To the Editor:
In response to Chien Wen Kung '04's column, "Ethnic Studies and the Liberal Arts Tradition," in The Dartmouth of Feb. 18, I would like to address two points. The first is his very good question that has not been answered by his detractors (Swati Rana '02, Shirley Lin '02, Derrick Chu '04 and Morna Ha '04): where do you draw the line? If we permit Asian Studies, why not, at Kung's recommendation, create Singaporean studies? Why not divide the Jewish Studies department into the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jewish Studies departments?
In his second point, Kung fails to see the general significance of "ethnic studies," or in specific forms such as Asian Studies. He writes that such pursuits "should take place within already-established disciplines -- history, government, English, anthropology, etc." The discipline of history, for example, is today not equipped to teach the history of the African diaspora, or its cultural and psychological consequences. He writes that being in an ivory tower means "looking at things from an elevated perspective, free from bias and political partisanship."
The arrogance of assuming that academia is elevated and free from bias blinds us to the fact that the "established disciplines" have already generated normative academic paradigms that reinforce their own validity (with the help of status quo supporters like Kung); this attitude further fails to acknowledge the inherent bias in all intellectual pursuits. The grandparents of modern economic theory include Smith, Mill and Ricardo, among others -- white, British men growing up in the intellectual tradition of rationality and Newtonian determinism. While their contributions have been significant, contemporary economics is hesitant to recognize that their and others' contributions have not been complete. This lack of self-awareness is a comfortable laurel for any form of stagnant inquiry and also serves as ammunition against the creation of new academic paradigms based on the world outside the ivory tower -- there is a world out there, one that most of us touch sooner or later.
Intellectual pursuits are activists a priori -- we ask questions to encourage change (political, scholarly, personal, etc.). I think the purpose of "ethnic studies" and other non-traditional departments is not to promote a political agenda, but an academic one. Dartmouth, in particular (and its present lack of institutional support for interdisciplinary programs), is growing moldy with the same old "established disciplines." If intellectual inquiry is to be honest with itself, it must recognize its own limitations and the need for some new structures apart from the "ivory tower."
