English Major? Part II

Stanley Fish is back in the Times, defending his article that the study of Humanities serves no purpose. He clarifies his point (it's not that works of literature and art do nothing, it's that studying them in a classroom does nothing) and he reestablishes his point (real world understanding and academic understanding are independent).

"All of this should not be taken to mean, as it was by some, that I am attacking the humanities or denigrating them or declaring them worthless. I am saying that the value of the humanities cannot be validated by some measure external to the obsessions that lead some (like me) to devote their working lives to them– measures like increased economic productivity, or the fashioning of an informed citizenry, or the sharpening of moral perceptions, or the lessening of prejudice and discrimination."

Well, Stanley. You've made your point pretty clear. And reluctantly, I might have to agree with parts of it. ("What benefit do literary studies hold out to those asked to support them? Not much of anything except the (parochial) excitement experienced by those caught up in arcane discussions of the mirror stage, the trace, the subaltern and the performative." Half the time, I bore my wife and friends with my discussions of 16th century religious discourse surrounding Lancelot Andrews' influence on drama. If the wife can't listen, what hope is there?) And yet. I do think studying literature, not just reading it but breaking it down in the classroom can "sharpen moral perceptions" and "lessen prejudice and discrimination." So.