A lurking sentiment pervades the Classics Department, one which inspires unease and uncertainty for the future of the study at Holy Cross altogether. Classics, many feel, is on the brink of erosion. Well, do such claims have grounds to be made? And if so, is Classics worth keeping alive in its current form?
Several factors may indicate that Classics will undergo further change. Recently introduced changes have raised questions among Classics students as to the trajectory of the department. Hebrew, a language traditionally taught in theological contexts [1], has joined Ancient Greek and Latin as potential languages to satisfy the two-language Major requirement, with a few other languages being floated around as potential additions. Though new languages may bear relevance and cultivate interest, this alteration in the language requirement follows a general trend in the department. Classics is shifting from being a study of the ancients who inspired Western tradition to a study of the ancillary states to the classical tradition, which, although incredibly important and involved, do not define the basis of the tradition. Although it is important for Classicists to be open to various perspectives from the study of Classics, it is also important to ensure that hypercritical viewpoints are not the only ones relayed; otherwise, the study has effectively failed at delivering a variety of perspectives. Many Classics students worry that these new courses are a sign of an eventual “loss of identity” for the department, wherein the focus will no longer be on Greece and Rome and will instead be on the broader ancient world.
Such a shift would not be unheard of. Last semester, a talk was held in Rehm Library in which Classics scholar and President of the American Council of Learned Societies, Joy Connolly, proposed a new way to teach about premodern history: Ancient Studies. Connolly expounds her proposition further in her upcoming book, All the World’s Past, where she sets forth to foster a “decolonized field” [2], a composite of perspectives inspired by Afrofuturist thought [3] The idea of Ancient Studies appears utterly unproblematic on its face—a means of recognizing underappreciated cultures and getting a broad sense of the ancient world is both appealing and admirable. But this is not the complete story—Connolly makes it clear in her speech that Ancient Studies is in some way a substitute for Classics [4]. She presents Classics as a declining field and enumerates her grievances with it. Where she frames her new field as an “epistemic reparation,” she implies that Classics operates as a “vehicle for white supremacy” [5]. While talking about colonialism, she disparages Classics for its supposed “Eurocentrism,” “proto-nationalist origin story,” and value assessment on subjective matters (such as others saying that Greek or Roman art is the best). Connolly claims that “Greeceandroman Studies” (her monolithic term for Classics) was founded on ethnonationalism and racism, designed for nationalism, and informed and animated by white elites [6]. Evidently, Connolly must have had a reason to intertwine her criticisms of “Greeceandroman Studies” in her speech, and it’s difficult to see this as a call to anything other than replacement or redirection.
This speech would not be so notable if there was no likelihood for it to bear any fruits—but there’s good reason to believe that Connolly’s proposals could have consequences. The same aspirations and theories are echoed by scholars throughout the field of Classics. If Connolly’s mission is to bring Ancient Studies to institutions around the country, it would not be unreasonable to assume that faculty or administration at Holy Cross could soon be in favor of phasing the Classics department into Ancient Studies, especially given the department’s new course offerings (regarding the increasingly Near Eastern focus) and the diminishing of the Greek and Latin language requirements. Holy Cross is not a large enough institution to have the diversity of field selection at schools such as Boston University. Were two similar departments to be run in tandem with one another, the scarcity of students and funding would likely cause the dilution of one of the fields, thereby making it more advantageous for the school to prioritize one of the other. Such could be the case were Ancient Studies to be introduced alongside Classics. It’s possible that were it introduced, it may just be a replacement for Classics altogether.
Given the possibility that Connolly’s criticisms of Classics are shared among members of the Holy Cross administration, faculty, and even the student body, I believe it is worth analyzing the criticisms made of Classics in detail and giving the department a fair trial before it is slowly dispensed with. As a student who does not study Classics and bears little attachment to the major, I would like to offer my perspective. I shall divide these claims as such: first, that Classics is used as a proto-nationalist origin story and wherefore a vehicle for ethnonationalism and white supremacy; second, that Classics is a eurocentric field; and third, that value assessments in favor of Greece and Rome are indefensible.
To address Connolly’s thesis, it is necessary to deracinate the core of these beliefs. A recent view that has notably risen to prominence in the last decade is the denial of “the West”: the idea that “Western Civilization” does not exist and never has. Eight years ago, The Guardian’s Kwame Anthony Appiah published an article called “There is no such thing as western civilisation” claiming as much—that Western Civilization is a modern invention that lacks proper reason for any continued usage [7]. Appiah argues that “Western” values are not beholden to any group and are appropriated by modern Europeans for a false identity, yet it is unanimously agreed that values are an aspect of culture. Much of Appiah’s argument is reliant on the blurred lines entailed by the label of “Western,” yet for much of the article, Appiah’s well-read historical recounting makes a rather competent case in favor of Western Civilization, outlining the development of the identity and shift in ideological spread from the time of the ancients through the conflicts between Christendom and Islam. It is certainly the case that the idea of “Western Civilization” is blurred on its borders, has morphed over time, and has been misappropriated—but does that make it a false phrase worth discarding? Or is it still applicable in certain instances? Even if centuries ago the West was not an established enough idea for its distinction to be made, its continuous reassertion has, at this point, manifested itself into existence. Additionally, even if it had not gone by the same name, the sentiments of Western Civilization predate its coining. In Saint Thomas More’s 1516 novel Utopia, the character Raphael represents the West to the Utopians by bringing them the Bible and Ancient Greek philosophy. What More viewed as the undergirding tenets of a broadly Western culture may also be reflected in Jesuit tradition.
When Connolly refers to Greeceandroman Studies as a “proto-nationalist origin story” [8], it seems that she’s expressing support for Appiah’s point of view, believing that Classics have been used to justify nationalism through a sense of having a historic “right” [9]. And, Connolly isn’t wrong—this certainly has occurred (Byzantine Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire, etc.)—but is it the fault of Classics? Or is it the byproduct of nation-states being the dominant form of government in Europe and needing to reach for national credibility? The latter seems far more culpable, and to push such guilt on the study of Classics itself seems rather misdirected. The abuse of knowledge is not the fault of knowledge itself.
In his article, Appiah also asserts that the term “Western” can often be seen as a euphemism for “white,” but I find this to be a case of falsely conflating causation with correlation. Much of Western Civilization happens to be “white,” but only because the idea of the West was most popular in European geographical bounds before colonialism, upon which colonial settlers brought ideas such as the West with them through their relocations. This may be similar to the reason that Connolly calls Classics a “vehicle for white supremacy.” If she believes both that “Western culture” means “white” and that the field makes value assessments on a cultural basis [10], it’s no wonder that she sees Classics as having racist undertones. But Classics today is no longer limited along the lines of race; anyone within and outside of our cultural bounds can live, observe, and learn from the teachings we’ve valued for centuries.
Is the study of Classics Eurocentric? I find this proposition to be rather comical, not because it is incorrect, but because its attention is misdirected. Classics inherently carry with them some degree of Eurocentrism because the study primarily focuses on two largely European powers (albeit ones that are far more focused on the Mediterranean than Europe). Asking whether or not Classics is Eurocentric is the wrong question to ask. Instead, we should be asking: Would it be wrong for Classics to be Eurocentric? Are we to believe, too, that the study of the Ancient Sinosphere is too Asiacentric? Every field is in some way exclusive; every study, by its nature, must focus on one area and exclude many others, as it is impossible for people to learn everything. It’s okay to have a broader study of history where the courses aren’t all concentric on one region of the world and its culture, but that’s no longer Classics and loses the reasons why Classics is taught. The core of Classics is not whiteness, nor is it the European continent—it’s the framework that’s inspired generations of cultural change and intellectual consideration. Its influences and references may be found everywhere, including the country we reside in. James Madison explains in Federalist No. 10 that the American constitution intended to make valuable improvements on the “popular models, both ancient and modern,” implying reference to Athens and Enlightenment thought, which was inspired by Athenian thinkers. Much in the same way studies of Confucious are warranted in East Asia due to their unabashed influence, the same applies to the United States and the Classics.
The final point of Connolly’s I should address is that Classics makes a value assessment on subjective matters [11]. I would counter by saying that value assessments in any field depend on who is informing, and choosing to focus on one topic does not necessarily express its superiority over others as much as its cultural relevance. And, were the department to hold Classical art in higher esteem than art of other civilizations, would it be a problem? Although art is ultimately subjective, there tend to be objective reasons that lead people to enjoy art. The conversation of objectivity in art is complicated enough to render one’s value assessment that Classical art is better than others decently defendable, so why not let such a conversation occur? Drawing out the argument of value assessment in art to imply racial superiority falsely indicates that genetics are the primary determining factor in cultural development. For these two reasons, value assessment is, at its root, not an issue.
In a time of sweeping changes, Classics is not a vestigial relic of the past that warrants overhaul. It is not problematic, showing no sway to ethnonationalism and white supremacy, being more about its tradition than its place of origin, and assessing value no differently than any other study. We should not rebrand Classics, nor should we alter its purpose; we must double down on the tradition of Classics in a time when others brush it aside. Christendom and Classics are the two defining aspects of Jesuit tradition, as mentioned in the Jesuit Ratio Studiorum [12], and to impede on them is to destroy the culture of our esteemed and historical institution.
Endnotes
[1] See: Ratio Studiorum, rules of the Provincial paragraph 7. https://ia802307.us.archive.org/12/items/ratio-studiorum-1599/ratio-studiorum-1599.pdf.
[2] Joy Connolly, “All the World’s Past: The Case for a New Field,” (lecture, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA, October 8, 2024), 45:08. https://youtu.be/CZ6MRpg3_a0?si=PuFASPCd5GFcAhmZ.
[3] Ibid. 47:27
[4] Ibid. 32:49-33:16, 35:23-35:54
[5] Ibid. 7:28.
[6] Ibid. 40:25, 42:05
[7] Kwame Anthony Appiah, “There is no Such Thing as Western Civilization,” The Guardian, November 9, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/09/western-civilisation-appiah-reith-lecture.
[8] Joy Connolly, “All the World’s Past: The Case for a New Field”, 36:53.
[9] Ibid. 41:51
[10] Ibid. 39:59, 37:51-38:21
[11] Ibid. 35:40-35:54, 37:51
[12] See: Ratio Studiorum
Cover photo: Statue of River Tiber in the Vatican Museums – Photo by Daniel J. Capobianco
