Matthew Arnold’s essay “Discourses of America: Literature and Science” deals with the literary genius’s thoughts on the disintegration of the study literature in higher level education. Arnold held the “classical” subjects such as ancient Greek, Latin, Literature, and Poetry in the highest regard when it came to education, and felt that no person who wished to better themselves both morally and intellectually should neglect studying these topics. In his essay, Arnold expresses his concern over the fact that more and more students began choosing to study the “natural sciences” (biology especially, with the revolutionary findings of Darwin becoming known throughout the world) rather than the classics. Although Arnold does not condemn the study of natural sciences in his paper, he advises against students choosing only to educate themselves in this discipline; he feels that anyone who wishes to have a proper and fulfilling education must have a sufficient understanding of world literature as well.
Arnold defines the study of his classical subjects not only as a study of the language itself but also as an examination of the people who created the respective language. He believed that the ancient Greeks and the Romans who constructed the language of Latin deserved to be recognized for their other feats as well; Arnold feels that in reading these peoples’ literature we must take into account “Rome’s military, and political, and legal, and administrative work in the world…[the Greeks] as the founder[s] of our mathematics and physics and astronomy and biology” (491). Arnold would have looked disdainfully on our university education today; as English majors we study Shakespeare, the books of the medieval period; the poetry and epics written during the Renaissance, and the gothic and sexually-repressed novels written by the Victorians, but do we ever really study the writers? We are usually given some kind of quick biography of the person whose work we are about to study, but to be perfectly frank, most university English courses are simply too time-constrained to study both the work and the person behind it. If English courses were to cut down the amount of literary works that were to be studied each term, that could perhaps create more time to learn about the artists, but I don’t think Arnold would agree with that movement either.
Arnold states from the beginning of his paper that his experiences with the natural sciences have been “very slight and inadequate” (488), and does not ever claim that he has any superior knowledge of the subject. He therefore brings the work of Thomas Henry Huxley into his article, a brilliant scientist, in order to better illustrate his comparison between the two disciplines. Arnold in no way states in his article that the natural sciences should not be studied; he admits that “all knowledge is interesting to a wise man, and the knowledge of nature is interesting to all men” (492). What Arnold cautions against is the exclusive use of science and facts in the place of literature and religion; he maintains that art, poetry, and literature have a “fortifying, and elevating, and quickening, and suggestive power, capable of wonderfully helping us to relate the results of modern science to our need for conduct, our need for beauty” (Arnold 498). Arnold believes that the best education can and should involve the study of sciences, to a degree, but that the study of the arts ultimately helps to develop the soul. Arnold would, therefore, disapprove of the fact that only in the last decade have science students been forced to take a few writing courses in order to obtain their degree; he would view this as a shame and the ultimate degeneration of education.
Arnold defines the study of his classical subjects not only as a study of the language itself but also as an examination of the people who created the respective language. He believed that the ancient Greeks and the Romans who constructed the language of Latin deserved to be recognized for their other feats as well; Arnold feels that in reading these peoples’ literature we must take into account “Rome’s military, and political, and legal, and administrative work in the world…[the Greeks] as the founder[s] of our mathematics and physics and astronomy and biology” (491). Arnold would have looked disdainfully on our university education today; as English majors we study Shakespeare, the books of the medieval period; the poetry and epics written during the Renaissance, and the gothic and sexually-repressed novels written by the Victorians, but do we ever really study the writers? We are usually given some kind of quick biography of the person whose work we are about to study, but to be perfectly frank, most university English courses are simply too time-constrained to study both the work and the person behind it. If English courses were to cut down the amount of literary works that were to be studied each term, that could perhaps create more time to learn about the artists, but I don’t think Arnold would agree with that movement either.
Arnold states from the beginning of his paper that his experiences with the natural sciences have been “very slight and inadequate” (488), and does not ever claim that he has any superior knowledge of the subject. He therefore brings the work of Thomas Henry Huxley into his article, a brilliant scientist, in order to better illustrate his comparison between the two disciplines. Arnold in no way states in his article that the natural sciences should not be studied; he admits that “all knowledge is interesting to a wise man, and the knowledge of nature is interesting to all men” (492). What Arnold cautions against is the exclusive use of science and facts in the place of literature and religion; he maintains that art, poetry, and literature have a “fortifying, and elevating, and quickening, and suggestive power, capable of wonderfully helping us to relate the results of modern science to our need for conduct, our need for beauty” (Arnold 498). Arnold believes that the best education can and should involve the study of sciences, to a degree, but that the study of the arts ultimately helps to develop the soul. Arnold would, therefore, disapprove of the fact that only in the last decade have science students been forced to take a few writing courses in order to obtain their degree; he would view this as a shame and the ultimate degeneration of education.
5 comments:
Again, I must question one point of my argument. Arnold is writing this essay in view of the “discourses of America”, and he states that in the United States during the Industrial Revolution the most common careers included “cultivators of the ground, handicraftsmen, men of trade and business, men of working professions” (487). Arnold admits that although the classical education may not exactly be of any value to those entering into those particular trades, education is supposed to be about higher learning and thinking, and therefore every person, whether looking to obtain a “seat in the English House of Lords or [to enter] the pork trade in Chicago” (Arnold 488) should wish to learn. I cannot help but disagree with Arnold on that point; he admits that the classical education is of no use to a trader, anymore than it would be to a computer technician today. According to Arnold’s standards, yes, education has most definitely degenerated since the Victorian period. But by our standards, in the technologically-advanced world that we live in today, is it really unacceptable for science students to not have a sufficient understanding of literature?
You ask whether, in the technological world we live in, it is neccessary to have an understanding of literature. For the sheer practicality of understanding and using technology, it is fair that one can succeed in these fields without any classical, or arts, education. However, as we have discussed using various examples and issues, when there is this absence of classical education, morality also degenerates. This morality cannot be found through a narrow study of technology, as we saw in the articles about Newman.
In my opinion it is unacceptable for science students to not have knowledge of literature for the fact that often these students lack communication and writing skills. They know the facts about things but do they truly understand them, as I believe has been brought up by both Molly and Kristina. If these students are going to graduate and spend their whole lives in a lab without having to interact with people then perhaps it would not be such a big deal. Although they can contribute to society scientifically what will they offer in the moral sense? As morals are not necessarily an important factor in a lab, going back to the arguement that science has helped degenerate education.
I would like to bring up Ruskin's opinion when he is speaking of the men who strive for perfection in their designs "You can teach a man to draw a straight line, and to cut one; to strike a curved line, and to carve it; and to copy and carve any number of given lines or forms, with admirable speed and perfect percision; and you find his work perfect of its kind; but if you ask him to think about any of those forms, to consider if he cannot find any better in his own head, he stops; his execution becomes hesitating; he thinks, and ten to one he thinks wrong; ten to one he makes a mistake in the first touch he gives to his work as a thinking being. But you have made a man of him for all that. He was only a machine before, an animated tool." (369) Science creates these men of perfection and leaves no room for imagination, as side from the facts that they have memorized they have absorbed no moral content nor anything useful beyond the straight facts they can repeat. I believe this is the type of man that Arnold fears and is advocating against. These are the men that bring no progression to society outside of the scientific world.
I am definitely not disputing that every educated person should have some proficiency in both writing and in understanding world literature. I just wondered if Arnold might have adjusted his rigid viewpoint if he were writing today.
If a country can plan the number of technologists it needs, number of medical doctors it needs, number of pure scientists it needs, the number of language teachers it needs (etc.), it may be possible to introduce 'art and ethics subjects' say 20% into all courses. If there is no plan of needs, studying engineering itself may require handling of 100 or 1000 subjects. There will be no place for arts or ethics. This world has become extremely specialised.
Post a Comment