IS STEM KILLING HUMANITIES? (LONG ARTICLE)

 

STEM VS. STEaM 

NATURE VS. HUMAN

****Part 1: Introduction - Why STEM?

IIn recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the significance of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education, as it is widely perceived as crucial for fostering innovation and societal advancement. Consequently, this emphasis on STEM has sparked debates questioning the value of humanities education, as an increasing number of students are opting for STEM fields. While the importance of STEM education cannot be denied, it is essential to acknowledge and appreciate the inherent value of humanities education and the unique contributions it offers to society.

One primary reason behind the preference for STEM fields over humanities is the perception that STEM offers superior employment prospects and higher salaries. In the current economic landscape, there is a heightened demand for individuals possessing technical expertise, and STEM disciplines are viewed as gateways to lucrative career opportunities. Furthermore, STEM fields are often perceived as more practical and directly applicable to real-world challenges, while humanities disciplines are sometimes seen as more abstract and theoretical.

Another factor driving the preference for STEM fields is the belief that they play a more critical role in societal progress. Many individuals contend that scientific and technological advancements are essential for improving quality of life and addressing pressing global issues like climate change and disease. Consequently, investing in STEM education is seen as an imperative step towards fostering progress and addressing these complex challenges.

While these arguments may appear compelling, it is crucial to acknowledge and appreciate the value of humanities education and its unique contributions to society. The subsequent sections will delve into the philosophical perspectives of Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee, exploring their viewpoints on the significance of humanities education within the context of civilizational cycles and societal progress. By examining their insights, we can gain a deeper understanding of the multifaceted nature of education and its broader impact. This article will conclude with the author's personal perspective on this intriguing question.

****Part 2: Oswald Spengler's philosophical views regarding civilizational cycles and the death of culture

Oswald Spengler's theory regarding the cyclical nature of civilizations provides valuable insights into the rise and fall of societies throughout history. According to Spengler, civilizations pass through distinct phases, commencing with a cultural spring, followed by a summer of growth and expansion, then a fall, and ultimately a winter of decline and decay.

Central to Spengler's theory is the concept of a civilization's unique "soul," which encompasses its character and finds expression through its art, religion, philosophy, and social organization. He posited that a civilization's culture is the primary determinant of its trajectory, influencing both its ascent and demise.

During a civilization's cultural spring and summer, there is an emphasis on quality as individuals and society strive to create exceptional works of art, literature, philosophy, and science. However, as a civilization transitions into its fall and winter phases, an inclination toward quantity emerges, with an increasing focus on material possessions, wealth, and power.

This shift from quality to quantity, according to Spengler, precipitates the erosion of culture. In the fall phase, the pursuit of materialism and power results in a decline in artistic and intellectual endeavors, as immediate gratification takes precedence over the pursuit of loftier ideals. This cultural decline, in turn, hastens the overall decline of the civilization.

Spengler's theory suggests that each civilization follows a predetermined lifespan and is ultimately incapable of averting its inevitable demise. Attempts to prolong a civilization's existence through reforms or revolutions, in Spengler's view, are futile as they merely serve to postpone the ultimate collapse.

Spengler's philosophy can be seen as a critique of Western civilization, which he believed was already in a state of decline. He argued that modern Western society had forsaken its cultural essence, becoming consumed by materialism, power, and technology. This preoccupation, he contended, would ultimately precipitate the downfall of Western civilization.

Despite the criticisms leveled at Spengler's theory for its Eurocentric perspective and deterministic outlook on history, his ideas continue to resonate within the realms of philosophy, history, and cultural studies. Spengler's work serves as a poignant reminder of the pivotal role of culture and the perils of excessive materialism and power. It offers contemporary societies a cautionary tale, urging them to eschew the pitfalls of materialistic pursuits and power struggles, and instead prioritize the preservation and enrichment of their cultural heritage.

****Part 3: What does STEM symbolize through the lens of Oswald Spengler?

    3.1. Left and right hemispheres

Oswald Spengler's perspective on the development of Western civilization centers around the notion of differentiation, wherein the initial cultural unity gives way to a fragmented and specialized society. Spengler posited the existence of two distinct modes of thinking within the human mind: the left hemisphere associated with reason, abstraction, and science, and the right hemisphere associated with intuition, emotion, and art. According to Spengler, the ascendancy of the left hemisphere, epitomized by the prominence of science and technology, signified the decline of Western civilization. He argued that the one-sided rationality of science failed to encompass the entirety of human experience.

STEM, an acronym for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, predominantly engages the left hemisphere of the brain. It prioritizes reason, logic, and quantitative analysis, often serving as a catalyst for technological advancements and scientific breakthroughs. Consequently, STEM can be interpreted as emblematic of the left hemisphere's dominance and the corresponding waning of the right hemisphere.

Critiques have been raised against Spengler's depiction of the left hemisphere's dominance, contending that it oversimplifies the intricate interplay between reason and emotion, and disregards the influence of art and culture on scientific and technological progress. Nevertheless, his emphasis on the imperative of balancing reason with intuition and emotion remains pertinent, given contemporary concerns surrounding the societal and environmental ramifications of technology.

    3.2. STEaM vs. STEM

Spengler's perspective posits that the ascent of science and technology signals the culmination of a civilization's cultural phase. STEM fields epitomize the pinnacle of rationalism, stemming from the quantitative mode of thought. Conversely, humanities encompass the qualitative mode of thought, delving into aspects that elude measurement or quantification. While STEM subjects focus on comprehending the empirical world in a systematic manner, humanities explore the multifaceted dimensions of the human experience.

According to Spengler, modern education's preoccupation with STEM subjects has precipitated a decline in the richness of human experience—a true measure of a civilization's value. This outcome arises from STEM education's tendency to produce individuals narrowly fixated on technical problem-solving, lacking a broader understanding of the human condition. Though proficient engineers or scientists, they lack the depth of knowledge and insight necessary to navigate the intricate social, ethical, and philosophical challenges confronting humanity.

Furthermore, Spengler asserts that the overemphasis on STEM subjects has led to the neglect of humanities, the wellspring of cultural vitality. Disciplines like philosophy, literature, history, and the arts afford exploration of the complexities inherent in the human condition. They equip us with the tools to comprehend social, ethical, and philosophical dilemmas, cultivating the empathy and compassion essential for constructing a more equitable and compassionate society.

Spengler contends that neglecting the humanities has contributed to a decline in the quality of human experience, alienating individuals from their civilization's cultural heritage. Consequently, cultural vitality wanes as arts and humanities cease to inspire and enrich lives. This disconcerting trend, in Spengler's view, obstructs the generation of novel cultural forms and ideas, posing a perilous threat to civilizations.

    3.3. Human vs. Nature

In addition to the dichotomy between the humanities and STEM, Spengler posited a profound conflict between human culture and the natural world. He contended that a civilization's unique character found expression not only through its culture but also through its interaction with nature. According to Spengler, nature represented an impersonal realm governed by forces and processes indifferent to human values and aspirations. In contrast, human culture embodied the realm of individual and collective creativity, where individuals could manifest their distinct personalities and create enduring works of value.

Spengler perceived the relationship between human culture and nature as dynamic and often contentious. He argued that during the early stages of civilization, a harmonious equilibrium prevailed between human culture and the natural world. Humans held a deep reverence for nature, seeking to comprehend and appreciate its enigmatic qualities. Simultaneously, they were able to channel their creativity and individuality into cultural endeavors.

However, as a civilization progressed into its middle and late phases, this equilibrium began to unravel. Human focus shifted increasingly toward material and social objectives, leading to a perception of nature as a resource to be exploited for personal gain. The intrinsic wonder and inspiration of the natural world waned, replaced by a view of nature as a hurdle to overcome or a tool to wield.

For Spengler, this shift in the relationship between human culture and nature represented an indication of cultural decline in contemporary society. The diminishing appreciation for the natural world and the growing emphasis on materialism and power signified the civilization's late phase, foretelling its unavoidable decline and eventual collapse.

Nonetheless, Spengler did not perceive the conflict between human culture and nature as wholly negative. He maintained that this tension constituted an integral component of the creative process within civilization. Human beings needed to confront the impersonal forces of nature to unleash their creativity and attain their aspirations. Conversely, the natural world served as an inspiring and challenging force that stimulated their imaginative faculties.

Within the context of modern society, the conflict between human culture and nature is particularly pronounced. The rapid pace of technological advancement and human dominion over the natural world have yielded widespread ecological degradation and a diminished appreciation for nature's intrinsic value. Spengler's philosophy serves as a reminder of the imperative to maintain equilibrium between human culture and nature, as well as to cultivate an appreciation for the intrinsic wonder of the natural world.

****Part 4: Did philosophy, arts, poetry, and fiction exhaust their creativity?

Arnold Toynbee was a historian who argued that civilizations undergo cycles of growth and decline. He posited that the creative energy of a civilization moves from the "creative minority" to the "dominant minority" as the civilization becomes more complex and hierarchical. In his book "A Study of History," Toynbee also addressed the role of philosophy, arts, poetry, and fiction in the growth and decline of civilizations.

Toynbee identified two fallacies related to the creative output of a civilization: the "pathetic fallacy" and the "apathetic fallacy." The pathetic fallacy is the belief that the creative output of a civilization will continue to be as great as it was in its past, even as the civilization declines. The apathetic fallacy, on the other hand, is the belief that creativity is exhausted and cannot be revitalized.

Toynbee argued that both of these fallacies were misguided. The creative output of a civilization is not guaranteed to continue at the same level, but it is also not guaranteed to decline irreversibly. Instead, creativity is influenced by factors such as leadership, education, and cultural values. Toynbee saw the decline of creativity as a result of a loss of confidence and sense of purpose, rather than a natural or inevitable phenomenon.

Toynbee believed that the decline of creativity in Western civilization was related to the loss of a unifying spiritual vision. He argued that the rise of secularism had contributed to a sense of purposelessness and fragmentation in Western culture. He also criticized the emphasis on individualism and materialism in Western culture, which he saw as contributing to a loss of community and social cohesion.

Despite these criticisms, Toynbee did not believe that the decline of creativity in Western civilization was irreversible. He believed that it was possible for Western culture to regain a unifying spiritual vision and revitalize its creative energy. Toynbee believed that a renaissance of creativity would require a renewed sense of purpose and a commitment to community and social values.

Toynbee's concept of the "pathetic fallacy" and the "apathetic fallacy" highlights the importance of understanding the factors that contribute to the growth and decline of creativity in civilizations. While the decline of creativity in Western civilization may be related to factors such as the loss of a unifying spiritual vision and the emphasis on individualism and materialism, it is not an inevitable or irreversible phenomenon. Instead, it requires a renewed sense of purpose and a commitment to community and social values to revitalize creative energy.

****Part 5: Should we succumb to Spengler's point of view and pursue STEM as the only legitimate field?

The ongoing debate surrounding the prioritization of STEM or humanities has long been a topic of contention, explored from various perspectives. However, the crux of the matter lies in whether we should adhere to Spengler's standpoint, elevating STEM as the sole valid discipline. In my assessment, the answer is a resounding no. While STEM fields undeniably play a crucial role in technological progress and economic prosperity, they do not encompass the entirety of human knowledge and understanding.

Primarily, the study of humanities offers invaluable insights into the human experience, facilitating an exploration of our collective identity and historical roots. It provides a means to examine and comprehend the intricate complexities of human society. Disciplines such as literature, philosophy, art, and history equip us with critical thinking skills, nurture creativity, foster empathy, and cultivate cultural awareness.

Furthermore, the humanities are indispensable in tackling pressing societal challenges. Climate change, political polarization, social inequality, and cultural conflicts are multifaceted problems that demand an interdisciplinary approach. The humanities furnish unique perspectives, enabling us to comprehend the social and cultural contexts underpinning these issues. They empower us to develop innovative solutions founded on a profound understanding of the human experience.

Additionally, the notion that the humanities are deemed less practical or valuable compared to STEM fields rests on a false dichotomy. Succumbing to Spengler's STEM-centered perspective might reflect an "apathetic fallacy" by overlooking the interconnectedness of human culture and the natural world. While STEM fields contribute to technological advancements and problem-solving, the humanities provide essential insights into the human condition, societal complexities, and ethical dimensions. By embracing a narrow perspective that neglects the humanities, we risk overlooking the broader context necessary to address the multifaceted challenges humanity faces today.

In conclusion, while STEM fields are pivotal for technological advancements and economic growth, they do not monopolize the significance of all fields of study. The humanities furnish indispensable insights into the human experience and play a vital role in addressing the most profound challenges society confronts. Succumbing to Spengler's perspective and exclusively prioritizing STEM would be misguided. Instead, we must recognize the enduring value of the humanities, ensuring their continued integration within our educational systems and society at large.