Consider: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/opinion/26brooks.html
Supposing Brooks is right, and I think there is something to be said for his conceit (not hypothesis, for op-edding is an art, not a science), let his conclusion bear consequence on your choice between economics and psychology, anthropology and sociology, American studies and what-have-you. The burden of these science/theory, liberal arts humanities is to explain human behavior. Psychology seems to be moving toward the science (away from psychoanalysis and toward CAT-scan diagnoses), political science toward psychology (the rise of constructivism and identity politics), and economics toward political science and psychology. If you can parse that sentence, models are under assault and a focus on the individual case studies — real, academic anecdotes in a world of prepackaged, advertorial narratives — advances into the void.
Journalism is the realest of the real. It starts with the people and their stories every time. Honest journalism avoids the temptation to apply theory — some crude, overarching narrative, perhaps even relegated to the kicker sentence — to conflictual accounts. Honest journalism describes reality, identifying trends where they exist but letting the players speak for themselves where they don’t. Journalism is not beholden to the same absurd quest for clarity and definition that the other “sciences” demand. But liberal arts colleges are playgrounds, inherently selfish, focused on developing and enlightening you. For another day are the stories of others if they don’t fit into some hypothesis of yours that will get published (or at the very least merit an A-).
Let's not get too serious. Us journalists have a tendency to self-inflate. But even Anderson Cooper's buffoonery is undeniably visible, accessible and donation-inspiring. Photo licensed under Creative Commons.
If you’re looking for answers, maybe you should consider whatever law and society bullshit major your school offers. At least then you can masturbate in a world where the rules are written down, even if their interpretation is subjective. That, or business.
I risk painting with too broad a brush. Undoubtedly there are professors at your school doing research that will shape policy and affect lives. Look at Reaganomics. But then, look at Reaganomics. It’s just a lot of meddling from above that as often as not (and perhaps more so), doesn’t permanently solve anything. The models are alluringly simple, powerful, and increasingly repudiated by the real world application.
I’m not asking you to identify which discipline you like. I’m asking you to question whether any of them are worthy of a “major”. What do you want to learn? More about yourself and how you perceive the world? Take philosophy, literature and history. More about how others experience the world? Transfer to a civic professional school. Don’t care, just want to help? Science offers that guarantee, even if your participation may be relatively microscopic. Just want to have a good time? There’s always math and Latin. Art is another essay, and one which I am ill equipped to write.
What I’m trying to say is that sociology, anthropology, economics, political science and psychology all seem arbitrary boundaries for a scalar world. Consider: almost all of those disciplines were not taught in liberal arts curricula 70 years ago. It was just humanities. In my international relations class I kept groping for an answer to the realist/idealist debate. Is man inherently opportunistic or collaborative? Of course, everything depends on historical context. If you’re concerned with present, unfinished lives, isn’t the noblest pursuit to color in some of that context as it occurs, so the decision makers see the country’s reality and you can see your neighbor’s?
I didn’t intend for this to be a defense of journalism. But the question of what you want (not what you’re interested in) is important. Spending $120,000 and untold hours of work without giving it serious thought is irresponsible and ignorant. The path of least of least resistance is a costly one.
For an alternative view, and I agree with it to some extent, read:
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/the-disadvantages-of-an-elite-education/
Deresiewicz writes implicitly in favor of the philosophy/lit track — developing yourself for others. That takes a lot of gall and honest introspection; if you don’t make it as a leader or you can’t inspire change (and to what degree?), then you’ve just been selfish. Civic professions such as communitarian journalism and teaching (medicine is fouled by the money, but could certainly fall in this category), are institutions based on delivering aid directly and knowing you made a difference.
On a related note, I find this essay in TNR uninspired. There are better pieces, perhaps by Cato scholars or Oscar Wilde, on the need for the humanities (which Gurstein takes in very narrow scope). Yes, past words can edify present emotions. I took Latin for nine years. No one (or perhaps everyone) knows a brother’s death like Catullus. And Juvenal — what snark! Nothing new to see here, folks, which is just the point.
