Should the study of 'the classics' be dismantled and rebuilt?

A question raised in the current issue of Brown Alumni Monthly.

"For 21st-century American proponents of the supremacy of 'white culture,' ancient Greece and Rome are revered as where it all started. That’s among the many reasons Princeton classics professor Dan-el Padilla Peralta, in an incendiary 2019 panel discussion, denounced his own field as engaging in the 'production of whiteness' and said he hopes classics, as currently constructed, 'dies as swiftly as possible.'

Since then, more and more scholars have been asking, should classics even proceed as a field? Does it need merely to be disrupted or should it be dismantled altogether, dispersed into the departments of history, archaeology, art history, and foreign languages? How can classics — a historically white, male, and elite field of study — be made more accessible?"

"Classics: Dead or Alive? A new course examines ancient Greece and Rome with a 21st-century lens." Peder Schaefer ’22. Brown Alumni Monthly. June–August 2022.

Intellectual history

Judith Butler, interviewed November 2024, says:

"I don’t like the category of the public intellectual, because it focuses on the individual. When somebody’s work becomes publicly interesting, it’s because something is already happening in the world: changes in the way young people think about the future and themselves; alterations in the family form; openness about sexuality; curiosity about gender... These public issues, often vexing, are what bring certain intellectuals into prominence because they’re reflecting on what turns out to be really important to people at the time. ... Most of our work is collaborative, even when only a single author is named."
— Judith Butler, philosopher: ‘If you sacrifice a minority like trans people, you are operating within a fascist logic’, Iker Seisdedos, El Pais, December 14, 2024

Seisdedos asks: "In your latest book, you speak of a 'phantasm' created to stoke fears about gender. Do you sympathize with parents who are worried about their children making mistakes?"

Butler: "Yes. Those parents have a fear, but I can’t understand why they don’t want to know about certain things [emphasis mine]. I had a man say to me in Chile that he didn’t want a gay or lesbian family living next door to him. “I’m heterosexual, married, I enjoy reproductive sexuality, my way of life is the way that God has mandated, and it is the only correct and moral one.” His fear was that if there were different kinds of legitimate families, then his form would become less natural and less necessary."

He then asks: "Do you understand the concerns of feminists who think that gender could result in the erasure of women?"

Again, Butler says similarly: "I understand those fears, but that doesn’t mean that I think they’re based on knowledge [emphasis mine]. Perhaps those feminists need a better understanding of who trans people are. Womanhood won’t be erased just because we open the category and invite some more people in."

Butler is prepared to say this:

"The more people who say that they can “live with” racism and misogyny in a candidate, even if they’re not enthusiastic racists, the more the enthusiastic racists and the fascists become stronger. I see a kind of restoration fantasy at play in many right-wing movements in the U.S. People want to go back to the idea of being a white country or the idea of the patriarchal family, the principle that marriages are for heterosexuals. I call it a nostalgic fury for an impossible past. Those in the grip of that fury are effectively saying: “I don’t like the complexity of this world, and all these people speaking all these languages. I’m fearful that my family will become destroyed by gender ideology.” As a consequence of that, they’re furiously turning against some of the most vulnerable people in this country, stripping of them of rights as they fear that the same will be done to them.

— Judith Butler, philosopher: ‘If you sacrifice a minority like trans people, you are operating within a fascist logic’, Iker Seisdedos, El Pais, December 14, 2024

A compressed 500-word summary of 'The subjection of women' by John Stuart Mill (1869)

     While Christian Europe has abolished the enslavement of men, women are still enslaved. Although the enslavement of women is "a milder form of dependence," they may properly be called bondservants. Wives cannot own property and cannot act without their husband's permission. Slaves can be freed for "ill usage" but there is no such provision for English wives "without adultery superadded." They accompany their husbands all the time and have no lives of their own. The "rule of force" has been abandoned in theory, yet is still practiced on women.
     Women are sometimes compensated for their loss of freedom by gaining excessive power in political or family matters. However, the gain of improper rights does not solve the problem of their having been stripped of their proper rights.
     When this issue is debated, it is more rooted in feeling than in reason. People on both sides will come up with new arguments if their side is attacked.
     Most men know nothing significant about the thoughts and feelings of their own female family members. If they know anything about their own wives, they extrapolate it to all women.
     Men claim that women won't marry unless they are compelled. What they really fear is marriage on equal conditions. In primitive societies, "to be an equal is to be an enemy." Men worship themselves because they're in power. Men are not satisfied with their wives' outward obedience, but want them to be wholly devoted in heart and mind.
     Many women don't report "ill usage by their husbands" because they're afraid the abuse will worsen. Moral systems instruct women to live for others and share their husbands' tastes, insisting it's in their nature, and warning them they'll be unattractive if they don't.
     To the contrary, however, the subjection of women is not natural. It is a matter of custom. It has existed in every society since the beginning of civilization. Because no one has ever tried a female-dominated society, no one can say it wouldn't work.
     If women are contriving, it is because inequality pushes them to stand up for themselves in this fashion. Men should try being more unselfish, as they wish women to be.
     Women and "negro slaves" commit crimes less frequently, not because they're morally better, but because servitude strips them of moral autonomy.
     The Bible should not be used as a tool against social progressivism.
     Christianity defends human equality in theory, but unfortunately will never do so in practice.
     Modern society brings increasingly domestic roles for men. As such, they need female companions who are their intellectual equals.
     If women don't create or invent, it's because they haven't had the same scholarly preparation that men have had. Women need to believe they can be involved in the intellectual world. It is neither useful nor just to employ a less competent person just because he is male. All humans must love their occupation to find happiness. Women should not be condemned to boredom.

John Stuart Mill. The Subjection of Women. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2001. Originally London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1869.

This summary was written in 2005, along with a series of other 500-word summaries of philosophy books, as an exercise in brevity.

---

If you'd like to learn more about my work, I've published books. Also, I write for Medium. There, readers with a paid membership don't have to worry about the paywall.