The survey you sent didn’t seem to be very directly related to this discussion; it just says that Catholics have become “mainstream” in general, so you assume that they’re not any more anti-intellectual than the rest of the population. But when we talk about Catholics on this site, we sometimes basically mean “orthodox Catholics” or “traditional Catholics” (that being the sort of crowd that mainly comes here.) Lots of people self-identify as Catholic, including many who basically don’t even go to Mass, but I don’t think that’s the group John L was primarily thinking about. And that sort isn’t likely to help much in halting the advance of modernism in the Academy. Among traditional Catholics, I think there is sometimes an anti-intellectual bias; people don’t trust that university jobs are really worthwhile work. Anyway, that seems to have been his concern, and we see a little of it on this same thread, i.e. in the references to “touchy feely subjects.”

By the way, do you mind telling us, John L: what do you do, exactly? You seem to have fairly definite opinions about the state of philosophy these days, which makes me curious. Do you really think an orthodox Catholic could make it as a philosopher of mind?

Finally, I think the anonymous professor and Andreas are quite right that turning to history (not necessarily in history departments per se, but anything to do with the medieval period, ancient Greece, the Roman Empire etc. is likely to give you some wiggle room) is a good strategy for a Catholic. And, Anon, I’ll be glad to write up some tips on finding an academic job as a Catholic… as soon as I have some. Haven’t really cracked that nut yet. :)

Two points:

1. I feel for John L., and I find his claims to be interesting. Does anyone know of data at a more general level regarding Catholic attitudes to the value of cultivation by means of the sciences and liberal arts?

I bumped into a link to and consideration of survey data on American Catholics with respect to a range of attitudes and behaviors here:

http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/1633

That those attitudes and behaviors basically track those of other Americans leads me to expect that the degree of American Catholic anti-intellectualism, whatever it may actually be, will not differ much from that of Americans generally, whatever it may actually be. That expectation will be disappointed if there turns out to be something special about anti-intellectualism as an outcome.

2. Not regarding John L.’s friends who I don’t know, but rather people like them who prefer technical training:

Regardless of one’s ultimate understanding of reality and stance toward it, whether that be traditional Catholic, aleatory materialist, hybrid gender queer cyborg sex radical, or some other position, using philistine return-on-investment considerations to decide on graduate school need not be considered anti-intellectual. Something else might be going on.

That technical training seeker might be so “intellectual” that he actually attended graduate school, got into debt like a true believer because he could not accept any other way forward, but now considers it to have been a mistake precisely because of the anti-intellectual environment he found there, years before ever becoming one of those anti-intellectual traditional Catholics himself. He might see it as a money thing now because of lowered expectations, and not because he is incapable of grasping the great thing the academy might be in another world path dependent upon a history that never was. He might not confuse his lowered expectations with the value of scholarship proper.

Not bitter.

An anti-intellectual might want technical training, but not all those who want technical training are anti-intellectual. That claim has not yet been made, I know. I just want to prevent it.

It’s definitely true that in the humanities the historical period is a good way to be able to focus on the questions/answers one wants, and also have some respectability within the discipline (as a scholar, knowledgeable of texts).

It’s not so important that the material one studies be Catholic as such, but rooted in classical principles and imbued with a natural law ‘worldview’ (so Greece and Rome).

It could be good to have a list of “getting a job” and “getting tenure” tips as well, Clara…

This can result in some cruel ironies. Our students devour Gregorian chant, Fra Angelico, and Chartres Cathedral in their classes. Then they go to the Newman center or local parish and are given Marty Haugen, felt banners, and thinly disguised lecture halls. Many of them simply stop going to Mass once the other shoe has dropped.

In my experience and judgment, that is. Of course, some people do pursue it seriously and without an agenda. It’s more scientific than what literary theory (as opposed to literary criticism per se) has become.

Apply this logic universally: “Traditionally, military opposition to Mohammedans was almost always the realm of military orders and of men on Crusade — so these are the men who should be resisting jihad and other such things. It can be highly irresponsble for a lay man, without the crusader’s cross, serving in the national military of a non-confessional, secular state, to resist Mohammedan jihad.”

I’m sure that you’d like military orders and Crusades to come back — so would I. I’d like it for all universities to be commissioned and “censored” by the Church, including state universities and Cornell. I’d like it for teaching orders to come back, and for there to be more clerics teaching theology at Catholic universities. I’d like theology to be the acknowledged queen of the sciences (and recognized as a science, not as “touchy-feely”), with philosophy as her handmaid. But that won’t happen for awhile, it certainly won’t happen if Catholics intentionally refuse to obtain graduate degrees, and when it does happen it won’t require that theolog, philosophy, and literature, etc., be the sole pursuit of the celibate and the independently wealthy.

Business degrees are a relatively recent innovation, and “reading for the law” (i.e. training yourself to be a lawyer) used to be possible in most states, and in a few still is. That’s what Abraham Lincoln did. Of course these professions have standards, customs, etc., but why couldn’t such things be learned from books? I realize that the system doesn’t allow for self-teaching these days, which on the whole is probably good (though I wish we did more to formally distinguish programs like that — which are essentially trade schools — from the liberal arts, which are the traditional concern of the university.) But there’s a lot more historical precedent for self-teaching those subjects than there is for self-teaching philosophy, which was the point I wanted to make to Eodsix.

I’m in favor, at least theoretically, of priests and religious being academics, though I would wait until we have more of them before beating that drum too hard. At the moment, the highest priority is to make sure the faithful have recourse to the sacraments. Even if we had lots of priests, though, there’s no historical precedent for your plan of leaving the liberal arts entirely to priests and religious. Even in the high Middle Ages, there were laymen doing philosophy. Everyone here is agreeing that we can’t have everybody doing this, but as someone who was myself fed and clothed on a professor’s salary, I can say that it works out well for some.

Actually, you might be interested to know that my own father left a stable and lucrative job and went into academia mainly because he thought it would be better for his family. He had three children already and would eventually have two more, and we had a few lean years just after the switch, but I have absolutely no doubt that he made the right choice for all of us. As a lawyer, he was coming home after 9 most nights, working weekends, and being sent out of town on a regular basis. We barely saw him. As an academic, he could spend virtually every evening and weekend with his wife and children, and his schedule was flexible enough to plan family vacations, to take us to school on his way to work in the mornings, and to be available for school plays or soccer games. Families need more than just money, and an academic job, if you can get one, can be fairly ideal for a parent.

Is my friend JSP really suggesting that what we need are more priests who are touchy-feely? I can’t think so!

I think, sir, you are not thinking about this enough. If a study is worth pursuing, then its worth having some laymen pursue; if it’s not worth pursuing, then why should clerics waste their time in it? Your remarks are implicitly critical of the clerical state (it’s for people who do “useless” labors, who can’t be “helpful” to society). And if liberal study is only for clerics, is it only for clerics that it is being preserved? Modern market economies and contemporary technology have provided the possibility of true leisure to a larger number of men than at any time previous in history. The liberal arts are, following Pieper, the study of the right ordering of leisure. As TP says, it’s only for the few to teach and profess the full-time study of such things; but the leisurely pursuit of them is the proper ordering of what time is not spent in labor, familial duty, or prayer. To be sure, when we have again a surfeit of clerics, it were well that they should fill the scholarly ranks again; but that time is not near, and until then it is not only permissible, but vital, that Catholics of good faith and sound mind hold such positions that are so vital to the formation of young minds and to the direction of elite opinion.

First, my own field, classics, is not touchy-feely. Secondly, I am single, but not “committed to the single state.” You do realize that many grad students eventually get jobs in academia, and that the pay there is enough to raise a family on, right? I don’t know any professors who eat ramen noodles. Heck, I don’t eat that garbage.

“I think going to graduate school for these “touchy feely” degrees can be highly irresponsible for Catholic laymen.”

Theology, classics, and philosophy are not intrinsically “touchy-feely.” Back in the “good old days” when “only the religious learned them,” I’m sure you wouldn’t call them touch-feely. I realize you’re picking up these terms from someone else’s comments, but enough is enough. Sociology (for the most part), women’s studies, queer studies, literary theory — *those* are the touchy-feely subjects. They simply should be eradicated.

As for the claim, I think joinging the military “can be” highly irresponsible. So can becoming a lawyer, an accountant, a banker, etc. “Can be” just admits possibility. Given particular circumstances, virtually anything “could be” highly irresponsible.

As for the substance of the claim, yes, the majority of people should pursue a revenue-oriented career track. A nation or economy of academics could not exist. Only a minority of people should get jobs in the liberal arts, I think, as the liberal arts are not designed to support people. But some people should be teaching them, as they are worthwhile. Of course, having religious teach them would have the benefit of driving down the costs of university education.

Traditionally, these fields were almost always the realms of the religious — so these are the men and women who should be translating the Summa and the other such things.

Why should your family be living on raman noodles, just so you can pursue your medieval Arabic literature degree or some other such thing?

I suppose if you have no family and are committed to the single state or if you are independently wealthy, then there is no real danger in pursuing whatever degree you want.

Regarding “self-teaching” – the fields such as law, medicine, business, government or military service are self-regulating professions that require aspirants to learn and adhere to certain standards, customs, ethics, and practices. These things cannot be self-taught. And even if they could be self-taught, the professional organizations have a responsibility to control access to only qualified members.

I don’t want my taxes done, or a triple-bypass done, or an Apache helicopter, armed with hellfire missiles, flown, by self-taught hacks.

In the first place, I’m rather bemused by your claim that philosophy can be “easily self-taught.” If my students are any indication, most people have a lot of trouble making heads or tails of philosophy even when they have a competent teacher to help them. And come on, even Aristotle had a teacher to get him started. But seriously, it’s pretty darn tough for a normal person to just sit down and read, say, Wittgenstein, and get much out of it. The same is true for someone like Dante, or Faulkner, or a slew of other brilliant writers. Maybe you’re just unusually brilliant, but most people need to be trained to read well, and to think and write critically. This involves, among other things, criticism from other intelligent people, and the opportunity to ask questions of people who know more than you. And it’s also good to have people with whom to discuss your ideas. Scholars need these things; this is why universities were organized to begin with.

Another factor is time. After you select your revenue-producing career and start making money, you probably won’t have a lot of outside time to devote to these “touchy-feely subjects.” A serious scholarly project (say, doing your own translation of the Summa) is extremely time-consuming. You can’t do it in the hour between the kids’ bedtime and yours, or in the down time on Sunday afternoons. But see, we want some people to do stuff like that, and we don’t want all those people to be liberals and modernists. So somebody’s got to go to grad school.

And a final note to eodsix: “revenue producing”? Are we just worker bees? Or cows making milk? Going to school “to make revenue” turns the whole idea of Liberal education, from its start to its perilous current state, on its head. One cannot be “liber” if money is his prime motivational factor in life.