Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities by Martha C. Nussbaum

Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities Reviews

• 
  Riku Sayuj

  
  Indian parents take pride in a child who gains admission to the Institutes of Technology and Management; they are ashamed of a child who studies literature, or philosophy, or who wants to paint or dance or sing.
  
  Nussbaum wants to change this situation with this manifesto, with this call to action. With the very poignantly titled Not for Profit, Nussbaum alerts us to a “silent crisis” in which nations “discard skills” as they “thirst for national profit.”: a world-wide crisis in education. She focuses on two major educational systems to illustrate this: one in the grips of the crisis and in its death row. The other carelessly hurtling towards it, undoing much of the good done before (and worse, the USA is a leader in most fields, and rest of the world may well follow where it leads).
  
  What is this developing crisis? Nussbaum laments that the humanities and the arts are being cut away, in both primary/secondary and college/university education, in virtually every nation of the world. Seen by policy-makers, parents and students as nothing but useless frills, and at a time when nations must cut away all useless things in order to stay competitive in the global market, they are rapidly losing their place in curricula, and also in the minds and hearts of parents and children.
  
  This is most prevalent and inevitable in the placement-based institutions, especially the IITs and the IIMs and the newspapers that hawk their successes, that measure their success purely on the drama of placements and on the excesses of the pay-packages. This sort of a higher education orientation also changes the early school cultures, with parents having no patience for allegedly superfluous skills, and intent on getting their children filled with testable skills that seem likely to produce financial success by getting into the IITs and the IIMs.
  
  Nussbaum says that in these IITs and IIMs, instructors are most disturbed by their students’ deficient humanities preparation. It might be heartening that it is precisely in these institutions, at the heart of India’s profit-oriented technology culture, that instructors have felt the need to introduce liberal arts courses, partly to counter the narrowness of their students.
  
  But it is not really so. Even as professors struggle to introduce such courses, as students at IIM, we have an all-encompassing word for anything that comes anywhere close to the humanities: “GLOBE”, and boy don’t we love using it. This throughly derogatory terms sums up the purely career-minded, profit-driven orientation of education in India’s elite institutions. I now feel a sense of complete despair at every laugh shared in the use of this expression. With the standards of success thus set, is it any wonder that the culture is seeping across the education spectrum?
  
  After this dispiriting survey of Indian education, Nussbaum says that the situation is not as bad yet in the US due to an existing strong humanities culture in the higher institutions, but issues the below caveat:
  
  We in the United States can study our own future in the government schools of India. Such will be our future if we continue down the road of “teaching to the test,” neglecting the activities that enliven children’s minds and make them see a connection between their school life and their daily life outside of school. We should be deeply alarmed that our own schools are rapidly, heedlessly, moving in the direction of the Indian norm, rather than the reverse.
• 
  AC

  I'm Reading this because of an assignment. It's not the sort of thing or author I'd generally bother with.
  
  The book is trite, simplistic, poorly written, poorly argued - and that from one who is basically in sympathy with her general position. She draws a simple-minded distinction between "education for growth (which is bad; business or technology oriented) and education for critical thinking and self-development (Humanities; though this book, like much of the Humanities today, in fact, exhibits precious little of such allegedly "critical" thinking) -- she confuses NeoLberalism and NeoMercantilism, neither of which term she seems to be familiar with, lumping them together as "old paradigm" and "collectivist", and claims that the hyperdrive towards economic growth that one sees in India and South Africa (and presumably China?) will undercut democracy in the Western World (non-sequitur, anyone...?) -- this, by the way, at a time when the West has itself entered what is perhaps terminal economic decline and when the political consequences of that decline in growth are becoming clearer day by day (today, for example....:
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01...) -- a threat she seems to be quite unaware of.
  
  Basically a rehashing of ideals that were cutting edge in 1917 (Tagore, Dewey), but whose breathless espousal today... is something of an embarrassment. The intellectual narcissism of the Humanities in America is on full display here --
  
  Though very bright, Nussbaum was a lousy classical scholar -- who had been feted and coddled by institutions (and by her 'mentor', Gwill Owen) since early days. Her work on Plato was awful -- not surprising, coming from the school she comes from (Owen and Vlastos); Aristotle, she thinks, was basically an 'essentialist' (which is incorrect: see, e.g.,
  http://www.amazon.fr/Aristote-lidéali... her dissertation, on the de motu animalium, was a fairly strong piece of work, as philosophical commentary goes... -- though her knowledge of Greek was always suspect. I could go on... But people are already angry at me for speaking the truth too loudly....
  
  Anyway, the book is basically a waste of time -- BAG IT.
  
• 
  hayatem

  مارثا نوسباوم هي فيلسوفة أميركية وأستاذة الق��نون والأخلاق في جامعة شيكاغو.
  
  تناقش نوسباوم في هذا الكتاب المفارقة بين التعليم من أجل الإنتاج الربحي ونوع من المواطنة أكثر شمولاً. وتركز على ماهو نفيس ومهدد بشكل كبير " الإنسانيات كالفنون والفلسفة وغيرها" التي تكفل تكريس حرية التعبير، احترام الاختلاف وتفهم الآخرين. وكذا تنتج إنساناً يجيد التفكير النقدي، ويحاور ولا يسلم دفته للآخر بسهولة. إنسان يمتلك بديهية القدرة على التفكير بتأمل عن نفسه وعن قصة حياته الخاصة .
  
  وتذكر نوسباوم بأننا لسنا مجبرين على تبني نوع على آخر في التعليم ( تعليم يحفز على الربح و آخر يحفز على المواطنة الجيدة) بل الجمع بينهما هو ما يحتاجه أي بلد كي ينمو ويزدهر اقتصادياً وإنسانياً ليضع قدم بين الأمم والحضارات المعاصرة . فما نفع أن يكون البلد مزدهر إقتصادياً وفقير ديمقراطياً. نحن بحاجة لتغذية القوى المؤدية إلى ثقافات تقف على قدم وساق للمساواة والاحترام.
  
  "مع الاندفاع للربح في السوق العالمي فإن قيم غالية لمستقبل الديمقراطية معرضة للفقد خاصة في عصر القلق الديني والإقتصادي . يوحي دافع الربح للعديد من القادة المهتمين أن العلوم والتقنية حاسما الأهمية لمستقبل سليم لبلادهم ." وهي ما تعارضه نوسباوم في معرض هذا الكتاب . واعتراضها ليس على أهمية تعليم العلوم والتقنية بل هاجس الخوف لديها نابع من أن القدرات الأخرى المساوية في الأهمية تكون عرضة للفقدان في فورة التنافس. وهذه القدرات مهمة لسلامة الديمقراطية لخلق ثقافة عالمية محترمة قادرة على مواجهة ضغوطات ومشكلات العالم. ك(القدرة على التفكير النقدي، القدرة على السمو عن ولاءات محلية والتعامل مع مشكلات العالم "ك مواطن عالمي " وأخيراً، القدرة على تخيل ورطة الشخص الآخر عاطفياً.)
  
  " فإن إنتاج نمو إقتصادي لا يعني إنتاجاً للديمقراطية"
  
  نحن في حاجة لديمقراطية تنموية تعزز الكرامة الإنسانية والمناظرة الديمقراطية بالمثل .
  وتلك الديمقراطية لا تتأتى دون الاهتمام بتحسين جودة التعليم والاهتمام بتدريس العلوم الانسانية لكل الطلبة و بمراحلهم المختلفة، بما ينعكس على وعيهم في استشراق العالم والحياة والإنسان معاً ، كغاية لفهم أنفسهم وعالمهم . (فهم الأمم - الاقتصاد العالمي- التعاملات العرقية"دراسة الدين المقارن وتاريخ الأديان"-دينامكية الجنس- تاريخ الهجرة وكفاح الجماعات الجديدة للاعتراف والمساواة.)
  
  إن سوء نظام التعليم الذي يركز على المخرجات المهنية أكثر من المهارات الإنسانية (تمجيد العلوم والتقنية) يفرخ لنا بشر هزيلي الفكر، من السهل انقيادهم وتدجينهم، كما أنهم يضحون مشاريع ناجحة في عصبة الإرهاب.
  
  "إنّ الطلبة الأكثر استقطابا من طرف الحركات الإسلامية المتطرفة، هم طلبة كليات العلوم، مقابل نسبة أقل في كليات الآداب." وهو ما أشارت إليه آخر الدراسات الحديثة في هذا الشأن . فنظم التعليم التي تعتمد في نهجها على الأحادية، التبسيط والتحفيظية تنتج قوالب جامدة تفتقر للحس النقدي.
  
  وما أحوج عالمنا العربي اليوم لهذا الفكر المستنير لإصلاح النظام التعليمي البائس الذي أخرج لنا هويات مفككة في جوهرها. إن استمرار الأنظمة التعليمية كما هي الآن يراد منها جميعا سجن الفكر في استلابات تعيد نفسها باستمرار، والخاسر الأكبر هو الأوطان.
  
  صناعة إنسان ذو هوية كونية متصالحة مع ذاتها والآخر كانت رسالة نوسباوم في هذا الكتاب .
  
  كتاب قيم جداً للمشتغلين في حقول التعليم ومناهج تطويره.
• 
  فادي أحمد

  فكرة الكتاب بسيطة لا أدري لمَ عقّدتها المؤلفة واستطردت بكلام لا طائل تحته!
  
  الفكرة تقول: لكي نحصل على مواطنين عالميين، مدركين للواقع، علينا أن نحوّل التعليم من تعليم "للسوق" إلى تعليم "للحياة".
  فقط!
  وفيه حشو طويل، وغير منظم للأسف.
  الترجمة جيدة
• 
  Marcella C

  How many times can one say the exact same thing but phrased slightly differently? Read this book to find out.
• 
  Raquel

  Um livro muito interessante para todos aqueles que gostam da área da pedagogia/ciências da educação. Martha Nussbaum tece duras e variadas críticas aos paradigmas da educação do nosso século. Seguindo muito de perto as formulações pedagógicas de Dewey e Tagore, a autora traça um perfil dos actuais sistemas de ensino em alguns países e propõe um novo paradigma de aprendizagem.
  
  O desaparecimento das «humanidades» dos currículos escolares e académicos tem prejudicado muito a formação do ser humano; a pedagogia do século XXI orienta-se pelos valores do PIB e não por valores éticos e democráticos.
  
  Não reformular os actuais modelos educativos é permitir que a escola, a academia e a «arqueologia do saber» fiquem reduzidas "à arte de pastorear homens". [Platão].
• 
  Alejandra Restrepo B.

  Este texto me pareció brillante.
  Un análisis aterrador del sistema educativo actual y una exposición de las razones por las que necesitamos en nuestra educación y en la vida las humanidades.
  
  Un libro muy provechoso para maestros y padres de familia que encontrarán una guía para educar, desde una edad temprana en el respeto, la equidad, la compasión y el pensamiento individual proyectado hacia el colectivo con argumentos muy fuertes y válidos de lo que estamos construyendo en las escuelas, los hogares y finalmente en una sociedad desenfocada y egoísta.
  
  Pero además de ser una alerta, lo maravilloso de este libro es que nos hace conscientes de que podemos cambiar las cosas desde la educación y desde la crianza. Todos cometemos muchos errores por desconocimiento, pero esta es una herramienta que nos permite entender las bases en las que estamos fundamentando la vida actual y las armas para cambiar lo que nos asusta tanto de nuestra realidad.
  
  La autora habla del sistema educacional socrático, sustenta con ejemplos, da recomendaciones, alertas y menciona otros libros que pueden ser interesantes para ahondar más en el tema.
  
• 
  Jeffrey

  Nussbaum calls her book 'a manifesto'. Her manifesto on why democracy needs the humanities is made up of 6 interlocking propositions: (1) there is a crisis going on in education today; (2) this crisis is the shedding away of the humanities, which produce the necessary espirit de corps and competencies for an active and productive democracy; (3) this shedding away of the humanities can be attributed to the growth-oriented economy, which prefers professional skill-ism rather than the critical thinking skills and the imaginative empathy cultivated by the humanities; (4) at the same time, events in the world today are heading in the direction where more international cooperation and collaboration is needed, which must surely demand critical thinking and imaginative empathy for cross-cultural work; (5) however, we are heading in the opposite direction through our present attention on standardized testing and technically oriented education directives, which produce "useful machines" (pp. 2) but not imaginative and empathetic human beings; (6) hence, not only do we ultimately undermine our own cherished democracy, but ultimately too we undermine the solidarity needed for a universal democracy that can solve universal problems affecting all.
  
  To be fair, we will have to take Nussbaum's argument one step deeper: that societies, and hence to a certain extent also publicly funded universities in many places, prefer practical skill-ism rather than the humanities. Since the growth-oriented economy requires skillful workers who can obey and work rather than to question and think, classes oriented to imparting practical or applied skills are much more favored by policy-makers, bosses, parents and students alike--because everyone in this squarish ecology seemed well-pleased. However, even growth demands people who possess the abilities to think and imagine creatively, and the humanities can help to cultivate that. Therefore, it is according to Nussbaum, never an 'either/or' for or against the humanities; rather, we can have both growth and the humanities. As a matter of her opinion, to have growth we ought to invest and grow the humanities.
  
  I leave you to ponder on Nussbaum's surprising acquiescence. But the strangeness of this acquiescence to incorporate the humanities into the growth-oriented economy is surely, and only, because of Nussbaum's paradoxical nullification of the very thing she sought to defend in this book: how is it possible to defend the humanities by deliberately subjecting, and designing the humanities so that it can support growth (i.e., economically oriented growth laced with many externalities)? Thankfully Nussbaum's did not say how, beyond these hints, and to what extent this can be done. But at least one thing is clear: the kind of growth Nussbaum criticizes is also the kind of growth that bears no special allegiance to anything or anyone; as long as something expands the economy in the short-term, this something is valued. Thus to expect growth to value the humanities because the humanities seem to impart valuable fundamental and hence, somewhat long-term competencies with uncertain outcome is naive at best.
  
  And half expecting this book to fulfill its large graphical and title promise on the critique of the for profit system (i.e., "NOT FOR PROFIT..."), Nussbaum unfortunately did not venture into the intricacies of the 'FOR PROFIT' teleology working at every level of the society today. Instead what Nussbaum presented is a defense for Socratic pedagogy and a fastpaced clip through the ideas of several education progressivists, names like Rousseau, Dewey and Tagore. I don't think Socrates needs to be defended again; and I certainly don't think Rousseau is as innocent as Nussbaum made him to be, or Dewey so easily and swiftly understood. Rather, I think that both Socrates and Rousseau et al.--the progressivists--are misplaced as two whole chapters in a book with a more critical and urgent mission. For these reasons, I am also not convinced.
  
  In more than a few places Nussbaum makes uncritical statements that seem at odds with the overall thesis in her manifesto, for example, "knowledge is no guarantee of good behavior, but ignorance is a virtual guarantee of bad behavior" (pp.81). Well, that depends on what kind of ignorance one speaks of. Arrogant and inconsiderate ignorance, yes, of course. But humble and considered ignorance: isn't that the goal of Socratic teaching and the beginning of knowledge? Similarly but on a broader interpretation, Nussbaum's uncritical call for the 'universal citizen' or the cosmopolitan citizen demands a very careful review: who and to what extent, can be a citizen of the world today and for what purpose or mission? And what are the underlying ethos of such a global citizenship? What are its underlying binding values? Without answering these questions, we can only suspect that what Nussbaum has in mind as the underlying ethos is the ideal form of democracy that she is familiar with. This is unlikely to go well with everyone in the world today. Not only so, Nussbaum's uncritical call is likely to exacerbate her very quest for a productive citizenship of the world.
  
  
  In all, I think this manifesto is a missed opportunity for a stronger and a more convincing call-to-arms in the humanities today. Insofar as Nussbaum's premise is concerned, I think it is relevant for the complex crisis the world is facing today: what to do at the limits of the market economy and how to deal with the threats of the environment at its limits. However, Nussbaum's subsequent arguments stray too often from the deeper and much more urgent mission that her premises promised.
• 
  Elina Mäntylammi

  Miksi demokratia tarvitsee humanistista sivistystä? Vai tarvitseeko sitä kukaan? Viime aikoina on uutisoitu, että mm. Helsingin yliopiston taiteiden tutkimus on pulassa, koska rahoitusta on vähennetty ja lehtoraatteja ei voida täyttää. Tämä on maailmanlaajuinen ilmiö. Humanististen alojen ja taidealojen opetusta vähennetään, koska tähdätään vain taloudellisesti kannattavien alojen koulutukseen, eli panostetaan vain matemaattisiin tieteisiin. Martha C. Nussbaum varoittaa, että samalla heikennetään demokratiaa. Kun lapsia ei opeteta mielikuvituksen, empatian ja luovuuden käyttöön, myös demokratiat murtuvat. Miltä näyttää Euroopassa, miltä näyttää Yhdysvalloissa? Liiallinen hyötyajattelu kaventaa ihmisyyttä.
  
  Nussbaum vakuutti näkemyksillään. Humanistina en voinut kuin nyökkäillä ja toivoa, että mahdollisimman moni lukisi tämän kirjan.
• 
  Malcolm

  I am not entirely sure what to make of this except to note that it is disappointing, and that may be because 1) these are debates that I find myself in the middle of, as a humanities scholar working in a Science Faculty, and 2) Nussbaum did not really go far enough for me. There is no doubt, this is a political manifesto, and there is a real need for lucid, compelling and powerful defences of the humanities in the current climate where we are repeatedly told that higher education should be developing critical inquirers, but also more forcefully told that it is all about employability, about making sure our graduates get jobs – and in this context critical inquiry is unlikely to be seen as job training, about skills for work.
  
  The current world of higher education is intended to ensure that we educate for profit (in the UK we have seen in recent years an increasingly powerful discourse of students-as-consumers) rather than education for citizenship – to draw on Nussbaum’s distinction. This is a cunning sleight of hand that shifts the focus of higher education, plays into the neo-liberal argument that it is a private good (that is, that students gain more from it individually than society does collectively) and therefore students should pay for it directly; this in a context where university fees have risen 300% in the last ten years. This is not how it has always been (although we do romanticise and nostalgise the recent past) and more importantly this is not how it should be.
  
  The problem for me is not the case she makes in defence of the humanities as a source of sustained critical inquiry and scepticism, although she seems to limit herself to a liberal conception of democracy. She suggests (on pp 25-6) seven crucial aspects of education for democracy (where democracy equals the promotion of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”):
  • the ability to think well about political issues affecting the nation, to examine, reflect, argue, and debate, deferring to neither tradition nor authority;
  • the ability to recognise fellow citizens as people with equal rights, even though they may be different in race, religion, gender, and sexuality: to look at them with respect, as ends, not just tools to be manipulated for one’s own profit;
  • the ability to have concern for the lives of others, to grasp what policies of many types mean for the opportunities and experiences of one’s fellow citizens, of many types, and for people outside one’s own nation;
  • the ability to imagine well a variety of complex issues affecting the story of a human life as it unfolds: to think about childhood, adolescence, family relationships, illness, death, and much more in a way informed by an understanding of a wide range of human stories, not just by aggregate data;
  • the ability to judge political leaders critically, but with an informed and realistic sense of the possibilities available to them;
  • the ability to think about the good of the nation as a whole, not just that of one’s own group;
  • the ability to see one’s own nation, in turn, as a part of a complicated world order in which issues of many kinds require intelligent transnational deliberation for their resolution.
  which is all well and good but adds up to a depressing and limited list – if this is seen as the things that need to be defended in contemporary US political culture then things are much worse than I expected even on my most cynical days. There is little here that amounts to a call for a critical politics of higher education or socially transformative politics that build a freer, more equal or more people-centred world.
  
  What bugs me most, though is that her vision of how and where this might occur seems restricted universities in the Ivy League/Oxbridge model despite her community-based India-centric activism and that for a manifesto it seems depressingly short of things that can be done – that is, it is a manifesto without a plan. As a liberal defence of the humanities, this is OK as far as it goes – but for more politically analyses and manifestos for action (albeit from the eastern side of the Atlantic) Michael Bailey & Des Freeman’s collection The Assault on Universities: A Manifesto for Resistance and John Holmwood’sedited A Manifesto for the Pubic University are much more rewarding.
• 
  Ietrio

  Nussbaum and his clan make a good living out of Governmental grants and subsidies. Hence, this is not a philosophic exercise, but rather a used philosophy salesman explaining why God-the-Government needs to take your money and distribute it to the Nussbaum clan and their academic minions.
• 
  Ahmad Al-eskafi

  الكتاب جميل جدا واستمتعت في طرح ومناقشة قضية ابتعاد دول العالم عن دعم وتشجيع دراسة العلوم الأنسانية .
  
  الكتاب حديث الصدور نسبيا ويناقش قضايا معاصرة ويشرح الأثار السلبية من ابتعادنا عن العلوم الأنسانية وأثرها على توحش الأنسانية بيننا وانعدام الشعور بالأخر ويوكد على أن نهوض الأمم بدعم هذه العلوم ويخطى من يظن أن العلوم التقنية والمهنية كفيلة بنهوض الأمم دون العلوم الأنسانية .وتستعرض الكاتبة عدة دول تراجعت فيها العلوم الأنسانية والأثار السلبية اللتي حلت عليها تدريجيا .
  صعود اليمين المتطرف في شتى بقاع الأرض هذا أحد الأدلة والعلامات على اغلاق كليات العلوم الأنسانية والفلسفة وتقليص ميزانيتها وحصصها في المدراس
  
  يعيب الكتاب عدم سلاسة الترجمة خاصة فيما يخص المصطلحات
  أنصح بهذا الكتاب للمهتم وغير المهتم
• 
  Walt

  I am not the only reviewer who begins discussing the book with the phrase "I really, really wanted to like this book." But the book is quite awful on many levels. There is no defense of the Humanities. There is almost no talk about for-profit education. The thesis is extraordinarily vague (the humanities make good democratic citizens). The supporting information was disorganized. Finally, I thought this book did more to condemn the humanities, than to defend them. Ultimately, if I was anti-education and wanted to write a pro-education book, this may be the result.
  
  There are seven chapters. The first and last chapters try to summarize and conclude. That means the book is a basic five chapters that can be summarized as follows. Chapter One: why the humanities should focus on class, race, and gender. Chapter Two: how is philosophy relevant to babies? Chapter Three: Socrates was great; be sure to enroll your kids in schools that support Socratic instruction like Pestalozzi or Montisorri. Chapter Four: why the humanities should study class, race, gender, and ethnicity. And Chapter Five: 100 years ago in India there was a great dance choreographer and teacher.
  
  I am being extra harsh in describing the book; but the focus is not on the Humanities; but a rambling lecture trying to connect philosophy, class, race, gender, ethnicity, and the Indian philosopher without really discussing any of these ideas. Considering all of the available lines of organization and structure, Nussbaum chose to go with chaos and randomness. There was no discussion about ethics in business or health sciences. There was no discussion about research, analysis or writing. There was nothing about creativity or emotional growth. No, it was an authoritarian argument similar to "believe me. I have great academic wisdom."
  
  Nussbaum spent so much time discussing the Indian choreographer and philosopher Tagore, that the book could be more about him than the humanities. However, she does not adequately discuss Tagore or his school. There is just a vague reference to Socrates. Yes, the Socrates condemned to die for leading youth astray in ancient Athens. He does not seem to be much of a role model. I could have learned something from the book if she bothered to focus even a chapter on just Tagore. Nope. She rambles on in a vague disorganized way like so many demagogues against whom she supports the humanities.
  
  I suspect that most people read the book to reinforce their views that the humanities are relevant. Her emphasis on class, race, gender, and ethnicity surely will not change minds who already do not favor the humanities in education. I am surprised at the number of positive reviews. I racked my brain to even recall which subjects she actually discussed in the book. She mentions her own discipline (philosophy) and she mentions after school choir. That is it. There is no defense for anything else. Nor is there really a defense for them. The choir program relies on private philanthropy, so there is some defense there. Only in the last chapter is there a vague discussion about charging students extra for studying the humanities - in Europe.
  
  Overall, this is a terrible book and very disappointing because it comes from an academician. I really expected a coherent argument from a professor at the U of Chicago. Instead, I have a weapon for anyone railing against the ivory tower of academe. This book brings out the worst in higher education. The fact that this book is (or was) the main voice against the conservative attack on the humanities is more worrisome.
• 
  Charlie

  Nussbaum challenges the current push in education to make everything we learn submissive to a specific career. This view sees education as a benefit to our economy, largely to those who profit from the labor of others. Nussbaum reminds us that education is a public good — it benefits the learner, the teacher, and the communities we live in. The Humanities teach us not just valuable skills like problem solving and critical thinking that we need in our jobs, but empathy and compassion that we need to live in a functioning democracy. She draws from various approaches inside and outside the US, to provide a broad context. Yet, reading this during the 2016 presidential election shows us exactly what is at stake when we fail to have compassion for others. Not only the ignorant and hateful speech of the Republican candidate, but the failings of the DNC to understand the validity of different perspectives within their own party. Our democracy is a mess, this books helps us understand why. More importantly it is a manifesto calling for a change in how we think about education. Nussbaum makes it clear that we need to recognize the power of narratives, play, art, and cultural exploration.
• 
  Don

  
  
  I found this book to be a disappointing read. Rather repetitive and not terribly insightful, I question the reference to this book as a manifesto. It seems to me that there could be a much more thoughtful, broad survey of the decline of the humanities than what is offered here. While I'd hoped this book would do that, I guess I have to look elsewhere.
• 
  Fábio

  “Como está se saindo a educação para a cidadania democrática no mundo de hoje? Receio que muito mal.”
  
  Talvez seja um mal de professor, de conferir bibliografia citada como se tudo fosse um TCC mas, abordando o tema que aborda, como pode não haver nenhuma citação a Paulo Freire neste livro? Isso é ainda mais desconcertante quando sabemos que a autora, Martha Nussbaum, formou-se (e foi professora) em Harvard, instituição na qual Freire lecionou em 1969 e que adota seus preceitos educacionais. E eu poderia parar aqui: em vez de ler esse livro, leia qualquer coisa do Paulo Freire. Dito isso, não é que a obra de Nussbaum seja ruim; apenas não arranha o que já foi dito pelo brasileiro — e dito de modo muito mais contundente.
  
  Ainda assim, há valor neste trabalho. Nussbaum toma o grande filósofo, poeta e polímata bengali Rabindranath Tagore como seu paradigma. Foi bem interessante ver como as ideias dele — primeiro não europeu a receber o Nobel de Literatura — já traziam preocupações que encontramos em Freire e que são não apenas atuais, mais de cem anos depois, mas cada vez mais prementes. Para além de diagnosticar o problema exposto no início da resenha, Tagore propunha uma solução: o ensino das artes e das humanidades. Para ele, a chave para a cidadania global era a capacidade de cada sujeito se colocar no lugar do outro.
  
  John Dewey, a outra referência central para Nussbaum, segue na mesma linha. “Dewey insistia que, para as crianças, o que importa não são as ‘belas-artes’, querendo dizer com isso um exercício contemplativo no qual as crianças aprendem a ‘apreciar’ as obras de arte como objetos desligados da realidade. Nem elas deveriam ser levadas a acreditar que a imaginação só é admissível no domínio do irreal ou do imaginário. Em vez disso, elas precisam perceber que existe uma dimensão criativa em todas as suas interações e considerar que as obras de arte são apenas uma das esferas nas quais se cultiva a imaginação. ‘A diferença entre brincar e o que se considera uma ocupação séria não deve ser a diferença entre a presença e a ausência da imaginação, mas a diferença entre os materiais com os quais se ocupa a imaginação’”, segundo Dewey.
  
  O problema — tanto então quanto agora — é que esses conhecimentos não geram lucro. Nussbaum reflete: “o que teremos se essas tendências continuarem? Nações com uma população tecnicamente treinada que não sabe como criticar a autoridade e geradores de lucro competentes com uma mente obtusa. Como Tagore observou, um suicídio da alma. Poderia haver algo mais assustador? Na verdade, quando contemplamos o estado indiano de Gujarat, que adotou esse modelo há bastante tempo, onde impera uma ausência total de raciocínio crítico nas escolas e um foco decidido na capacidade técnica, podemos entender claramente como um bando de engenheiros submissos pode se transformar numa força assassina para estabelecer as políticas mais horrivelmente racistas e antidemocráticas.”
  
  De tão caricato, isso soa verdadeiro para o interior da Índia. Mas Nussbaum não pouca nem os Estados Unidos do tecnocrata Obama: “[a]inda mais problemático, o presidente Obama frequentemente elogia países do Extremo Oriente — Singapura, por exemplo —, que, do seu ponto de vista, nos deixaram para trás em educação tecnológica e científica. E elogia esses países de forma agourenta: ‘Eles estão empregando menos tempo ensinando coisas que não são importantes e mais tempo ensinando coisas que são. Eles não estão preparando seus alunos apenas para o curso médio ou para a universidade, mas para uma profissão. Nós não.’
  
  “Sem fins lucrativos” atesta o óbvio (e não referencia quem seria óbvio…). Mas, relembrando Brecht, vivemos um tempo absurdo em que temos de defender o óbvio. É na denúncia de uma educação neoliberal, macabra atualização da educação pós-revolução industrial, que Nussbaum adere à resistência.
• 
  Maughn Gregory

  Nussbaum recommends Philosophy for Children as an exemplary program of “Socratic pedagogy,” which, she argues, is a necessary component of education in democratic societies. Nussbaum calls attention to a “world-wide crisis in education” (2): making national economic growth its primary purpose. This crisis involves “radical changes … in what democratic societies teach the young,” (2) and in particular, the de-emphasis and even elimination of teaching the humanities and the arts. Nussbaum’s own philosophy gives education three aims: to prepare people “for [democratic] citizenship, for employment and, importantly, for meaningful lives” (9). As her title indicates, the book’s focus is on the first of these aims, and its argument may be summed up in two statements: democracy requires three broad kinds of abilities - “the ability to think critically; the ability to transcend local loyalties and to approach world problems as a “citizen of the world”; and ... the ability to imagine sympathetically the predicaments of another person” (7); and a liberal arts education, with emphasis on the arts and humanities, is necessary to cultivate these abilities.
• 
  Edwin Pietersma

  An essay from which I expected much more, to be honest. I agree with her view on the fact that the education system, not merely in the US, is economized, with deplorable results. However, she barely gives any support to her arguments, make strong oversimplifications of her cases, and worst of all, it becomes clear that she is too overly convinced of her own conclusions that she feels there is no need to do so, e.g. the philosophy of Tagore (which is barely reflected upon but take as truth) of the notion of clash of civilization. Given the urgency of this topic, this is a sad realization.
• 
  Jeff

  Nussbaum wrote this as if it were directed to a broad audience, incapable of following careful and detailed arguments. In place of detailed arguments, pallid exposition of classic psychology experiments (Milgram, Zimbardo, etc.) alongside near constant urging of Tagore's ideas (an Indian philosopher). I expected to come away from the book knowing more about education, and more about the role of education in democracy, but the book accomplished neither.
• 
  Mansour Alyahya

  ليس للربح
  تتكلم مارثا نوسباوم عن قيمة العلوم الإنسانية التي بدأ اهتمام الحكومات بها يقل في ظل التسابق على الإهتمام بالتعليم المبني على الكسب في السوق العالمي موضحة الدور المهم الذي تلعبه الإنسانيات في بناء التفهم والتعاطف والتشاعر بين الثقافات والأعراق المختلفه ما ينتج عنه ترسيخ احترام الآخر وتقديره وبالتالي تعزيز ثقافة ذات قيم ديموقراطية تساعد على تأصيلها والحفاظ عليها، مأكدةً أن التعليم الجامد الذي يهدف لحشو اكبر كمية من المعلومات في ذهن الطلاب لغرض الحصول على وظيفة تملأ مكاناً شاغراً في سوق العمل لغرض اقتصادي على حساب تعليم ينمي شغف الإنسان ومعرفته بالحياة وتاريخ الشعوب ومعاناتها والفلسفة والفن يؤدي بالنهاية إلى تقويض أُسس النظم الديموقراطيه وتفككها من الداخل بعد تكريس النزعه النرجسيه وتقديم الإقتصاد والربحيه على حساب ما يجعت الحياة جديرة بأن تعاش، وللأسف هذا ما يحصل اليوم تحت وطئة التنافس الإقتصادي بين الدول ما حذى بالعديد من الدول حذف المواد غير ذات الفائده التي لا تجلب الربح وغير مفيدة اقتصادياً (العلوم الإنسانية) ما يجعل الديموقراطيات تحت تهديد مستمر.
  
  كتاب جيد ومفيد أنصح بقراءته ويعيبه ضعف الترجمه.
• 
  Andrew Carr

  One of the main arguments of our era on behalf of public funding of education is the economic benefit it will produce. In the current 2016 Australian election, the Labor Party has argued its education spending policy will add up to 2.8% to growth. US President Barack Obama made a similar case a few years ago that ‘For every dollar we invest in these [education] programs, we get nearly ten dollars back’.
  
  In ‘Not for Profit: Why democracy needs the humanities’, Martha Nussbaum argues this is a fundamentally impoverished view of the role education plays in the functioning of a democratic society. Instead she provides a compelling ‘manifesto’ for a larger role for humanities (arts, literature, world history, religious studies and economic history) in the education of democratic citizens.
  
  Nussbaum worries that in many countries around the world, and increasingly in the West, a ‘teach to the test’ model of rote and repetition seems to be gaining control. Professional skills are the demand, and opportunities for play, curiosity and questioning authority are reduced. While a digital world does require specific skills in science, maths, and technology, I would agree with Nussbaum that such skills will not solve or even salve our contemporary problems unless accompanied by an education in philosophy, politics and history.
  
  It’s easy to see why centre-left parties have however moved to argue for the economic benefits of their desire for higher education spending. They must feel this is sometimes the only safe ground on which they can defend anything anymore. But it’s a poor argument any way you look at it. The economic benefits are likely to be far
  less than claimed —especially if diverted into the ‘fads’ of the day— and because very few voters will thus conclude that the left are strong on the economy because of this argument.
  
  This is a slightly strange book. The title suggests a much more post-captialist mumbo-jumbo style than it actually offers. And at times the argument could have been prosecuted much more strongly.
  While I agree with Nussbaum’s arguments on the need for empathy and imagination through teaching art and literature, the most invigorating part of this book for me was the focus on Socratic dialogue. Explored via the work and careers of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Johann Pestalozzi, Rabindranath Tagore and John Dewy, Nussbaum argues that reasoning, debate and argumentation are foundational skills in the citizen body for a democracy to survive.
  
  I’ve long admired the notions of civic republicanism with the emphasis on having citizens who are expected to participate in the decisions of a society, being both trained to engage, as well as having the responsibility to do so. This is a tradition which has been perhaps richest in the modern world in America —a self-proclaimed republic— and Australia.
  
  Chief among its 20th century advocates is a man many have mistakenly seen as a one-sided liberal or conservative. Instead Australia’s longest serving Prime Minister, Robert Menzies was —as a colleague and I have argued —
  a civic republican at heart.
  
  Menzies worried in his own day that if ‘‘our view of education is ‘how much can I get for myself out of it . . . in terms of financial advantage or social position’ that we shall see the material advancement of the nation matched by moral decay, and ultimately destroyed by it’’. Universities thus had the role and honour of training ‘‘the recognition of values which are other than pecuniary’’. (quotes from article)
  
  Rather than treat education as economics policy —as many critics believe liberal capitalists must do— Menzies firm support for liberal capitalist economic measures to grow the economy provided him with the resources and space to fundamentally expand the university system in Australia and stress the importance of civic virtue.
  
  Nussbaum has since provided an afterword to ‘Not for Profit’, written two years after the books’ initial 2010 release. In it she relates the global response to the book, and her travels since, including to places like Australia. While she is reassured that liberal arts courses remain vibrant in the USA, she worries that Australia is one of the weakest western states for this style of teaching. Not just because of the funding issues, but more fundamentally due to culture:
  

  
  “Australia, like Britian, has long thought of education as commercial and instrumental, and there is a further issue in that profoundly egalitarian society: people have grown used to thinking of the humanities as elitist” (p.153)
  

  
  Returning to a democratic citizenship model — with a commitment to equality and the questioning of authority — is thus a move Nussbaum feels may have a fundamental appeal in Australian society. Indeed we already know it does, given the
  long and proud history of civic republicanism in this country.
  
  It would be tempting therefore to conclude with another kick at our politicians for their misguided notions. But ultimately, the education and democratic training of a nation is far more reflective of the community than its leaders. So rather than bemoan today’s small politics which is a consequence of a shrinking notion of democratic citizenship, let me pledge here to encourage its return wherever I can.
  
  In my own behaviour in the public space, in the behaviour I encourage to my classes on Australian foreign and defence policy at University and over the coming years in the behaviour I teach my son. A commitment from us all to do so, would truly be to our national profit.
• 
  July C. B

  3 estrellas.
  
  Como estudiante de una carrera de humanidades, la idea principal de este libro resuena mucho conmigo: las humanidades son importantes para todos los aspectos de la vida, y deberían estar incluidas en los currículums de todas las carreras aunque sea en un nivel mínimo. En sociedades tan materialistas, debemos impulsar el arte y el pensamiento crítico más que nunca, y no dejarnos llevar por esta educación mercadotécnica que se alinea con los intereses de los más poderosos.
  
  Sin embargo, debo decir que hacia el final perdí bastante el interés en el libro porque, a pesar de ser muy corto, se vuelve repetitivo. La autora retoma ideas que quedaron claras en las primeras páginas, y por eso se hace denso de leer.
• 
  Annalisa

  I really wanted to like this--really. It's the sort of book I should adore and mutter "yes yes!" every other page and hug to my chest. After all, how could a progressive English professor NOT love a book that advocates for more humanities in education and argues that only the liberal arts create the sort of citizens who can truly participate in democracy?
  
  But I didn't love it. And after thinking about it for a while, I think there are two reasons. The first is encapsulated in a statement Nussbaum makes near the end when she says "This is a manifesto, not a study....." Yes, it absolutely is. And if I were in a different mood when I read it, I might have felt swept away rather than badgered, I might have found the tone impassioned rather than lecturing. But I did feel badgered and lectured to, like the whole book was shaking a finger in my face. And I'm on her side! I can't imagine how someone who wasn't naturally allied to her beliefs must have felt.
  
  The "manifesto-ness" and personal focus also led Nussbaum to talk a lot about India, since she's worked there and that just felt very odd. If the book had been purely USA centered, I probably wouldn't have noticed the limited scope, but once she brought in India--and moreover, one visionary and his one school from the early 20th century--it just brought into sharp relief how much she was leaving out.
  
  But my biggest problem with this book was Nussbaum's conflation of subject and teaching style. I have friends who teach Nursing, Engineering, and Social Work, and they are just as passionately committed to critical thinking, inquiry, and creativity as any English professor. In fact, our Nursing faculty just tore apart and rebuilt their curriculum to emphasize those traits. My best friend has devoted herself to making her Engineering classes hands on, student centered, and inquiry based. I find insulting the idea that students who want to study these subjects are destined to become unthinking cogs and that the faculty who teach them care only about turning out highly polished drones to fill spots in corporate America. And for that matter, all of these professor and programs enthusiastically support general education, but I don't ever hear liberal arts faculty urge their students to take Introduction to Nursing or Engineering to broaden their view of the world or get a different lens.
  
  So I found myself both annoyed and bored by this manifesto--bored because she wasn't saying anything new and annoyed because the way she said it was hectoring, weirdly broad and presumptuous.
• 
  JR Snow

  Imagine a Lib. Globalist making an argument for the humanities, when her vision of the humanities largely rests on the vacuous virtues usually found in the mission statements of companies like Lululemon...equality, inclusion, empathy, etc. These are virtues without objects, without standards. That's the argument of this book. it collapses for lack of a standard.
  
  I would agree with her that the humanities need more prominence in education, and that the study of literature, music, art, philosophy, etc. can have a nursing effect on democratic society. But that's because I think the content in the humanities still fuzzily reflects the cultural assumptions and standards of a Christian worldview, not because they, in and of themselves, have the power or insight to foster her empty virtues.
  
  Had to read it for class, don't recommend for anyone with the freedom to eschew.
• 
  Minh Nhật

  Đọc cuốn này khá bất ngờ, không phải Châu Âu mà là Mỹ mới coi trọng giá trị của liberal arts và các môn nhân văn nói chung hơn là Châu Âu, nước bị Nussbaum phê phán mạnh nhất là Anh, đặc biệt sau thời Thatcher. Không phải hệ thống trường công dựa trên ngân sách nhà nước, mà quyết định cấp ngân sách lại thuộc về các chính trị gia quan liêu vốn chịu nhiều ảnh hưởng của các đòi hỏi ngắn hạn, hời hợt của cử tri và các bệnh thành tích; mà là hệ thống trường tư thục dựa trên sự đóng góp của các cá nhân mới là cơ sở vững chắc của hệ thống liberal arts ở Mỹ.
  
  Và một điều bất ngờ không kém là liberal arts đang suy thoái một cách đáng lo ngại ở xã hội phương Tây thì tác giả cũng chỉ ra xu hướng thúc đẩy LA ở các nước Châu Á, đặc biệt là Hàn Quốc bất chấp nguy cơ thúc đẩy dân chủ của LA.
  Lướt fb thì thấy bài này
  The Rise of Liberal Arts in Hong Kong
  
  Nhìn chung cả cuốn sách thì không xuất sắc lắm, chắc do mình kì vọng quá nhiều vào Nussbaum. một triết gia rất nổi tiếng. Đổi lại thì dể đọc, phù hợp với nhiều bố mẹ, có nhiều thông tin thực tế và một vài đoạn rất hay.
  
  3.5, cho 4 cũng được :)
• 
  Jake Bos

  I love the way Martha Nussbaum thinks. Her impassioned book, Not for Profit, offers a strong defence of the liberal arts and humanities within the framework of educational reform. At the heart of her book – self-described as a “manifesto” and a “call to action” – Nussbaum posits a threefold argument.
  
  In the first sense, she argues that the liberal arts and humanities are intrinsically valuable for their ability to stimulate critical thinking, dialogue, creativity, and meaning. The Socratic character of a mixed liberal arts and humanities education teaches students to ask intelligent questions, while at the same time engaging with differing perspectives, evaluating competing arguments, and entertaining alternate possibilities. When we open up a critical and respectful dialogue with people from other backgrounds, we begin to cultivate a sense of empathy, sympathy, inquisitiveness, humility, and compassion. For Nussbaum, these qualities are vital in-and-of-themselves, but they are also necessary for human flourishing.
  
  This brings us to her second argument, which is more politically motivated. Although the liberal arts and humanities are intrinsically valuable on a human level, they are instrumentally valuable as well. Contrary to popular opinion, which increasingly tends to chastise the humanities for being useless and impractical, Nussbaum argues that, flowing from their intrinsic worth, the humanities are vital for the sustenance of democracy itself. The macro and multifaceted character of the humanities are well-suited to the production of “citizens of the world”, whose aspirations are situated within a broader global framework. Keeping in line with this transnational spirit, Nussbaum draws her inspiration mainly from the progressivism of John Dewey and Rabindranath Tagore, blending their thought together in a tight East-meets-West package (though she admits that Tagore was in many ways a Westernized figure). By immersing us into conversation with the Other, the humanities can function as an anti-fascist vehicle toward active democratic citizenship. In Nussbaum’s Socratic view, philosophy is something you practice. Democracy is no different. It requires active participation from its citizens in order to survive, and the humanities can help foster this sense of critical engagement and political responsibility.
  
  The third portion of Nussbaum’s argument defends a kind of modern metropolitan form of late capitalism, one that is compatible with global citizenship and respects democratic values. Here, she hones in on the imaginative elements of the liberal arts and humanities, and suggests that these disciplines should not be seen as economically unviable. Rather, their emphasis on creativity and critical thinking can be conducive to economic growth, technological innovation, and international diplomacy. She quite convincingly explores some of the ways in which Silicon Valley and Wall Street professionals depend upon the arts for innovation and prosperity. This speaks to a tension at the core of capital itself; that is, in the relentless pursuit of profit as the bottom-line, capitalists tend to emphasize the applied degrees that are immediately profitable, while denouncing and defunding the humanities, which - although perhaps less economically lucrative - actually breathe the sense of freedom, ingenuity and creativity that capital requires for expansion.
  
  However, as the title of the book suggests, this is not an irresponsible, laissez-faire, or profit-driven vision of educational reform. Profit should never be the telos, as the promotion of imagination, critical thinking, and dialogue can have the power to be economically viable in countless other ways. That being said, the third part of Nussbaum’s argument intentionally placates to the ruling ideology of late capitalism. The first part of her argument – the intrinsic part – may be difficult for those outside of the humanities to accept. However, the other two prongs of her argument are instrumental in nature. They uphold a union between democratic accountability and a restrained idea of capital, in such a way that would be palatable to those who support both reigning Western ideals. As a manifesto, it makes sense to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, so I can sympathize with Nussbaum’s pragmatism in this respect. In other ways, though, it feels like a cop-out to make concessions to capital, which is reliably at the source of so many problems facing us today.
  
  As I see it, the real challenge to Nussbaum’s book can be refracted through the prism of class. A manifesto is fundamentally a call to political action among the masses. However, I suspect that most of Nussbaum’s readers are either humanities students, academic professionals, or otherwise have some vested interest in the liberal arts. This is like preaching to the choir, and it begs many questions. For instance, how do we get this book into the hands of someone outside of the arts and humanities? How would someone on the political right come across this book? What about members of the lower-middle classes? Does it make sense for a self-described manifesto to be published by Princeton University Press?
  
  The real test of a manifesto, then, is how it can be accessed willingly by those who may be opposed to its contents. Nussbaum falls short here, never touching on just how her book could find itself in less agreeable hands. In this way, I think the noble, high-minded Not for Profit may be a tad too bourgeois to be considered an effective social manifesto. It's probably most effective within its target audience - the intellectual class - and as a much needed validating gesture toward the humanities.
• 
  Emile

  Nussbaum wants to raise children to an understanding of how weak we all are, she wants them to be nurturing, understanding and respectful, and "not to aspire to control or invulnerability, defining their prospects and possibilities as above the common lot of human life" (39). More specifically, men must not objectify women, must be loving and receptive, and certainly not dominant. And they should dance. No thanks. (There is nothing in here about the specific nature of literature, by the way, or any specific nature for that matter, except insofar as one-sided, hateful or pornographic works of art must be avoided.)