Part 1:

The humanities are the crossroads between what the brain delights in thinking of and what it delights in producing, as well as their history. Subjects such as art, literature, and writing are all part of what I would consider the humanities, and they are excellent examples of the crossroad. While ‘humanities’ is a particularly Eurocentric term, and one that mainly exists in English, I do believe it is capable of being broadened and expanded to include that which other cultures include.

‘Humanities’ comes from ‘human’, something I think encapsulates the course of study well. The humanities are the studies of being human, whether it be by exploring the depth of human emotion through art, or by studying the social behaviors of past humans through archaeology. It all comes down to what is human, what makes a human, and what does a human do? There are so many ways of answering this question, hence why there are so many fields within humanities that constantly overlap and push the boundaries of the subject.

I personally would love to explore the Euro/Anglophonic-centrism inherent in During’s paper.

Part 2:

Bod, et al. and During are both making an attempt to define the Humanities as a subject. During’s paper is particularly Eurocentric and Anglophonic and feels dismissive of the collaboration that happens between cultures. It utilizes the English-specific word humanities and attempts to define why other cultures are NOT humanities. This feels directly contrasted with Bod et al., whose paper feels like an attempt to link cultures globally and explore what connects humanities across the language barrier, and why the exact subjects might differ.

During mentions that the “contemporary humanities are a product of the West’s will to oceanic power,” a statement I personally disagree with (pg. 9). I think the contemporary humanities are a tribute to how powerful the drive to understand oneself is. I took Archaeology of New England in the spring of 2022, and the fascination with human history permeated every class. We sought to understand ourselves and our history, not as a singular nation, but as an entire species of animal, and how we spread across the globe, evolving and changing and growing. To me, that experience encapsulates the humanities far more than one nation’s will to power ever will.

This is also why I am more partial to the Bod et al. article, as it feels like a more globally-minded approach. It is mindful of the Chinese practices of the six arts, for example. They also note that it is an “alleged contrast” between the sciences and humanities, exploring the idea that academia does not need to be so rigorously separated into categories (pg. 4). The article broadens the perspective of the reader, introducing new functions of thought and helps to dissuade the notion of one rigid definition by relaxing the standards.