In Defence of the Humanities
Gumanitar fanlar himoyasida
Sarlavha va pastdagi so‘zlarga qarang. Matn nima haqida bo‘lishi mumkin? Bir daqiqa o‘ylab ko‘ring — bu miyani o‘qishga tayyorlaydi.
Tarix, adabiyot va falsafa kabi fanlarning texnologiyalar asridagi qadri haqida esse.
Kalit so‘zlar
Bu so‘zlar matnda uchraydi va matnda ajratib ko‘rsatiladi. Bosing — talaffuzini eshitasiz.
⏱ O‘qish boshlanganda vaqt o‘lchanadi — oxirida tezligingizni ko‘rasiz.
👆 Istalgan so‘zni bosing — tarjimasi yoki lug‘atga havola chiqadi.
In universities around the world, the humanities are in retreat. Enrolments in subjects such as history, literature, philosophy and languages have fallen in many countries, departments have been merged or closed, and governments increasingly direct funding towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics, the so-called STEM subjects, which are seen as more directly useful to the economy. Students, burdened by tuition fees and anxious about employment, understandably ask what a degree in medieval poetry will do for them. It is a fair question, and it deserves a better answer than defenders of the humanities have sometimes given.
Butun dunyodagi universitetlarda gumanitar fanlar chekinmoqda. Ko‘plab mamlakatlarda tarix, adabiyot, falsafa va tillar kabi fanlarga qabul kamaygan, kafedralar birlashtirilgan yoki yopilgan va hukumatlar mablag‘ni tobora iqtisodiyot uchun bevosita foydaliroq deb hisoblanadigan fan, texnologiya, muhandislik va matematika, ya’ni STEM fanlariga yo‘naltirmoqda. O‘qish to‘lovlari yukini ko‘targan va ish topish haqida xavotirlangan talabalar o‘rta asr she’riyati bo‘yicha diplom ularga nima beradi, deb tushunarli tarzda so‘rashadi. Bu o‘rinli savol va u gumanitar fanlar himoyachilari ba’zan bergan javobdan yaxshiroq javobga loyiq.
The first part of the answer is practical. The skills that the humanities cultivate, the ability to read complex texts closely, to weigh conflicting evidence, to construct a persuasive argument and to write clearly, are precisely those that employers consistently report are in short supply. Graduates in the humanities often earn less than engineers in their first jobs, but several studies have found that the gap narrows considerably over the course of a career, as the capacity to communicate, interpret and lead becomes more important than specific technical knowledge, which can quickly become outdated.
Javobning birinchi qismi amaliy. Gumanitar fanlar rivojlantiradigan ko‘nikmalar — murakkab matnlarni diqqat bilan o‘qish, qarama-qarshi dalillarni tortish, ishonarli dalil qurish va aniq yozish qobiliyati — aynan ish beruvchilar doimiy ravishda yetishmayotganini xabar qiladigan ko‘nikmalardir. Gumanitar fanlar bitiruvchilari dastlabki ishlarida ko‘pincha muhandislardan kamroq maosh oladi, lekin bir qancha tadqiqotlar karyera davomida farq ancha qisqarishini aniqlagan, chunki muloqot qilish, talqin qilish va yetakchilik qilish qobiliyati tezda eskirishi mumkin bo‘lgan muayyan texnik bilimlardan muhimroq bo‘lib boradi.
This argument becomes stronger, not weaker, in an age of artificial intelligence. As machines become more capable of performing routine technical tasks, including many forms of writing code and analysing data, the distinctively human capacities for judgement, interpretation and ethical reasoning become more valuable. Moreover, the most important questions raised by new technologies, about privacy, fairness, responsibility and what it means to be human, are not technical questions at all. They are the traditional territory of philosophy, history and literature.
Bu dalil sun’iy intellekt asrida zaiflashmaydi, balki kuchayadi. Mashinalar odatiy texnik vazifalarni, jumladan kod yozish va ma’lumotlarni tahlil qilishning ko‘p turlarini bajarishga qodirroq bo‘lib borar ekan, mulohaza, talqin va axloqiy fikrlash uchun o‘ziga xos insoniy qobiliyatlar qimmatliroq bo‘lib boradi. Bundan tashqari, yangi texnologiyalar keltirib chiqaradigan eng muhim savollar — shaxsiy hayot, adolat, mas’uliyat va inson bo‘lish nimani anglatishi haqidagi savollar umuman texnik savollar emas. Ular falsafa, tarix va adabiyotning an’anaviy hududidir.
Yet I want to resist the temptation to defend the humanities only in terms of their usefulness, because doing so concedes too much. The deepest value of studying history, literature or philosophy is not that it makes us better employees but that it makes us more fully human. Reading a novel set in a different century or culture requires us to inhabit, for a time, a perspective radically unlike our own, an exercise in imaginative sympathy that is the foundation of moral life. History teaches us that the arrangements we take for granted are neither natural nor permanent, and that things could have been, and still could be, otherwise. Philosophy trains us to ask what we really mean by the words we use most carelessly: justice, freedom, truth.
Biroq men gumanitar fanlarni faqat ularning foydaliligi nuqtai nazaridan himoya qilish vasvasasiga qarshi turmoqchiman, chunki bu juda ko‘p narsadan voz kechish bo‘ladi. Tarix, adabiyot yoki falsafani o‘rganishning eng chuqur qadri bizni yaxshiroq xodim qilishida emas, balki bizni to‘laroq inson qilishida. Boshqa asr yoki madaniyatda kechadigan romanni o‘qish bizdan bir muddat o‘zimiznikiga mutlaqo o‘xshamaydigan nuqtai nazarda yashashni talab qiladi — bu axloqiy hayotning asosi bo‘lgan tasavvuriy hamdardlik mashqidir. Tarix bizga biz o‘z-o‘zidan tushunarli deb biladigan tartiblar na tabiiy, na doimiy ekanini va narsalar boshqacha bo‘lishi mumkin bo‘lganini va hali ham boshqacha bo‘lishi mumkinligini o‘rgatadi. Falsafa bizni eng beparvolik bilan ishlatadigan so‘zlarimiz — adolat, erkinlik, haqiqat bilan aslida nimani nazarda tutishimizni so‘rashga o‘rgatadi.
These capacities matter not only for individuals but for societies. Democracies depend on citizens who can evaluate arguments, recognise manipulation, understand the historical roots of present conflicts and imagine the experiences of people unlike themselves. A society that trains brilliant engineers but neglects these capacities may become technically sophisticated and politically fragile.
Bu qobiliyatlar nafaqat shaxslar, balki jamiyatlar uchun ham muhim. Demokratiyalar dalillarni baholay oladigan, manipulyatsiyani taniy oladigan, hozirgi nizolarning tarixiy ildizlarini tushuna oladigan va o‘zlariga o‘xshamaydigan odamlarning tajribalarini tasavvur qila oladigan fuqarolarga tayanadi. Zukko muhandislar tayyorlab, bu qobiliyatlarni e’tiborsiz qoldiradigan jamiyat texnik jihatdan murakkab, siyosiy jihatdan esa mo‘rt bo‘lib qolishi mumkin.
None of this is an argument against science. The divide between the “two cultures” of science and the humanities, which the British writer C. P. Snow lamented more than sixty years ago, is itself part of the problem. The greatest scientists have often been widely read in history and literature, and the humanities have much to learn from scientific rigour. What we need is not a choice between the two, but an education that takes both seriously.
Bularning hech biri fanga qarshi dalil emas. Britaniyalik yozuvchi Ch. P. Snou oltmish yildan ko‘proq vaqt oldin afsus bilan tilga olgan tabiiy fanlar va gumanitar fanlar o‘rtasidagi “ikki madaniyat” bo‘linishining o‘zi muammoning bir qismidir. Eng buyuk olimlar ko‘pincha tarix va adabiyotdan keng xabardor bo‘lgan, gumanitar fanlar esa ilmiy qat’iylikdan ko‘p narsa o‘rganishi mumkin. Bizga ikkalasi o‘rtasida tanlov emas, balki ikkalasini ham jiddiy qabul qiladigan ta’lim kerak.
The humanities, finally, offer something that is difficult to measure but impossible to replace: a conversation with the best that has been thought and written across the centuries. To abandon that conversation in the name of efficiency would be to make ourselves poorer in ways that no economic statistic would ever record.
Nihoyat, gumanitar fanlar o‘lchash qiyin, lekin o‘rnini bosib bo‘lmaydigan narsani taklif qiladi: asrlar davomida o‘ylab topilgan va yozilgan eng yaxshi narsalar bilan suhbat. Samaradorlik nomi bilan bu suhbatdan voz kechish hech qanday iqtisodiy statistika qayd eta olmaydigan tarzda o‘zimizni qashshoqroq qilish bo‘lardi.
Tushundingizmi?
Javob topa olmasangiz, «O‘qish» bosqichiga qaytib, matnga qarang — bu ham mashq.
-
Asosiy g‘oya
1 What is the writer’s main argument?
-
2 What does the writer say about humanities graduates’ earnings?
-
3 Why does the writer think AI strengthens the case for the humanities?
-
4 Why does the writer resist defending the humanities only by usefulness?
-
5 What does the writer say about C. P. Snow’s “two cultures”?
True / False / Not Given
True — matnda aynan shunday deyilgan. False — matn aksini aytadi. Not Given — matnda bu haqda ma’lumot yo‘q.
-
1 The writer studied philosophy at university.
-
2 Enrolments in humanities subjects have fallen in many countries.
-
3 According to the writer, reading novels can develop imaginative sympathy.
-
4 The writer accepts that students’ question about usefulness is fair.
-
5 Employers report a shortage of skills developed by the humanities.
-
6 C. P. Snow wrote mainly about Central Asian history.
-
7 Governments are increasing funding mainly for the humanities.
-
8 The writer believes specific technical knowledge never becomes outdated.
-
9 The writer argues against the study of science.
-
10 The writer says questions about privacy and fairness are not technical questions.
-
11 Most humanities graduates become teachers.
-
12 The writer suggests great scientists have often read widely in literature.
So‘zni ma’nosi bilan juftlang
Chapdan so‘zni, o‘ngdan uning ma’nosini tanlang. Hammasi juftlansa, natija chiqadi.
Natijangiz
- Tushunish
- —
- So‘zlar
- —
- Tezlik
- —