The Humanities and the Social Sciences

The Humanities and the Social SciencesAuthor(s): John AgrestoSource: PS, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Summer, 1983), pp. 543-545Published by: American Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/418618 .

Accessed: 11/06/2014 02:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toPS.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.126 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 02:07:32 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apsa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/418618?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


agreement on the validity and reliability of questions or their relative importance. In terms of research, differences among specializations and disciplines are not addressed. These issues should be addressed at a time when a number of universities are undergoing critical reevaluation of their criteria for tenure and promotion. The demands for more equitable administrative policies concerning tenure and promotion must be met in order to maintain the quality of university faculty and students. 71

APPENDIX Responding Schools

University/Dean's Statement Arizona State University Boise State University California State College, Bakersfield California State College, Stanislaus California State University, Chico California State University, Hayward California State University, Long Beach California State University, Northridge California State University, Sacramento Central Washington University Colorado State University Montana State University Oregon State University Portland State University San Francisco State University University of California, Irvine University of California, Los Angeles University of California, Riverside University of California, San Diego University of Colorado, Boulder University of Colorado, Colorado Springs University of Idaho University of Montana University of New Mexico University of Southern Colorado University of Utah University of Wyoming Utah State University Washington State University Weber State College Western Oregon State College Western Washington University

Department Statements Arizona State University California State Polytechnic University,

Pomona California State University, Chico California State University, Fullerton California State University, Sacramento

Portland State University Montana State University University of Arizona University of California, Los Angeles Utah State University Washington State University Western Washington University

The Humanities and the Social Sciences

John Agresto National Endowment for the Humanities

Editor's Note: In response to inquiries concerning what constitutes the humanities and consequently what studies are eligible for funding by NEH, John Agresto, assistant chairman of NEH and a political scientist, has written the article reprinted below.

Two separate issues have arisen regarding the relationship of the social sciences to the National Endowment for the Humanities. The first concern is defini- tional-What separates scholarship in the humanities from scholarship in the social sciences? The second concerns Endow- ment policy and priorities-To what degree do we wish to encourage in- creased participation in NEH activity by "humanistic social scientists"? Regarding the first question, congressional legislation on the matter of "defining" the humanities is relatively clear. It lists the humanities as the study of a variety of disciplines.' Though the legis-

'The term "humanities" includes, but is not limited to, the study of the following: lan- guage, both modern and classical; linguistics; literature; history; jurisprudence; philosophy; archeology; comparative religion; ethics; the history, criticism, and theory of the arts; those aspects of the social sciences which have humanistic content and employ humanistic methods; and the study and application of the humanities to the human environment with particular attention to the relevance of the humanities to the current conditions of national life (20 U.S.C. 952).

543



Forum on the Discipline

lation muddies the waters somewhat by noting that the humanities are "not limited to" these disciplines alone, the clear core of the congressional understanding is that the humanities are to be understood in terms of the various disciplines traditionally listed as comprising the humanities. Given this understanding there is no mystery about what Congress means by encouraging NEH support for "those aspects of the social sciences which have humanities content and employ humanistic methods. .. ." Most simply put, social scientists are welcome to apply to NEH if, despite their nominal departmental affiliation, their work is essentially similar to work done in history, philosophy, jurisprudence, etc. Under this interpretation, a political philosopher in a political science department is on the exact same footing as a social theorist in a philosophy department. Perhaps recognizing that its listing by discipline might be construed as em- bracing and rejecting certain academic departments, the legislation gives NEH the latitude to support study in humanities disciplines no matter what departmental name or title is attached to the principal investigator. It must be recognized that this disciplinary approach towards defining the char- acter of a study in the humanities has often come under severe (some might even say fatal) attack. Some have argued that such a "definition" (actually a description, for it is hardly a definition) makes the humanities into little more than a collection of diverse fields and that it takes what may well be no more than an administrative convenience within academic life and treats it as a unified whole. Because of these and other problems the National Council attempted in 1 967-68 to devise a better definition of the humanities than the Congressional list. There were three major papers written during that period, all trying to redefine the humanities; all met with rejec- tion. The most ambitious was the attempt to define the humanities as "the study of matters to which consideration of human value intrinsically adhere." Although not without some plausibility, the attempt to see "values" as the core of the humanities has even greater limita- tions than the listing of disciplines.

The fact remains, however, that for our purposes, the humanities are legislatively defined by the listed disciplines. More- over, given the tendency of many on the outside to see the humanities as some- thing akin to humanitarianism, "'human- izing," or some practical program of general benevolence it is a perfectly appropriate corrective for us to explain that by the humanities we mean "the study of history, literature, philosophy, etc." Also though such a description does not rule out "interdisciplinary" work, it does drive home the notion that we have no obligation to transcend the historic disciplines in search of some variety of higher consciousness,

My urging that we not redefine the humanities in order to know where to divide the humanities from the social sci ences has at least the virtue of eliminating a full Council dispute over any idio- syncratic definition of the humanities I might myself propose. Does it get us any closer to seeing what, in the social sciences, is appropriate and what is not? I think it does, though imperfectly. Im- perfectly, first, because even within the traditional humanities disciplines them- selves, there are still problems of what is more and what is less "humanistic." (Is logic, which is part of philosophy, in the humanities or in mathematics or natural sciences? Is interpreting historical data more humanistic than collecting it? When does a work rise up to the status of "literature"? And so on.) Nevertheless, if we begin with a disciplinary approach, we can have as a rough and ready guide, the following criterion: Studies in the social sciences that are essentially historical or philosophical in nature are, for our purposes, sufficiently within the humanities. Without eliminating all per- plexities by any means, this approach would be a very straightforward way of welcoming a good number of social science projects without having to invent unworkable and artificial distinctions between the humanities and the social sciences. It is the easiest and most obvious way of giving meaning to the legislative phrasing that opens the door to "those parts of the social sciences that have humanistic content and employ humanistic methods."

544 PS Summer 1983



Note that, up to now, an artificial rule often was used to separate the social sciences from the humanities. The general statements in most of our guide.- lines divided the social sciences from the humanities on the basis of "quantifica- tion" and "empiricism"-if the study was predominantly quantitative or empirical it was ineligible. Such a dividing rule, however, seems increasingly not to speak to the real difference between the two areas, fuels the notion that the social sciences are "empirical" and the humanities merely impressionistic, and over- looks the work properly done in the humanities which has been somewhat "quantitative. "2 More appropriate for our

purposes is the way in which the Fel- lowships Division recently rewrote its guidelines regarding social sciences. In place of relying on the distinction between quantitative and non-quantitative as the rule for distinguishing what was in and out of the humanities, the Division now says that "studies in the social and natural sciences that are historical or philosophical, or which attempt to cast light on questions of interpretation or criticism traditionally in the humanities, are eligible and encouraged to apply." Subject matter, not methodology, is the more important consideration, There is no hard and fast dividing line between the humanities and the social sciences. They are imprecise descriptions of phenomena not found in nature; we should not seek to impose greater clarity than imprecise matter itself allows. It strikes me that those scholars the world describes as social scientists, when their work is essentially historical or philosophical (those are the two most likely disciplines), are eligible and should be encouraged to apply. We need not and probably cannot get more detailed than that. D

2Were I to suggest a non-discipline-based cal- culus by which to distinguish the humanities from the core of social sciences it would rest not upon "values" or "empiricism" but on the distinctive way they each understand causal- ity and human agency. Insofar as the social sciences explain human phenomena and human events as "caused," fully explainable without reference to reason, choice, or will, then they stand apart from the humanities. If instead of reason we are given "causes" as the explanatory vehicle, if we are given test- able models rather than arguments, then we have truly made a "social science" of human affairs and have left the humanities as inter- esting but fundamentally irrelevant modes of knowing. Yet, since I also recognize the limits of this touchstone as a rule for separating the two fields, I'll leave it as a footnote and not give it as a conclusion,

545



Documents

The Humanities and the Social Sciences