Ferdinand von Prondzynski is right in pointing out that the notion of 鈥渒nowledge for knowledge鈥檚 sake鈥 is not a useful justification for scholarly activities or universities themselves (鈥Spinach for spinach鈥檚 sake鈥, News, 25 April). Equally sound is Howard Hotson鈥檚 response that to attack defenders of 鈥渢raditional鈥 higher education on the basis of that notion is to 鈥渁ttack a straw man鈥.
Similar arguments are echoed in 鈥The revolution that wasn鈥檛鈥 (Analysis, 25 April), where, in assessing Margaret Thatcher鈥檚 higher education legacy, Vernon Bogdanor recalls the debates following the 1985 publication of the Green Paper The Development of 糖心Vlog into the 1990s. During them, a Conservative backbencher proposed that universities should 鈥済ive up this Shakespeare nonsense and do something useful鈥, while Enoch Powell offered strongly worded criticism of any monetary cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the contents of higher education.
So what is there for us to learn from more than a millennium of intellectual squabble? When it comes to knowledge, dualistic thinking is prone to failure: knowledge is 鈥渙f鈥 and 鈥渋n鈥 this world, hence it cannot but be useful. The 鈥渒nowledge for its own sake鈥 notion is a 鈥渟now man鈥 argument: it鈥檚 about time it melted away.
Anna Notaro ()
Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design
University of Dundee
Register to continue
Why register?
- Registration is free and only takes a moment
- Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
- Sign up for our newsletter
Subscribe
Or subscribe for unlimited access to:
- Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
- Digital editions
- Digital access to 罢贬贰鈥檚 university and college rankings analysis
Already registered or a current subscriber?