Paul Reitter and Chad Wellmon, Permanent Crisis: The Humanities in a Disenchanted Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2021. Pp. 326. US$35.00 (cloth).

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Hampus Östh Gustafsson
{"title":"Paul Reitter and Chad Wellmon, Permanent Crisis: The Humanities in a Disenchanted Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2021. Pp. 326. US$35.00 (cloth).","authors":"Hampus Östh Gustafsson","doi":"10.1086/721320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"researchers old enough to recall similar promises about other media technology just rolled their eyes” (p. 165). Finishing the book with a history of classroom computers allows the narrative to end very near the present, and the book was published recently enough that it could include a discussion about the relationship between screens, schools, and students during the COVID-19 pandemic. It gives the whole book more current relevance. Also, the idea that conservatives mobilized against each of the new screen technologies for fear that “new experiments in classroom screen media had intensified public schools’ efforts to erode family authority and traditional values” (p. 96) seems particularly relevant in the current historical moment, a time of reactionary movements promoting book banning (such as the removal of Art Spiegelman’s Maus by a Tennessee school board in January of 2022) and ongoing battles against critical race theory. We have a tendency to project our greatest hopes regarding education onto school screens. Generations of reformers have argued that each new iteration of “the screen,” whether it be Hollywood films, the television, or the personal computer, will democratize educational access and revolutionize the way our children learn. Looking at the history, though, is crucial, as Cain’s book clearly shows us that each new medium has struggled to keep itself from reinforcing (or even amplifying) existing inequalities, has justified its own necessity by downplaying the importance of effective teachers, has provided increased access of commercial interests into the public sphere, and often has failed to clearly envision its objectives.","PeriodicalId":36904,"journal":{"name":"History of Humanities","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/721320","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

researchers old enough to recall similar promises about other media technology just rolled their eyes” (p. 165). Finishing the book with a history of classroom computers allows the narrative to end very near the present, and the book was published recently enough that it could include a discussion about the relationship between screens, schools, and students during the COVID-19 pandemic. It gives the whole book more current relevance. Also, the idea that conservatives mobilized against each of the new screen technologies for fear that “new experiments in classroom screen media had intensified public schools’ efforts to erode family authority and traditional values” (p. 96) seems particularly relevant in the current historical moment, a time of reactionary movements promoting book banning (such as the removal of Art Spiegelman’s Maus by a Tennessee school board in January of 2022) and ongoing battles against critical race theory. We have a tendency to project our greatest hopes regarding education onto school screens. Generations of reformers have argued that each new iteration of “the screen,” whether it be Hollywood films, the television, or the personal computer, will democratize educational access and revolutionize the way our children learn. Looking at the history, though, is crucial, as Cain’s book clearly shows us that each new medium has struggled to keep itself from reinforcing (or even amplifying) existing inequalities, has justified its own necessity by downplaying the importance of effective teachers, has provided increased access of commercial interests into the public sphere, and often has failed to clearly envision its objectives.
保罗·瑞特和查德·威尔蒙,《永久的危机:幻灭时代的人文》。芝加哥:芝加哥大学出版社,2021。326页。35.00美元(布)。
年龄足够大的研究人员回忆起其他媒体技术的类似承诺只是翻了个白眼”(第165页)。用课堂电脑的历史来结束这本书,可以让叙述非常接近现在,而且这本书最近出版,可以包括关于新冠肺炎大流行期间屏幕、学校和学生之间关系的讨论。它使整本书更具时效性。此外,保守派动员起来反对每一种新的屏幕技术,因为担心“课堂上的屏幕媒体的新实验加剧了公立学校侵蚀家庭权威和传统价值观的努力”(第96页),这一观点在当前的历史时刻似乎特别相关。这是一个提倡禁书的反动运动(比如2022年1月田纳西州的一个学校董事会取消了阿特·斯皮格尔曼的《鼠》)和反对批判性种族理论的持续斗争的时代。我们有一种倾向,把我们对教育的最大希望投射到学校的屏幕上。一代又一代的改革者认为,每一次“屏幕”的更新换代,无论是好莱坞电影、电视还是个人电脑,都将使教育机会民主化,并彻底改变我们孩子的学习方式。然而,回顾历史是至关重要的,正如凯恩的书清楚地向我们展示的那样,每一种新媒体都在努力避免强化(甚至放大)现有的不平等,通过淡化有效教师的重要性来证明自己的必要性,为商业利益进入公共领域提供了更多的途径,而且往往无法清晰地设想其目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
History of Humanities
History of Humanities Arts and Humanities-Arts and Humanities (all)
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信