Online Debates

Should Universities be Teaching Western Civilization?

3/6/2019

In 2018, the Ramsay Center approached various universities with a proposal to lavishly fund a new specialist BA degree in Western Civilization, the underlying philosophy of which was enunciated in Robert Hutchins' 1952 essay The Great Conversation [abridged text below, but see here for the full text, and here for the University of Wollongong's degree]. For many, such a proposal is way past its use-by date in university humanities departments [here, but see also here]. They objected that its narrow focus is at odds with diversity and inclusion, that it implies some civilizations are superior to others, and, according to some, that it is European supremacism writ large—So, should universities be teaching western civilization?

Robert Hutchins, "The Great Conversation" [Abridged]
File Size:	5454 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

6 Comments

Joe M

17/6/2019 07:55:39 pm

The Ramsey Center proposes to fund a BA in Western Civilization, the underlying philosophy of which was enunciated in Robert Hutchins' 1952 essay The Great Conversation. Catharine Colborne thinks that the concept of Western Civilization is past its use-by date, a view she enunciates in a 2017 article on a website called (funnily enough) The Conversation. So let's get them talking to one another. Colborne basically has two complaints.

Her first charge is that "the problem with this view of peoples and cultures as civilisations is that it is hierarchical, with some civilisations viewed as superior to others." The (unstated) imputation is that Hutchins and his ilk think that the West is better than the Rest.

Hutchins explicitly disclaims this: "We believe that everybody, Westerners and Easterners, should understand [the conversation present in the Great Books of the Western World], not because it is better than anything the East can show, but because it is important to understand the West" (p48). This makes it sound like the West is merely of anthropological interest.

But this is not the full story. Only a few paragraphs later, he does claim superiority for the West in at least one respect—the degree to which it embodies what he calls the Great Conversation, the spirit of inquiry in which the "dominant element is the Logos. Nothing is to remain undiscussed. Everybody is to speak his mind. No proposition is to be left unexamined. The exchange of ideas is held to be the path to the realization of the potentialities of the race" (pp 48-49).

So is he guilty as charged? Not really. He does not say that the West is better than the Rest on the whole, but only in one important respect. He makes two claims. A normative claim—that a certain style of discussion, involving the open exchange and free examination of ideas, is very valuable to us humans. And a descriptive claim—that the West exemplifies this form of discussion more than the Rest. Perhaps the descriptive claim is mistaken. Even so, the normative claim implies that if civilization A exemplifies this style of discussion more than civilization B, then A is better than B in that respect. To reject this is to reject the idea that this style of discussion is so valuable. But that is arguable.

Colborne's second charge is that "universities should embrace the multiple languages, literature, histories and perspectives of a broad array of cultures and peoples, a task made more pressing by our changing demographic. We need to teach students to relate to our neighbours near and far, and to celebrate difference and diversity."

Hitchins will agree with the first sentence, in principle. He hopes that editors who understand the tradition of the East will do the same as he and his mates have done for the West, and "with that task completed, it should be possible to put together the common elements in the traditions and the present Great Books of the World" (p 48).

Again, there must be more going on. For if the value of the Great Books of the Western World lies in the fact that they embody the Great Conversation (the normative claim), and if they do so more than the Great Books of the Rest (the descriptive claim), then it looks like the Great Books of the World are going to be dominated by those from the West. And that, of course, is precisely what Colborne and her mates are complaining about.

Hitchins is still not guilty, for the important difference between the West and the Rest is not in content, but in attitude. As he puts it: "the Western ideal is not one or other strand in the Conversation, but the Conversation itself" (p 49). Thus, he claims that all points of view appear in the Great Books of the Western World (p 48), and even though this is probably mistaken (and would indeed be improved with a wider reading list), the main point is that it is up to the student to enter this conversation, to take a critical attitude, and to sort out the great errors from the great truths for themselves.

So Hitchins cannot agree with the second sentence. For the aim of listening to more people from more diverse backgrounds is most assuredly not to "celebrate difference and diversity", but rather to sort truth from error. And one of the things a student might conclude upon listening to someone from a different background is that their worldview embodies a great error, sometimes an evil error, and why would our student celebrate that?

Barry Hodges

4/7/2019 06:07:42 pm

The issue here is that there are two overt claims in the call for a BA in WC, both exemplified in Hutchens’ piece – that the essence of WC is the ongoing conversation and that this, in itself, is a valuable (the most valuable?) contribution to civilisation – and two matching implicit claims – that this tradition of the ongoing conversation is only manifested in WC and that, as a result, WC is superior to all other civilisations. (This is being as kind as possible to the proponents of such a BA; it is more often going to be the case that the superiority of WC is simply assumed as part of the nature of the universe. We must inevitably think of John Howard’s (fatuous) attacks on the ‘black armband’ view of Australian history.)

The complication is that while the overt claims are attractive and lead one to want to say that Yes, a BA in WC would be a very good thing, the dubious nature of the implicit claims make this count as a Bad Idea.

There is a way to satisfy both sides to this debate or, at least, to satisfy the overt claims: offer a BA not in WC but in Civilisation generally, based on a wide knowledge and critical and rigorous examination of the content and underlying assumptions of the great works and ideas of all civilisations. (A rough outline of such a course will be offered in a separate post.)

Note two further issues here. Firstly, Coleborne’s second charge (as noted by Joe) contains two contentions, one, again, attractive, and the other far more dubious and vulnerable to the attacks of the proponents of WC supremacism. She claims that universities should “embrace” the diversity of cultures – unarguable, I would think – but also that we “need to teach students to relate to our neighbours near and far, and to celebrate difference and diversity.” This is a worrying counterpart to the propagandistic nature of WC chauvinism on the other side; it is not the role of tertiary education to instil specific attitudes but rather to ensure that the attitudes that graduates have are based on knowledge rather than on ignorance – celebrate diversity and broaden student perspectives, certainly, but don’t make a passing grade conditional on a certain admiring attitude to that diversity.

Secondly, there is a deep problem in any normative evaluation of Civilisation A in relation to Civilisation B: such an evaluation can only be carried on via a set of values and these values are themselves products of a particular culture or civilisation. Not surprisingly, when we make the comparison using the values of Civilisation A, it is the one likely to come out on top. And vice versa. Unless an evaluation of Civilisation B from within Civilisation A is conducted using the values of Civilisation B – an immanent criticism – then the evaluation is effectively worthless. This relativity of values can only be overcome by means of the development of a set of values accepted by both Civilisations. Ah, Utopia ….

Joe M

5/7/2019 05:49:57 pm

I must say, I can't understand all the angst about the proposed BA in Western Civilization. I find the prospect of spending my retirement working my way through the books (as I intend to do) quite pleasant indeed. And if it pleasant to read them, I reckon it would be pleasant to teach them, for teachers and students alike.

So what is the real question? The question posted is—Should Universities be Teaching Western Civilization? This makes it sound like there are only two answers: Yes, they should; No, they shouldn't. But there is a third possibility—that it is permissible for universities to teach WC (and permissible for them not to). That's all that supporters of the Ramsey Center proposal actually need to argue, for if it is permissible for the UoW (say) to offer the degree, and if they have a fifty million positive reasons to do so, then they have good enough reason to offer the degree. So the question really is—May Universities Teach Western Civilization?

I don't see why not.

Here is a general argument. On the one hand, it is presumably OK to teach a BA majoring in Classics (ie, the Greco-Roman world), which covers a proper subset of the authors in a BA in WC but in more depth. (To confirm this, just check out the curriculum from UoW). No-one is objecting to Classics degrees. On the other hand, it is presumably OK to teach a BA majoring in Civilization, which would cover a proper superset of the authors in a BA in WC though in less depth. Barry makes this suggestion, and I think that people would find it more acceptable. So why is it not OK to teach a BA in WC? What reason could you have for rejecting a WC-degree in favor of a Civilization degree, that is not also a reason for rejecting a Classics degree in favor of a WC degree (and, indeed, a Civilization degree)? And if Classics degrees should be rejected twice over, then why suppose it is OK for universities to teach them, as they currently do?

But there are also various objections. Barry raises a number of interesting questions, but I have the space to address only one. I'll pick the problem with evaluating Civilization A as being better than Civilization B. There are a couple of things to say here.

First, defending the BA in WC does not require such comparisons, and in particular does not require arguing that the West is better than the Rest, any more than defending a BA in Classics requires such things. I imagine that Classicists are happy for Medievalists to exist, as well as courses devoted to so-called Eastern Civilizations, like those currently being funded by the Chinese government, and I do not see why defenders of the BA in WC can't adopt a similar ecumenical attitude.

Second, Barry rightly points to the difficulties of comparing cognitive practices, whether or not one compares whole civilizations. The place to start in addressing this concern is to note that all questions are questions for someone. In particular, the question "May Universities Teach Western Civilization?" is a question for Australian universities, and so the appropriate values to bring to bear are the values of those universities. (If I have some question, why shouldn't my own beliefs and values be the starting point for answering it?) And, it seems to me, the fundamental values of Australian universities involve a commitment to what Hutchins called the Great Conversation, in which (to repeat) the "dominant element is the Logos. Nothing is to remain undiscussed. Everybody is to speak his mind. No proposition is to be left unexamined. The exchange of ideas is held to be the path to the realization of the potentialities of the race" (pp 48-49). It take it that those reading this comment are familiar with this ethos of critical discussion.

Barry is worried that this will just be self-verifying, but I don't see why. The thoughts of a single person are never in complete agreement, let alone the thoughts of many different people over thousands of years. If we felt like making any generalization about Western Civilization and the ethos of critical discussion, perhaps we should say that it is highly self-critical, and if it is, then there is no reason to suppose it will be self-verifying. As this very debate illustrates.

Barry Hodges

5/7/2019 12:01:20 pm

Outline of a proposed course in Civilisation

A. Preliminary remarks

A course in Western Civilisation (“WC”) per se is a course which offends against the fundamental values of that civilisation, in that it simply assumes that there is such a thing and that it is, in some significant way, more worthy of study than other ‘civilisations’. A course in “civilisation” which puts into effect the values of WC would be a course in Civilisation in general.

The central question of a course in Civilisation is clearly: What is Civilisation? What are the fundamental features and/or values that a society must display to count as “civilised”? Further questions arise directly: Is there an existing civilisation, as defined, which can usefully be defined as “WC”? Are there other such identifiable civilisations and what features/values characterise them? Is it possible to evaluate them in a principled way?

The answer to the final question is, presumably, yes, given a set of desiderata. However, here we run headlong into the question of the relativity of values, which is where the question becomes interesting philosophically: such a set of desiderata can only be based on a set of values which is internal to a given ‘civilisation’ and hence is not (necessarily) legitimate as a means of deciding between competing ‘civilisations’. A more sophisticated understanding would conceive of these values as different solutions to the problem of organising and coordinating a complex society and rate them by the efficacy as solutions to those problems, leaving further judgement in abeyance.

B. Preliminary course outline

1. What is “civilisation”?

• What are the defining characteristics of a “civilisation”?
• Is there a minimum period of existence for a society to count as “civilised”?
• Do other civilisations define “civilisation” in different ways?

2. Is there such a thing as “Western Civilisation”?

• Is there a specific, identifiable civilisation which can usefully be termed “Western Civilisation”?
• Is this specifiable other than by historical brute fact?
• How long has WC existed?
• Is there a distinction between necessary and contingent features?
• What are the necessary features?

3. Are there other civilisations?

• Are there other instances of such civilisations? (E.g. China, Mesopotamia, Egypt)
• How long have these existed?
• Which civilisations are long-lived and is this relevant to status as a “civilisation”?

4. Is WC better?

• What are the claimed superiorities of WC?
• Do they hold up in comparison to other civilisations (in terms of its own values)?
• Is there a principled basis of evaluation independent of values internal to a specific civilisation?
• If not, must we just say this is ours and we like it and wish it to continue?

5. Conclusion: WC and its discontents

• Does WC have a future?
• To what extent should the pluralism of WC allow for the development of internal tendencies, including those deriving from other civilisations, to undermine the values of WC from within?
• How do we preserve (a) WC, (b) any civilisation through the challenges of climate change, resource limits and general sustainability?
• Why should we care, other than as a matter of historical contingency and self-interest?

Joe M

8/7/2019 12:56:52 pm

I wonder, Barry, if we have not all been led on a wild goose chase by the word "civilization"? After all, the proposed course devoted to reading a certain list of books on all manner of topics—Imaginative Literature, Mathematics and the Natural Sciences, History and the Social Sciences, Philosophy and Theology—and so, while they all come from the West, they are not generally about the West. Hutchin's essay is actually in defense of a program called the Great Books of the Western World, so I reckon a more fitting title for the course would be a BA in Western Thought. (Interestingly, the now-defunct Philosophy and Religion major at UoN was dubbed a course in the "Big Thinkers" and "Big Ideas".)

But this still leaves your opening concern. To paraphrase, a course in Great Thought which puts into effect the values of the West would be a course, not in Western Thought as such, but strictly in World Thought in general. Of course, this assumes there are such things as "the values of the West". I am happy to assume something like this, namely that there is great value in a certain type of open discussion which has been distinctively associated (rightly or wrongly) with the West. And, yes, this implies that if the discussion is as open as it could be, then it should ideally be open to all members of all civilizations.

So what could justify a narrower focus than that? In a way, I think it is a practical matter.

You ask—What is a civilization? Here is one answer. Imagine a huge sheet of paper, on which are lots of points, one for each individual. Draw a line between any two individuals who interact, thicker the greater their interaction. Do this for all pairs of individuals. When you are finished, look at the sheet. You may (or may not) notice certain clusters of interaction that would allow you circle sub-groups of people, who seem to be interacting significantly more amongst themselves than with others outside the circle, just as you may (or may not) identify individual clouds in the sky. To say that Western Civilization exists is roughly to say that there is a distinctly identifiable circle that includes (say) Western Europe.

But, as I said above, I am not really interested in civilizations, bur rather their Great Books. So imagine instead all the Great Books in the world, and this time draw line between two books when they are "talking with" each other, in the ways people talk with each other in conversation. And then draw circles (if you can). To say that the Great Books of the Western World exists is roughly to say that there is a distinctly identifiable circle that includes the Great Books from (say) Western Europe. That is to say, these books form a distinct conversational clique.

Fine, you say, there may well be conversational cliques amongst the Great Books of the World, but how does it follow that we should stick to our own clique? To repeat, the values of the West would lead us to want to talk to everyone else, not just our fellow Westerners.

Ideally, that is right. Practically, we have more leeway. First, we have to start somewhere, and there is nothing wrong with us Westerners starting with Western Books. Second, there is balance between breadth and depth of coverage, which will determine how far we go beyond our first solipsistic focus. We could study the Great Books of the Greco-Roman world, as do the Classicists from my last post. We could study these of the Western World. Or would could study the Great Books of the World, where the focus on any one book will be correspondingly shallower. As we expand our focus, the ideas we encounter will become more diverse and we will more likely encounter important challenges to our ideas, but our thinking about them will be shallower, and, if they are too different from what we are used to, we may find nothing useful in them at all (or, indeed, we might find quite harmful things in them). So, in my view, there is no in-principle reason to stop one place rather than another on this line, and so there is no in-principle argument against a course that focuses just(!) on the Great Books of the Western World.

Things to do link

13/9/2022 09:55:57 pm

Thank you so much! This helps me a lot.

Debates

Should Universities be Teaching Western Civilization?

Leave a Reply.

Members

Archives

Categories