An education that is simply driven by concerns of profitability is an impoverished one that does not respect the human being in its totality, Kurt Borg, a philosophy of education lecturer in the Department of Educational Studies told The Malta Independent.
Three staff members from the University of Malta were interviewed by The Malta Independent about humanities subjects, and for their views on the state of such subjects within the education system, as well as whether these are in today’s world playing second-fiddle to subjects that are more industry oriented.
Borg asserts that the humanities subjects engage us with critical questions, such as “do we want to live in a society with no appreciation of history? Do we want a society which does not value the cultivation of a political sensibility in its citizens? Do we want people to lack any appreciation of great literary or artistic works? Do we want to live in a society where the destruction of public spaces is not a matter of concern?”
All three highlighted the importance of humanities subjects in education.
Mario Aquilina, a senior lecturer in the Department of English, noted that the “pressure on the humanities as academic subjects has been piling up not only locally but also internationally for more than a decade”, meaning that “research into the humanities is not being funded at the same levels as STEM or professional subjects that are seen as having a more direct relationship to industry.”
Doreen Spiteri (associate professor in the Department of Languages and Humanities Education), holds that it is risky for one to equate education with employment, especially in the early stages of education: “recent local educational and assessment reforms channel students into specific directions far too early in their development. At age 13, even younger, no young person should be pushed into taking such decisions.”
Education for profit? The humanities subjects in a profit-oriented system
The humanities and arts play a central role in the history of democracy, and yet today many parents are ashamed of children who study literature or art, renowned philosopher Martha Nussbaum argues.
Education systems and stakeholders around the world are pushing students to pursue subjects (or courses) that are more inclined towards maximising the output of workers.
To investigate the future of our education system, The Malta Independent interviewed three staff members from the University of Malta: Doreen Spiteri (associate professor in the Department of Languages and Humanities Education), Kurt Borg (philosophy of education lecturer in the Department of Educational Studies), and Mario Aquilina (senior lecturer in the Department of English).
When asked how the humanities can serve the general public, Spiteri stated that ‘it is in the realm of the humanities that we ask the big questions; questioning who we are and what kind of life we wish to lead, creating spaces for civil exchanges of views.’ Aquilina recalled the proposal that was made by the Malta Employers’ Association last March, which advised the government to ‘channel students into career-oriented disciplines – e.g. STEM (Science Technology, Engineering, Maths)’ and ‘wean students away from what are considered to be ‘soft options’ in their studies.’ Aquilina stated that subjects like languages, literature, and philosophy were presumably meant by the MEA proposal as being the ‘soft options’, “that students should – like babies – be ‘weaned’ from.”
The critique on the humanities is often based, as Aquilina continued, on the idea “that the humanities are not useful to the general public.” Despite the criticism, Borg asserts that the humanities engage us with critical questions concerning our humanity, such as “do we want to live in a society with no appreciation of history? Do we want a society which does not value the cultivation of a political sensibility in its citizens? Do we want people to lack any appreciation of great literary or artistic works? Do we want to live in a society where the destruction of public spaces is not a matter of concern?” Borg continued that such questions, which denote ethical, political and aesthetic values, are concerned with things that are ‘not for profit’, but with things that are much more valuable than profit: namely, living a good life, cultivating democratic virtues, and appreciating the arts and history. Borg concluded that “an education that is simply driven by concerns of profitability is an impoverished one that does not respect the human in its totality.”
The interviewees were asked if the humanities subjects are being cast aside by the institutions compared to other subjects. “The pressure on the humanities as academic subjects has been piling up not only locally but also internationally for more than a decade”, Aquilina stated, meaning that “research into the humanities is not being funded at the same levels as STEM or professional subjects that are seen as having a more direct relationship to industry”, resulting in less investment in training and infrastructure dedicated to the humanities subjects. Borg contended that we live in a world where things are valued ‘based on whether they are profitable or not’, a point of view that places different subjects in an “implicit hierarchy based on how ‘useful’ these subjects are.” He continued that “if we adopt a narrow outlook that considers education merely as preparation for employment, then it’s no wonder that the humanities are cast aside. But employment is not the be-all and end-all of everything. First and foremost, we are humans. And the cultivation of humanity is part and parcel of what education should be about.” Borg also remarked on the influence neoliberal thought has in this context, reducing humans ‘to mere cogs in the machine’, which ought to be resisted.
The University staff also pointed out in the interview that there is a lack of understanding of the humanities from the general public and educational institutions. Spiteri holds that it is risky if one equates education with employment, especially in the early stages of education: “recent local educational and assessment reforms channel students into specific directions far too early in their development. At age 13, even younger, no young person should be pushed into taking such decisions.” Borg affirms that the critique of humanities being ‘useless’, apart from being false, often implies a very narrow sense of ‘use’: “the humanities equip students with transferable skills (such as problem-solving, analytical reasoning, critical thinking, close reading skills, data management and organisation) that, among other things, ensures that humanities students make for good and flexible employees … it makes a lot of sense to study a humanities subject (ex: Ethics, philosophy, languages or history) and then move on to a different career path in, for example, journalism, politics or writing.”
He elaborated that the study of the humanities is good in itself: “perhaps one needs ‘no reason’ for choosing to study history, politics, philosophy or literature. It is something that one chooses to study for itself. And that is also fine, especially in a world where most decisions are made based on narrow instrumental reasons.” The view of the humanities being ‘useless’ or ‘not fitting within contemporary industries’, highlights two major flaws according to Aquilina: “The first one is that they instrumentalise education to the point that it is thought of as something that has the exclusive role of producing workers for employers rather than of allowing students to grow into citizens that can participate fully in and shape the future of their societies.”
“Secondly, and equally crucially, critics of the humanities do not recognise what the humanities bring not only to society, but also to the industry itself. I am referring to the ability to think critically, to be creative, to be innovative, to read closely, to communicate eloquently and effectively as well as to understand human beings and the societies they live in.”
Regarding the ‘danger’ that humanities subjects are suffering in education, Spiteri said that dismay is expressed about the fading popularity of humanities among students, an expression which would be probably expressed by her colleagues in STEM areas: “these views need to take into consideration that traditional disciplines must share the stage with new areas of learning.” Borg held that the study of literature, ethics, geography, and social studies are to be further pushed in compulsory schooling. The same applies at the tertiary level, with subjects including philosophy, sociology, anthropology, gender studies and more.
Borg alluded to the controversy regarding a question in an Ethics exam last January – that posed the question asking students to imagine they were left alone in a room with a baby knowing it will grow up to become a dictator who will kill millions, and what they would do and why. He asked those who were not in favour of having such questions discussed with the students: “how can we expect children and youth to cultivate critical minds if we deny them the opportunity to think hard and express their views about difficult matters? Life is not just about employment, but it’s especially about making difficult decisions and making up your mind about contentious matters. Humanities subjects, such as ethics and philosophy, are there precisely to equip students with the knowledge and skills to do this sort of thinking.”
Lastly, the interviewees were asked what future they envisage for the humanities, and if they feel that more support is needed by the government and educational institutions. “It is essential for policymakers to not only recognise but also sustain the importance of the humanities, together with the sciences, mathematics as well as professional subjects, for society and the economy”, Aquilina responded. He proceeded with the effort needed by people working in the humanities to educate society, including policymakers, about the value of the humanities. Also, humanities subjects need to “resist and critique the limited and purely instrumentalist discourse of those who keep saying that the humanities are ‘useless’ and that the role of education is purely and exclusively the production of workers equipped with skills to be used in the workplace.”
Spiteri argues that lobbying governments to promote an academic discipline is not the solution either: “the fact remains that support for one area will likely cause concerns in other areas. Lobbying for either the humanities or the sciences (assuming that this polarity still exists) will bring about an imbalance on one side or the other.” She also remarked on the incorrectness of placing disciplines in some form of hierarchy, “a pecking order of subjects,” being a misguided and harmful approach. “I would like to see a future where the various academic disciplines co-exist to fulfil their respective roles, and all are recognised for their worth,” Spiteri concluded.
Borg insisted that there is more to be done by the government and educational institutions to promote the humanities. Firstly, “scholarship schemes specifically for the humanities could be proposed, where applications are judged by criteria that are more specific to the humanities.” He also referred to the aforementioned MEA proposal, arguing that more could be done to shift public discourses about the humanities: “the hard-soft distinction is an outdated way of looking at things and explicitly presents subjects in a hierarchy that should be problematised. Moreover, it’s not weaning students off these subjects that we must do, but to expand them further.”
He proposed that students at University or tertiary level should also follow courses known as ‘General Education’ on a humanities subject. “This proposal recognises that irrespective of the profession you want to pursue, it’s always incredibly important that students are also exposed to some humanities education to cultivate themselves as citizens and humans.”
Furthermore, he pointed out the National Youth Policy Towards 2030 and the recent KSU Education Reform Campaign, emphasising the importance of civic education: “youths have complained that the compulsory schooling system has not equipped them with the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively participate in politics or make up their mind about it.”