The opening sentence on the Goodreads description for this book reads: This book tests the proposition that the humanities can, and at their best do, represent a commitment to ethical reading.

The essence of this book is to discuss and show, by discussion, the value and importance of the humanities in our everyday life. When educational institutions, whether higher education or secondary education, ‘needs’ to make cuts due to costs, it’s usually the humanities that take the brunt. Peter Brooks (with Hilary Jewitt) have held symposiums to discuss the importance of the humanities and have then secured essays and transcriptions of these symposiums for this book.

I found a number of interesting and thought-provoking ideas scattered throughout, the first of which was in Brooks’ introduction in which, discussing the value of education, he mentions that “there is even a philanthropic organization … that offers prizes of $100,000 to induce smart kids to drop out of college and become entrepreneurs on their own, on the theory that college impedes rather than enhances the development of creative ideas.” At first reading, I thought this was so disappointing, but I quickly realized that had I known about this, and if there was such a prize back in my school days (and assuming I might have been considered a ‘smart kid’) I would have seized the opportunity. Entering school as an art major, I quickly changed my focus because of what I perceived (and still look back on) as the absolute stifling of creativity. I wondered if I was going to end up disagreeing with much of the book, but that wasn’t the case.

Not surprisingly, there is a lot of intelligent discussion and reflection within these pages and you have to really like discussion of ethics and philosophical examination of morals to appreciate this because it does get a bit dry at times. And I say that as someone who does like this topic. The humanities have always been important to me, but I’m not one who needs to read this, and that boils down to really the core problem. As Judith Butler notes in her essay, “Ordinary, Incredulous”:

Some of my colleagues claim that the humanities must be recognized for having the “intrinsic value” that they have. Of course, the problem emerges that others do not recognize that intrinsic value – at which point, the intrinsic value must be demonstrated. If it must be demonstrated, it has to be demonstrated within a language and an idiom that can be recognized by those who most clearly need to be convinced of that value. And that language is, increasingly, one that cannot recognize the value of the humanities, or can recognize it only with difficulty, because the kids of values recognized by such a language, that are registered in that language, are those that cover over or consign to oblivion the value of the humanities.

Something not addressed much is the very fact that those who ‘need’ the humanities aren’t reading, but using social media. Michael Roth does address it in “The Avoidance of Reading”:

I do not know whether watching television is more or less ethical than reading, but I think all of us would find it odd to believe that we are becoming, as a culture, better people, more empathic, or more capable of imagining others because of television or because of YouTube. Why would reading be ethically superior as a genre of experience?

But of course, what is ethical reading without ethical writing? William Germano notes:

The act of reading ethically, which is to day reading both the lexical construct and the social text, must remind us that ethical writing is a duty beyond questions of truth value, systematic method, and full citation. … The ethics of seems pretty clear to me: Write as if you mean it, and write as if what you write can change the reader. Because it will.

I can’t help but compare this idea, though, to that of the role model aspect of sports stars. As Charles Barkley, the basketball player, once pointed out when someone accused him of not being a good role model (and I’m paraphrasing): I’m paid to be a basketball player and to win, not to be a role model as a human being. Which of course prompted a lot of debate back then. So, too, with writing. Yes, what you write can change a reader but where does the responsibility begin and end for the writer? Must you write so that you cannot be interpreted in any way other than what is ethically ‘straight’? Who gets to determine the ethics of the day? This would be one of the biggest issues we have right now as communities consistently and regularly pull books off library shelves because they don’t meet with the community ethics.

Lots to consider, lots to debate, and interesting food for thought, even if it is a bit dry at times.

This book contains the following:

Introduction – Peter Brooks
“Ordinary, Incredulous” – Judith Butler
Part One: Is There an Ethics of Reading
“Poetry, Injury, and the Ethics of Reading” – Elaine Scarry
“The Ethics of Reading” – Charles Larmore
“Responses and Discussion” – Kwame Anthony Appiah, Jonathan Culler, Derek Attridge
Part Two: The Ethics of Reading and the Professions
“The Raw and the Half-Cooked” – Patricia J. Williams
“Conquering the Obstacles to Kingdom and Fate: The Ethics of Reading and the University Administrator” – Ralph J. Hexter (with Craig Buckwald)
“responses and Discussion” – Richard Sennett, Michael Roth, William Germano
Part Three: The Humanities and Human Rights
“The Call of Another’s Words” – Jonathan Lear
“On Humanities and Human Rights” – Paul W. Kahn
“Responses and Discussion” – Kim Lane Scheppele, Didier Fassin
Concluding Discussion
Looking for a good book? The Humanities and Public Life, edited by Peter Brooks with Hilary Jewitt might prompt some good discussion but reading essays and ‘discussion’ that were first presented in person gets more than just a bit dry.

I received a digital copy of this book from the publisher, through Netgalley, in exchange for an honest review.