awarded a High Distinction in the Junior category of the John Locke Institute's 2023 Global Essay Competition.

What is something important, about which nearly everybody is wrong?

Introduction

Humans have a deeply rooted fear of the unknown and a desire for security amidst uncertainty. STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) disciplines, as a field of study and specialization, seem to provide some control over life's unpredictability, and are thus highly valued in contemporary society. At the same time, the humanities, which call us to lean into the inherent uncertainty of life, are often diminished in value. 

The underlying attitude that explains people’s overvaluation of STEM and that has led nearly everybody to choose a STEM subject as a college major is wrong. This attitude is important to correct, for its unquestioned adoption indicates that society is not seeing technology as a mere tool, but, instead, is unwittingly using it to further dehumanize and instrumentalize us. In this essay, I will explain the origins of this attitude and make the case that it ought to be course corrected with the deliberate study of humanities, so as to steer the future of STEM in an ethical direction. Firstly, I will provide an overview of the historical trends underlying the choice of pursuing a STEM major and government initiatives to push citizens to study STEM. Secondly, I will explain how the decline of interest in the humanities is caused by an overestimation of  the power of STEM. Thirdly, I will argue that our overvaluation of technology has allowed it to instrumentalize and dehumanize us. Finally, I will explain why, in the face of technological instrumentalization, the study of humanities is essential to guide STEM in a morally correct direction.

The Decline of the Humanities and Rise of STEM

In modern society, there is a prevailing societal pressure to choose a STEM major as it is considered the pathway to a fruitful and profitable career, while interest in the seemingly unprofitable humanities field has drastically declined. At Ohio State University, between 2012 and 2020, the number of humanities major graduates dropped by 46%;  at Tufts University, the same number fell by 50%, while at the State University of New York, the decline was almost 75%. (Greenfield) As The Atlantic notes, students “have shifted their view of what they should be studying,” instead of what they want to study “in a largely misguided effort to enhance their chances on the job market” (Schmidt). While the trend of increasing majors in STEM fields may appear to be recent, in fact, this represents a historical trend, with origins at least as far back as 1957, when the Soviet satellite Sputnik 1 was launched (Powell). Since then, we have witnessed the increasing centrality of science and technology to business and our lives on the whole. As a result, “the more favoured disciplines in business and technology bask in the admiration of society and thereby attract funding for studies, research and community engagements,” while, in contrast, “the humanities struggle” (Ikpe).  

Given the supposed significance of STEM for national competitiveness, government funding incentives and policy actions are employed to promote STEM education. Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin advocated for state colleges and universities to produce more electrical engineers and fewer French literature scholars by withholding funds for schools that encouraged and produced humanities majors (Beam). Similarly, the Obama administration suggested rating the country’s 7,000 colleges and universities in relation to post-graduation earnings, in hopes of encouraging students to choose “useful” and remunerative majors (Anderson). 

Given the heavy subsidization of STEM fields by the public sector, can we fairly accuse students’ educational decisions as being anything less than rational? Financial support for and societal encouragement of STEM studies have swayed student opinion greatly, and the majority of youths simply accept the manufactured belief that STEM is always more profitable and benefits society more than the humanities. 

Scientism and the Deification of Utility

The decline of the humanities in education can be attributed to scientism, the view that science alone can render the truth about the world and reality. STEM has been raised to a degree of quasi-worship since the time of the 16th century Scientific Revolution. Forsaking the supposedly subjective and speculative ideas of the humanities in favor of the seemingly concrete and objective truths about the world inferred via science, people began to see STEM as “useful,” or, more often, profitable. As such,  STEM subjects came to be idealised as “eternal” and “illuminating,” surpassing the limitations of human thought and providing us insight into the universe itself. Many recent examples show that this mindset still pervades. These days, many believe that AI can solve any and all problems, for example, based on the fact that computers can hold many more points of data than humans can and that computers can make empirical discoveries of the world that we cannot understand.

Yet, we not only desire to harness technology, but also fear technology (Rini). As our advances in science and technology reveal to us our prior ignorance and ineptitudes, we respond by trying to accelerate our understanding; in doing so, our fears subsume our judgment. One can see this process in European society’s initial reception to Darwin’s theory of evolution. As existential uncertainty grew in the face of undermined faith, people began to attempt to harness and control that which they feared in the form of eugenics (Rini). The negative effects of this movement are still affecting society today in gene editing projects relying on CRISPR, which, while inspired by our fear of  disease and desire for evolutionary fitness, may lead to our ultimate demise. 

Efficiency, Utility, and the Ills of Digital Taylorism

When driven primarily by fear and anxiety, the pursuit of scientific and technological advancement can lead to ethical dilemmas. Heidegger noted that we humans are headed towards simply being a “standing reserve” of supplies meant to be “ordered and conscripted, assembled and disassembled, set up and set aside” (Blitz).  One can see this at work  in the rise of the gig economy, in which workers are devalued as humans and subject to the whims of opaque, data-driven algorithms that reduce workers to  star and numerical ratings (Gandini). Those who do meet the standard—through stars and numbers—are effectively culled. In this phenomenon, known as Digital Taylorism, employers collect detailed, digital data on their employees and automate the system of promoting or firing their workers, while diminishing the value of each individual worker through increasingly streamlined tasks (The Economist).  

Although productivity and efficiency sound appealing at the outset, the perils of Digital Taylorism and algorithmic management are evident in the treatment of gig workers, whose  “labour power [is turned] into a commodity" (Gandini). Due to the opaqueness of  algorithmic management, workers have little recourse when an algorithm deems them no longer employable. Gig work platforms take little to no responsibility for poor consumer experiences, instead placing the entire blame on the worker, in a “radical responsibilization of the work-force” on the individual level (Fleming).  Workers are seen in the same way that some might view a piece of unresponsive hardware and just as replaceable as a piece of machinery. 

 This instrumental view of humans extends to our fear of AI replacement. AI, for instance, could be more efficient and cost-effective than human labour. As a result, the additional wealth generated through lower labor inputs could lead to an “age of leisure,” as Keynes optimistically predicted in 1930 (Müller). However, our fear of being replaced by AI betrays a widespread, yet unspoken, assumption that humans are merely “instruments” on the same level of AI. Instead of treating technology as a tool to benefit humanity, we have allowed it to instrumentalize and dehumanize us.   

The Humanities’ Role in Counteracting Technological Instrumentalism

Instead of being “raw material for technical operations'' or the passive recipients of technological benefits, humans should be regarded as active agents who have the ability to shape the course of technological development. Humanities is crucial to guiding the ethical advancement of STEM, and one such example is in tackling bias in AI. AI often reproduces our unconscious biases, and journalist Julia Angwin proved just that in uncovering COMPAS, an AI tool used to predict recidivism in Broward County, Florida. Predictive recidivism tools use metrics such as address, socioeconomic status, and gender to predict future recidivism rates. However, due to existing racism in policing, black victims abound in cases of wrongful arrests.  This skewed data may have caused the discrepancy Julia Angwin discovered in COMPAS’s output, with the tool incorrectly labeling African-American defendants as “high-risk” at nearly twice the rate of white defendants. Although COMPAS is still being used today, the humanities allow us to develop the critical thinking skills necessary to question the implications and consequences of new technologies, and allow us to pinpoint the technologies that may cause more harm than good in the long term. 

Furthermore, the humanities can help us create a value system that affirms rather than instrumentalizes human life. By exploring themes of dehumanization, literature allows us to question and pinpoint existing denials of autonomy and personhood. This is perhaps most evident in Kafka’s work, such as his book The Metamorphosis, which explores and uncovers the impossibility of finding meaning within instrumentalism. While society claims that we will find meaning in our work and careers by creating things of value, Kafka’s protagonist Gregor’s job seems to be a dehumanizing place rather than a creator of meaning. He and his coworkers are “tool[s] of the boss, without brains or backbone,” merely an object to be used and discarded, even less human than the insect he was slowly turning into (Kafka). A more modern example may be Kazuo Ishiguro's novel "Never Let Me Go," in which the characters, including the protagonist Kathy, are trapped within a society that treats them as commodities, cloned specifically for the purpose of organ donation. Their identities are reduced to the purpose they serve, devoid of any individual agency or autonomy. This dystopian world demonstrates the dehumanizing consequences of technology when it is wielded without ethical consideration, and causes us to reflect on our own desired interpretation of humanity: as inherently meaningful individuals or as extrinsically useful commodities. However, even in these dehumanizing circumstances, both Gregor and Kathy manage to find inherent meaning in their lives, whether it be Gregor’s continued fascination with music and art, or Kathy’s connection to other people, and her desire to be loved and accepted. These, and many other pieces of art, aid us in discovering meaning in a world that does not view us as inherently meaningful. 

The study of the humanities enable humans to demystify the opaque blackbox of technology, guide us in the development of critical thinking skills, and allow us to spend time considering who we are, what we wish to achieve, what sort of life we want to live, and how to derive meaning for ourselves. By studying the humanities, we can gain insights into our own humanity, and work towards a future where technology truly serves as merely a useful tool to shape society, not as a dehumanizing power. The humanities attempt to affirm, or at least help us to discover, meaning, in contrast to a technology-focused society that seeks to instrumentalize us.

Conclusion

The societal pressure to prioritize STEM subjects over humanities may stem from an idealization and fear of the sciences, but it has now allowed technology to further dehumanize us. While STEM education can be useful in many ways, the humanities is needed for its ability to foster critical thinking and moral judgment. If technology can bring us progress, then the humanities are needed to make sure we are progressing to a better world, and a balanced education that incorporates both STEM and humanities disciplines is essential to do just that; to utilise technology safely and ethically, and shape ourselves and our societies in a healthy and meaningful manner. 

Bibliography

Anderson, Nick. “How Much Do Alumni from a College Earn? The Feds Give Answers.” Washington Post, 27 Oct. 2021. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/09/12/how-much-do-graduates-from-a-college-earn-the-federal-government-give-answers/.

Beam, Adam. Bevin: Ky. Needs Engineers, Not Lit Majors. https://www.wcpo.com/news/political/kentucky-state-government-news/bevin-calls-for-kentucky-colleges-to-turn-out-more-electrial-engineers-fewer-french-lit-scholars. Accessed 9 July 2023.

Blitz, Mark. “Understanding Heidegger on Technology.” The New Atlantis, no. 41, 2014, pp. 63–80.

“Digital Taylorism.” The Economist. The Economist, https://www.economist.com/business/2015/09/10/digital-taylorism. Accessed 9 July 2023.

Fleming, Peter. “The Human Capital Hoax: Work, Debt and Insecurity in the Era of Uberization.” Organization Studies, vol. 38, no. 5, May 2017, pp. 691–709. SAGE Journals, https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616686129.

Gandini, Alessandro. “Labour Process Theory and the Gig Economy.” Human Relations, vol. 72, no. 6, June 2019, pp. 1039–56. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718790002.

Greenfield, Nathan M. “The Crisis in Arts and Humanities: Rhetoric or Reality?” University World News, https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20230331111300644. Accessed 9 July 2023.

Ikpe, Ibanga B. “The Decline of the Humanities and the Decline of Society.” Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, vol. 62, no. 142, 2015. PhilPapers, 

https://doi.org/10.3167/th.2015.6214203.

Ishiguro, Kazuo. Never Let Me Go. Faber & Faber, 2010.

Kafka, Franz. Metamorphosis. Penguin Classics, 2016.

Müller, Vincent C. “Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Summer 2021, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2021. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/ethics-ai/.

Office, Alvin Powell Harvard News. “How Sputnik Changed U.S. Education.” Harvard Gazette, 11 Oct. 2007, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/10/how-sputnik-changed-u-s-education/.

Rini, Regina. “The Trauma Echo: Science and Public Uncertainty in the Data Century.” Wellesley College Philosophy Colloquium, Nov 2022. Presentation.

Schmidt, Benjamin. “Should I Major in the Humanities? - The Atlantic.” The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/08/the-humanities-face-a-crisisof-confidence/567565/. Accessed 9 July 2023.