Butler and Athanasiou: Chapter 20

In chapter twenty, “The University, the humanities, and the book bloc” Butler and Athanasiou discuss how institutions of higher learning have become increasingly concerned about the institution’s commercial marketability, especially concerning concentrations that do not directly translate into jobs or are applicable to specific industries. Beyond the fact that certain majors are seen as not being lucrative, Butler states, “the basic rights and entitlements are also eroded within such a context, refashioned as ‘investments’ or as ‘disposable goods’”(190).  I think as humanities students at Emory we all can empathize and share in this sentiment. Most of us watched, and perhaps reacted, as the ‘Emory cuts’ were announced and implemented. When reading chapter I could imagine those events being recounted by Butler as the perfect example of how universities have become more interested in their marketability to the real world, as well as an example of political performativity through both the faculty and students’ responses. Bonnie Honig would applaud the coalition between faculty and students, who usually have different expectations and goals, but came together in the moment of crisis.

There were fiscal, quantifiable reasons given by the university for the cuts and new programs were announced that were deemed more relevant for the rapidly changing world, but to many students in the liberal arts, whether directly affected or not, it felt as though our own institution was publicly belittling us and our chosen fields of study. As someone who’s primary major was publicly demeaned and insulted by Obama, Emory’s movement against the liberal arts was not surprising but definitely alienating. Butler and Athanasiou focus on this conundrum of universities and society no longer finding an education of critical thinking important, and if that’s so, why pay the high price of admittance to these institutions when “one’s knowledge is unrecognizable by prevailing market standards?”(192).