By Aya Anzouk

One of the most disheartening revelations I have experienced since the start of my academic journey is that humanities researchers were either disregarded or advised to bolster their theses with figures, charts, and numerical data. Historically, the humanities have always embraced contextual analysis and interpretation, therefore this transformation signifies something more complex than a mere shift in preferences; It is a change that implies the entrenchment of epistemic hierarchies in the present. This claim can only be supported by revisiting history without revisionism, as historical accounts indicate that the humanities once stood as the pinnacle of knowledge in organized society. 

To be an intellectual in Ancient Greece, one had to be steeped in philosophy, rhetoric, and poetry and possess exceptional intellectual abilities in disciplines that shaped civic life. Even today, the children of upper-class members of contemporary society rejoice in the arts and humanities, as they frequent private preparatory schools where the wonders of Shakespearean eloquence and Austenian excellence are treated as indispensable elements of the curriculum. This is perhaps because these children have a financial safety net that allows them to explore different interests as they navigate a myriad of career opportunities, whereas young students from lower-middle class backgrounds are often charmed by the highly profitable prospects of a STEM career.

One of the main arguments often made against humanities research concerns its utility, or more precisely, its inability to generate profit. For many university administrations operating under a market logic, funding yet another research paper about the characteristics of Elizabethan poetry is a waste of both time and resources. In contrast, research in science and technology can amount to lucrative grants and industry collaborations, which makes STEM fields inherently more valuable within increasingly managerial academic settings (Hellström, 2022). What makes this disregard for the humanities in academia particularly odd is the disconnect between this straightforward marginalization and the overemphasis on incorporating subjects like philosophy, public speaking, and history into the general education curricula of four-year liberal arts universities across the world.

In the United States, Humanities degrees are declining despite strong public engagement, representing less than 10% of bachelor’s degrees, whereas public perception of the humanities remained largely positive, with 80% of Americans expressing a favorable view of the discipline (Townsend and Bradburn, 2022). Although there is a remarkable decline in academic interest and scholarship of the humanities, public discourse remains centered around engaging with the disciplines and the problems it is aimed to solve.

The WhatEvery1Says project analyzed public perception of the humanities in the United States using computational methods. Despite the humanities’ perceived crisis, the project found that the term is not widely used in media, appearing in only 2% of articles compared to 7% for the sciences (Liu et al., 2022). The study contends that the humanities is a crucial part of the human experience that is often associated with cultural activities and major life events, and asserts that the humanities can be revitalized in academia by attempting to bridge the gap between the academic and the public spheres.

In contrast, I would argue that this study displays unrestrained optimism about public perception of the humanities – one which fails to accurately mirror the more unpromising reality that can be identified in mainstream online discourse. In 2024, Dr. Ally Louks celebrated a significant milestone in her academic career by sharing a picture of her Ph.D. thesis manuscript on the social media platform X moments before submitting it to Cambridge University Library for printing. The title “Olfactory Ethics: The Politics of Smell in Modern and Contemporary Prose” would soon begin making rounds all over social media, dividing the internet and stirring up a heated debate on whether this niche topic can be considered a legitimate research interest or is yet another pretentious indulgence of a short-sighted academy that has long lost touch with reality.

Without even taking the time to look into the original poster’s background and discipline, some were quick to dismiss the topic as an unserious one, even framing it as a pitiful attempt to sound “woke” or “politically correct”.

Dr. Ally Louks, an academic researcher whose interests lie in the interdisciplinary field of sensory studies, states in an article with the New Statesman magazine that this experience was a reminder to her how quickly complex academic terminology can drive a wedge between ideas and individuals who have no sense of familiarity with the subject (Louks, 2024). This same exact dynamic appears too often in the hard sciences, yet when an ordinary reader feels lost or disillusioned by a STEM publication, they usually doubt their own ability to comprehend it rather than interrogate the validity of the publication or the field itself. Scientific opacity is interpreted as an indication of rigor, while the humanities are made to defend their worth the moment their language becomes anything but instantly accessible to the masses. This Pavlovian rationale is habitually reserved for the arts and humanities, the commonly dubbed low-hanging fruit of academic research. Such logic treats technicality as the ultimate benchmark of scholarly legitimacy, while disregarding the notable potential that reinterpretation of historical and cultural texts can offer.

Mechanical Objectivity

When scholars of the arts and humanities revisit existing knowledge and earlier texts, their work is reduced to commentary even if it proposes novel perspectives. Their reappraisal of inherited meanings is frequently called into question, perhaps because of the widespread belief that meaning-making has ceased and that we have reached a definitive endpoint of knowledge production. The marginalization of humanities research is intrinsically inseparable from the unfolding Global Technocracy expedited by capitalism, which defers the humane in favor of the quantifiable. The epistemic exclusion of the humanities reflects a troubling trend in contemporary academia that serves both as a marker of increasingly authoritarian tendencies, and as a mechanism of colonial world-making that prizes particular ways methods of knowledge production, while marginalizing critical and humanistic inquiry. Historically, authoritarian and fascist regimes have always sought to censor the arts and humanities as part of a social (re)-engineering process, precisely because these fields teach us to think critically and question authority. Technical expertise is assumed to be neutral and apolitical, partly due to the rise of 19th century and late 20th century “mechanical objectivity” which claimed that empirical research methods can completely eliminate subjective bias (Nowotny, 2003).

This narrative is frequently reiterated by members of the scientific community and the general public as a means of defending the integrity of the hard sciences against the “ideologically charged” discipline of humanities. This narrative not only erases approximately three centuries of scientific racism and the endorsement of pseudo-science for political reasons, but it also treats STEM fields as especially pure and free from ideological influence. Contrary to what this talking point insinuates, corporate funding favors empirical and technical research over the humanities and considers the former a commercially successful investment. From major pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Moderna to technology giants like Microsoft and Meta, research funding is seen as a cornerstone for corporate longevity. As expensive as STEM research can be, corporations rely on its promise to enhance future profitability and secure government contracts.

Technofeudalism, a term popularized by economist Yanis Varoufakis, refers to the socio-economic theory which asserts that a new system of global governance is emerging, whereas tech giants are able to amass a level of power of influence that can only be comparable to what Western European feudal lords once possessed during the Middle Ages (Varoufakis, 2023). Although techno-feudalism is a relatively recent term, the presence of what some commentators describe as techno-fascism has long been embedded in the culture of big tech. In the 1990s, as investors competed for stakes in Silicon Valley, a number of writers noted the ideological undertones shaping the visions of emerging tech firms. These concerns, however, were largely overshadowed by the excessive enthusiasm that many industry leaders displayed toward technological innovation. One of the most prominent early critics was technology journalist Michael Malone, whose warnings about the political and cultural implications of Silicon Valley’s ideology were largely dismissed at the time (Malone, 1995).

Today, the collaboration between major U.S. tech corporations and the federal government reflects what some scholars identify as a shift in the politics of technology, where corporate influence increasingly animates state power (Morozov, 2015; Zuboff, 2019). Commentators have noted how founders and CEOs of tech corporations such as Elon Musk maintain durable personal and political relationships with influential policymakers, which can enable regulatory advantages, expanded surveillance capacities, and ultimately further profit extraction (Conger & Wakabayashi, 2020; Zuboff, 2019).

This renewed public anxiety about the political entanglements of tech billionaires, however, is arguably a few decades overdue. The tech industry has long been saturated with libertarian and conservative ideological projects (Turner, 2006), and women working in the sector have repeatedly testified to its persistent exclusionary culture. The “good old boys’ club” atmosphere, surprising only to those who imagined technology as an inherently neutral or scientific space, has roots traceable to the 1990s. Public intellectual and evangelist writer George Gilder was particularly influential in shaping this culture. His writings not only advanced a techno-conservative worldview but also helped establish the mythos of the tech founder as a kind of cultural celebrity whose entrepreneurial prowess parallels the allure of pop stars (Gilder, 1990). This mythology, in turn, feeds directly into contemporary frameworks of techno-feudalism, in which charismatic founders are positioned as quasi-monarchical figures in increasingly concentrated digital fiefdoms. This ideological backdrop is in part why tech billionaires are able to get away with their pseudo-intellectual act and present themselves as authority figures and knowledgeable experts in hard sciences like physics and applied mathematics.

Critical Pedagogy As Resistance

To engage fleetingly with the arts and humanities, especially as we witness a paradigm shift that favors quantitative methods in research, is to forgo the opportunity to fully immerse oneself in the essence of human civilization. Culture is everywhere, and it is certainly inescapable. Therefore what matters more than whether we engage with it or not, is how we do so.

Paulo Freire’s 1968 Pedagogy of the Oppressed established a strong link between education and liberation, refuting the idea that education can be neutral. To Freire, the value of education lies in its ability to challenge hierarchies and disrupt structures of power by equipping students and educators with the tools necessary for them to read the world, and engage with meaning beyond language. Through his critique of the “banking” model in education, Freire demonstrates that surface-level engagement with knowledge curbs potential and limits the scope of human potential. He passionately advocates for learning to encompass a dialogical approach that allows students to interact with knowledge instead of being passive receptors of it.   

A cornerstone of teaching/learning in universities and higher institutions is creating a receptive audience. Professors who are naturally experts in their fields tend to overlook the value of this pedagogical approach, perhaps because they do not perceive its essential role in achieving the desired learning objective(s) of a course or a program. Critical pedagogy begins by treating students as autonomous individuals who are capable of engaging with ideas and formulating their own point of view, instead of priming them to be habitual flatterers and yes-men.

Author bio: Aya Anzouk is a Moroccan writer and undergraduate psychology student at Al Akhawayn University. Her work explores the intersections of psychology, coloniality, and cultural resistance. She has written for Al Mayadeen, Awan, Al Tanweeri, Morocco World, and the New Arab. 

Works Cited

Conger, K., & Wakabayashi, D. (2020). Twitter’s chief meets with Trump as tech industry faces political scrutiny. The New York Times.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed: 30th Anniversary Edition. Continuum.

Hellström, T. (2022). Novel, original, and business as usual: Contributing in the humanities. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 21, 339 – 357. https://doi.org/10.1177/14740222221108857

Louks, A. (2024, December 10). Causing a stink: reflections on my viral PhD. New Statesman. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2024/12/causing-a-stink-reflections-on-my-viral-phd

Malone, M. S. (1995). The big score: The billion dollar story of Silicon Valley. Currency/Doubleday.

Morozov, E. (2015). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. PublicAffairs.

Nowotny, H. (2003). Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 30, 151-156. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780461

Townsend, R. B., & Bradburn, N. (2022). The State of the Humanities circa 2022. Daedalus, 151(3), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01925

Turner, F. (2006). From counterculture to cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the rise of digital utopianism. University of Chicago Press.

Gilder, G. (1990). Microcosm: The quantum revolution in economics and technology. Simon & Schuster.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.