This book tests the proposition that the humanities can, and at their best do, represent a commitment to ethical reading. And that this commitment, and the training and discipline of close reading that underlie it, represent something that the humanities need to bring to other fields: to professional training and to public life.
What leverage does reading, of the attentive sort practiced in the interpretive humanities, give you on life? Does such reading represent or produce an ethics? The question was posed for many in the humanities by the “Torture Memos” released by the Justice Department a few years ago, presenting arguments that justified the use of torture by the U.S. government with the most twisted, ingenious, perverse, and unethical interpretation of legal texts. No one trained in the rigorous analysis of poetry could possibly engage in such bad-faith interpretation without professional conscience intervening to say: This is not possible.
Teaching the humanities appears to many to be an increasingly disempowered profession—and status—within American culture. Yet training in the ability to read critically the messages with which society, politics, and culture bombard us may be more necessary than ever in a world in which the manipulation of minds and hearts
is more and more what running the world is all about.
This volume brings together a group of distinguished scholars and intellectuals to debate the public role and importance of the humanities. Their exchange suggests that Shelley was not wrong to insist that poets are the unacknowledged legislators of mankind: Cultural change carries everything in its wake. The attentive interpretive reading practiced in the humanities ought to be an export commodity to other fields and to take its place in the public sphere.
3 有用 Manchild 2014-09-28 23:25:38
"无用之用"这种借口已经不能说服任何人,所以他们得说人文学科有用。布鲁克斯从 Torture Memos 对宪法的曲解得出阅读是一种伦理行为的结论,第三部分甚至直接嫁接到关于人权的讨论。我倒觉得像是给人文学科在价值层面划定疆域,反而没人留意“人文学科”是美国学院体制的发明。人文主义、人道主义和人文学科的关系在我看来仍非不言自明。
0 有用 xitchcock 2022-05-27 00:44:17
对人文学者来说,有不少打鸡血的观点。但总的来说意见参差不齐,有的表述方式也不够清晰。口头讨论都这么缠绕晦涩,真是要失去读者的。Derek Attridge就很不客气(或者故作客气)地说要打起精神、努力去理解Charles Larmore究竟想表达什么。发言者中没有一位历史学家,是个缺憾。不少讲者提及的人文和社科的矛盾,在近来的历史研究中非常突出。