We all know that in the present age, the humanities have received a kind of love and hate treatment. On the one hand, almost everyone understands that if humanist values do not receive any respect, no progress will be made in the fields of the humanities, and this eventually will lead to human beings either degenerating into herds of animals or becoming piles of machines, despite the advances we make in our technology, despite the dynamism of our industry and business, and despite the skilfulness in our packaging. On the other hand, teaching and research in the humanities are constantly neglected, slighted, and even discriminated against. For example, teaching humanities conscientiously in a university does not receive the kind of respect and support it deserves. What has been emphasized are efforts made short-term, results reaped in one or two years , and research and publications that can be "quantified," "objectivized," and best of all, "mechanicalized". Where do the ideas of "short-term" and of things being able to be "quantified," "objectivized," and "mechanicalized" come from? What kind of long-term effects will they produce?
Human civilization is, naturally, a result of slow accumulation and continuous transmission. But it is questionable that the sum total of a full scale research effort on and publication of short-term case studies will be enough to bring about the production of greater literature and poetry, the germination of more profound thinking and philosophy, the creation of more excellent painting and music, and the stimulation of higher morals and better character.
It is true that in the present age, people who arrogantly talk about a "scientific" outlook on life are few and far between. And we suspect that probably nobody will be so unrealistic as to make the bold claim that they can create "high-tech" feelings. Gradually, those who are in the fields of artificial intelligence and machine translation will realize that without the deep involvement and active participation of the humanities, research findings from high-tech and super computers will mean nothing more than the routine completion of a task and an addition of another item on one's record. Does this show real concern and sincere support for the humanities? Some people still frown when they hear that the Arts Faculty needs computers. Others, when allocating funds, indiscriminately try to apply to the humanities standards appropriate for the fields of science, engineering, business and medicine. (e.g. science and engineering can be easily "internationalized," and business and medicine "commercialized".) How about the humanities? Do they need "international packaging"? Do they need a "market price tag"? What sort of thinking lies behind this kind of logic? Do people with this sort of thinking ever realize that sometimes the "cream" produced by other disciplines is simply the "trash" that the humanities want to dispose of. Has it ever occurred to these people that under the boastful and elaborate pretense of the so-called "research and development" (R&D), mankind has not only wasted tremendous resources and energy, but has also created the pollution of the mind and human nature and has left behind widespread damage to culture and civilization.
We are all aware that UPGC has recently been revising its way of allocating funds for university teaching and research. In our university, despite efforts in "decentralization" in recent years, a powerful Resources Allocation Committee (RAC) still has to be hurriedly set up to control the allocation of resources. What this committee "thinks," "says," "does," and "accomplishes" will become the focus of our concern.
In politics, when one becomes a dictator, others keep a watchful eye; when one becomes a despot, others criticize. But in the educational environment and the structure of a university, if a committee, either the joint university UPGC or our own RAC, conducts itself a dictator, who will keep watch? If a committee, especially one made up of experts from different fields who have forgotten about humanist values and ideals, acts like a despot, how do we argue with it?
At present, all tertiary institutions in Hong Kong are under the pressure of UPGC. But we can't help asking whether the relatively subtle nature of this "political" pressure should prevent us from seeking full academic freedom?
We can perhaps reluctantly put down the UPGC's failure to recognize humanist ideals and values as a careless mistake. But at the university level, say the RAC level, if we ourselves fail to safeguard and respect these values and ideals, then we can only call it an intentional mistake.
Certainly, research on a short-term case-study basis can sometimes be conducted in the humanities. But the question is whether or not it is the best research strategy to be encouraged and followed. What does the future hold for humanist ideals if all research in the humanities aims at case studies? What is the prospect for humanist values?
Some may say that "short-term case study" does not short-sightedly threaten the survival of the humanities. From a purely theoretical point of view, "short-term" does not mean shortsightedness. Besides, if a leader is shortsighted, those under him need not follow blindly. But without a broad and long-term vision and a firm determination, one will automatically put on glasses that help shorten one's vision (not glasses for shortsightedness) under the pressure for short-term case study unless he is extremely intelligent, virtuous, talented and capable. But among the prominent figures in our tertiary system, who can claim to have these qualities?
We must therefore concern ourselves with what UPGC thinks and says, and also worry about what RAC does. We should earnestly appeal for humanist values, and when necessary, sternly protest against bad system and policy for the sake of humanist ideals.
We worry, we appeal and we protest. But we do not do so for selfish reasons. In fact, what we are after may turn out to be rather trivial and our life, after all, is so transient. Ten years from now, we may not be working in the tertiary institutional environment of Hong Kong. Fifty years from now, no one among us will still remain in the establishment of The Chinese University. Where shall we find our joint UPGC then? Where shall we find our own RAC? But, fifty years, one hundred years, even one thousand years from now, mankind will still need humanist values and ideals. We still need to promote the humanist education and incessantly carry forward the spirit of the humanities.