[This is the third and final por­tion of this lec­ture. The sec­ond can be found here.]

George Steiner: What then shall we do? Some reforms are not dif­fi­cult to envis­age. We must purge our vocab­u­lary, we must clean up our lan­guage to say what we mean. 

What is a true uni­ver­si­ty? It’s libraries; it is a cus­to­di­an, and engage­ment with the liv­ing past. It strives to advance knowl­edge and clar­i­fy crit­i­cal­ly the process­es of thought. A true uni­ver­si­ty serves nei­ther polit­i­cal pur­pose nor social pro­grams, nec­es­sar­i­ly par­ti­san and tran­si­to­ry. Above all, it rebukes cen­sor­ship and cor­rect­ness of any kind. What we have done through polit­i­cal cor­rect­ness. The lies we are teach­ing, or hav­ing to accept. The ques­tions we are not allowed to ask. Not even to ask. No ques­tion of answer­ing. Political cor­rect­ness makes impos­si­ble great fields of com­par­a­tive study. 

A uni­ver­si­ty should house and it should hon­or anar­chic provo­ca­tion and the pas­sion of use­less­ness. What is the most won­der­ful pas­sion in the world? Uselessness. If some­one comes to me and says, I’m going to give my life to the study of Tang Dynasty bronzes,” [motions as if tip­ping his hat] I say, You’re a very lucky per­son. You’re going to be a very hap­py and hun­gry per­son, but you lead a blessed life.” The notion that the use­less is the high­est form of human activity.

First and fore­most we must insist on recap­tur­ing some of the ground the human­i­ties have yield­ed to the sci­ences. Is a 21st century-educated man or woman lit­er­ate when in total igno­rance of ele­men­tary math­e­mat­ics, of the con­cept of numer­a­cy, which orga­nize and deter­mine the world around us? When she or he can­not grasp such a notion as a mean aver­age, an irra­tional? Notions instru­men­tal to our socioe­co­nom­ic exis­tence, indis­pen­si­ble to cur­rent debates on genet­ic mod­i­fi­ca­tion, euthana­sia, and law. The fre­quent assign­ment to the least gift­ed, to the most dis­il­lu­sioned, of the teach­ing of math­e­mat­ics in our schools is a sui­ci­dal scan­dal. How does it go in the uni­ver­si­ty of Newton, and Crick? If you get a first in math­e­mat­ics, you can go on to research. If you get a good sec­ond, you will enter hedge funds and bank­ing, which are very sophis­ti­cat­ed in their math­e­mat­ics. If you are a third—the worst—you will go teach math­e­mat­ics. [audi­ence laughs] You real­ize, the self-fulfilling luna­cy of such a sys­tem. Overnight, Stalin decid­ed that school­teach­ers of math­e­mat­ics would be paid as much as uni­ver­si­ty pro­fes­sors, and hon­ored through­out soci­ety. And he brought on the great rev­o­lu­tion in Soviet and then in Russian math­e­mat­i­cal lit­er­a­cy. It can be done. It can be done, it’s not impossible.

It is nev­er too late. A core cur­ricu­lum should, I’m per­suad­ed, contain—and now I hope you will bear with me. This is my one very prac­ti­cal reform. At the cen­ter of our cur­ricu­lum should be archi­tec­ture. Why? It draws on mathematics—very rich­ly, of course; geol­o­gy; what I call in English the mate­r­i­al sci­ences: steel, iron, wood. It draws on envi­ron­men­tal pol­i­tics at every lev­el. It embod­ies ances­try and futu­ri­ty. In archi­tec­ture the noto­ri­ous gap between the two cul­tures is whol­ly abol­ished. Archimedes joins Michelangelo. Together they teach us, and the tech­ni­cal phrase is so beau­ti­ful, how to read a build­ing.” How to read a build­ing, that is the phrase they teach you. There is no aspect of law, soci­ol­o­gy, envi­ron­men­tal eco­nom­ics, but also urban pol­i­tics, which archi­tec­ture does not involve in our dai­ly lives. How to read. How to read a build­ing. How to read? Which is the cen­ter of my remarks this morning. 

We are learn­ing to read togeth­er. No sec­ondary text, please. No crit­i­cism. No com­ments on com­ments on com­ments. Complete loss of truth. You learn to read togeth­er. And what do you do at the end—and this is the end of my too-long remarks this morn­ing. The clos­ing or rather open­ing motion is that of mem­o­riza­tion. We learn by heart, par cœur. Not by brain. We learn by heart. The poem or piece of rel­e­vant prose to mem­o­rize is to thank for what the text has giv­en us. It’s the only effec­tive way of say­ing mer­ci, thank you, danke. For the inex­haustible lib­er­al­i­ty of mean­ing, for the mir­a­cle of sense. What we know by heart can­not be tak­en from us. Never for­get that.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.