What's the use of literature?

Priyamvada Gopal, Dean of Churchill College, Cambridge, and Senior Lecturer to the English faculty, appeared on yesterday's Start The Week to publicise her appearance on an RSL lecture entitled 'What's the Use of Literature?' and explain why she believes the Coalition's education cuts will impoverish the humanities. Regrettably, her argument seemed to revolve in ever-decreasing circles of solipsism around the idea that reading English is useful because close reading, comparing texts and appreciating the nuances of interpretation is useful. She didn't at any point tell us what these skills are good for, and it wasn't hard to imagine the collective sigh of 'so what?' going up around the country. The whole thing felt like a missed opportunity to draw attention to something both important and, to my mind, relatively obvious. What she should have said is that the abilities the humanities foster - independent thought, rational analysis, synthesis of information, considered judgement and eloquent argument - are vital components of a civilised society. Indeed, I think the humanities are the only manmade construct which holds equal sway alongside our inherent capacity for love in the difficult and strange process of civilising ourselves. Without the humanities you wouldn't have democratic government, civil rights, free speech, religion and the freedom to reject it, the welfare state, the civil rights movement, Radio 4 or The Beatles. As for the person who sneers and says, 'yeah, but so what?' - well, the plain fact is that he wouldn't be able to say that if it weren't for the humanities, because dialectic (the resolution of disagreement through dialogue) wouldn't exist without Socrates. So science cannot flourish without the humanities, and vice versa. For example, a scientist working on stem cell research is doing important but controversial work. Now, he doesn't need an English graduate to sit there and tell him whether what he's doing is right or wrong, but his thinking on ethics is nonetheless informed by every book he's ever read and every teacher he's ever had. And the degree of ethical consideration invested in our actions is the barometer of how humane, equal and emancipated a person, nation or species is. Furthermore the skills which humanities teach are a useful commodity in their own right. Without them we wouldn't have the tertiary economy which is vital to a nation like Britain with its dwindling agriculture and industry. Finally, a novel or a poem is the vessel which conveys our essential humanity: these are the artefacts which teach us to empathise with others, to remember and to dream. Of course, a dream doesn't have any inherent value. But that's the point of dreams: they're free, and, being free, priceless.

Comments

[Doney]

Good points about it being a missed opportunity to not just defend the area but also showcase how it fundamentally underpins other disciplines and should, ideally, complement the sciences.
When you think about it, someone who is 'arguing the case' like Gopal, should be adept enough to employ the sorts of more nuanced argument that would turn this sort of question on its head and show how critical study of literature can open the door to wider perspectives beyond the standard narrative re the Humanities being undemanding and ill-suited to modern day needs.

While it is the way of the world that more resources will go into science and tech courses, as we need to be able to understand the world around us at a fundamental scientific level, this should not lead to the canceling out of resources for humanities. A good university education should facilitate scientific study in parallel with equal emphasis on humanities. I think that the Greeks (not the current ones) would agree.