Nick Pleasants

U. Writing

March 9, 2009

Journal: Reaction to Nussbaum

Martha Nussbaum’s argument is that educators need “to show [their] students the beauty

and interest of a life that is open to the whole word … genuine love and friendship in the life of

questioning and self-government than in submission to authority” (84). This was probably on

the cutting edge when her paper was published in 1997, but in today’s modern universities with

anthropology departments offering gender studies, ethnic studies, cultural studies, and just about

any type of societal study you want, her point has already been taken and ran with. She makes

an appeal to history, stating that “it is useful to understand the roots of this cosmopolitanism in

ancient Greek and Roman thought” (53). She describes this cosmopolitanism as “attaining

membership in the world community, [which] entails a willingness to doubt the goodness of

one’s own way and to enter into the give-and-take of critical argument about ethical and political

choices” (62). Having read Herodotus’ History, I felt like I was getting hit over the head with all

of this, not to mention how much Saint Augustine dwells on what can be learned from reading

the great literature of our past. Maybe Columbia is the exception, with its Core Curriculum

forcing students to look at a variety of western perspectives, as well as several global

perspectives that interest them. Nussbaum has so many examples of how other universities have

implemented the cultural studies movement that it appears to have been implemented

ubiquitously in America.
 Assuming that most universities have addressed this concern, Nussbaum’s paper still has

merit in discussing the methodology of the courses. She presents two options: either study

cultures individually, “the elective method”(like Columbia’s Global Core), or study them in a

“single basic ‘multicultural’ course” (72). She comments on what the specific goals of the

course should be, “to develop within students a sense of informed, active citizenship as they

enter an American society of increasing diversity by focusing on contemporary and historical

issues of race, ethnicity, gender, social class, and religious sectarianism in American life” (73).

While these are lovely goals, there is not much here to disagree with. The methodology of

implementing requirements of cultural studies is an ongoing debate within and among American

universities, as administrators grapple with real problems of faculty training and budget

constraints, on top of ideological concerns. Nussbaum notes that faculty will need to “spend

time reflecting about methodological and pedagogical issues” (75). This is where there is room

for debate on the subject. It is easy to see that the elective model is more financially expedient,

drawing on the current expertise of faculty in the culture of a given country. The integrated

approach, Nussbaum argues, presents a “cross-cultural argument rather than simply [focusing] on

a collection of facts” and produces “excitement and lively debate among students” (77). While

Nussbaum leaves it open to debate, she clearly prefers the multicultural method.

She also addresses the need for increased attention to the study of foreign language (70)

as well as the inclusion of other cultures at the primary and secondary levels (69). In short,

Nussbaum offers a critique of the American education system, pointing out where it is deficient

in the study of other cultures, and suggesting several methods for immediate improvement.

Nussbuam’s ideas are well researched, drawing from examples at numerous institutions of higher

learning, as well as literature on the subject ranging from fifth-century Athens to modern day

Africa. The argument is solid – perhaps too solid, as there is not much to disagree with.
Although Columbia has not followed Nussbaum’s preferred “integrated course” method, the

Core Curriculum more than makes up for this. Additionally, every department is adjusting its

offerings, to include new seminars like “Global Economics” or the “Colloquium on Aid, Politics

& Violence in Africa.” Columbia – and the numerous other institutions she mentions – have

embraced Nussbaum’s principles of cultural study, and there is not much left to debate.