Post 4: Data-Driven Results
I don’t think I’m surprising anyone here, but the humanities aren’t sexy. All we do is sit around a table for a couple of hours each week and talk about problems. Right?
During one of the previous classes, Dr. Richardson said something to the effect of, “Engineers see things as problems to solve.” And that made maybe too much sense to me. Because, if I’m reducing the humanities to talking about problems, then isn’t it fair to reduce STEM to solving problems? Perhaps not the same problems the humanities talk about, but problems nonetheless.
And that’s my issue. In class we identify systems that reinforce stratification and the cogs within those systems and the roles each of us plays and how those systems support other systems and on and on and on and on... And we say, “It’s capitalism’s fault!” and “It’s the patriarchy’s fault!” and “Why not both?”
Truly a student of the humanities.
But as far as I can tell, we don’t actually solve anything. This was one of the frustrating things about the Lacan class (other than, y’know, Lacan). The solution to this whole interpellation of the Big Other and what not is death or play into the system. That not a solution. That’s a cop-out.
One of the reasons I left the College of Education (I type this as I sit in my office provided by my job with CoED) is that I started to sense that my program only taught fatalistic hand-wringing and was preparing me for a system that I believe failed me. It only perpetuated itself.
STEM, I think, is the opposite. They only see problems, not the underlying systems. Therefore their solutions only address symptoms. They see starving people, they give out food. Look. That kid isn’t starving anymore because he now has food. But they don’t ask why is this kid starving. Their job is to stop the starving, not “why” the starving?
An example of this dichotomy is Interstellar and The Martian.
People generally liked The Martian because it is fiction rooted in science. There are problems, people solve them. With science.
Of course, the plot of the film is to solve a problem. How to get Matt Damon back (again...)? How do I live on Mars? How do I communicate with people 1 kajillion miles away? How do I grow potatoes? These are STEM questions with STEM outcomes. The Martian isn’t interested in humanity. “But, Nicole, all those brave people risked their lives and careers on saving Matt Damon!” Yeah... but only to show off the cool science-y shit. The Martian doesn’t ask questions about isolation, perseverance, duty, ethics, community. Those things can’t be solved in 141 minutes. So, the movie asks questions it knows it can answer.
Interstellar, then, is the humanities side of this coin. It doesn’t care to explain the time travel and Matthew McConaughey entering a weird-ass tesseract and throwing books at Murph.
This movie is about a father-daughter bond. (Lol, who cares are Casey Affleck, amirite?) It’s about loss, and grief, and connection, and love. It’s about identifying systems. What I think pushes it beyond my reduction of what humanities departments do is that the characters identify these systems and try to make sense out of them to solve their problem. The major solvable problem Interstellar presents is the Earth becoming barren. The characters must find another Earth to move to so that humans can continue to exist. And the film achieves a solution. But Interstellar isn’t environmentalist propaganda. It’s doesn’t say, “Matthew McConaughey and Murph must solve global warming.”
It says the bonds between a father and daughter transcend time and space (lol, Casey afleck). This connection is so vital to these people that, together, they save the world. Science isn’t the star. (see what I did there?) The characters’ sacrifices and dreams and fears are what make Interstellar important. No these attributes don’t directly solve problems, but they’re motivation.
kianamaiart
annaxmalina
discoholicmusic
jacobvanloon
tangentwithtanner
snowghoul
romaincrisis
stormborns
