Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
This week on the blog @DrMichaelJTayl1 presents a Defense of the Classics, setting out a number of reasons why we need to work to save Classics (the study of the ancient world) as an academic discipline and the clear benefits for doing so.https://acoup.blog/2021/09/10/meet-a-historian-michael-taylor-on-why-we-need-classics/ …
This is a perspective I'm very eager to present. Classics has been under a lot of pressure for years now, with funding cuts and shrinking or even disbanded departments at major universities. It is a discipline that needs to grapple with the real danger of fading away.
That pressure has prompted a lot of classicists to think and argue really hard about what Classics needs to be in a modern university. Those discussions are fair and good. But debates about what Classics should be won't matter if we don't have a field by the time we decide.
Here I think @DrMichaelJTayl1's perspective is valuable, teaching at a university - a flagship, 'R1' state school, no less - which disbanded its Classics department a decade ago. Taylor is essentially writing from the post-Classics future.
Our future, I fear, if we do nothing.
I hope this essay will get some readers excited about the Classics, but more to the point I hope it can be an example of the sort of arguments we need to be prepared to deploy when arguing for a place for Classics in funding, teaching and in the public consciousness.
Classics is a discipline that has never had to explain why it was important or should be taught - for the first 2000+ years, it was assumed to be self-evidently obvious why this study was valuable. That's no longer true and so we have got to learn to argue for our discipline.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
