|
HUMANITIES MANIFESTO Philosophy of
Humanities Joe Lutzy
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Dec. 1974 P R E A M B L E We, the teachers of the Humanities Department at Dawson College, in order to carry on our mandate to provide a quality general education within the framework of the Core programmes, declare the following document (including the Recommendations and Appendices) our current philosophical position. The Humanities Department describes its special existence as THE NEW HUMANITIES, central to collegial education as explained in "The New Humanities Manifesto". The Humanities Department declares that certain necessary steps must be taken to fulfill its mandate to students. Thus it makes strong and necessary recommendations to itself after having undertaken a period of self criticism and analysis. Likewise, the Humanities Department makes certain recommendations to the College to provide the means necessary for The New Humanities to fulfill its mandate and the College to fulfill its own mandate to general education. We hope that this "Manifesto" will continue to spark the flames of dialogue necessary for any educational institution to survive. We welcome the reactions of all departments, Administration, Student Services, and Student Government to our declaration. This document is presented in this way without any substantive changes for historical purposes. The following " Manifesto" is the result of the Humanities Department's Executive and Campus Committees' work after consultation with the Department membership. The Executive Committee has the mandate to see to the quality of education within its programme. To do so the Executive has set aside December 12th and 14th 1974 as Symposium days where the philosophy, criteria for courses, qualities of a Humanities teacher, and guides for course outlines will be discussed. "The New Humanities Manifesto" is the official Department position. All teachers have had the opportunity to influence the shaping of this philosophy either by voicing opinions at announced meetings and/or by courier. Many teachers responded, some did not. Those who responded will find, hopefully, the spirit, if not the words, of their proposals. Those who did not respond, hopefully, will read what they might like to have said. In either case, we bind ourselves with this declaration to work together in a special way. We realize no binding is forever, but not to have a position is not to exist for too long a time and to be very unprofessional vis Ö vis our students, ourselves, our colleagues, and the Department of Education. At a joint meeting, the Humanities Department's Executive and Campus Programme Committees accepted in principle, this "Manifesto" as the document that would be our guide in preparation for our curriculum development for the school year 1975-1976. You are asked to make yourself familiar with it and to prepare yourself to respond to certain questions (Appendix II) that will be pertinent to preparing courses for 1975-1976. These questionnaires will form the December Humanities Symposium. The Executive Committee I. HUMANITIES AS CORE IN GENERAL EDUCATION The Humanities Department maintains the idea of CEGEP as
manifested in the Parent Report which hoped for a union of
general and specialized education.(l) For this purpose the report
recommended schools to provide a program of studies composed of a
minimum of obligatory courses that all students would take,
courses in special fields of studies and courses complimentary to
their special studies. The obligatory courses (maternal language,
second language, physical education, and philosophy) are called
"cours commun".(2) The way that Humanities is conceived of now is best expressed in the "Dawson College Calendar"(7). There, Humanities is explained in general terms as a 'Core Programme' multi-dimensional in approach, concerned for man's human condition in all its aspects, divided into Categories and their definitions along with sample descriptions of courses. 'Man' is understood as a person in his/her cultural/historical/socioeconomic situation. This minimum information about general education should be a part the basic knowledge of all Dawson Teachers, not just the Humanities teachers, since all Dawson teachers should, first of all, be Humanists before they are specialists or generalists. However, it seems there is more than a little ignorance of Humanities as Core and as general education at Dawson College by students, faculty, and administration--school calendars are not well read--and some people tend to be conditioned to a tunnel vision of man, that is to seeing him as a means rather than as an end, as something to be trained for a job or university. Therefore something must be done by the Humanities Department, College, other departments, and Student Services to move toward a more knowledgeable and coherent programme of general education. For this purpose, the Humanities Department proposes to declare its current philosophy on the following points: 1. the nature of core, Humanities and general education
at Dawson In the light of the above philosophy, the Humanities Department make recommendations to the College and to itself to render the above points operational for the school year 1975-1976. II. THE PHILOSOPHY OF CORE HUMANITIES AND GENERAL EDUCATION AT DAWSON We will not here attempt to justify our philosophical position but simply to state it. We hope its meaning will be self-explanatory. General Education As stated by Dr. Carpenter(8), community-inner-city-college-general education by the nature of the students it serves seems to: 1. " TEND to explore the needs and interests of students, both immediate and future needs, insofar as studies reveal trends which are significant. 2. TEND to sift all materials and methods through consideration of No. 1, rather than adopting materials which have traditionally been presented. This selection of materials and methods may or may not result in curriculum and course changes. 3. TEND to consider students of average ability as important as brilliant intellectuals. 4. TEND to offer guidance to students to a greater degree than is the case with liberal education. 5. TEND to consider the student's total development - emotionally and socially, in and out of the classrooms - as part of a good education." Dr. Carpenter's statement, although general and hardly contentious, does not specifically identify the dialectical dimensions implied by the CENTER of CORE of general education at Dawson: the dynamics of the person in his socio-economic situation. Not to be specific is to be too general and weak and tends only to confuse students, faculty, and administration. The Humanities Department wishes to distinguish its current existence from the position taken by the Department in 1970 when it pledged itself "...to struggle with and evolve a loose and broadly based humanities programme..."(9). We certainly wish a 'broadly based' programme of course offerings, but we do not want it to be 'loose'. Its looseness is probably its greatest public weakness despite category classification, descriptions and "DIGEC CAHIER" objectives. Also, General education, in particular Humanities, as we understand it, is no ivory tower Liberal Education which: 1. "TENDS to use traditional materials in the hopes they will 'liberate the mind'. 2. TENDS to emphasize mental training in an assumption that everything else is going to get done somewhere. 3. TENDS to educate the elite, the student whose intellectual capacity is greatest, without too much consideration of the student who has average ability ('ability' TENDS to be identified with verbal ability). 4. TENDS to ignore methods of teaching (even at times to scorn them), or to choose those methods which are convenient for faculty and administration, regardless of consideration of methods which best suit the student". Many teachers of the College faculty have had Liberal Education and certainly are appreciative of it. However, it would be a grave error to confuse general education with Liberal Education. Our students are not the elite, are more media than book oriented (lack reading skills), lack familiarity with abstract structures, and have great difficulty with written expression(l0). Moreover, Humanities at Dawson is not what it is in France: predominately literary, that is founded on Greek and Latin civilizations, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Nor is it founded on philosophical studies as it is for the Scottish and Germans, nor is it the climate for forming the true 'gentleman' as is the British system(11). Of course none of the above need be totally denigrated; each has its proper value for specific groups and because Dawson is called upon to provide a quality of education for inner-city students, Humanities cannot be any one of them nor part of them, nor all of them together, Humanities at Dawson is THE NEW HUMANITIES. Just as the Core of general education at Dawson is the person in his/her socio-economic context, also the New Humanities EXISTS IN THE PERSON not only as an individual but more precisely in the cultural histories within which individuals live, move, and have their being as Michael Novak points out in his article "The New Humanities".(12) The New Humanities do not exist in books but in the culture within persons: in the imaginations, hearts, bodies, minds, gestures, actions, communities, emotional patterns, and networks of ideas of persons. Novak indeed is right when he says: "Brought to life THESE (the above) become the substance and grounding of our ideas. Ideas out of touch with them are lies, and THESE, out of touch with ideas, are unexamined"(13). The New Humanities can better be described than defined. Some of its characteristics are personal, open, international, democratic, radical. Its method is the dialectic that goes into critical process. The New Humanities is Personal Humanities because it focuses on the 'person' in his/her socio-economic, cultural history to raise to the level of consciousness and reflection the grounds of one's long-timed perceived influences and experiences before they were conceived and acted on, i.e. institutionalized by language, symbol, art, and gestures. Critical dialectics is the process whereby the individual can discover himself within his socio-economic framework. And this is the New Humanities basic thrust, drive or dynamics. The New Humanities is Open Humanities. That is, any serious human endeavor could become the content for a Humanities course: granting critical reflection and multi-dimensional analysis. That is not to say any cultural content should or would be a Humanities course. Much would depend on the limitation of the times, talents, and approaches that would condition any course proposal. However, we do not wish to limit beforehand any serious possibility. The New Humanities is International Humanities. It incorporates the visions, values, symbols of all nations, races - East and West. It does not do as the old Humanities did: limit studies to only the Western segment of humanity that tends to identify its specific world view with humanities itself. The New Humanities is Democratic Humanities in the sense it is egalitarian in range of possible value systems. That is, Democratic Humanities does not judge other cultures or aspects of other cultures from foreign premises but from the premises within that culture. The study of any cultural system other than one's own provides realities whereby one can measure one's own values and institutions. The New Humanities is Radical Humanities. Its struggle is to disclose and demystify one's personal and social roots. To come to an understanding of oneself as a historical person changing or being changed by the forces of history. To be blind to the personal and/or social forces that influence us is to allow ourselves to be seduced and controlled by them. Radical Humanities aims toward self-determination and liberty by careful analysis of one's cultural roots and influences. The Content of the present Humanities programme reflects the above characteristics, e.g. Eastern and Western world views, understanding culture through folklore, aesthetic principles through art, analysis of the human condition, man as thinker, feeler, creator of values, man as he relates to the earth, to groups, to self, to God. However, let us not be blind to the possibility that some Humanities courses are not taught dialectically at present. IV. CRITERIA FOR HUMANITIES COURSES There are two criteria for any content to become a Humanities course: 1. That they employ the critical process as method; 2, That they be multi-dimensional in approach; The first criteria, critical process takes place when a student is brought to confront himself, others, society in any one of its aspects in a dialogue by raising questions that are crucial; questions that force one to new insights, attitudes, actions. Critical process is critical questioning. The student's personal experiences within the framework of his/her socio-economic conditions are the ground for serious questioning, precise reflection and personal synthesis. For example, it is not critical process just to learn in an academic way of the problems of emerging nations in the Third World. The dialectics of the critical process comes into play when the Province of Quebec, where the student exists, is reflected on as a possible emerging nation with specific reference to the legal, constitutional, economic, historical, artistic, scientific, technological and psychological dimensions, just to mention a few, that comprise the student's total reality; and that must be treated in a holistic way to be made comprehensible. This is what is meant by being multi-dimensional in approach; the second criteria for Humanities courses. Obviously the two criteria are intertwined. Moreover, within the framework of the critical process certain skills must be worked on: the ability to sort out and classify experiences, the ability to move from several concrete examples to generalities that can be used in argument (argos, GR: to look for the light, truth), the ability to reason from given statements to necessary conclusions, to challenge the strength of any conclusion by testing it against one's personal experience(s) of reality. Of course, there are many creative ways these skills can be developed, and the artful teacher will know when, where, how, why, and by whom. However this is only possible if the teacher has a mastery of these skills and can gauge accurately the needs of the persons being taught. Skills should never be divorced from content nor taught for their own sake. To do so would be to separate form from content and to destroy both. The challenge to the New Humanities teacher is to help students develop the skills necessary to examine their cultural inheritance as they grow, to aid them in coming to a personal meaning of human life along with the choices open to them for realizing their individual and social potential. Thus, the New Humanities teacher must have very special qualities. V. QUALITIES OF A HUMANITIES TEACHER Humanities teachers are members of a CORE subject with a history, so they should be: - knowledgeable of its history - knowledgeable of the philosophy, structure, objectives of Humanities as CORE subject at the CEGEP level - knowledgeable of all the courses offered in the Department, to be able to make helpful reference to courses related to one's own -knowledgeable of the philosophy, structure and goals of CEGEP education as such - knowledgeable of all the course offerings of the College and more specifically the courses of studies of one's students Besides the above minimum information, Humanities teachers must have expertise and formation in at least two fields of human knowledge. They must be masters of dialogue and dialectical reasoning. Moreover, besides the qualities of a good teacher of any subject, a Humanities teacher must be willing to work at developing sensitivity to the needs of students as persons, to hear accurately what they say and do not say, and to respond with insight and respect in and beyond the classroom. The Humanities teacher must be an enthusiastic and fearless critic of all persons and/or institutions that inhibit human development. This is the ultimate roll of the COMPLETE HUMANIST. But it would be plain folly if one attempted to criticise without being informed and/or without positive plans for ameliorating the conditions for better human development. The ultimate orientation must always be toward developing a wisdom that leads to doing, not simply reflecting. So the Humanities teacher should have a method that might
render his/her students willing to learn. To do this, first of
all the curiosity of the students must be pricked, excited; this
is done by raising questions that are pertinent to them, their
lives, fears, loves, values, symbols, customs, communities... A
teacher may use many tools for whetting a student's interest,
curiosity: a novelette, poem, film, slide, another person or
persons, a dance.
VI. GUIDE FOR HUMANITIES COURSE DESCRIPTIONS Practically speaking, the Humanities course descriptions are the students' first initiation into the problems, projects and resolutions of any course. Some course descriptions are clear and coherent, and students understand what they are getting into and have a positive attitude when they register for the course. However, more often than we would like to believe, students do not know for what they register. Often it is due to the strange language and esoteric ideas used in course descriptions and in part to the unrealistic assumptions we make with regard to a student's background. For example, titles such as "The Faust Theme" or "The High Road - Ararat to Bharat" for our students assumes a familiarity and culture that they, in fact, hardly possess. How many students know about Faust or know Persian? Consequently, guidelines for clear, coherent and purposeful Humanities course descriptions are a necessity. Students, by and large, are pragmatic and utilitarian: they want to know what they are going to get out of a course. The course title and description should state that clearly in a functional description. For example:
This clearly states what the student would be expected to learn, also it takes a cultural content, television, and examines it as it plays a role in the student's life and society in general as a communication media. However, the student would want to know what will be emphasized and how. This is explained in the following statement:
Moreover, students want to know how their class time is to be used and this is satisfied by the statement:
What may be lacking in the description is the kind of "programmes", such as "the Flint Stones", "Maude", "Hockey Night in Canada", a list that makes the course attractive, yet is not unduly extensive. Another possible help would be to indicate what are some of the dimensions that might be communicated: e.g. the value of TV as entertainment, as business, as a household god, as a political compensation for the working class. This would specify the course as Humanities through its multi-dimensional approach. Indeed, most courses are well described. However some are not. Some descriptions may be contested as to whether they are really Humanities courses. Each Humanities course description should reflect the CORE philosophy of the College, GENERAL EDUCATION ITSELF: 1. student oriented in his/her cultural history; VII. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE HUMANITIES DEPARTMENT 1. That there be personal and Department curricular review in preparation for the school year 1975-1976. 2. That teachers prepare themselves for the Winter Symposium by carefully responding to the questionnaires. 3. That there be a committee formed by the Executive Committee to review and edit descriptions proposed for 1975-1976. That designated colleagues from the various sector curriculum committees be invited to work with that committee. The purpose will be to identify courses that do not qualify, according to the Department Criteria and/or are not clear to students. Students will be asked to serve on such a committee. 4. That Humanities teachers teach on one campus not several. 5. That teachers be aware of and responsible to the obligations stated in their contract to both College and Department. VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COLLEGE 1. That the College timetabler be informed as to the philosophy of CORE and be instructed to time-table Humanities first and not second to last as stated by the College. (14) 2. That the College instruct the Timetabler to table Humanities at a prime-time so students can have optimum choice opportunities and not just "...have freedom in selecting courses..." (15). This is most necessary if the Humanities Department is to operate as CORE, that is to have the possibility of sharing teachers from the Technologies, careers, sciences and arts, to create better programmes intra- departmentally and inter-departmentally. 3. That the College with the Department Chairperson instruct the time tabler to block off a certain time during the week so that the Department can discuss educational techniques, methods and theories. 4. That the College instruct the Registrar to arrange the College Registration in a way that students register for CORE subjects first. Last in registration is last in thought, which is contrary to the College's philosophy of general education. Also, greater counseling and orientation could be given to the students if students identified their CORE subjects first and then chose the subjects that would integrate with them. 5. That the College not hire any teacher who is not a humanist; someone who regards the teaching of his/her speciality, his/her first priority. We offer our services with the College's approbation for the hiring and reviewing of any teacher from any sector of the College. 6. That the College establish the third floor on the Selby campus as the place for Humanities Department offices until the new Dawson is built. 7. That the College mandate the Senate to examine the course load of students in all sectors and departments, to examine the student/teacher ratios by departments and sectors, to examine the drop-out ratio year by year in all technologies, careers, science and arts, in order to determine some of the "realities" that need be eliminated or augmented for the benefit of the student's general education. The Senate should make its findings and recommendations known to the Board of Governors for deliberation and implementation. This task would take more than a year but should be started at once. 8. That the College make money available to the Humanities Department for the following projects: a) for the in-service training of its teachers. b) for a journal of high literary quality to be sponsored by the Humanities Department to sustain and exchange educational creativity as it happens at Dawson and elsewhere. c) for establishing a guest speakers list specifically oriented to sparking educational thought and action. 9. That the College not permit the introduction of any "cours complimentaire" that resembles in any shape of form Humanities. The Humanities Department hopes that its own faculty, colleagues and the Administration recognizes the seriousness of the "New Humanities Manifesto" and recommendations. We sincerely hope that there will be a new beginning between the COREs and other sectors and departments of the College. We are not so naive as to think that our position is the "reality" at Dawson. However, we do not capitulate to the cynicism that says all is lost, decided beforehand in the back room out of our hands. We in Humanities will not and cannot believe that many decisions in the College have gradually eroded the force that Humanities and its teachers exercised as the principal agents in general education. The "realities" have changed: students are ticketed for jobs, treated as a commodity, over-burdened with class hours of highly technical training, often flushed out of special careers because they would not make it, screened, pigeon-holed and pushed to be the fodder for a world of science and technology that in itself seems only to seduce one into believing that he/she is something other than what he/she is: that his/her humanity is only to be measured and used. The Humanities Department declares itself opposed to these social tendencies and forces that often manifest themselves throughout the College. We ask the College and everyone in it to do likewise by their words and their actions. Endnotes |