Altbach, Philip G., editor. Global Perspectives on Higher Education. John Hopkins UP, 2016.

Elmer, J. “Public Humanities in the Age of the Ideas Industry and the Rise of the Creatives.” University of Toronto Quarterly, vol. 85 no. 4, 2016, pp. 109-117. Project MUSE, muse.jhu.edu/article/643358.

Elmer’s essay discusses the competition facing the humanities in the “ideas industry.” However, festivals, he maintains, provide a venue for the creativity generated by humanities to be experienced by the public. Elmer begins comparing Walter Benjamin’s 1936 essay, “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Mechanical Reproducibility” with the modern urge for newness. There is reason for disagreement with Benjamin’s essay, Elmer concedes; it is modern culture that is, “a culture oriented toward participation” (110). This urge toward participation merits the need for public humanities, such as the Chicago Humanities Festival – for which Elmer is the Artistic Director. These festivals serve to “gain attention in a noisy cultural world by having such a special focus, and by carving off a limited time for densely programmed content” (112). Elmer concludes the essay with the politically charged story about Johari Osayi Idusuyi’s encounter at political rally for a presidential candidate. [BTF 2017]

Gibbs, R. “Meeting Our Publics: A Search for the Right Questions in Public Humanities.” University of Toronto Quarterly, vol. 85 no. 4, 2016, pp. 1-5. Project MUSE, muse.jhu.edu/article/643350.

Gibbs begins the journal’s special topic issue by introducing the contributors and their articles. Most importantly, Gibbs explains the outline of special public humanities issue – regarding its recent emergence. This outline explores the “history of universities; theories of publics; public lectures and festivals; and […] the task of justifying humanities to public funders and critics” (Gibbs 1). The issue aims to answer these main questions about public humanities: “What is the public humanities; Who are the publics of public humanities; and How do (and should) universities perform public humanities” (Gibbs 3-4). Gibbs describes several subcategories of each question, which are in turn answered by the essays of this special University of Toronto issue. The essays within the special issue contain a dialogue amongst the contributors working through the multifaceted questions regarding public humanities scholarship. [BTF 2017]

Krmpotich, C. “Public Humanities as Third Space: Memory, Meaning-Making and Collections and the Enunciation of “We” in Research.” University of Toronto Quarterly, vol. 85 no. 4, 2016, pp. 82-92. Project MUSE, muse.jhu.edu/article/643356.

Krmpotich illustrates the enriching knowledge that is possible from the public humanities. She demonstrates this by providing personal examples of her involvement as a “museum-based humanist” working with Canadian Indigenous publics. Krmpotich’s research focuses “the dynamics between, and identities of, research participants from both the university and the public in order to interrogate how public humanities research engagements are conceptualized” (82). Memory, Meaning-Making and Collections (MMMC) directs the research carried out by Krmpotich and her team. The MMMC partners the Native Canadian Centre of Toronto and the University of Toronto. Through reflexive questioning, Krmpotich asks, “Who research is for and who benefits from research” (83). The essay details the origins of the MMMC, and its contributions to the dialogue between Canadian museums and First Nations, mainly Anishinaabe and Cree, peoples. [BTF 2017]

Mitchell, J. “In Search of Peace: Public Humanities and the Face in Creative Arts.” University of Toronto Quarterly, vol. 85 no. 4, 2016, pp. 12-32. Project MUSE, muse.jhu.edu/article/643352.

The essay investigates the relation between humanities and the arts. Mitchell discusses the major cultural festivals as Cannes, Edinburgh, and the British Museum in London and their role in the public humanities. Mitchell focuses the essay upon the consideration of “the roles that humanities can play in interpreting and interacting with the arts” (12). Through the process of analyzing faces and their relationship with the humanities, Mitchell details public images of faces at international festivals. These faces present themselves in a myriad of ways, such as celebrity, storytellers, and reminders of transformed loss. To illustrate these images, Mitchell relates stories of filmmaking at Cannes, art galleries at Edinburgh, and Mozambican art at the British Museum in London. [BTF 2017]

Phiddian, R. “The Publics of the Adelaide Festival of Ideas.” University of Toronto Quarterly, vol. 85 no. 4, 2016, pp. 93-108. Project MUSE, muse.jhu.edu/article/643357.

Phiddian explains the details of the Adelaide Festival of Ideas and how festivals of its nature are essential to the public humanities’ growth and purpose. Through exploration of the different approaches the festival has taken to broaden itself, Phiddian notes the successes the engagements have brought to the public and to the public humanities. Phiddian’s history and experience with the festival allows him to realize that it “did not address an audience, but a public” (94). Though humanities are not the sole focus of the festival, the use of rhetorical strategies, which Phiddian suggests is “at the heart of the humanities” (96), deems the festival an event centered upon public humanities. Despite the difficulty of the conceptualization of public humanities, Phiddian argues that this effort brings about the humanities truest form of expression: engagement. Phiddian concludes the essay by discussing issues of funding and by defining publics in relation to the festival and the broader public humanities. [BTF 2017]

Shumway, D. R. “Why the Humanities Must Be Public.” University of Toronto Quarterly, vol. 85 no. 4, 2016, pp. 34-45. Project MUSE, muse.jhu.edu/article/643353.

Shumway examines the public benefit provided by the humanities. He insists that “sharing the reflective activities of the humanities will enhance the life of public reason in our society” (Gibbs 2). The essay opens by challenging Stanley Fish’s argument that “literary criticism is a professional activity” that should remain within the profession. Shumway reiterates the validity of Fish’s argument while simultaneously insisting the inherent value of the humanities as a public, as well as a private, good. Shumway details the history of the modern American university from its German idealist roots. The essay culminates with Shumway’s thesis: “That we [humanities scholars] need to reconceive the humanities’ relationship to the public” (39). This rethinking of the autonomy given to academia, while retaining some degree which Fish insists is necessary to academia, should be considered a public good rather than a service provided by the state. [BTF 2017]

Thunder, D. “The Public Role of Humanities Scholarship, in the Humboldtian Tradition.” University of Toronto Quarterly, vol. 85 no. 4, 2016, pp. 46-66. Project MUSE, muse.jhu.edu/article/643354.

Thunder traces the tradition of the university to its Humboldtian origins in Berlin. Beyond an economic or a political role, the humanities form the “core of the university’s task of seeking truth and transmitting the aptitude for truth” (Gibbs 2). Thunder’s essay delves into the uniqueness of humanities scholarship which distinguishes its purpose from other scholarly practices, and through examining the humanities’ history its place within broader institutions becomes apparent as the core of the modern university that is “geared toward the pursuit of the truth about human beings” (48). In order to clarify his argument, Thunder outlines several pivotal questions necessary to the understanding of the humanities, and more specifically, the public humanities. Thunder concludes, “The reason for engaging with the societies that host and fund humanities research is not just to consolidate their support, but also to enrich the culture” (65). The public focus of the humanities will only serve to strengthen the integrity and the public opinion of the humanities cultural enrichment. [BTF 2017]

Wickman, M. “What Are the Public Humanities?: No, Really, What Are They?” University of Toronto Quarterly, vol. 85 no. 4, 2016, pp. 6-11. Project MUSE, muse.jhu.edu/article/643351.

In the first essay of the issue, Wickman explains the processes involved in his survey sent to members of the Consortium of Humanities Centers and Institutes to ask about what is the public humanities and what do they provide. Wickman’s survey raises the fundamental question of what is the humanities scholar’s role to the public and to higher education. The initial consensus leading up to Wickman pursuing this surveying task is that, “the public humanities should not be a distraction from the labour of research; but an extension of it” (1). The survey illustrates the divisions of academics’ surveyed about the role the publics play in relation to the university. The immense date collected from Wickman’s survey reveals the possible approaches scholars may pursue to better connect the university and the public. [BTF 2017]