Narratives of the Fall

Abstract

Readers of Academic Questions are likely to agree that higher education is a disaster area in need of draconian reform. Beyond that, however, we have competing conceptions of what specific reforms are called for, which inevitably stem from (1) competing historical accounts that, in turn, reflect (2) competing metaphysical identities. In “After the Interregnum,” Patrick J. Deneen presents one such historical account, in which he displays a clear metaphysical preference. Although there is much that I admire and agree with in his account, there is much that I consider wrong-headed. In fact, I maintain that it is Deneen’s view that is the intellectual source of everything wrong with the modern university. In what follows, I present competing narratives of the evolution of higher education: (1) the Straussian classical narrative (identifies the core of Western tradition with the classical world); (2) the Straussian/Catholic narrative (identifies the core of Western tradition with the classical world plus Roman Catholic Christianity), which I find in Deneen; (3) the Rousseau/Marx Equality narrative; and (4) the Lockean Liberty narrative, which I espouse. Deneen’s narrative (a term I suspect he rejects) is a familiar version of the second narrative, one I call Straussian/Catholic/Conservative. Whereas Straussians believe that all wisdom came to an end with Aristotle, Catholic Straussians believe that all wisdom came to an end with Thomas Aquinas. Essential to Deneen’s narrative is the classical Aristotelian view that true knowledge reflects an objective structure external to humanity, one both Acad. Quest. (2015) 28:428–437 DOI 10.1007/s12129-015-9523-y