Institution as Signifier — updated
More signifier than substance.
Update: by request, Yale’s bottom 50 majors posted below.
Update 2: Brown now included.
Update 3: Harvard now included.
Pursuant this set of observations:
I crossed this bridge years ago when confronting the Pulitzer — even before I wrote a book that I thought should win one. It was clear to me that awarding Pulitzers wasn’t a matter of recognizing “the best” (whatever that means) but rather a process of signifying. What mattered, of course, was who your agent/manager was, who published your book, and your general position vis-à-vis the civilization. Pulitzers, though, act as any institution — their primary purpose isn’t to do anything other than send signals.
Such signals incorporate assigning value, privilege, and direction. Here’s what’s good and what’s bad. Here’s how we’ll punish or reward you. Here’s the path to success and failure. Here’s what we value. The ‘we,’ of course, is some elite — often self- appointed but otherwise recognized as such, often by other self-appointed elites.
Institution as Signifier answers the question why would you attend Yale and major in [area studies]? Parents sometimes worry that their son or daughter will attend a good (and expensive) college only to major in gender studies and become a barista. Fret not, parents, kids don’t actually do that.
Yale’s institutional research on majors for the most recently reported five years (2012–2017) reveals the truth of the matter. There are 80 departments/divisions listed, representing a total of 6,623 students and their majors (again, that’s a total over five years).[1] Of the 80 departments/divisions listed, just the top 20 represents 75% of all students. The bottom twenty represent just 1%. In fact, the bottom 50 represents just 14%. So while an average of 166 students majored in economics at Yale per year, only eight students majored in Women’s, Gender & Sexuality Studies. An average of 100 students per year majored in history, while only three students majored in African American Studies (and about one major in African studies per two years). Yale produced an average of 42 computer science majors per year and zero Judaic Studies majors per year. Latin American Studies? Five per year. Political Science? 128 per year.
Of course this leaves us with an obvious question: since the bottom twenty majors at Yale average fewer than two students majoring in the department/division per year, then why do they even exist?
Answer #1: Students may take classes in them but not major in them; in fact, it’s arguable that the college does not even want students to major in those subjects but rather provides those classes for signaling/inoculation purposes. Of course, as such, they need not be departments/divisions, but…
Answer #2: These departments/divisions serve as signifiers. Their purpose is to direct students and the nation, assign value, and develop the contours of public dialogue. Moreover, their primary point of influence isn’t students but society in general.
The Latin American Studies department at Yale serves the same purpose as the Queen of England. Its purpose is not to accomplish anything practicable on campus rather to signal purportedly aspirational values. Here’s what’s good. Here’s what’s bad. Here’s what you should talk about. Here’s how to talk about it. Such departments attempt to elevate certain values, demote others, and funnel influence to their political allies.
France has a Minister of Culture. The United States has Pulitzers and departments at colleges in which no one majors. It seems to me that once you leave K12, awards — even Nobels — are more signifier than substance.
Yale’s bottom 50 majors, most recently reported 5 years and ave/yr. Sorted most to least.
Brown’s top 10 majors, last two years.
And Harvard’s top 20 majors. Looks like Brown and Yale.
[1] Over time, departments/divisions get created or destroyed or subsumed into other departments, so at any one given time, there may be more or fewer than 80 departments/divisions. Of course, some departments will produce wonky longitudinal numbers because they did not exist over the entire period of time.
About Nathan Allen
Formerly of Xio Research, an A.I. appliance company. Previously a strategy and development leader at IBM Watson Education. His views do not necessarily reflect anyone’s, including his own. (What.) Nathan’s academic training is in intellectual history; his next book, Weapon of Choice, examines the creation of American identity and modern Western power. Don’t get too excited, Weapon of Choice isn’t about wars but rather more about the seeming ex nihilo development of individual agency … which doesn’t really seem sexy until you consider that individual agency covers everything from voting rights to the cash in your wallet to the reason mass communication even makes sense….
