To the editor:
About “How to Save a Sad, Lonely, Angry, and Mean Society” by David Brooks (column, January 28):
As a published author married to a writer and filmmaker, I deeply appreciated Mr. Brooks’ column.
It pains me to witness the decline in the value of the arts and humanities in modern times. When I was a child, my mother, an art history major, took me to many of the world’s great museums, including the National Museum of Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the Louvre. I may have protested after the first hour of her, but certain works left an indelible impression, such as the terrifying passion of Klimt’s The Kiss or the mesmerizing movement of Calder’s mobile.
Similarly, literature has provided me with different perspectives. By immersing yourself in these worlds, you can explore the harsh yet loving existence of the Ingalls family in Little House on the Prairie, the dark history of Japanese American internment in A Farewell to Manzanar, and the unique weaknesses of Shakespeare’s characters. , my understanding of life deepened and my spiritual strength grew. That’s exactly what Mr. Brooks said: compassion.
At a time when my alma mater, Stanford University, reports that all five of its top undergraduate majors are in STEM fields, and computer science is by far the most popular, our society is on alert Brooks We desperately need voices like his. of our very soul.
Maymay Fox
Honolulu
To the editor:
I cannot ignore David Brooks’ claim that the humanities can help us practice empathy. “College students are fleeing the humanities for computer science, as if they have decided that professional advancement is more important than the state of their soul.” As if being able to pay the bills and take time off It’s as if being able to afford something and having a family isn’t important to your soul.
I’m tired of boomers talking as if the choices of later generations reflect our values rather than our constraints. Art museums and opera? Or maybe student loans? These cultural opportunities are often expensive.
If he wanted to do more than publish a boastful list of the experiences that made him an international deep thinker, why stop praising his experiences in Venice and Chartres and St. should have thought about whether their habits have changed or how society can change them. The experience becomes more accessible.
I agree that culture is beneficial and its social decline is a loss. But his thesis that while culture makes us empathetic and smart, it also lacks empathy and awareness of our own privilege in framing issues is what could have been a valid point. is mocking. Although he seems educated, he seems isolated.
jennifer crookshank
West Point, New York
To the editor:
What a joy to read David Brooks’s full support of the humanities as a site of resistance to the dehumanization that hollows out our lives. His assessment of the value of education in fostering humanistic qualities is especially welcome at a time when most conversations about education focus narrowly on the quantitative and measurable.
As a longtime literature professor and author of Incalculable Results: Teaching Shakespeare in the Age of Algorithms, I can tell you that when students engage with complex literary texts, they are developing mental muscles that will serve them well in life. Masu. They gain versatility, flexibility, and adaptability that prepare them professionally in a rapidly changing world, but more than that, they learn how to survive.
The challenges we face as we navigate the human minefield are linguistic, social, and dialogic in nature. That means learning to interpret your fellow human beings, to see the meaning behind words, to read between the lines, and to resist the many agendas that are pushed upon you.That way we won’t be “led like a donkey by the nose” Like the poor fool who littered the stage with corpses at the end of the tragedy (as Iago says of Othello).
Humanities are not superfluous, they are survival skills. It has a longer shelf life than automation, outsourcing, or specialized training, which can be obsolete within a few years.
Gail Green
Mendocino, California
The author is a professor emeritus at Scripps University.
To the editor:
David Brooks’ fascinating article on the role of literature and the arts in making us sentient beings and able to understand others was spot on. However, he did not mention how the study of history adds an important dimension.
History not only helps us understand how we got to where we are today, but also reveals the “eyes of time” on the past. In order to fully appreciate the art and literature of others, we must learn to understand how and what others saw in other times and places. not. In doing so, you may realize how flexible, complex, and diverse the human mind is, and how much there is to see and learn.
steve davidson
Georgetown, Texas
The author is Professor Emeritus of History at Southwestern University.
To the editor:
Bravo, David Brooks, for explaining why the arts are the soul of humanity and therefore should be an important part of formal/informal education. Years ago, universities recognized that need by creating “core requirements” for graduation. Today, defenders of “individual freedom” dismiss them as irrelevant.
I used to advise high school math students to take the minimum number of classes required for their major, immerse themselves in a variety of studies, including the arts, and save career education for a graduate degree.
We mixed art with math (yes, it’s possible!) because art is so essential. I travel with 30 students about 10 times a year to immerse myself in culture (classical music concerts, ballet, opera, theater, museums, ethnic cuisine, etc.). By reinstating the arts as part of regular education, our society may reverse its apparent downward spiral.
martin rudolph
Oceanside, New York
To the editor:
Thank you David Brooks for this inspiring paean to the humanities and the importance of exposure to the arts and culture. He reminds us that these are important elements in saving us from much of the darkness that currently covers our society.
Hopefully, Mr. Brooks will remember his words the next time he is tempted to always blame “cultural elites” for the collapse of American politics.
On the one hand, he wants us to study Rembrandt and Boswell. On the one hand, we complain about such educated people and suggest that their snobbery is at the root of much of what ails us. Which one, Mr. Brooks?
james gartmenian
Cumberland Foreside, Maine