What do you think?
Rate this book
The Public Square
Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities
A passionate defense of the humanities from one of today's foremost public intellectuals
In this short and powerful book, celebrated philosopher Martha Nussbaum makes a passionate case for the importance of the liberal arts at all levels of education.
Historically, the humanities have been central to education because they have been seen as essential for creating competent democratic citizens. But recently, Nussbaum argues, thinking about the aims of education has gone disturbingly awry in the United States and abroad. We increasingly treat education as though its primary goal were to teach students to be economically productive rather than to think critically and become knowledgeable, productive, and empathetic individuals. This shortsighted focus on profitable skills has eroded our ability to criticize authority, reduced our sympathy with the marginalized and different, and damaged our competence to deal with complex global problems. And the loss of these basic capacities jeopardizes the health of democracies and the hope of a decent world.
In response to this dire situation, Nussbaum argues that we must resist efforts to reduce education to a tool of the gross national product. Rather, we must work to reconnect education to the humanities in order to give students the capacity to be true democratic citizens of their countries and the world.
In a new preface, Nussbaum explores the current state of humanistic education globally and shows why the crisis of the humanities has far from abated. Translated into over twenty languages, Not for Profit draws on the stories of troubling--and hopeful--global educational developments. Nussbaum offers a manifesto that should be a rallying cry for anyone who cares about the deepest purposes of education.
In this short and powerful book, celebrated philosopher Martha Nussbaum makes a passionate case for the importance of the liberal arts at all levels of education.
Historically, the humanities have been central to education because they have been seen as essential for creating competent democratic citizens. But recently, Nussbaum argues, thinking about the aims of education has gone disturbingly awry in the United States and abroad. We increasingly treat education as though its primary goal were to teach students to be economically productive rather than to think critically and become knowledgeable, productive, and empathetic individuals. This shortsighted focus on profitable skills has eroded our ability to criticize authority, reduced our sympathy with the marginalized and different, and damaged our competence to deal with complex global problems. And the loss of these basic capacities jeopardizes the health of democracies and the hope of a decent world.
In response to this dire situation, Nussbaum argues that we must resist efforts to reduce education to a tool of the gross national product. Rather, we must work to reconnect education to the humanities in order to give students the capacity to be true democratic citizens of their countries and the world.
In a new preface, Nussbaum explores the current state of humanistic education globally and shows why the crisis of the humanities has far from abated. Translated into over twenty languages, Not for Profit draws on the stories of troubling--and hopeful--global educational developments. Nussbaum offers a manifesto that should be a rallying cry for anyone who cares about the deepest purposes of education.
200 pages, Paperback
First published May 2, 2010
193 people are currently reading
4817 people want to read
About the author
Martha C. Nussbaum
178 books1,375 followersMartha C. Nussbaum is Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, appointed in the Law School and the Philosophy Department. Among her many awards are the 2018 Berggruen Prize, the 2017 Don M. Randel Award for Humanistic Studies from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the 2016 Kyoto Prize in Arts and Philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 262 reviews
August 25, 2013
Indian parents take pride in a child who gains admission to the Institutes of Technology and Management; they are ashamed of a child who studies literature, or philosophy, or who wants to paint or dance or sing.
Nussbaum wants to change this situation with this manifesto, with this call to action. With the very poignantly titled Not for Profit, Nussbaum alerts us to a “silent crisis” in which nations “discard skills” as they “thirst for national profit.”: a world-wide crisis in education. She focuses on two major educational systems to illustrate this: one in the grips of the crisis and in its death row. The other carelessly hurtling towards it, undoing much of the good done before (and worse, the USA is a leader in most fields, and rest of the world may well follow where it leads).
What is this developing crisis? Nussbaum laments that the humanities and the arts are being cut away, in both primary/secondary and college/university education, in virtually every nation of the world. Seen by policy-makers, parents and students as nothing but useless frills, and at a time when nations must cut away all useless things in order to stay competitive in the global market, they are rapidly losing their place in curricula, and also in the minds and hearts of parents and children.
This is most prevalent and inevitable in the placement-based institutions, especially the IITs and the IIMs and the newspapers that hawk their successes, that measure their success purely on the drama of placements and on the excesses of the pay-packages. This sort of a higher education orientation also changes the early school cultures, with parents having no patience for allegedly superfluous skills, and intent on getting their children filled with testable skills that seem likely to produce financial success by getting into the IITs and the IIMs.
Nussbaum says that in these IITs and IIMs, instructors are most disturbed by their students’ deficient humanities preparation. It might be heartening that it is precisely in these institutions, at the heart of India’s profit-oriented technology culture, that instructors have felt the need to introduce liberal arts courses, partly to counter the narrowness of their students.
But it is not really so. Even as professors struggle to introduce such courses, as students at IIM, we have an all-encompassing word for anything that comes anywhere close to the humanities: “GLOBE” , and boy don’t we love using it. This throughly derogatory terms sums up the purely career-minded, profit-driven orientation of education in India’s elite institutions. I now feel a sense of complete despair at every laugh shared in the use of this expression. With the standards of success thus set, is it any wonder that the culture is seeping across the education spectrum?
After this dispiriting survey of Indian education, Nussbaum says that the situation is not as bad yet in the US due to an existing strong humanities culture in the higher institutions, but issues the below caveat:
We in the United States can study our own future in the government schools of India. Such will be our future if we continue down the road of “teaching to the test,” neglecting the activities that enliven children’s minds and make them see a connection between their school life and their daily life outside of school. We should be deeply alarmed that our own schools are rapidly, heedlessly, moving in the direction of the Indian norm, rather than the reverse.
January 15, 2011
I'm Reading this because of an assignment. It's not the sort of thing or author I'd generally bother with.
The book is trite, simplistic, poorly written, poorly argued - and that from one who is basically in sympathy with her general position. She draws a simple-minded distinction between "education for growth (which is bad; business or technology oriented) and education for critical thinking and self-development (Humanities; though this book, like much of the Humanities today, in fact, exhibits precious little of such allegedly "critical" thinking) -- she confuses NeoLberalism and NeoMercantilism, neither of which term she seems to be familiar with, lumping them together as "old paradigm" and "collectivist", and claims that the hyperdrive towards economic growth that one sees in India and South Africa (and presumably China?) will undercut democracy in the Western World (non-sequitur, anyone...?) -- this, by the way, at a time when the West has itself entered what is perhaps terminal economic decline and when the political consequences of that decline in growth are becoming clearer day by day (today, for example....: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01...) -- a threat she seems to be quite unaware of.
Basically a rehashing of ideals that were cutting edge in 1917 (Tagore, Dewey), but whose breathless espousal today... is something of an embarrassment. The intellectual narcissism of the Humanities in America is on full display here --
Though very bright, Nussbaum was a lousy classical scholar -- who had been feted and coddled by institutions (and by her 'mentor', Gwill Owen) since early days. Her work on Plato was awful -- not surprising, coming from the school she comes from (Owen and Vlastos); Aristotle, she thinks, was basically an 'essentialist' (which is incorrect: see, e.g., http://www.amazon.fr/Aristote-lidéali... her dissertation, on the de motu animalium, was a fairly strong piece of work, as philosophical commentary goes... -- though her knowledge of Greek was always suspect. I could go on... But people are already angry at me for speaking the truth too loudly....
Anyway, the book is basically a waste of time -- BAG IT.
The book is trite, simplistic, poorly written, poorly argued - and that from one who is basically in sympathy with her general position. She draws a simple-minded distinction between "education for growth (which is bad; business or technology oriented) and education for critical thinking and self-development (Humanities; though this book, like much of the Humanities today, in fact, exhibits precious little of such allegedly "critical" thinking) -- she confuses NeoLberalism and NeoMercantilism, neither of which term she seems to be familiar with, lumping them together as "old paradigm" and "collectivist", and claims that the hyperdrive towards economic growth that one sees in India and South Africa (and presumably China?) will undercut democracy in the Western World (non-sequitur, anyone...?) -- this, by the way, at a time when the West has itself entered what is perhaps terminal economic decline and when the political consequences of that decline in growth are becoming clearer day by day (today, for example....: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01...) -- a threat she seems to be quite unaware of.
Basically a rehashing of ideals that were cutting edge in 1917 (Tagore, Dewey), but whose breathless espousal today... is something of an embarrassment. The intellectual narcissism of the Humanities in America is on full display here --
Though very bright, Nussbaum was a lousy classical scholar -- who had been feted and coddled by institutions (and by her 'mentor', Gwill Owen) since early days. Her work on Plato was awful -- not surprising, coming from the school she comes from (Owen and Vlastos); Aristotle, she thinks, was basically an 'essentialist' (which is incorrect: see, e.g., http://www.amazon.fr/Aristote-lidéali... her dissertation, on the de motu animalium, was a fairly strong piece of work, as philosophical commentary goes... -- though her knowledge of Greek was always suspect. I could go on... But people are already angry at me for speaking the truth too loudly....
Anyway, the book is basically a waste of time -- BAG IT.
May 27, 2018
How many times can one say the exact same thing but phrased slightly differently? Read this book to find out.
September 16, 2021
مارثا نوسباوم هي فيلسوفة أميركية وأستاذة القانون والأخلاق في جامعة شيكاغو.
تناقش نوسباوم في هذا الكتاب المفارقة بين التعليم من أجل الإنتاج الربحي ونوع من المواطنة أكثر شمولاً. وتركز على ماهو نفيس ومهدد بشكل كبير " الإنسانيات كالفنون والفلسفة وغيرها" التي تكفل تكريس حرية التعبير، احترام الاختلاف وتفهم الآخرين. وكذا تنتج إنساناً يجيد التفكير النقدي، ويحاور ولا يسلم دفته للآخر بسهولة. إنسان يمتلك بديهية القدرة على التفكير بتأمل عن نفسه وعن قصة حياته الخاصة .
وتذكر نوسباوم بأننا لسنا مجبرين على تبني نوع على آخر في التعليم ( تعليم يحفز على الربح و آخر يحفز على المواطنة الجيدة) بل الجمع بينهما هو ما يحتاجه أي بلد كي ينمو ويزدهر اقتصادياً وإنسانياً ليضع قدم بين الأمم والحضارات المعاصرة . فما نفع أن يكون البلد مزدهر إقتصادياً وفقير ديمقراطياً. نحن بحاجة لتغذية القوى المؤدية إلى ثقافات تقف على قدم وساق للمساواة والاحترام.
"مع الاندفاع للربح في السوق العالمي فإن قيم غالية لمستقبل الديمقراطية معرضة للفقد خاصة في عصر القلق الديني والإقتصادي . يوحي دافع الربح للعديد من القادة المهتمين أن العلوم والتقنية حاسما الأهمية لمستقبل سليم لبلادهم ." وهي ما تعارضه نوسباوم في معرض هذا الكتاب . واعتراضها ليس على أهمية تعليم العلوم والتقنية بل هاجس الخوف لديها نابع من أن القدرات الأخرى المساوية في الأهمية تكون عرضة للفقدان في فورة التنافس. وهذه القدرات مهمة لسلامة الديمقراطية لخلق ثقافة عالمية محترمة قادرة على مواجهة ضغوطات ومشكلات العالم. ك(القدرة على التفكير النقدي، القدرة على السمو عن ولاءات محلية والتعامل مع مشكلات العالم "ك مواطن عالمي " وأخيراً، القدرة على تخيل ورطة الشخص الآخر عاطفياً.)
" فإن إنتاج نمو إقتصادي لا يعني إنتاجاً للديمقراطية"
نحن في حاجة لديمقراطية تنموية تعزز الكرامة الإنسانية والمناظرة الديمقراطية بالمثل .
وتلك الديمقراطية لا تتأتى دون الاهتمام بتحسين جودة التعليم والاهتمام بتدريس العلوم الانسانية لكل الطلبة و بمراحلهم المختلفة، بما ينعكس على وعيهم في استشراق العالم والحياة والإنسان معاً ، كغاية لفهم أنفسهم وعالمهم . (فهم الأمم - الاقتصاد العالمي- التعاملات العرقية"دراسة الدين المقارن وتاريخ الأديان"-دينامكية الجنس- تاريخ الهجرة وكفاح الجماعات الجديدة للاعتراف والمساواة.)
إن سوء نظام التعليم الذي يركز على المخرجات المهنية أكثر من المهارات الإنسانية (تمجيد العلوم والتقنية) يفرخ لنا بشر هزيلي الفكر، من السهل انقيادهم وتدجينهم، كما أنهم يضحون مشاريع ناجحة في عصبة الإرهاب.
"إنّ الطلبة الأكثر استقطابا من طرف الحركات الإسلامية المتطرفة، هم طلبة كليات العلوم، مقابل نسبة أقل في كليات الآداب." وهو ما أشارت إليه آخر الدراسات الحديثة في هذا الشأن . فنظم التعليم التي تعتمد في نهجها على الأحادية، التبسيط والتحفيظية تنتج قوالب جامدة تفتقر للحس النقدي.
وما أحوج عالمنا العربي اليوم لهذا الفكر المستنير لإصلاح النظام التعليمي البائس الذي أخرج لنا هويات مفككة في جوهرها. إن استمرار الأنظمة التعليمية كما هي الآن يراد منها جميعا سجن الفكر في استلابات تعيد نفسها باستمرار، والخاسر الأكبر هو الأوطان.
صناعة إنسان ذو هوية كونية متصالحة مع ذاتها والآخر كانت رسالة نوسباوم في هذا الكتاب .
كتاب قيم جداً للمشتغلين في حقول التعليم ومناهج تطويره.
تناقش نوسباوم في هذا الكتاب المفارقة بين التعليم من أجل الإنتاج الربحي ونوع من المواطنة أكثر شمولاً. وتركز على ماهو نفيس ومهدد بشكل كبير " الإنسانيات كالفنون والفلسفة وغيرها" التي تكفل تكريس حرية التعبير، احترام الاختلاف وتفهم الآخرين. وكذا تنتج إنساناً يجيد التفكير النقدي، ويحاور ولا يسلم دفته للآخر بسهولة. إنسان يمتلك بديهية القدرة على التفكير بتأمل عن نفسه وعن قصة حياته الخاصة .
وتذكر نوسباوم بأننا لسنا مجبرين على تبني نوع على آخر في التعليم ( تعليم يحفز على الربح و آخر يحفز على المواطنة الجيدة) بل الجمع بينهما هو ما يحتاجه أي بلد كي ينمو ويزدهر اقتصادياً وإنسانياً ليضع قدم بين الأمم والحضارات المعاصرة . فما نفع أن يكون البلد مزدهر إقتصادياً وفقير ديمقراطياً. نحن بحاجة لتغذية القوى المؤدية إلى ثقافات تقف على قدم وساق للمساواة والاحترام.
"مع الاندفاع للربح في السوق العالمي فإن قيم غالية لمستقبل الديمقراطية معرضة للفقد خاصة في عصر القلق الديني والإقتصادي . يوحي دافع الربح للعديد من القادة المهتمين أن العلوم والتقنية حاسما الأهمية لمستقبل سليم لبلادهم ." وهي ما تعارضه نوسباوم في معرض هذا الكتاب . واعتراضها ليس على أهمية تعليم العلوم والتقنية بل هاجس الخوف لديها نابع من أن القدرات الأخرى المساوية في الأهمية تكون عرضة للفقدان في فورة التنافس. وهذه القدرات مهمة لسلامة الديمقراطية لخلق ثقافة عالمية محترمة قادرة على مواجهة ضغوطات ومشكلات العالم. ك(القدرة على التفكير النقدي، القدرة على السمو عن ولاءات محلية والتعامل مع مشكلات العالم "ك مواطن عالمي " وأخيراً، القدرة على تخيل ورطة الشخص الآخر عاطفياً.)
" فإن إنتاج نمو إقتصادي لا يعني إنتاجاً للديمقراطية"
نحن في حاجة لديمقراطية تنموية تعزز الكرامة الإنسانية والمناظرة الديمقراطية بالمثل .
وتلك الديمقراطية لا تتأتى دون الاهتمام بتحسين جودة التعليم والاهتمام بتدريس العلوم الانسانية لكل الطلبة و بمراحلهم المختلفة، بما ينعكس على وعيهم في استشراق العالم والحياة والإنسان معاً ، كغاية لفهم أنفسهم وعالمهم . (فهم الأمم - الاقتصاد العالمي- التعاملات العرقية"دراسة الدين المقارن وتاريخ الأديان"-دينامكية الجنس- تاريخ الهجرة وكفاح الجماعات الجديدة للاعتراف والمساواة.)
إن سوء نظام التعليم الذي يركز على المخرجات المهنية أكثر من المهارات الإنسانية (تمجيد العلوم والتقنية) يفرخ لنا بشر هزيلي الفكر، من السهل انقيادهم وتدجينهم، كما أنهم يضحون مشاريع ناجحة في عصبة الإرهاب.
"إنّ الطلبة الأكثر استقطابا من طرف الحركات الإسلامية المتطرفة، هم طلبة كليات العلوم، مقابل نسبة أقل في كليات الآداب." وهو ما أشارت إليه آخر الدراسات الحديثة في هذا الشأن . فنظم التعليم التي تعتمد في نهجها على الأحادية، التبسيط والتحفيظية تنتج قوالب جامدة تفتقر للحس النقدي.
وما أحوج عالمنا العربي اليوم لهذا الفكر المستنير لإصلاح النظام التعليمي البائس الذي أخرج لنا هويات مفككة في جوهرها. إن استمرار الأنظمة التعليمية كما هي الآن يراد منها جميعا سجن الفكر في استلابات تعيد نفسها باستمرار، والخاسر الأكبر هو الأوطان.
صناعة إنسان ذو هوية كونية متصالحة مع ذاتها والآخر كانت رسالة نوسباوم في هذا الكتاب .
كتاب قيم جداً للمشتغلين في حقول التعليم ومناهج تطويره.
July 30, 2010
Nussbaum calls her book 'a manifesto'. Her manifesto on why democracy needs the humanities is made up of 6 interlocking propositions: (1) there is a crisis going on in education today; (2) this crisis is the shedding away of the humanities, which produce the necessary espirit de corps and competencies for an active and productive democracy; (3) this shedding away of the humanities can be attributed to the growth-oriented economy, which prefers professional skill-ism rather than the critical thinking skills and the imaginative empathy cultivated by the humanities; (4) at the same time, events in the world today are heading in the direction where more international cooperation and collaboration is needed, which must surely demand critical thinking and imaginative empathy for cross-cultural work; (5) however, we are heading in the opposite direction through our present attention on standardized testing and technically oriented education directives, which produce "useful machines" (pp. 2) but not imaginative and empathetic human beings; (6) hence, not only do we ultimately undermine our own cherished democracy, but ultimately too we undermine the solidarity needed for a universal democracy that can solve universal problems affecting all.
To be fair, we will have to take Nussbaum's argument one step deeper: that societies, and hence to a certain extent also publicly funded universities in many places, prefer practical skill-ism rather than the humanities. Since the growth-oriented economy requires skillful workers who can obey and work rather than to question and think, classes oriented to imparting practical or applied skills are much more favored by policy-makers, bosses, parents and students alike--because everyone in this squarish ecology seemed well-pleased. However, even growth demands people who possess the abilities to think and imagine creatively, and the humanities can help to cultivate that. Therefore, it is according to Nussbaum, never an 'either/or' for or against the humanities; rather, we can have both growth and the humanities. As a matter of her opinion, to have growth we ought to invest and grow the humanities.
I leave you to ponder on Nussbaum's surprising acquiescence. But the strangeness of this acquiescence to incorporate the humanities into the growth-oriented economy is surely, and only, because of Nussbaum's paradoxical nullification of the very thing she sought to defend in this book: how is it possible to defend the humanities by deliberately subjecting, and designing the humanities so that it can support growth (i.e., economically oriented growth laced with many externalities)? Thankfully Nussbaum's did not say how, beyond these hints, and to what extent this can be done. But at least one thing is clear: the kind of growth Nussbaum criticizes is also the kind of growth that bears no special allegiance to anything or anyone; as long as something expands the economy in the short-term, this something is valued. Thus to expect growth to value the humanities because the humanities seem to impart valuable fundamental and hence, somewhat long-term competencies with uncertain outcome is naive at best.
And half expecting this book to fulfill its large graphical and title promise on the critique of the for profit system (i.e., "NOT FOR PROFIT..."), Nussbaum unfortunately did not venture into the intricacies of the 'FOR PROFIT' teleology working at every level of the society today. Instead what Nussbaum presented is a defense for Socratic pedagogy and a fastpaced clip through the ideas of several education progressivists, names like Rousseau, Dewey and Tagore. I don't think Socrates needs to be defended again; and I certainly don't think Rousseau is as innocent as Nussbaum made him to be, or Dewey so easily and swiftly understood. Rather, I think that both Socrates and Rousseau et al.--the progressivists--are misplaced as two whole chapters in a book with a more critical and urgent mission. For these reasons, I am also not convinced.
In more than a few places Nussbaum makes uncritical statements that seem at odds with the overall thesis in her manifesto, for example, "knowledge is no guarantee of good behavior, but ignorance is a virtual guarantee of bad behavior" (pp.81). Well, that depends on what kind of ignorance one speaks of. Arrogant and inconsiderate ignorance, yes, of course. But humble and considered ignorance: isn't that the goal of Socratic teaching and the beginning of knowledge? Similarly but on a broader interpretation, Nussbaum's uncritical call for the 'universal citizen' or the cosmopolitan citizen demands a very careful review: who and to what extent, can be a citizen of the world today and for what purpose or mission? And what are the underlying ethos of such a global citizenship? What are its underlying binding values? Without answering these questions, we can only suspect that what Nussbaum has in mind as the underlying ethos is the ideal form of democracy that she is familiar with. This is unlikely to go well with everyone in the world today. Not only so, Nussbaum's uncritical call is likely to exacerbate her very quest for a productive citizenship of the world.
In all, I think this manifesto is a missed opportunity for a stronger and a more convincing call-to-arms in the humanities today. Insofar as Nussbaum's premise is concerned, I think it is relevant for the complex crisis the world is facing today: what to do at the limits of the market economy and how to deal with the threats of the environment at its limits. However, Nussbaum's subsequent arguments stray too often from the deeper and much more urgent mission that her premises promised.
To be fair, we will have to take Nussbaum's argument one step deeper: that societies, and hence to a certain extent also publicly funded universities in many places, prefer practical skill-ism rather than the humanities. Since the growth-oriented economy requires skillful workers who can obey and work rather than to question and think, classes oriented to imparting practical or applied skills are much more favored by policy-makers, bosses, parents and students alike--because everyone in this squarish ecology seemed well-pleased. However, even growth demands people who possess the abilities to think and imagine creatively, and the humanities can help to cultivate that. Therefore, it is according to Nussbaum, never an 'either/or' for or against the humanities; rather, we can have both growth and the humanities. As a matter of her opinion, to have growth we ought to invest and grow the humanities.
I leave you to ponder on Nussbaum's surprising acquiescence. But the strangeness of this acquiescence to incorporate the humanities into the growth-oriented economy is surely, and only, because of Nussbaum's paradoxical nullification of the very thing she sought to defend in this book: how is it possible to defend the humanities by deliberately subjecting, and designing the humanities so that it can support growth (i.e., economically oriented growth laced with many externalities)? Thankfully Nussbaum's did not say how, beyond these hints, and to what extent this can be done. But at least one thing is clear: the kind of growth Nussbaum criticizes is also the kind of growth that bears no special allegiance to anything or anyone; as long as something expands the economy in the short-term, this something is valued. Thus to expect growth to value the humanities because the humanities seem to impart valuable fundamental and hence, somewhat long-term competencies with uncertain outcome is naive at best.
And half expecting this book to fulfill its large graphical and title promise on the critique of the for profit system (i.e., "NOT FOR PROFIT..."), Nussbaum unfortunately did not venture into the intricacies of the 'FOR PROFIT' teleology working at every level of the society today. Instead what Nussbaum presented is a defense for Socratic pedagogy and a fastpaced clip through the ideas of several education progressivists, names like Rousseau, Dewey and Tagore. I don't think Socrates needs to be defended again; and I certainly don't think Rousseau is as innocent as Nussbaum made him to be, or Dewey so easily and swiftly understood. Rather, I think that both Socrates and Rousseau et al.--the progressivists--are misplaced as two whole chapters in a book with a more critical and urgent mission. For these reasons, I am also not convinced.
In more than a few places Nussbaum makes uncritical statements that seem at odds with the overall thesis in her manifesto, for example, "knowledge is no guarantee of good behavior, but ignorance is a virtual guarantee of bad behavior" (pp.81). Well, that depends on what kind of ignorance one speaks of. Arrogant and inconsiderate ignorance, yes, of course. But humble and considered ignorance: isn't that the goal of Socratic teaching and the beginning of knowledge? Similarly but on a broader interpretation, Nussbaum's uncritical call for the 'universal citizen' or the cosmopolitan citizen demands a very careful review: who and to what extent, can be a citizen of the world today and for what purpose or mission? And what are the underlying ethos of such a global citizenship? What are its underlying binding values? Without answering these questions, we can only suspect that what Nussbaum has in mind as the underlying ethos is the ideal form of democracy that she is familiar with. This is unlikely to go well with everyone in the world today. Not only so, Nussbaum's uncritical call is likely to exacerbate her very quest for a productive citizenship of the world.
In all, I think this manifesto is a missed opportunity for a stronger and a more convincing call-to-arms in the humanities today. Insofar as Nussbaum's premise is concerned, I think it is relevant for the complex crisis the world is facing today: what to do at the limits of the market economy and how to deal with the threats of the environment at its limits. However, Nussbaum's subsequent arguments stray too often from the deeper and much more urgent mission that her premises promised.
July 9, 2020
فكرة الكتاب بسيطة لا أدري لمَ عقّدتها المؤلفة واستطردت بكلام لا طائل تحته!
الفكرة تقول: لكي نحصل على مواطنين عالميين، مدركين للواقع، علينا أن نحوّل التعليم من تعليم "للسوق" إلى تعليم "للحياة".
فقط!
وفيه حشو طويل، وغير منظم للأسف.
الترجمة جيدة
الفكرة تقول: لكي نحصل على مواطنين عالميين، مدركين للواقع، علينا أن نحوّل التعليم من تعليم "للسوق" إلى تعليم "للحياة".
فقط!
وفيه حشو طويل، وغير منظم للأسف.
الترجمة جيدة
September 2, 2012
I am not entirely sure what to make of this except to note that it is disappointing, and that may be because 1) these are debates that I find myself in the middle of, as a humanities scholar working in a Science Faculty, and 2) Nussbaum did not really go far enough for me. There is no doubt, this is a political manifesto, and there is a real need for lucid, compelling and powerful defences of the humanities in the current climate where we are repeatedly told that higher education should be developing critical inquirers, but also more forcefully told that it is all about employability, about making sure our graduates get jobs – and in this context critical inquiry is unlikely to be seen as job training, about skills for work.
The current world of higher education is intended to ensure that we educate for profit (in the UK we have seen in recent years an increasingly powerful discourse of students-as-consumers) rather than education for citizenship – to draw on Nussbaum’s distinction. This is a cunning sleight of hand that shifts the focus of higher education, plays into the neo-liberal argument that it is a private good (that is, that students gain more from it individually than society does collectively) and therefore students should pay for it directly; this in a context where university fees have risen 300% in the last ten years. This is not how it has always been (although we do romanticise and nostalgise the recent past) and more importantly this is not how it should be.
The problem for me is not the case she makes in defence of the humanities as a source of sustained critical inquiry and scepticism, although she seems to limit herself to a liberal conception of democracy. She suggests (on pp 25-6) seven crucial aspects of education for democracy (where democracy equals the promotion of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”):
• the ability to think well about political issues affecting the nation, to examine, reflect, argue, and debate, deferring to neither tradition nor authority;
• the ability to recognise fellow citizens as people with equal rights, even though they may be different in race, religion, gender, and sexuality: to look at them with respect, as ends, not just tools to be manipulated for one’s own profit;
• the ability to have concern for the lives of others, to grasp what policies of many types mean for the opportunities and experiences of one’s fellow citizens, of many types, and for people outside one’s own nation;
• the ability to imagine well a variety of complex issues affecting the story of a human life as it unfolds: to think about childhood, adolescence, family relationships, illness, death, and much more in a way informed by an understanding of a wide range of human stories, not just by aggregate data;
• the ability to judge political leaders critically, but with an informed and realistic sense of the possibilities available to them;
• the ability to think about the good of the nation as a whole, not just that of one’s own group;
• the ability to see one’s own nation, in turn, as a part of a complicated world order in which issues of many kinds require intelligent transnational deliberation for their resolution.
which is all well and good but adds up to a depressing and limited list – if this is seen as the things that need to be defended in contemporary US political culture then things are much worse than I expected even on my most cynical days. There is little here that amounts to a call for a critical politics of higher education or socially transformative politics that build a freer, more equal or more people-centred world.
What bugs me most, though is that her vision of how and where this might occur seems restricted universities in the Ivy League/Oxbridge model despite her community-based India-centric activism and that for a manifesto it seems depressingly short of things that can be done – that is, it is a manifesto without a plan. As a liberal defence of the humanities, this is OK as far as it goes – but for more politically analyses and manifestos for action (albeit from the eastern side of the Atlantic) Michael Bailey & Des Freeman’s collection The Assault on Universities: A Manifesto for Resistance and John Holmwood’sedited A Manifesto for the Pubic University are much more rewarding.
The current world of higher education is intended to ensure that we educate for profit (in the UK we have seen in recent years an increasingly powerful discourse of students-as-consumers) rather than education for citizenship – to draw on Nussbaum’s distinction. This is a cunning sleight of hand that shifts the focus of higher education, plays into the neo-liberal argument that it is a private good (that is, that students gain more from it individually than society does collectively) and therefore students should pay for it directly; this in a context where university fees have risen 300% in the last ten years. This is not how it has always been (although we do romanticise and nostalgise the recent past) and more importantly this is not how it should be.
The problem for me is not the case she makes in defence of the humanities as a source of sustained critical inquiry and scepticism, although she seems to limit herself to a liberal conception of democracy. She suggests (on pp 25-6) seven crucial aspects of education for democracy (where democracy equals the promotion of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”):
• the ability to think well about political issues affecting the nation, to examine, reflect, argue, and debate, deferring to neither tradition nor authority;
• the ability to recognise fellow citizens as people with equal rights, even though they may be different in race, religion, gender, and sexuality: to look at them with respect, as ends, not just tools to be manipulated for one’s own profit;
• the ability to have concern for the lives of others, to grasp what policies of many types mean for the opportunities and experiences of one’s fellow citizens, of many types, and for people outside one’s own nation;
• the ability to imagine well a variety of complex issues affecting the story of a human life as it unfolds: to think about childhood, adolescence, family relationships, illness, death, and much more in a way informed by an understanding of a wide range of human stories, not just by aggregate data;
• the ability to judge political leaders critically, but with an informed and realistic sense of the possibilities available to them;
• the ability to think about the good of the nation as a whole, not just that of one’s own group;
• the ability to see one’s own nation, in turn, as a part of a complicated world order in which issues of many kinds require intelligent transnational deliberation for their resolution.
which is all well and good but adds up to a depressing and limited list – if this is seen as the things that need to be defended in contemporary US political culture then things are much worse than I expected even on my most cynical days. There is little here that amounts to a call for a critical politics of higher education or socially transformative politics that build a freer, more equal or more people-centred world.
What bugs me most, though is that her vision of how and where this might occur seems restricted universities in the Ivy League/Oxbridge model despite her community-based India-centric activism and that for a manifesto it seems depressingly short of things that can be done – that is, it is a manifesto without a plan. As a liberal defence of the humanities, this is OK as far as it goes – but for more politically analyses and manifestos for action (albeit from the eastern side of the Atlantic) Michael Bailey & Des Freeman’s collection The Assault on Universities: A Manifesto for Resistance and John Holmwood’sedited A Manifesto for the Pubic University are much more rewarding.
December 18, 2020
Um livro muito interessante para todos aqueles que gostam da área da pedagogia/ciências da educação. Martha Nussbaum tece duras e variadas críticas aos paradigmas da educação do nosso século. Seguindo muito de perto as formulações pedagógicas de Dewey e Tagore, a autora traça um perfil dos actuais sistemas de ensino em alguns países e propõe um novo paradigma de aprendizagem.
O desaparecimento das «humanidades» dos currículos escolares e académicos tem prejudicado muito a formação do ser humano; a pedagogia do século XXI orienta-se pelos valores do PIB e não por valores éticos e democráticos.
Não reformular os actuais modelos educativos é permitir que a escola, a academia e a «arqueologia do saber» fiquem reduzidas "à arte de pastorear homens". [Platão].
O desaparecimento das «humanidades» dos currículos escolares e académicos tem prejudicado muito a formação do ser humano; a pedagogia do século XXI orienta-se pelos valores do PIB e não por valores éticos e democráticos.
Não reformular os actuais modelos educativos é permitir que a escola, a academia e a «arqueologia do saber» fiquem reduzidas "à arte de pastorear homens". [Platão].
February 4, 2018
Este texto me pareció brillante.
Un análisis aterrador del sistema educativo actual y una exposición de las razones por las que necesitamos en nuestra educación y en la vida las humanidades.
Un libro muy provechoso para maestros y padres de familia que encontrarán una guía para educar, desde una edad temprana en el respeto, la equidad, la compasión y el pensamiento individual proyectado hacia el colectivo con argumentos muy fuertes y válidos de lo que estamos construyendo en las escuelas, los hogares y finalmente en una sociedad desenfocada y egoísta.
Pero además de ser una alerta, lo maravilloso de este libro es que nos hace conscientes de que podemos cambiar las cosas desde la educación y desde la crianza. Todos cometemos muchos errores por desconocimiento, pero esta es una herramienta que nos permite entender las bases en las que estamos fundamentando la vida actual y las armas para cambiar lo que nos asusta tanto de nuestra realidad.
La autora habla del sistema educacional socrático, sustenta con ejemplos, da recomendaciones, alertas y menciona otros libros que pueden ser interesantes para ahondar más en el tema.
Un análisis aterrador del sistema educativo actual y una exposición de las razones por las que necesitamos en nuestra educación y en la vida las humanidades.
Un libro muy provechoso para maestros y padres de familia que encontrarán una guía para educar, desde una edad temprana en el respeto, la equidad, la compasión y el pensamiento individual proyectado hacia el colectivo con argumentos muy fuertes y válidos de lo que estamos construyendo en las escuelas, los hogares y finalmente en una sociedad desenfocada y egoísta.
Pero además de ser una alerta, lo maravilloso de este libro es que nos hace conscientes de que podemos cambiar las cosas desde la educación y desde la crianza. Todos cometemos muchos errores por desconocimiento, pero esta es una herramienta que nos permite entender las bases en las que estamos fundamentando la vida actual y las armas para cambiar lo que nos asusta tanto de nuestra realidad.
La autora habla del sistema educacional socrático, sustenta con ejemplos, da recomendaciones, alertas y menciona otros libros que pueden ser interesantes para ahondar más en el tema.
February 28, 2021
Miksi demokratia tarvitsee humanistista sivistystä? Vai tarvitseeko sitä kukaan? Viime aikoina on uutisoitu, että mm. Helsingin yliopiston taiteiden tutkimus on pulassa, koska rahoitusta on vähennetty ja lehtoraatteja ei voida täyttää. Tämä on maailmanlaajuinen ilmiö. Humanististen alojen ja taidealojen opetusta vähennetään, koska tähdätään vain taloudellisesti kannattavien alojen koulutukseen, eli panostetaan vain matemaattisiin tieteisiin. Martha C. Nussbaum varoittaa, että samalla heikennetään demokratiaa. Kun lapsia ei opeteta mielikuvituksen, empatian ja luovuuden käyttöön, myös demokratiat murtuvat. Miltä näyttää Euroopassa, miltä näyttää Yhdysvalloissa? Liiallinen hyötyajattelu kaventaa ihmisyyttä.
Nussbaum vakuutti näkemyksillään. Humanistina en voinut kuin nyökkäillä ja toivoa, että mahdollisimman moni lukisi tämän kirjan.
Nussbaum vakuutti näkemyksillään. Humanistina en voinut kuin nyökkäillä ja toivoa, että mahdollisimman moni lukisi tämän kirjan.
January 5, 2025
This is an interesting and challenging book in which the author argues that the continued existence of a true liberal arts education in a nation is necessary for the survival of Democracy. Little time is dedicated to explaining why Democracy is more desirable than other forms of government. Basically she affirms that it is only, or especially, within a Democracy that individual rights and freedoms are valued and defended, and she points to the idea that it is only within a Democracy that the human being can truly flourish. She does not, however, spend much time really explaining what human flourishing looks like. These, of course, are enormous questions and would need more space to discuss them sufficiently. So, assuming that we are pursuing human flourishing in general, and that we accept the claim that this is best achieved in a Democracy, then, we can move forward reading her book.
She presents two ways of looking at the progress of a civilization (economic growth versus human flourishing), and argues that though economic growth can be achieved in most forms of government, only Democracy truly allows for human flourishing.
She then discusses, in four chapters, four key characteristics which we might see as contributing to human flourishing which are only learned through the study of the Liberal Arts.
We are also warned about the decline of the Liberal arts in the world, and the dangers of such a decline, she also makes clear suggestions about how to promote the study of the Liberal arts, how to teach them, what to include, etc.
She presents two ways of looking at the progress of a civilization (economic growth versus human flourishing), and argues that though economic growth can be achieved in most forms of government, only Democracy truly allows for human flourishing.
She then discusses, in four chapters, four key characteristics which we might see as contributing to human flourishing which are only learned through the study of the Liberal Arts.
We are also warned about the decline of the Liberal arts in the world, and the dangers of such a decline, she also makes clear suggestions about how to promote the study of the Liberal arts, how to teach them, what to include, etc.
September 9, 2018
I give the author an A for passion and a C overall. The fact—and I agree—that the humanities are useful to individuals and societies is an insufficient and unconvincing argument. No one—other than humanists—will buy this argument. We need a more convincing argument for parents and increasingly savvy students. Expand the mind _and_ have a successful career—now that is convincing! Finally, I object to the author calling her work a manifesto. That politically charged word does not help. Less hyperbole will lead to more readers and more buy in. To paraphrase MJ, Republicans pay tuition too.
January 8, 2022
Nussbaum and his clan make a good living out of Governmental grants and subsidies. Hence, this is not a philosophic exercise, but rather a used philosophy salesman explaining why God-the-Government needs to take your money and distribute it to the Nussbaum clan and their academic minions.
January 4, 2019
الكتاب جميل جدا واستمتعت في طرح ومناقشة قضية ابتعاد دول العالم عن دعم وتشجيع دراسة العلوم الأنسانية .
الكتاب حديث الصدور نسبيا ويناقش قضايا معاصرة ويشرح الأثار السلبية من ابتعادنا عن العلوم الأنسانية وأثرها على توحش الأنسانية بيننا وانعدام الشعور بالأخر ويوكد على أن نهوض الأمم بدعم هذه العلوم ويخطى من يظن أن العلوم التقنية والمهنية كفيلة بنهوض الأمم دون العلوم الأنسانية .وتستعرض الكاتبة عدة دول تراجعت فيها العلوم الأنسانية والأثار السلبية اللتي حلت عليها تدريجيا .
صعود اليمين المتطرف في شتى بقاع الأرض هذا أحد الأدلة والعلامات على اغلاق كليات العلوم الأنسانية والفلسفة وتقليص ميزانيتها وحصصها في المدراس
يعيب الكتاب عدم سلاسة الترجمة خاصة فيما يخص المصطلحات
أنصح بهذا الكتاب للمهتم وغير المهتم
الكتاب حديث الصدور نسبيا ويناقش قضايا معاصرة ويشرح الأثار السلبية من ابتعادنا عن العلوم الأنسانية وأثرها على توحش الأنسانية بيننا وانعدام الشعور بالأخر ويوكد على أن نهوض الأمم بدعم هذه العلوم ويخطى من يظن أن العلوم التقنية والمهنية كفيلة بنهوض الأمم دون العلوم الأنسانية .وتستعرض الكاتبة عدة دول تراجعت فيها العلوم الأنسانية والأثار السلبية اللتي حلت عليها تدريجيا .
صعود اليمين المتطرف في شتى بقاع الأرض هذا أحد الأدلة والعلامات على اغلاق كليات العلوم الأنسانية والفلسفة وتقليص ميزانيتها وحصصها في المدراس
يعيب الكتاب عدم سلاسة الترجمة خاصة فيما يخص المصطلحات
أنصح بهذا الكتاب للمهتم وغير المهتم
January 27, 2017
I am not the only reviewer who begins discussing the book with the phrase "I really, really wanted to like this book." But the book is quite awful on many levels. There is no defense of the Humanities. There is almost no talk about for-profit education. The thesis is extraordinarily vague (the humanities make good democratic citizens). The supporting information was disorganized. Finally, I thought this book did more to condemn the humanities, than to defend them. Ultimately, if I was anti-education and wanted to write a pro-education book, this may be the result.
There are seven chapters. The first and last chapters try to summarize and conclude. That means the book is a basic five chapters that can be summarized as follows. Chapter One: why the humanities should focus on class, race, and gender. Chapter Two: how is philosophy relevant to babies? Chapter Three: Socrates was great; be sure to enroll your kids in schools that support Socratic instruction like Pestalozzi or Montisorri. Chapter Four: why the humanities should study class, race, gender, and ethnicity. And Chapter Five: 100 years ago in India there was a great dance choreographer and teacher.
I am being extra harsh in describing the book; but the focus is not on the Humanities; but a rambling lecture trying to connect philosophy, class, race, gender, ethnicity, and the Indian philosopher without really discussing any of these ideas. Considering all of the available lines of organization and structure, Nussbaum chose to go with chaos and randomness. There was no discussion about ethics in business or health sciences. There was no discussion about research, analysis or writing. There was nothing about creativity or emotional growth. No, it was an authoritarian argument similar to "believe me. I have great academic wisdom."
Nussbaum spent so much time discussing the Indian choreographer and philosopher Tagore, that the book could be more about him than the humanities. However, she does not adequately discuss Tagore or his school. There is just a vague reference to Socrates. Yes, the Socrates condemned to die for leading youth astray in ancient Athens. He does not seem to be much of a role model. I could have learned something from the book if she bothered to focus even a chapter on just Tagore. Nope. She rambles on in a vague disorganized way like so many demagogues against whom she supports the humanities.
I suspect that most people read the book to reinforce their views that the humanities are relevant. Her emphasis on class, race, gender, and ethnicity surely will not change minds who already do not favor the humanities in education. I am surprised at the number of positive reviews. I racked my brain to even recall which subjects she actually discussed in the book. She mentions her own discipline (philosophy) and she mentions after school choir. That is it. There is no defense for anything else. Nor is there really a defense for them. The choir program relies on private philanthropy, so there is some defense there. Only in the last chapter is there a vague discussion about charging students extra for studying the humanities - in Europe.
Overall, this is a terrible book and very disappointing because it comes from an academician. I really expected a coherent argument from a professor at the U of Chicago. Instead, I have a weapon for anyone railing against the ivory tower of academe. This book brings out the worst in higher education. The fact that this book is (or was) the main voice against the conservative attack on the humanities is more worrisome.
There are seven chapters. The first and last chapters try to summarize and conclude. That means the book is a basic five chapters that can be summarized as follows. Chapter One: why the humanities should focus on class, race, and gender. Chapter Two: how is philosophy relevant to babies? Chapter Three: Socrates was great; be sure to enroll your kids in schools that support Socratic instruction like Pestalozzi or Montisorri. Chapter Four: why the humanities should study class, race, gender, and ethnicity. And Chapter Five: 100 years ago in India there was a great dance choreographer and teacher.
I am being extra harsh in describing the book; but the focus is not on the Humanities; but a rambling lecture trying to connect philosophy, class, race, gender, ethnicity, and the Indian philosopher without really discussing any of these ideas. Considering all of the available lines of organization and structure, Nussbaum chose to go with chaos and randomness. There was no discussion about ethics in business or health sciences. There was no discussion about research, analysis or writing. There was nothing about creativity or emotional growth. No, it was an authoritarian argument similar to "believe me. I have great academic wisdom."
Nussbaum spent so much time discussing the Indian choreographer and philosopher Tagore, that the book could be more about him than the humanities. However, she does not adequately discuss Tagore or his school. There is just a vague reference to Socrates. Yes, the Socrates condemned to die for leading youth astray in ancient Athens. He does not seem to be much of a role model. I could have learned something from the book if she bothered to focus even a chapter on just Tagore. Nope. She rambles on in a vague disorganized way like so many demagogues against whom she supports the humanities.
I suspect that most people read the book to reinforce their views that the humanities are relevant. Her emphasis on class, race, gender, and ethnicity surely will not change minds who already do not favor the humanities in education. I am surprised at the number of positive reviews. I racked my brain to even recall which subjects she actually discussed in the book. She mentions her own discipline (philosophy) and she mentions after school choir. That is it. There is no defense for anything else. Nor is there really a defense for them. The choir program relies on private philanthropy, so there is some defense there. Only in the last chapter is there a vague discussion about charging students extra for studying the humanities - in Europe.
Overall, this is a terrible book and very disappointing because it comes from an academician. I really expected a coherent argument from a professor at the U of Chicago. Instead, I have a weapon for anyone railing against the ivory tower of academe. This book brings out the worst in higher education. The fact that this book is (or was) the main voice against the conservative attack on the humanities is more worrisome.
November 4, 2025
Luin tämän Nussbaumin kirjan ensimmäistä kertaa muistaakseni joskus teologian fuksina. Koppavalle ja ehdottoman kaikkitietävälle kaksikymppiselle tässä oli silloin jotain järisyttävää: puhetta siitä mitä sivistys oikeasti on – ei kirjaviisautta vaan avointa asennetta ympäröivään maailmaan.
Nyt kun luin tämän näin vuosikymmenen jälkeen uudestaan ei kirja tietenkään ollut niin ihmeellinen. Nussbaum tarjoilee aika standardin näkemyksen siitä miksi humanistiset aineet ja taidekasvatus ovat tärkeitä. Jossain arvostelussa luin, että tämä on vain John Deweyn ja Rabindranath Tagoren ajatusten kädenlämpöistä uudelleenpyöritellyä. Eikä siinä, itsekin nyt kun on sulonnut päänsä täyteen filosofiaa ja tehnyt esim. gradun Deweystä, suhtaudun toki joihinkin Nussbaumin ajatuksiin kriittisemmin.
Tavallaan olen tässä välissä ehtinyt käydä matkan Nussbaumin edustamasta hyve-etiikasta Nietzschen, Marxin ja pragmatismin kautta takaisin jonkinlaisen hyve-etiikan pariin. Nussbaum nousi maineeseen kehitettyyn yhdessä Amartya Senin kanssa niin sanotun toimintavalmius-lähestymistavan (capabilities approach). Lähestymistavan ytimessä on ajatus siitä, että kulttuurieroista ym. huolimatta on olemassa tiettyjä universaaleja moraalisia tavoitteita, joita kohti meidän pitäisi yhdessä pyrkiä. Nussbaumille tällaisiä toimintavalmiuksia, joihin kaikille olisi tarjottava mahdollisuus ovat esimerkiksi mahdollisuus elää täysimittainen elämä, pysyä terveenä, vapaus väkivallasta, mahdollisuus tuntea tunteita ja luoda yhteyksiä muihin ihmisiin, kyky kriittiseen reflektioon, mahdollisuus leikkiin ja ymmärrys ei-inhimillisten olentojen hyvinvoinnista.
Tässä kirjassa Nussbaum käsittelee erityisesti kasvatusta ja koulutusta suhteessa siihen miten nämä toimintavalmiudet voidaan taata mahdollisimman monelle ja miksi tämä on erityisen tärkeää yhteiskunnille. Nussbaum ei edusta sellaista ylevää ”sivistys sivistyksen vuoksi” -kantaa vaan hän on yksinkertaisesti sitä mieltä, että humanististen -ja taideaineiden opetus on kohtalonkysymys demokraattisille yhteiskunnille. Jos halutaan, että meillä kansalaisia, jotka pystyvät reflektoimaan muutakin kuin oman navan ympärille kiertyvää maailmaa tarvitaan ymmärtämiseen, toisen asemaan asettumiseen ja luovuuteen kutsuvaa kasvatusta.
Tällaiseen kasvatukseen Nussbaum hakee esimerkkejä Tagoren tanssipedagogiikasta, Deweyn laboratoriokouluista ja vanhoista kunnon Fröbelin palikoista. Nussbaumille paraatiesimerkki hyvästä kasvatuksesta löytyy Chicagon lapsikuorosta, jossa monet erilaisista taustoista tulevat lapset ottavat yhdessä, kurinalaisesti mutta riemukkaasti, haltuun hyvin erilaisia musiikkiperinteitä – tekevät Bachista, juutalaisista kansanlauluista ja afrospirituaaleista yhteisesti jaettua perinnettä. Ylipäänsä Nussbaumin lähestymistapa on korosteisen kosmopoliittinen: verkottuneessa maailmassa koulutuksen pitäisi auttaa meitä ymmärtämään koko maailmaa. Siinä missä Deweyn näki tärkeäksi, että lapset oppivat esimerkiksi ymmärtämään miten vaatteiden valmistus toimii puuvillapelloilta kutomoon ja lopulta kauppaan, Nussbaum nostaa esiin miten tämän saman prosessin ymmärtäminen 2000-luvulla vaatii esimerkiksi ymmärrystä koloniaalisista rakenteista ja globaalista taloudesta. Sivistys ei siis ole mitään tosiasioista irrallista haihattelevaa elitismiä vaan niitä taitoja ja tietoja, joita tarvitaan maailman ymmärtämiseksi ja yhteisiin asioihin osallistumiseksi.
Sinänsä ihan hauskaa settiä siis edelleen, mutta ei tässä nyt mitään tajunnanräjäyttävää ole.
Nyt kun luin tämän näin vuosikymmenen jälkeen uudestaan ei kirja tietenkään ollut niin ihmeellinen. Nussbaum tarjoilee aika standardin näkemyksen siitä miksi humanistiset aineet ja taidekasvatus ovat tärkeitä. Jossain arvostelussa luin, että tämä on vain John Deweyn ja Rabindranath Tagoren ajatusten kädenlämpöistä uudelleenpyöritellyä. Eikä siinä, itsekin nyt kun on sulonnut päänsä täyteen filosofiaa ja tehnyt esim. gradun Deweystä, suhtaudun toki joihinkin Nussbaumin ajatuksiin kriittisemmin.
Tavallaan olen tässä välissä ehtinyt käydä matkan Nussbaumin edustamasta hyve-etiikasta Nietzschen, Marxin ja pragmatismin kautta takaisin jonkinlaisen hyve-etiikan pariin. Nussbaum nousi maineeseen kehitettyyn yhdessä Amartya Senin kanssa niin sanotun toimintavalmius-lähestymistavan (capabilities approach). Lähestymistavan ytimessä on ajatus siitä, että kulttuurieroista ym. huolimatta on olemassa tiettyjä universaaleja moraalisia tavoitteita, joita kohti meidän pitäisi yhdessä pyrkiä. Nussbaumille tällaisiä toimintavalmiuksia, joihin kaikille olisi tarjottava mahdollisuus ovat esimerkiksi mahdollisuus elää täysimittainen elämä, pysyä terveenä, vapaus väkivallasta, mahdollisuus tuntea tunteita ja luoda yhteyksiä muihin ihmisiin, kyky kriittiseen reflektioon, mahdollisuus leikkiin ja ymmärrys ei-inhimillisten olentojen hyvinvoinnista.
Tässä kirjassa Nussbaum käsittelee erityisesti kasvatusta ja koulutusta suhteessa siihen miten nämä toimintavalmiudet voidaan taata mahdollisimman monelle ja miksi tämä on erityisen tärkeää yhteiskunnille. Nussbaum ei edusta sellaista ylevää ”sivistys sivistyksen vuoksi” -kantaa vaan hän on yksinkertaisesti sitä mieltä, että humanististen -ja taideaineiden opetus on kohtalonkysymys demokraattisille yhteiskunnille. Jos halutaan, että meillä kansalaisia, jotka pystyvät reflektoimaan muutakin kuin oman navan ympärille kiertyvää maailmaa tarvitaan ymmärtämiseen, toisen asemaan asettumiseen ja luovuuteen kutsuvaa kasvatusta.
Tällaiseen kasvatukseen Nussbaum hakee esimerkkejä Tagoren tanssipedagogiikasta, Deweyn laboratoriokouluista ja vanhoista kunnon Fröbelin palikoista. Nussbaumille paraatiesimerkki hyvästä kasvatuksesta löytyy Chicagon lapsikuorosta, jossa monet erilaisista taustoista tulevat lapset ottavat yhdessä, kurinalaisesti mutta riemukkaasti, haltuun hyvin erilaisia musiikkiperinteitä – tekevät Bachista, juutalaisista kansanlauluista ja afrospirituaaleista yhteisesti jaettua perinnettä. Ylipäänsä Nussbaumin lähestymistapa on korosteisen kosmopoliittinen: verkottuneessa maailmassa koulutuksen pitäisi auttaa meitä ymmärtämään koko maailmaa. Siinä missä Deweyn näki tärkeäksi, että lapset oppivat esimerkiksi ymmärtämään miten vaatteiden valmistus toimii puuvillapelloilta kutomoon ja lopulta kauppaan, Nussbaum nostaa esiin miten tämän saman prosessin ymmärtäminen 2000-luvulla vaatii esimerkiksi ymmärrystä koloniaalisista rakenteista ja globaalista taloudesta. Sivistys ei siis ole mitään tosiasioista irrallista haihattelevaa elitismiä vaan niitä taitoja ja tietoja, joita tarvitaan maailman ymmärtämiseksi ja yhteisiin asioihin osallistumiseksi.
Sinänsä ihan hauskaa settiä siis edelleen, mutta ei tässä nyt mitään tajunnanräjäyttävää ole.
June 23, 2017
Nussbaum challenges the current push in education to make everything we learn submissive to a specific career. This view sees education as a benefit to our economy, largely to those who profit from the labor of others. Nussbaum reminds us that education is a public good — it benefits the learner, the teacher, and the communities we live in. The Humanities teach us not just valuable skills like problem solving and critical thinking that we need in our jobs, but empathy and compassion that we need to live in a functioning democracy. She draws from various approaches inside and outside the US, to provide a broad context. Yet, reading this during the 2016 presidential election shows us exactly what is at stake when we fail to have compassion for others. Not only the ignorant and hateful speech of the Republican candidate, but the failings of the DNC to understand the validity of different perspectives within their own party. Our democracy is a mess, this books helps us understand why. More importantly it is a manifesto calling for a change in how we think about education. Nussbaum makes it clear that we need to recognize the power of narratives, play, art, and cultural exploration.
November 6, 2020
An essay from which I expected much more, to be honest. I agree with her view on the fact that the education system, not merely in the US, is economized, with deplorable results. However, she barely gives any support to her arguments, make strong oversimplifications of her cases, and worst of all, it becomes clear that she is too overly convinced of her own conclusions that she feels there is no need to do so, e.g. the philosophy of Tagore (which is barely reflected upon but take as truth) of the notion of clash of civilization. Given the urgency of this topic, this is a sad realization.
January 14, 2013
I found this book to be a disappointing read. Rather repetitive and not terribly insightful, I question the reference to this book as a manifesto. It seems to me that there could be a much more thoughtful, broad survey of the decline of the humanities than what is offered here. While I'd hoped this book would do that, I guess I have to look elsewhere.
February 9, 2015
Nussbaum makes some good points but takes way too long to argue her case, which makes it a somewhat tedious and repetitive read.
September 25, 2021
“Como está se saindo a educação para a cidadania democrática no mundo de hoje? Receio que muito mal.”
Talvez seja um mal de professor, de conferir bibliografia citada como se tudo fosse um TCC mas, abordando o tema que aborda, como pode não haver nenhuma citação a Paulo Freire neste livro? Isso é ainda mais desconcertante quando sabemos que a autora, Martha Nussbaum, formou-se (e foi professora) em Harvard, instituição na qual Freire lecionou em 1969 e que adota seus preceitos educacionais. E eu poderia parar aqui: em vez de ler esse livro, leia qualquer coisa do Paulo Freire. Dito isso, não é que a obra de Nussbaum seja ruim; apenas não arranha o que já foi dito pelo brasileiro — e dito de modo muito mais contundente.
Ainda assim, há valor neste trabalho. Nussbaum toma o grande filósofo, poeta e polímata bengali Rabindranath Tagore como seu paradigma. Foi bem interessante ver como as ideias dele — primeiro não europeu a receber o Nobel de Literatura — já traziam preocupações que encontramos em Freire e que são não apenas atuais, mais de cem anos depois, mas cada vez mais prementes. Para além de diagnosticar o problema exposto no início da resenha, Tagore propunha uma solução: o ensino das artes e das humanidades. Para ele, a chave para a cidadania global era a capacidade de cada sujeito se colocar no lugar do outro.
John Dewey, a outra referência central para Nussbaum, segue na mesma linha. “Dewey insistia que, para as crianças, o que importa não são as ‘belas-artes’, querendo dizer com isso um exercício contemplativo no qual as crianças aprendem a ‘apreciar’ as obras de arte como objetos desligados da realidade. Nem elas deveriam ser levadas a acreditar que a imaginação só é admissível no domínio do irreal ou do imaginário. Em vez disso, elas precisam perceber que existe uma dimensão criativa em todas as suas interações e considerar que as obras de arte são apenas uma das esferas nas quais se cultiva a imaginação. ‘A diferença entre brincar e o que se considera uma ocupação séria não deve ser a diferença entre a presença e a ausência da imaginação, mas a diferença entre os materiais com os quais se ocupa a imaginação’”, segundo Dewey.
O problema — tanto então quanto agora — é que esses conhecimentos não geram lucro. Nussbaum reflete: “o que teremos se essas tendências continuarem? Nações com uma população tecnicamente treinada que não sabe como criticar a autoridade e geradores de lucro competentes com uma mente obtusa. Como Tagore observou, um suicídio da alma. Poderia haver algo mais assustador? Na verdade, quando contemplamos o estado indiano de Gujarat, que adotou esse modelo há bastante tempo, onde impera uma ausência total de raciocínio crítico nas escolas e um foco decidido na capacidade técnica, podemos entender claramente como um bando de engenheiros submissos pode se transformar numa força assassina para estabelecer as políticas mais horrivelmente racistas e antidemocráticas.”
De tão caricato, isso soa verdadeiro para o interior da Índia. Mas Nussbaum não pouca nem os Estados Unidos do tecnocrata Obama: “[a]inda mais problemático, o presidente Obama frequentemente elogia países do Extremo Oriente — Singapura, por exemplo —, que, do seu ponto de vista, nos deixaram para trás em educação tecnológica e científica. E elogia esses países de forma agourenta: ‘Eles estão empregando menos tempo ensinando coisas que não são importantes e mais tempo ensinando coisas que são. Eles não estão preparando seus alunos apenas para o curso médio ou para a universidade, mas para uma profissão. Nós não.’
“Sem fins lucrativos” atesta o óbvio (e não referencia quem seria óbvio…). Mas, relembrando Brecht, vivemos um tempo absurdo em que temos de defender o óbvio. É na denúncia de uma educação neoliberal, macabra atualização da educação pós-revolução industrial, que Nussbaum adere à resistência.
Talvez seja um mal de professor, de conferir bibliografia citada como se tudo fosse um TCC mas, abordando o tema que aborda, como pode não haver nenhuma citação a Paulo Freire neste livro? Isso é ainda mais desconcertante quando sabemos que a autora, Martha Nussbaum, formou-se (e foi professora) em Harvard, instituição na qual Freire lecionou em 1969 e que adota seus preceitos educacionais. E eu poderia parar aqui: em vez de ler esse livro, leia qualquer coisa do Paulo Freire. Dito isso, não é que a obra de Nussbaum seja ruim; apenas não arranha o que já foi dito pelo brasileiro — e dito de modo muito mais contundente.
Ainda assim, há valor neste trabalho. Nussbaum toma o grande filósofo, poeta e polímata bengali Rabindranath Tagore como seu paradigma. Foi bem interessante ver como as ideias dele — primeiro não europeu a receber o Nobel de Literatura — já traziam preocupações que encontramos em Freire e que são não apenas atuais, mais de cem anos depois, mas cada vez mais prementes. Para além de diagnosticar o problema exposto no início da resenha, Tagore propunha uma solução: o ensino das artes e das humanidades. Para ele, a chave para a cidadania global era a capacidade de cada sujeito se colocar no lugar do outro.
John Dewey, a outra referência central para Nussbaum, segue na mesma linha. “Dewey insistia que, para as crianças, o que importa não são as ‘belas-artes’, querendo dizer com isso um exercício contemplativo no qual as crianças aprendem a ‘apreciar’ as obras de arte como objetos desligados da realidade. Nem elas deveriam ser levadas a acreditar que a imaginação só é admissível no domínio do irreal ou do imaginário. Em vez disso, elas precisam perceber que existe uma dimensão criativa em todas as suas interações e considerar que as obras de arte são apenas uma das esferas nas quais se cultiva a imaginação. ‘A diferença entre brincar e o que se considera uma ocupação séria não deve ser a diferença entre a presença e a ausência da imaginação, mas a diferença entre os materiais com os quais se ocupa a imaginação’”, segundo Dewey.
O problema — tanto então quanto agora — é que esses conhecimentos não geram lucro. Nussbaum reflete: “o que teremos se essas tendências continuarem? Nações com uma população tecnicamente treinada que não sabe como criticar a autoridade e geradores de lucro competentes com uma mente obtusa. Como Tagore observou, um suicídio da alma. Poderia haver algo mais assustador? Na verdade, quando contemplamos o estado indiano de Gujarat, que adotou esse modelo há bastante tempo, onde impera uma ausência total de raciocínio crítico nas escolas e um foco decidido na capacidade técnica, podemos entender claramente como um bando de engenheiros submissos pode se transformar numa força assassina para estabelecer as políticas mais horrivelmente racistas e antidemocráticas.”
De tão caricato, isso soa verdadeiro para o interior da Índia. Mas Nussbaum não pouca nem os Estados Unidos do tecnocrata Obama: “[a]inda mais problemático, o presidente Obama frequentemente elogia países do Extremo Oriente — Singapura, por exemplo —, que, do seu ponto de vista, nos deixaram para trás em educação tecnológica e científica. E elogia esses países de forma agourenta: ‘Eles estão empregando menos tempo ensinando coisas que não são importantes e mais tempo ensinando coisas que são. Eles não estão preparando seus alunos apenas para o curso médio ou para a universidade, mas para uma profissão. Nós não.’
“Sem fins lucrativos” atesta o óbvio (e não referencia quem seria óbvio…). Mas, relembrando Brecht, vivemos um tempo absurdo em que temos de defender o óbvio. É na denúncia de uma educação neoliberal, macabra atualização da educação pós-revolução industrial, que Nussbaum adere à resistência.
February 22, 2026
- Los seres humanos somos propensos a someternos ante la autoridad y la presión de nuestros pares. Para evitar las atrocidades, debemos contrarrestar esas tendencias produciendo una cultura de disenso individual.
Si bien algunas partes de la lectura pueden hacerse pesadas o redundantes, Nussbaum apunta hacia algunas ideas realmente relevantes, que podrían cambiar la enseñanza y, en consecuencia, el curso vital de las sociedades actuales; entre ellas: la necesidad de tratar a cada alumno individual como un ser humano en pleno desarrollo de sus facultades mentales, que posee la capacidad de aportar algo, tanto activamente como creativamente.
Si bien algunas partes de la lectura pueden hacerse pesadas o redundantes, Nussbaum apunta hacia algunas ideas realmente relevantes, que podrían cambiar la enseñanza y, en consecuencia, el curso vital de las sociedades actuales; entre ellas: la necesidad de tratar a cada alumno individual como un ser humano en pleno desarrollo de sus facultades mentales, que posee la capacidad de aportar algo, tanto activamente como creativamente.
January 5, 2024
I read this for my Digital and Public Humanities class. Nussbaum argues humanities education is vital for democracy. She says schools increasingly teach profit-focused skills, instead of teaching abilities like critical thinking that sustain healthy democracies. I definitely agree with this, but her argument feels repetitive and overstated throughout the book. More examples of humanities programs successfully cultivating democratic citizenship could strengthen the book. I liked that she also included historical figures who wrote on this matter like Rousseau and Dewey.
May 25, 2023
Concordo que "[a] busca do raciocínio crítico, das ideias ousadas, da compreensão empática das diferentes experiências humanas e da compreensão da complexidade do mundo em que vivemos" (NUSSBAUM, pp. 8-9) deve ser fomentada. Além disso, é evidente que uma estrutura de ensino voltada às demandas do mercado está fadada a gerar um trabalho alienado e precarizado. No entanto, a Martha Nussbaum é tão reticente em dizer "o capitalismo vai destruir o mundo" (que é algo que ela nunca diz) que eu fiquei me perguntando se não seria melhor ir logo ler Paulo Freire, pois ele, além de mais direto, ainda faz uma reflexão sobre o contexto brasileiro (ao invés do estadunidense).
August 31, 2024
De vertaling naar het Nederlands is echt slordig. Dat daar gelaten, een prima pleidooi voor het belang van geesteswetenschappen, ik moet weer allemaal dingen die ik op hoge poten heb uit lopen kramen herzien. Leuk!
January 6, 2011
Nussbaum recommends Philosophy for Children as an exemplary program of “Socratic pedagogy,” which, she argues, is a necessary component of education in democratic societies. Nussbaum calls attention to a “world-wide crisis in education” (2): making national economic growth its primary purpose. This crisis involves “radical changes … in what democratic societies teach the young,” (2) and in particular, the de-emphasis and even elimination of teaching the humanities and the arts. Nussbaum’s own philosophy gives education three aims: to prepare people “for [democratic] citizenship, for employment and, importantly, for meaningful lives” (9). As her title indicates, the book’s focus is on the first of these aims, and its argument may be summed up in two statements: democracy requires three broad kinds of abilities - “the ability to think critically; the ability to transcend local loyalties and to approach world problems as a “citizen of the world”; and ... the ability to imagine sympathetically the predicaments of another person” (7); and a liberal arts education, with emphasis on the arts and humanities, is necessary to cultivate these abilities.
December 17, 2014
I really liked Nussbaum's book Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law, so I looked forward to reading this more recent book of hers. As she says, this is a 'manifesto' on the relevance of the humanities to the future of our democratic society in the United States. This is a manifesto, much shorter and to the point than Hiding from Humanity. One of my favorite quotes is: "But educators for economic growth will do more than ignore the arts, They will fear them. For a cultivated and developed sympathy is a particularly dangerous enemy of obtuseness, and moral obtuseness is necessary to carry out programs of economic development that ignore inequality. It is easier to treat people as objects to be manipulated if you have never learned any other way to see them." (pg 23).
January 25, 2012
Nussbaum wrote this as if it were directed to a broad audience, incapable of following careful and detailed arguments. In place of detailed arguments, pallid exposition of classic psychology experiments (Milgram, Zimbardo, etc.) alongside near constant urging of Tagore's ideas (an Indian philosopher). I expected to come away from the book knowing more about education, and more about the role of education in democracy, but the book accomplished neither.
March 18, 2011
She makes excellent points about education, but her presentation is unfocused.
November 8, 2018
A fairly random collection of anecdotal history, very slanted assumptions about what is needed for "democratic citizenship," and precious little in the way of argument.
Best avoided.
Best avoided.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 262 reviews