Advertisement

Humanities Are Natural

  • Paul Cobley
Chapter
  • 369 Downloads
Part of the Biosemiotics book series (BSEM, volume 15)

Abstract

There is a very real constraint on culture in the contemporary world, as opposed to the Deaconian constraint which is arguably at the centre of culture. The humanities are currently under assault for their perceived lack of utility. The humanities are found wanting in the face of the putative utility of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), and they are increasingly called upon to demonstrate direct economic use-value. Subject areas such as medieval history are seen by critics of the humanities as being arcane, over-specialised and divorced from the brute economic realities which are supposedly paramount in contemporary life.

Keywords

Business School Humpback Whale Verbal Code Musical Sign Cognitive Bearing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Agamben G. Homo sacer. Trans. Deborah Heller-Roazen. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  2. Alibhai-Brown Y. After Multiculturalism. London: Foreign Policy Centre, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. Althusser L. For marx. Trans. Ben Brewster. London: New Left Books; 1969.Google Scholar
  4. American Council of Learned Societies. Text of ‘Speaking for the Humanities’. Chron High Educ. 1988;35(A1):A11–2.Google Scholar
  5. Andrews KR. Liberal education for competence and responsibility. In: Donaldson TJ, Freeman ER, editors. Business as a humanity. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994. p. 152–66.Google Scholar
  6. Barthes R. From work to text. In: Stephen Heath, ed. and trans. Image – music – text, London: Fontana; 1977a. p. 155–64.Google Scholar
  7. Bate J. Introduction. In: Bate J, editor. The public value of the humanities. London: Bloomsbury; 2011. p. 1–16.Google Scholar
  8. Beard M. Live classics or ‘What’s the use of Aeschylus in Darfur’? In: Bate J, editor. The public value of the humanities. London: Bloomsbury; 2011. p. 17–29.Google Scholar
  9. Bennis WG, O’Toole J. How business schools lost their way. Harv Bus Rev. 2005;83:96–104.Google Scholar
  10. Blasco M. Cultural pragmatists? Student perspectives on learning culture at a business school. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2009;8(2):174–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bourdieu P. Distinction. Trans. Richard Nice. London: Routledge; 1984.Google Scholar
  12. Brier S. Cybersemiotics: why information is not enough! Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2008a.Google Scholar
  13. Bryson JS. How Jihadist education breeds violence Public Discourse. (2010, 29 Mar). http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1221/. Last accessed 17 Nov 2014.
  14. Churchwell S. Humanities: why the study of human culture still matters. Times High Educ. 13 Nov 2014.Google Scholar
  15. Cobley P. The American thriller: generic innovation and social change in the 1970s. London: Palgrave; 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cobley P. Metaphysics of wickedness. In: Thellefsen T, Sørensen B, editors. Peirce in his own words. Berlin: de Gruyter; 2014.Google Scholar
  17. Cobley P, Randviir A. What is sociosemiotics? Sociosemiotica special issue eds. Cobley and Randviir Semiotica. 2009; 173 (1–2):1–39.Google Scholar
  18. Cobley P, Stjernfelt F. Scaffolding development and the human condition. Biosemiotics. 2015;8(2):291–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cobley P, Deely J, Kull K, Petrilli S. Introduction: Thomas A. Sebeok: biography and 20th century role. In: Paul C et al., editors. “Semiotics Continues to Astonish”: Thomas A. Sebeok and the doctrine of signs. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Collini S. What are universities for? Harmondsworth: Penguin; 2012.Google Scholar
  21. De George RT. Business as a humanity: a contradiction in terms. In: Donaldson TJ, Freeman ER, editors. Business as a humanity. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994. p. 11–26.Google Scholar
  22. De Waal F. Good natured: the origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  23. Deacon TW. Incomplete nature: how mind emerged from matter. New York: Norton; 2012a.Google Scholar
  24. Deely J. Semiotic animal. South Bend: St Augustine’s Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  25. Deely J, Petrilli S, Ponzio A. The semiotic animal. New York: Legas; 2005.Google Scholar
  26. Eco U. Caro nipotino mio. L’espresso. 3 Jan 2014. http://espresso.repubblica.it/visioni/2014/01/03/news/umberto-eco-caro-nipote-studia-a-memoria-1.147715?refresh_ce (last accessed 16 July 2016)
  27. Feldman DC. The food’s no good and they don’t give us enough: reflections on Mintzberg’s critique of MBA education. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2005;4(2):217–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fish SE. Will the humanities save us? New York Times. 6 Jan 14. 2008.Google Scholar
  29. Freeman ER. Epilogue. In: Donaldson TJ, Freeman ER, editors. Business as a humanity. New York: OxfordUniversity Press; 1994. p. 215–26.Google Scholar
  30. Gambetta D, Hertog S. Engineers of Jihad sociology working papers, University of Oxford; 2007. p. 1–88.Google Scholar
  31. Ghoshal S. Bad management theories are destroying good management practice. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2005;4(1):75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gordon RA, Howell JE. Higher education for business. New York: Columbia University Press; 1959.Google Scholar
  33. Hauser MD et al. The faculty of language: what is it, who has it and how did it evolve? Science. 22 Nov 2002;298(5598):1569–79.Google Scholar
  34. Hoffmeyer J. Surfaces inside surfaces. On the origin of agency and life. Cybern Hum Know. 1998;5:33–42.Google Scholar
  35. Howard D. Architectural history in academia and the wider community. In: Bate J, editor. The public value of the humanities. London: Bloomsbury; 2011. p. 76–86.Google Scholar
  36. Huyssen A. After the great divide: modernism, mass culture, postmodernism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johansen JD. Semiotics, biology, and the adaptionist theory of literature. In: Cobley P, editor. Semiotics continues to astonish’. Thomas A. Sebeok and the doctrine of signs. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton; 2011. p. 207–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kagan J. The three cultures: natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities in the 21st century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Katsuno Y, Eguchi K, Noske RA. Preference for and spatial arrangement of decorations of different colours by the Great Bowerbird. Ptilonorhynchus Nuchalis Nuchalis Aust Field Ornithol. 2013;30(1):3–13.Google Scholar
  40. Kelly M. Language matters 2. Modern languages. In: Bate J, editor. The public value of the humanities. London: Bloomsbury; 2011. p. 259–71.Google Scholar
  41. Lotman YM. The text and the structure of its audience. New Lit Hist. 1982;14(1):81–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marrone G. The invention of the text. Milan: Mimesis; 2014.Google Scholar
  43. McAllister QO. Business executives and the humanities. Raleigh: University of North Carolina Press; 1951.Google Scholar
  44. Mcdonald R. The value of art and the art of evaluation. In: Bate J, editor. The public value of the humanities. London: Bloomsbury; 2011. p. 283–94.Google Scholar
  45. Mintzberg H. Managers not MBAs: a hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler; 2004.Google Scholar
  46. Morsing M, Rovira AS. Prologue: business schools as usual? In: Morsing, Rovira, editors. Business schools and their contribution to society. Los Angeles: Sage; 2011. p. xviii–xxi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nelson JK, Poms LW, Wolf PP. Developing efficacy beliefs for ethics and diversity management. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2012;11(1):49–68.Google Scholar
  48. Nussbaum MC. Not for profit: why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton University Press: Princeton; 2010.Google Scholar
  49. O’Brien R. Foreword. In: Nussbaum MC, editor. Not for profit: why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2010. p. ix–xii.Google Scholar
  50. O’Gorman F. Making meaning: literary research in the twenty-first century. In: Bate J, editor. The public value of the humanities. London: Bloomsbury; 2011. p. 272–82.Google Scholar
  51. Parker Pearson M. The value of archaeological research. In: Bate J, editor. The public value of the humanities. London: Bloomsbury; 2011. p. 30–43.Google Scholar
  52. Pfeffer J, Fong CT. The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2002;1(1):78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pierson FC. The education of American businessmen. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1959.Google Scholar
  54. Popper B. Build-a-bomber: why do so many terrorists have engineering degrees? Slate 29 Dec 2009 http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2009/12/buildabomber.html. Last accessed 17 Nov 2014.
  55. Pugès L. European business schools and globalization. In: Morsing M, Rovira AS, editors. Business schoolsand their contribution to society. Los Angeles/London: Sage; 2011. p. 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Porter LW, McKibbin LE. Management education and development: drift or thrust into the 21st century? New York: McGraw-Hill; 1988.Google Scholar
  57. Sebeok TA. Prefigurements of art. Semiotica. 1979b;27:3–73Google Scholar
  58. Sebeok TA. I think I am a verb: more contributions to the doctrine of signs. New York: Plenum Press; 1986a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sebeok TA. The problem of the origin of language in an evolutionary frame. Lang Sci. 1986b;8(2):168–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Solomon RC. Business and the humanities: an Aristotelian approach to business ethics. In: Donaldson TJ, Freeman ER, editors. Business as a humanity. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994. p. 45–75.Google Scholar
  61. Starkey K, Tempest S. The business school in ruins? In: Gagliardi P, Czarniawska B, editors. Management education and the humanities. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2006. p. 101–12.Google Scholar
  62. Starkey K, Tiratsoo N. The business school and the bottom line. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tønnessen M. The biosemiotic glossary project: agent, agency. Biosemiotics. 2015;8(1):125–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tuchman G. Wannabe U: inside the corporate university. Chicago/London: Chicago University Press; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Watt G. Hard cases, hard times and the humanity of law. In: Bate J, editor. The public value of the humanities. London: Bloomsbury; 2011. p. 197–207.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Cobley
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Distinguished Visiting Professor, School of Foreign Languages and CulturesNanjing Normal UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.President of the International Association for Semiotic Studies; and Professor in Language and Media, School of Media and Performing ArtsMiddlesex UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations