210
PARTISAN
REVIEW
computer science?
Thirdly, there has been the outbreak of "multiculturalism." The cul–
ture underlying the old curriculum, we are told, is just one among many,
with no special authority for the student of today. Indeed, multicultural–
ists tend to be hostile to "Western culture," as they call it, and seek to un–
dermine its ancestral claim on us, by promoting unfavorable comparisons
with other, freer, more equal, or more natural ways of life. The assump–
tions of this outlook are not always mutually coherent. For we may be
told at the same time that no culture can be judged except in its own
terms and also that "Western culture" is inferior
to
its rivals. Yet the pur–
pose is rhetorical, not philosophical, and for the rhetorician a dose of con–
tradiction or confusion has never been a defect.
Finally, we have witnessed a steady politicization of the humanities,
an attempt to recast the subjects and the aim of studying them in terms of
a political agenda. In many ways, this politicization is the most interesting
development, since it crystallizes within itself not only the other three but
also the inherited contest between humane education and the social sci–
ences. For it is usually by means of some real or imagined social science
that politicization is effected. Consider this hypothesis: the traditional
curriculum exists because it empowers certain social groups, reinforcing
the ideology through which they control public discourse. In this way,
the curriculum silences dissent, by compelling dissent
to
express itself in
terms that neutralize its force. That is what we are told by Marxists, by
Foucault, and by certain feminists. If it is true, it immediately suggests an
agenda for change. Just as Walter Benjamin urged us
to
politicize art, so
we must politicize the curriculum, in order to empower those who have
been previously oppressed by means of it.
Must we accept those developments as inevitable? Should we endorse
them? Should we resist them? And if we resist them, in the name of what
will we do so? Those are deep alld difficult questions, but I believe they
are in the minds of all serious teachers of the humanities today. Of the
recent developments, at least two - the relevance revolution and multi–
culturalism - have arisen from educational theories, a realm where vested
interests advance through doctrines, and where, therefore, the disproof of
a theory will not suffice
to
destroy it. Still, a disproof of a theory, if re–
peated often enough, will, in time, have an effect. And if the effect were
to persuade people that educational theories have been so damaging that
we ought not to provide funding to those who propose them, that would
be the best effect of all.
Considered in one way, the demand for relevance is trivial. It means
only that education should give the student a real education. Considered
in another way, it is destructive, since it asks us to value education in
