We left the last post with a Professor of
African-American Studies and a Professor of History walking in the procession
at the Commencement ceremony of a College of Liberal Arts, but not in perfect
harmony. According to what had
been argued, with one the first priority was the achievement of something that
could be named variously — justice, equality, recognition —but which I named
simply "good." With the
other the first priority was "knowledge." One professor I named "knower" and the other
"striver."
Those names take us to the deepest source of disharmony,
seen in what the gown means to the history professor: a declaration that the
wearer is as careful as possible about what he professes to know. The Professor of History knows that the
Professor of African-American Studies, though he may be very careful, will have
a limit on his care. He has not
removed the last impediment to knowledge, partiality.
There are too many opportunities for misunderstanding
here for any blogger to deal with but I can at least issue a couple of
warnings. First, do not think of personal
relations. The two professors in
the procession might get along fine.
The history professor might well be happy to see his standards suspended
for the sake of a good cause. The
African-American Studies professor might well recognize that his is a temporary
position, and that when certain goals are reached all can return to the
academic norm.
On the other hand there might be personal conflict. The Professor of History might see the
African-American Studies professor's presence as an intrusion, and have learnedly
depreciative ways to describe it, this suddenly dominating presence of
goodness. He could, for example,
see it as Matthew Arnold would, the victory of Hebraism, the thirst for
righteousness, over Hellenism, the thirst for understanding. He could see in that the defeat of the
Enlightenment, an understanding based on science. He could further see, in the victory of Hebraism, the victory
of Christian love over pagan power, making it the defeat of unsentimental
power. He's facing, oh my, the victory
of the passions over the reason. There goes the centuries-old priority. But even if he sees the other
professor's presence, wearily, as just another triumph of the muddling world over
the clarifying academy, the history professor has plenty he can be resentful
about. And we here have to ignore all
his resentments because we see something more deeply founded.
Before we get to it, though, a second warning: do
not take the word "knower" to mean that the professor of Professor of
History knows more than the Professor of African-American Studies. He may know less. "Knower" and "striver"
signify only a priority, what takes precedence. When the chips are down the professor of African-American Studies,
like those who chose him for his position, will opt for the good his people,
through his department, are striving for.
If it were otherwise those who chose him would have been willing to
include their study in the liberal curriculum. (Yes, acceptance of that statement depends on the meaning
you give "liberal" but that's beyond our fussiness here.)
The deepest ground for objection is that claims for
goodness can never be as strongly supported as claims for knowledge. The Western claim for knowledge, the
claim for the tradition descending from Socrates, the claim that gives the
wearer of the robe authority and prestige, is by now about as strongly
supported as a claim can be (see Post 356). There is nowhere in sight a claim that can come close to
it.
And that gives the marchers in a Liberal Arts
Commencement exercise their deepest objection to the presence of a professor of
African-American Studies, or Women's Studies, or any program with a different
priority. The authority and
prestige gained in their way, with deep support, has been acquired by marchers with much less deep support. But wearing the same robe.
No comments:
Post a Comment