Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities.

• Author: Savit, Eli
• Position: Book review

NOT FOR PROFIT: WHY DEMOCRACY NEEDS THE HUMANITIES. By Martha C. Nussbaum. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. 2010. Pp. xv, 143. $22.95.

INTRODUCTION

Martha Nussbaum (1) describes Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities--her paean to a humanities-rich education--as a "manifesto, not an empirical study" (p. 121). Drawing on contemporary psychological research and classic pedagogical theories, Nussbaum convincingly argues that scholastic instruction in the humanities is a critical tool in shaping democratic citizens. Nussbaum shows how the study of subjects like literature, history, philosophy, and art helps students build essential democratic capacities like empathy and critical thought. Through myriad examples and anecdotes, Not For Profit sketches an appealing vision of what an ideal education should be in a democracy.

If Nussbaum's goal were merely to lay out a set of academic first principles, Not For Profit would largely be a success. Yet because Nussbaum believes that policymakers' singular focus on math, science, and technology education places the humanities in grave danger, she also wants her manifesto to serve as a "call to action" (p. 122). Unfortunately--although Nussbaum sketches a curricular ideal--she does not explain the precise actions that should be taken in pursuit of that ideal. Moreover, Nussbaum is unclear as to how her vision can be realistically implemented. Nussbaum does provide an adequate account of the problem she seeks to address: she persuasively argues that the humanities are threatened by policymakers' increasing tendency to view education as a means to an economic end. Troublingly though, Not For Profit offers little in the way of a solution. Compounding these difficulties, Nussbaum shies away from discussing the impediments to implementing a robust humanities curriculum. Not For Profit effectively sidesteps issues of cost (pp. 117-19), as well as the persistent problems arising from educational inequality in the United States (pp. 134-38).

Nussbaum is ultimately more interested in sketching a platonic ideal of education than in discussing how all students can be prepared for democratic citizenship. In fact, Nussbaum does not give even a general sense of how much humanities instruction might be necessary to adequately prepare students for citizenship or how best to integrate humanities instruction into our education system. Nussbaum persuasively argues that policymakers' focus on math, science, and technology education places the humanities in a state of crisis, but she does not suggest how to address that crisis.

But if Nussbaum is correct in asserting that the humanities are at the heart of adequate citizenship education, an American legal framework already exists that supports--and perhaps compels--adequate instruction in the humanities for all students. American courts have long suggested that one of public schools' primary functions is citizenship preparation, and the connection between education and citizenship is also made explicit in a number of state constitutions. Moreover, in the aftermath of No Child Left Behind, policymakers appear to be moving gingerly toward a recognition that an adequate education consists of more than math and reading instruction. Educational inequality in America--combined with a severe budget crisis facing U.S. schools--makes it unlikely that Nussbaum's humanitiesrich ideal will become the norm in American schools anytime soon. But if one can get past Nussbaum's particularly robust model of a humanities education, Not For Profit should serve as a compelling reminder of why the humanities are important for all American students. And, perhaps, if Not For Profit is thus contextualized, its arguments can serve as a rallying cry for the inclusion of adequate humanities education within the current American educational framework.

This Review proceeds in three parts. Part I summarizes Not For Profit and its novel and compelling arguments about the democratic potential of the humanities. Part II criticizes Nussbaum's failure to consider how her idealized system of education might be implemented, particularly given the legal, academic, and economic challenges in low-income American school districts. Finally, Part III attempts to make relevant Not For Profit's central thesis--that the humanities play a central role in shaping democratic citizens-by sketching a way in which the humanities can be implemented using America's current legal framework.

This Review is limited in scope, and three caveats are therefore in order. First, although Nussbaum describes the crisis in the humanities as a "global" problem (p. 1), this Review focuses primarily on humanities cutbacks in the United States. Second, Part I of this Review does not purport to offer a comprehensive critique of Nussbaum's theories on human development and psychology. Instead, this Review endorses Not For Profit's key arguments only to a limited extent: that Nussbaum's focus on human development--and thus, the development of democratic citizens--offers new and useful arguments for advocates of humanities education. (2) Finally, nothing in this Review should be read to implicate the manner in which empathy, critical thought, or any of Nussbaum's other "democratic" capacities operate in nondemocratic countries. Such capacities are undoubtedly crucial for humanity as a whole, not just those people who live in democracies. Not For Profit, however, focuses exclusively on the humanities' role in democracies, and this Review does not expand upon the scope of the book.

1. A GLOBAL CRISIS: WHAT NOT FOR PROFIT SAYS

   1. The Problem

      Martha Nussbaum does not mince words. "We are," Not For Profit opens, "in the midst of a crisis of massive proportions and grave global significance" (p. 1). Across the world, Nussbaum continues, "the humanities and the arts are being cut away" (p. 2). And because instruction in the humanities fosters skills like empathy and critical thinking, countries risk "producing generations of useful machines, rather than complete citizens who can think for themselves" (p. 2). "The future of the world's democracies," Nussbaum writes, "hangs in the balance." (3)

      Nussbaum's central observation--that the humanities have been de-emphasized at the primary, secondary, and university levels--rings true in the United States, although Nussbaum chooses to anecdotally highlight shifts in pedagogical emphasis rather than survey actual changes in instruction. She cites, for example:

      * the economics-heavy tone of former Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings's report on higher education (p. 3);

      * a conversation at Chicago's Lab School in which teachers "expressed anxiety" about "wealthy parents" demanding that "testable skills" be taught to their children instead of "education for democratic citizenship" (p. 4);

      * a symposium at a "prestigious U.S. university" on the future of liberal education that was cancelled because the university president "decided that a symposium on liberal education would not 'make a splash'" (p. 5).

      Nussbaum thus teases out one of her underlying themes: contemporary educators and policymakers are primarily concerned with providing students with "an education that promotes ... economic growth." (4) And Nussbaum argues that the profit-maximization camp sees the humanities as a waste of educational resources. From a national perspective, countries promote science and technology education because these disciplines are seen as the best means of increasing a country's core industries--and thus, its gross national product (pp. 14-23). From the perspective of an individual, instruction in science and technology is favored because these skills are seen as the most marketable. The humanities and the arts, on the other hand, are de-emphasized, because they "don't look like they lead to personal or national economic growth" (p. 23). Thus, Nussbaum suggests that national policymakers are inclined to de-emphasize the humanities because they are concerned with the GDP bottom line. Policymakers' antihumanities inclinations are compounded by the fact that voters do not demand robust instruction in the humanities for their children, because voters are concerned with their children's personal earning potentials.

      Nussbaum's anecdotes certainly reflect a shift in thinking about education. And in the United States, these shifts in thinking apparently affect the instruction students actually receive. In the immediate aftermath of the 2001 No Child Left Behind law--which ties school funding to math and reading scores alone--36 percent of public school districts cut subjects like civics, history, and government, and 16 percent of districts cut arts and music. (5) The recent economic crisis led to even deeper cuts to the humanities. Faced with significant state funding shortfalls, many public schools opted to cut back on humanities and arts, (6) leaving subjects like math, science, and literacy largely untouched. This shift away from the humanities has hardly sparked a public outcry: indeed, a slim majority of Americans think it is a "good thing" if increased emphasis on reading and math results in reduced emphasis on other subjects. (7)

      Not For Profit thus identifies a de-emphasis of the humanities in education and policy circles--as well as among voters. At least in the United States, data indicate that students are actually receiving less instruction in the humanities than they have in the past. Nussbaum next shows why the de-emphasis of the humanities--and the corresponding cuts in humanities instruction-threaten the development of democratic citizens.

   2. Democracy, Development, and Domination: Why The Humanities Are Important

      At least in the United States, educational de-emphasis of the humanities...