolling across the well-manicured campus quad and so on. This sort of institution would appeal to that type.
To summarize — two suggestions for Classics:
1) neato digital reconstructions (for the archaeology and art history side)
2) MAKE IT CHEAP (for the literature and philosophy side)
I have disagree with you on both counts. In the first place, we need interactive APPS to get to the masses; books, printouts, and reconstructions won’t do anymore. Now, those apps can be cheap by the unit, if you market them for mass appeal, but you should also make sure the business model can pay the creators and curators what they’re worth. I think one of the main reasons we’re so screwed is that we’ve been selling ourselves cheap (or free) for too long — you yourself specify that “lit and philosophy” must be cheap. Why not any other field?
So, if you want to establish a place where people can hang out and read Plato, I’d treat it like a spa and charge the hell out of participants; the reason marketing makes so much money is because it unabashedly takes money from those who already have it. I think we need to do the same.
As an Ancient Studies major (undergrad) @ UMBC I spend a lot of time looking at the use of classical ideas in the surrounding world. I have found that there are definitely some bands out there that use classical stories/ideas on a regular basis in their lyrics. For example the band Thrice has a song called Daedalus in which he tells the story of Daedalus and Icarus almost word for word out of Ovid’s narration. Alesana, a rather heavy band very popular among teenagers, has a handful of classically themed songs including: Icarus, Ambrosia, Daggers Speak Louder Than Words, The Third Temptation of Paris, A Siren’s Soliloquy, and Nero’s Decay. Silverstein has a song entitled The Ides of March. I think we already have what we need for the younger generations to see the value in classics we just need to find a new way to advertise these ideas. It will become increasingly complicated for the older generations to find a way to reach these younger generations. Recent graduates should be focusing on bridging this gap. (Maybe even a few positions could be made in the world of Classics for young “promoters” to do this kind of work on a full time basis.
There are also some things happening in the TV advertisement business, like the new Scion commercial, with Zeus sitting on Mt. Olympus looking at the new model Scion. This is a brand that is geared toward American youth, so the fact that they saw an opportunity in Greek Mythology for reeling in new buyers is a good sign for the future of Classics.
I’m guessing those commercials owe a lot to the Percy Jackson and Clash of the Titans movies; and I don’t think Myth classes are in danger anytime soon. So that’s a good thing.
This is where I think we need to be very deliberate about strategy. So, for example, musical references are great, but are they from a group or genre popular enough to seem automatically relevant? If not, we’re back to throwing obscure references at people and them saying “meh”. For this reason, I think it’s crucial to start with something people already know and love.
True story: I was at a talk by a Family Guy writer and several teens in the audience were discussing the fact that when the show made an obscure reference, they wanted to look it up asap — so I think that’s what we need to aim for here, a medium that is sexy/fun enough to get people that excited. Though I do agree, paid promoters are definitely necessary too. And as much as I hate to say it, commercials really do reach everyone…
The actor Jim Parsons, who plays as Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang Theory, would quite possibly make a great spokesperson for Classics. There is a reference to Greek or Roman history, architecture, languages, etc. in many episodes of TBBT. This show has become extremely popular among young Americans. A roughly 30 y.o. actor would be a great way of reaching the younger generation.
Ah, now you’re talking – that’s a great idea! Just take over the nerd factor and own it…and I always wonder about the writers of that show – on one of the very first episodes, I remember a character was reading Sealy’s history, which is pretty specific. All right, who has Hollywood connections??
I would add to this useful list Hannah Fairchild, who has songs on Hero and Leander (“Poor Leander” http://www.myspace.com/hannahintheory) and Cassandra.
Okay, but to play the devil’s advocate, the same argument applies: I haven’t heard of this person, ergo I’m much less likely to care. So I’d advocate big-name references first, like the chariot of the soul reference in U2′s “So Cruel” — it’s old to them, but at least it’s a big name.
To be fair, you can use your personal sway as awesome teacher to get the kids excited about the material itself, and at that point they may be receptive; but without some serious prep, I never found their interest/attention spans reliable enough to assume they’d absorb anything.
I just want to say that post was beautiful.
Also, is Nick Cave too obscure? http://youtu.be/1bPSU5WMrdw
He’s pretty racy.
Thanks! Unfortunately, I do think Nick Cave is too obscure for the current generation of students…but you know, you can always abuse your classroom authority and force them absorb some good “oldies”. I did it all the time….
True story: One of my friends (who was first in his class in his wealthy blue-state public high school and graduated from the same selective private university that I did) was studying for the GRE the summer between his junior and senior years of college. One day he comes up to me and says, “Eileen, my GRE study guide taught me something really cool! Did you know that a lot of words have, like, Greek or Latin roots, and if you know the root you can figure out what the word means?” (My response, ’cause I’m a bitch: “Uhhhh, yeah, I knew that. I did go to sixth grade, after all.”) So, you know, there are some people out there who still get excited about the SAT bump.
Actually, your reference to annoying Christians reminds me that anyone serious about Christianity should TOTALLY be all over classics. I took a class on the development of Christian thought to the fifth century and spent a not-insignificant part of it drawing diagrams of Platonic emanations and trying to explain why translating Greek words into Latin (two languages I don’t speak!) created so many problems. Anyone who really cares about something and has deep interest in it should be curious enough to find out more about its classical antecedents.
But I think it comes down to curiosity, and that’s not just a problem for classics – it’s a problem for everything. My father works for a pharmaceutical company, so I hear about drugs all the time, and about why that chemical is toxic, and how it’s toxic, and what it does to your body and why that’s bad. It’s pretty interesting. But how many people see the line on some kitchen cleaner that says “Toxic: Do not consume” and then go online to figure out exactly why drinking Windex is going to hurt you? Or come across some data (say, percent of men who favor something versus percent of women) and try to look up the survey to find out how many men were asked versus how many women, and what percent of the in-favors were men versus women, etc.? Or hear someone rattle off a Latin family motto and Google it to find out what it means and what stuff the family has done with itself?
Yeah, I’ve got nothing. Sometimes I think I just type to watch the words show up on the screen.