JOHN R. SEARLE
705
requires analysis and explanation. But it doesn't in any way discredit the
works of, for example, Descartes or Shakespeare that they happen
to
have been white males, any more than it discredits the work of Newton
and Darwin that they were both English. Representativeness as such is
not the primary aim in the study of the humanities. Rather, representa–
tiveness comes in as a desirable goal when there is a question of articulat–
ing the different varieties of human experience. And our aim in seeking
works that articulate this variety is always to find works of high quality.
The problem with the predominance of white males is not that there is
any doubt about the quality of the work, but that we have been exces–
sively provincial, that great works in other cultures may have been ne–
glected, and that, even within Western civilization, there have been
groups, most notably women, whose works have been discriminated
against.
My criticism of the traditionalists is somewhat different from my
criticism of the challengers because I do not, as a matter of fact, find
much that is objectionable in the assumptions behind the traditionalist
philosophy of education. The difficulty is how those assumptions are be–
ing implemented in contemporary American universities. There are many
forms of decay and indeed corruption that have become entrenched in
the actual practice of American universities, especially where undergradu–
ate education is concerned. The most obvious sign of decay is that we
have simply lost enthusiasm for the traditional philosophy of a liberal ed–
ucation. As our disciplines have become more specialized, as we have lost
faith in the ideal of an integrated undergraduate education, we simply
provide the student with the familiar cafeteria of courses and hope things
turn out for the best. The problem with the traditionalists' ideology is
not that it is false but that it has run out of gas.
It
is somewhat hypo–
critical to defend a traditional liberal education with a well-rounded
reading list that goes from Plato to James Joyce, if one is unwilling ac–
tually to attempt to educate undergraduates in this tradition. I do not,
frankly, think that the challengers have superior ideas. Rather, they have
something which may be more important to influencing the way things
are actually done. They have more energy and enthusiasm, not to say fa–
naticism and intolerance.
In
the long run, these may be more effective in
changing universities than rigorous arguments can be.
All institutions naturally suffer from a tendency to decay and corrup–
tion. The only way to combat this is to have certain constraints on the
institutions. In the case of business in a capitalist society, the constraint is
obvious: you have to make a profit to survive.
In
the case of elected of–
ficials in a democratic society, the constraint again is obvious. You have
to
face periodic elections. But there are lots of institutions that really
shouldn't be governed by profit or electoral constraints, because if they
