Making a Difference Making a Difference Rethinking Humanism and the Humanities Edited by N F S J Thales © Thales and the contributors Cover and layout: Lotta Hansson Printed in Preses Nams, Riga 2009 ISBN 978-9-7235-076-2 Contents Su s a n n e Ja n s s o n Introduction 9 L a r s He r t z b e r g Making a Difference or Changing the World? 7 S ö re n St e n l u n d Philosophy and Critique of Culture 35 S a b i n a L ov i b o n d Is Humanism a Thing of the Past? 5 Sh a r o n R i d e r On Relativism and Relativity in the Human Sciences 69 M a r t i n Gu s t a f s s o n Seeing the Facts and Saying What You Like 9 Ha n s Ru i n The Silence of Philosophy 27 St e p h e n Mu l h a l l Heidegger and the Enigma of the Human 45 L a r s - Ol o f Å h l b e r g Humanism, Scientism and the Study of Culture 57 M a r g a re t a Ha l l b e r g Struggling with Academic Biography 87 Mo r t e n Ky n d r u p Artwork as Act as Difference 23 R i c h a rd Sh u s t e r m a n The Art of Humanizing 223 Jo s e p h M a r g o l i s The Definition of the Human 247 A s t r i d S ö d e r b e r g h Wi d d i n g Same Old Pictures 279 Ja m e s C o n a n t The World of a Movie 293 Gu n n a r Ol s s o n A Local Habitation and a Name 325 Contributors 353 Acknowledgements The majority of papers in this volume were originally presented at the interdisciplinary conference Making a Difference; Rethinking Humanism and the Humanities at Uppsala University, 2003. The conference was organized by Sharon Rider and Susanne Jansson in collaboration with Thomas Hård af Segerstad, Sören Stenlund, Simo Säätelä, Astrid Söderbergh-Widding and Lars-Olof Åhlberg. The conference included a segment on film which took place at the Swedish Film Institute in Stockholm, as well as a screening at Slotts- biografen in Uppsala, preceded by an introduction about this histori- cal theater and its connection to Ingmar Bergman’s early fascination with film as a child. This arrangement was kindly hosted by the Uppsala Filmstudio. Special thanks to the co-editor of this volume, Niklas Forsberg, for an efficient and agreeable collaboration, and to Sharon Rider. Both the conference and this volume of proceedings have been gen- erously financed by the Swedish Research Council (VR) and Uppsala University. Susanne Jansson 7 S J Introduction What makes a difference? If an idea is carried out according to the original plan such that the plan is sensed in the result, as in the case of a pyramid, then the difference the plan makes is obvious. On the other hand, some seemingly insignificant detail could make a critical difference to someone without even being noticeable to someone else. Is not the field of the humanities conjunctive in the sense that it makes things that are noticed only by the individual a topic of critical concern to many? The participants were invited to “rethink humanism and the hu- manities” which, of course, is to a considerable degree a matter of self-reflection and self-critique, an enterprise of looking into what goes on in the space between one’s self as a member of the com- munity of selves and oneself as reflecting on that community and one’s place in it, an enterprise which need not be self-indulgent but can be an enhancement of a mode of sharing. In particular, Stanley Cavell’s presence at the conference brings this aspect of humanist thinking to light. As we see it, his understanding of a necessary per- sonal cultivation, a process associated with ideas of moral perfection, is pivotal, but these ideas must not be tainted with either aestheti- cism or perfectionism. Sharing instantiates companionship that respects differences and affinities alike. Here we touch upon the working principle of democ- racy, associated with the UN’s first declaration of human rights, stat- ing that “[a]ll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Does this claim not appeal to the therapeutic ambition of thinking-for-oneself to- gether with others? How do I set myself apart within “companion- able thinking”? Rather than by lines of demarcation we consider 9 making a difference horizons, i.e. how we meet and interact when our horizons coincide or temporarily overlap. What does the field of aesthetics contribute to companionable thinking? Does it not, generally speaking, make things more visible? Does it not provide a plethora of examples by which to distinguish aspects of being human? Is not the field of aesthetics a privileged domain of critical attention in that it invites a sharing of experience? This is attained through, among other things, the aspect of preservation and endurance involved in much art, which in many cases allows for renewed critical assessment. Over the course of time, the ongoing and repetitive again-and-again, by which a particular aesthetic expression very well might prove durably companionable, could be seen as an act of acknowledgement of the past that makes a difference. Of course, companionable thinking is not permissive but critical. Art is prominent in Lars Hertzberg’s contribution. He sets “mak- ing a difference” against the notion of “changing the world,” the lat- ter articulated for example in the case of some protagonist promising to “bring down the moon” as a sign of love. In contrast, Hertzberg focuses on down-scaled actions implying responsibility. And we are reminded that there are cases down-scaled to the bare minimum of abstaining from action, which nevertheless are ethically relevant without our even being aware of it. This understanding leads to Hertzberg’s conception of a “point of view of hope” in light of which a person can act and argue for an “improved order of things” thus serving and being served by the arts and the humanities. Sören Stenlund is concerned with a deficient use of historical knowledge becoming more or less obvious in much of the critique of the contemporary. This is a vital reminder because a “defective self-confidence” seems to be a characteristic “mood of the times” in much of the humanities. Stenlund argues for a “creative spirit” which will show itself in examples that are strong enough to become exemplary. This, however, is not easily achieved because of a certain submissive wearing-down of a necessary self-critical attitude in an academic climate that does not recognize clearly what the humanist’s competence really is about, namely, the capacity for independent considerations and attitudes. 0 introduction Sabina Lovibond focuses on questions concerning aesthetic exem- plarity. If it is the case that we have largely left “humanism” behind, then in what sense could there be aesthetic exemplarity at all? It is a relevant question because there could hardly be such exemplarity without the challenging idea of education. This is challenging be- cause there are those who believe in the relevance of aesthetic ex- emplarity and there are those who disbelieve, and for good reasons. How should we conceive of the sources of Western humanism that have allegedly produced an imagery of great durability? Must not that kind of exemplarity be challenged over and over again within the field of the humanities? Lovibond shows that the challenge can only be met by realizing that the human sciences constitute a field of tension. Humanism is not left behind but lived out by contesting ways of considering the sources of culture. Sharon Rider’s discussion about relativism in human sciences fol- lows up on Stenlund’s concerns. Relativism, argues Rider, comes with an Academy in the process of getting to know itself. In this quest for “the fact of academics”, Rider engages in a dialogue with Max Weber, who, already a century ago, envisaged a situation in which the complexity of the modern world challenged academic thinking radically in ways reminiscent of today’s situation. Rider’s proposal is a demanding one: one has to “make the best” of the situation, i.e. accept scientific specialization as a proper response to the complexity of the modern world, but without internalizing that same tendency. The critical question of what makes it “worthwhile” to pursue human sciences is tentatively framed as a trial to rediscover “the human impetus to get clear on things of concern.” Margareta Hallberg discusses biographical writing as an academic genre. In discussing her approach to the intellectual biography of the British philosopher of science, Mary Hesse, Hallberg chooses to combine a theoretical and a non-theoretical approach in her efforts to take stock of the clarity afforded by a certain photography. Her claim is that the insight gained from such a combined approach could very well motivate serious reassessment of what it means to pursue research in the humanities. Martin Gustafsson considers the notion of “retroactive re-descrip- making a difference tion” in the social sciences and humanities.