Tom Liam Lynch :: New Literacies, New Literatures

Well, not really.  But it should perhaps be the case, according to David Brooks’ op-ed in the Times.  Brooks writes:

Studying the humanities will give you a familiarity with the language of emotion. In an information economy, many people have the ability to produce a technical innovation: a new MP3 player. Very few people have the ability to create a great brand: the iPod. Branding involves the location and arousal of affection, and you can’t do it unless you are conversant in the language of romance.

Is that all we’ve got?  The humanities exist only to help corporations create new products?  Surely there are other reasons to study the great books.

Brooks has an answer.  He calls it The Big Shaggy:

You can see The Big Shaggy at work when a governor of South Carolina suddenly chucks it all for a love voyage south of the equator, or when a smart, philosophical congressman from Indiana risks everything for an in-office affair.

You can see The Big Shaggy at work when self-destructive overconfidence overtakes oil engineers in the gulf, when go-go enthusiasm intoxicates investment bankers or when bone-chilling distrust grips politics.

So, by my count we have bevies of English majors slated to market Apple’s latest gizmo and to explain away (with literary sensibility) why bankers caused the financial crisis.  What is Brooks doing?  The icon of humanitarian study Brooks offers is called the Big Shaggy?  Not exactly poetic stuff.

I appreciate that Brooks used his visibility and popularity to the humanities cause.  For weightier and more thorough treatments of the issue, though, see Martha Nussbaum’s new book Not for Profit.  Or, check out a piece I wrote last year on how educational technology will be the downfall of literary study in schools.

What is Georgia doing?  This is what I read today on the train:

The Georgia House of Representatives signed off on final changes to a plan that boosts the pay of certified math and science teachers. The proposal would allow new secondary school teachers with proper certification to start at the salary of a fifth-year teacher.

This is iconic of a deep problem in education.  Policy makers think of education in terms of content.  That’s it.  Clearly if a teacher teaches math or science, they are more important and worth more money.

But, what about the quality of education?  Have none of us had experiences with math or science teachers who were less than effective?  The message this sends is that pedagogy is not as important as content.  If content is so discrete, however, we don’t need teachers at all.  Just give kids review books and be gone with them.