Federal Papers

Author(s): Catharine R. Stimpson

Source: October, Vol. 53, The Humanities as Social Technology (Summer, 1990), pp. 24-39
Published by: MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/778913
Accessed: 19-02-2016 11:05 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to October.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.161 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:05:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Federal Papers

CATHARINE R. STIMPSON

A briefcommenton a set of governmentdocuments-some federalpapers

that are remote descendantsof the FederalistPapers: the annual reportsof the
National Endowmentforthe Humanities(NEH) fromFiscal Year 1980 through
Fiscal Year (FY) 19871-this essay will focus on two discursivepractices:
1) Theexchangesbetween a politicalideology
and overtculturalpolicies.Clearly,
the conservatismof the 1980s distinctlyinfluencednationalculturalpolicy.The
conservativeswhom Reagan broughtto federalpower wantedto grasp and wield
power,and theywere neithershynor reticentabout actingon thesedesires. Yet,
the cultural rise of the rightshows more of the smoke than of the fireof the
apocalypse. Smoke can choke and kill,but its driftseems less drasticthan con-
servativesdesired, less drasticthan theiropponents feared.2
2) Thewaysin whichmyfederal papersevadeand dilutean explicitrecognition of
theseexchanges.These papers paper over the struggleany political shiftentails.

1. A historianof bureaucracycould trace the modern splittingof the concept of "the year" into
"calendar," "academic," "fiscal,"etc. I have previouslywrittenabout NEH in "The Humanitiesand
EverydayLife," WhereThe MeaningsAre: Feminismand Cultural Spaces, New York and London,
Methuen, 1988, pp. 165-178; and "Politics and Academic Research," in BettyJean Craige, ed.,
Literature,Language, and Politics,Athens,Georgia, Universityof Georgia Press, 1988, pp. 84-98.
2. Let me stressthatmyessaystopswithan NEH reportfor 1987, two yearsbeforethe eventsin
Congress in Summer, 1989, summarizedas "The Helms Amendment," even though the Amend-
ment itselfwas not adopted. Congress put controls,at least until 1990, on the activitiesof both the
National Endowmentfor the Arts (NEA) and the NEH. If the general object of these controlsis
"obscenity,"a specifictargetis the homosexual body. The absence of the homosexual body fromthe
NEH reports,its unfundability, shows what an easy targetit is for social and culturalconservatives.
The language of the Helms Amendmentis both vague and brief.Its purpose is: "To prohibitthe use
of appropriated funds for the dissemination,promotion, or production of obscene or indecent
materials or materials denigratinga particular religion." It then specifies: "None of the funds
authorizedto be appropriatedpursuantto thisAct maybe used to promote,disseminate,or produce
-(1) obscene or indecent materials,including but not limited to depictions of sadomasochism,
homo-eroticism, the exploitationof children,or individualsengaged in sex acts; or (2) materialwhich
denigrates the objects or beliefs of a particular religion or non-religion;or (3) material which
denigrates,debases, or revilesa person, group, or class of citizenson the basis of race, creed, sex,
handicap, age, or national origin."

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.161 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:05:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Isr:
5il.
R.,
...........
:XZ
OF

llh

.......... q.....
.....
......

-v
VIA-
a:
sommi oiF

W"M
7/

. .....
.
.....
MI: 'EM
PresidentReagan addressingtheheads ofindependent
researchlibrariesduringa meeting to announcea
specialurban initiativelaunchedbytheNEH. William
Bennettin background. (Photo:Billie B. Shaddix.)

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.161 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:05:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
26 OCTOBER

Simultaneously,theywall out glimpsesinto the details of fundingdecisions,into

questionsof staffinfluenceor the selectionof the peer reviewpanelistswho, once
chosen, are scrupulouslynamed.
Althoughitsfocusis tight,thisessayemerges froma larger,looser concern
with the institutionsthat support the humanitiesand the relationshipsamong
these institutions.In addition to the federal government,theyinclude: schools,
colleges,and universities;privatefoundations;some stateagencies; museumsand
libraries;the media, especiallypublic television;and a literatepublic. The shop-
per who buys a copy of Allan Bloom, E. D. Hirsch,Jr.,James McPherson, or
Linda Nochlin is underwritinghumanisticinquiry. I am also curious about
officialpapers as papers, about the genres that agencies and bureaucracies,be
they public or private, have developed. The rhetoricalfeatures of a budget,
memorandum, report, or telephone log have both their interest and their
interests.

In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected president,Joseph Duffey,a

Democraticappointee,was chairmanof NEH. On April 15, 1981, he transmitted
the 15thAnnual Reportfor FY 1980. Although such documents are ostensibly
addressed to the President, who is the federal government'schief executive
officer,theyare a major vehicleof accountabilityto the Congress,whichoversees
and funds the NEH, and to the public-at-large,which elects the Congress. As
such, theyare carefullyplanned narrativesof self-presentation and self-justifica-
tion. They tell of principlesand policies faithfully executed, moral and bureau-
craticobligationsmet,moniesreceivedand spent.In appearance, the 15thReport
is deliberatelyplain and sober, its typefaceundistinguished.Six inches by nine
inches,the size of an old-fashionedcollege catalogue, the reportalignsitselfwith
academic tradition.No flashhere. Five hundred fifty-one pages long, it is thick,
as if heftitselfwere a markof responsibility.The typefaceis also small. No flab
here either.
If the 15thReportis stylistically
coherent,its ideological and culturallegacy
to the Reagan Administrationis contradictory.On the one hand, the text en-
dorses a theoryand practiceof the humanitiesthat the Reagan Administration
was to disdain and spurn. Cheerfully,withoutany Carteresque malaise, Duffey
denies that American culture is in decline and that humanistslack purpose and
value. On the contrary,he findsenergy,productivity, briskness,freshness,Amer-
ican creativityon the march. Supportively,the JeffersonLecturer is Barbara
Tuchman, her subject the upbeat "Mankind's BetterMoments." In a black-and-
white photo, she stands erect at a lectern,staringright,confidently,even de-
fiantly.Surveyingthe fifteenyears of NEH historysince its foundingin 1965,
Duffeyconcludes:

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.161 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:05:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Federal Papers 27

America is complex . . . Its hierachies [sic] of wealth and taste are

always subject to attack by newly emergent expressions of qual-
ity. . .. Let us beware . . . of oversimplificationand of an ahistori-
cal sense of ourselves. Nothing is so valuable an antidote to those
errorsas witnessingthe complexityand diversityof the culturalcrea-
tivitywhich,originatingin the thousandsof applicationsaddressed to
the Endowment,flowsthroughits review processes. (p. 5)

Logically,then,Duffeypraisesnew approaches to the humanitiesthatkeep

American creativityon the march: the new social history,personal narratives,
living museums,and theory. He singles out CriticalInquiryfor applause. In a
pragmaticand populistgesture,he also fundsmarginalgroups doing self-studies
thatmightempowerthem.For example, $28,840 dollars go to Selma University
to supporta youthproject ". . . to assess the emergenceand course of the civil
rightsmovementin Selma, Alabama, in 1965." (p. 17) Such a grantis compatible
with the Report's effortto engage the reader. Some narrativeportions isolate
unifyingthemesin NEH grants(teaching,documentation,an analysisof "conti-
nuityand change"). However, the textdeclares itselfan unconventionalstory,its
narrativematerials"data, information, artifacts."The "challenge" to the reader
is "interpretation."(p. 7) The reader is to become a humanistand join in the
process of puttingit all together.
On the other hand, the Reporthas two elements that later issues from
ideologicallydifferentchairs will pick up and carryforward.First,it is patriotic,
proudly conscious of America as a world leader. The particularobligation of
NEH is to show thatAmerica is ahead in ". . . the realm of ideas and the spirit."
Despite the historicalweight of this task, the NEH budget is small, less than
7 percentof the total thatall sources have given to the arts and humanities.At
the beginning of the Reagan/Bush decade an abyss opens up between the
fulsomeadvocacy of a fetishizedpublic ideal (other than defense or "national
security")and its funding.To throw a drawbridgeover the abyss, the Report
makes the small beautiful.This 7 percent will stimulateprivatefunding.More-
over, it will show the reluctance of the federal governmentto dominate and
control the humanities.The officeof the NEH chair will not be a throne for
kings.At best a bullypulpit,it willnot pay fora bullyin the pulpit.In the 1980s,
when bullies strode towardsthe pulpit,thismodestywas a weapon of resistance
to them.
Second, the Reportconstruesthe humanities,even theirjam sessions,as a
preservingforce. More particularly,the humanitiesbottle and conserve values.
LinkingAmerica,a historyof itsorigins,and humanisticzeal, the Reportappeals
to a Founding Father to legitimizeits activities.Withoutexploring its use of a
dynasticmetaphorfor cultural transmissionor its teleological vision of history,
the Reportcites a famous statementof John Adams. He must studypoliticsand

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.161 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:05:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 28 OCTOBER

war so that his sons can study mathematics,philosophy,geography,natural

history,and naval architecture;so that his grandchildrencan studypainting,
music,and architecture.
The Report'stensionbetween the supportof innovationand of tradition
appears in its illustrations.Some show diversityof class, race, and gender. A
whitewoman in glassesstaresat a book; a blackwoman,withearphones,at a pad,
pencil in hand; a Native American man, holding a book, at some bookshelves.
However, most of the photographsare static head shots. The firstand last
reinforcestereotypicalimages of the humanities.The cover photo is of a gray-
haired gentlemanin glassesand tweedjacket, absorbed in the contemplationof a
manuscriptpage. The lastphoto is of threestaffmembersprocessingand sorting
the 1700 or so applicationsforsummerstipends.Two of theclerksare black,one
white,all female.
On December 21, 1981, Reagan nominatedWilliamJ.Bennettas chairman
of NEH. His confirmationin early 1982 began his tenacious adhesion to high
public office.On April 15, 1982, Bennetttransmittedthe 16thAnnual Report,
for FY 1981, to his President.Given the fact that Duffeystayed in officefor
much of 1981, the formatand contentsof the reportmustbe largelyhis. Two

......
.....

N
4OW- ....
Photoson thisand followingpage arefromtheNEH's
15th Annual Reportfor FY 1980. (Photos:Morton
Broffman.)

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.161 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:05:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Federal Papers 29

prefatoryphotos signifythis residual influence.The firstis of the Jefferson

Lecturer, Gerald Holton, a physicistand historianof science. He stands at a
lecternbeforea much largerslide projectiondisplayinga draftmanuscriptcopy
of the Declaration of Independence. It is written,rewritten,scratchedout and
over in ink, not engraved in stone. The second picture framessome students
"engaged in a fieldstudyof theirarchitecturalheritagein Worcester,Massachu-
setts."Standingoutside,theyare holdingpapers,a camera. They look involved,
engaged, earnest,togetheras a group. The captionsaysthattheyare "using the
local communityas a teachingtool."
The introductoryprose of this 16th Reportis blunt, straightforward, an
explanationof NEH's conceptof the humanitiesand an outlineof itsadministra-
tive processes. It stresseshow littlemoney NEH has, but how it can fillspecial
needs nonetheless.It praises the peer reviewsystem.Althoughthe language of
everydaylogisticsseems to detach the chairmanfromthe Report,at one point,
however, the prose anticipatesBennett's willfuland belligerentstyle.A para-
graph on "The Chairman" remindsus thathe can act "contrary"to the recom-
mendationsof his advisoryNational Council on the Humanitiesand can make
sixty-sixgrants,up to $17,500 each, on his own.

..............

'4
41

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.161 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:05:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 30

fromtheNEH's 17thAnnualReportfor
Bothphotos
FY 1982.

The 17thAnnual Report,for FY 1982, consolidatesBennett'sgovernance.

Some of the new projectsmighthave occurredunder Duffey:more travelmoney
to collections;more forsecondaryschool teachers;supportforthe celebrationof
the Bicentennialof the Constitution,one of the 1980s celebrationsmeant to
cementthe allegianceof the United Stateshumanities.The 1983 Reportwillalso
announce grantsthat Duffey'sNEH mighthave made, for example, to histori-
cally black colleges and universities.The final 1983 picture will be a full-page
reproductionof a woman representinga woman, Gwen John's lovelyportrait
SeatedWomanfromthe collectionof a new museumto whichNEH gave a grant,
the National Museum of Women in the Arts.
However,not surprisingly, major changeshave parachutedin. They appear
in the reportsas if theyhad alwaysbeen there or, if not, as if theyshould have
been. To presentthem,NEH has overhauledthereport'sformat.JamesMadison
has replacedJohnAdams as the Founding Fatherof choice. Portraitsof Madison
will become icons of the 1980 reports,his commentson connectionsbetween
learned institutionsand a free people, scriptural.These bows and bouquets to
Madison are in a bookletnow eightand one-halfinchesby eleven inches,the size
of the yearlymessage froma corporationor affluentfoundation.It has many
more photos,is muchmoretastefully done. Some shotsof humanbeingsengaged
in the humanitiesremain.Page 148 is givenover to a perkywhiteman in glasses

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.161 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:05:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Federal Papers

Milwaukee
(Photo:Courtesy PublicLibrary.)

.........
i111W

workingin a bioethicslibrary,apparentlywithitsinformation-retrieval system.A

far greater proportionrepresenthumanisticartifactsfrom projects NEH has
funded.The photoschange the visualemphasisof the reportfromdoing-from
activity-to being-to objects we mustregard and respect.Opposite the title
page is a reproductionof El Greco's St.Martinand theBeggar,in whichSt. Martin
might well be the NEH and the beggar a needy humanist.In the next years,
placing faithand colonizationin theirhistoricloop, reproductionsof whitemen's
renderings Native American men, be theypaintingsor sculptures,will be a
of
persistentvisual theme.
The new formatalso assigns the yearlyJeffersonLecture, which NEH
sponsors,its own section. In 1982, the lecturer,EmilyVermeule,an archaeolo-
gist,does not have a photograph.In subsequent years,the lecturerswill have
handsome portraits.They will also all be white males, mostlyat the end of
distinguishedcareers.3sExcerptsfromtheirspeeches,oftenpraisingdemocratic

3. In 1983, JaroslavPelikan; in 1984, Sidney Hook; in 1985, Cleanth Brooks; in 1986, Leszek
Kolakowski;in 1987, ForrestMcDonald. Anotherchange in formatconcernsthe announcementof
grants.In 1980 and 1981, theyare organized by the state in whichthe awardee (person or institu-
tion) lives, which permitsquick Congressionalscrutiny.Now theyare organized according to the
programthatawarded them. In effect,geographyhas givenway to bureaucraticcategories.Politics,
however,creeps back in. The 1984 Reporthas an "Index of Grants,"listedby state.

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.161 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:05:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
32 OCTOBER

traditionsthat seem to be shimmeringin the twilight'slast gleaming, are a

metonymyfor a second change in post-Duffeyreports.The humanitiesare no
longer lively,but in dismayingdecline and decay. An emergencymedical crew of
the word, NEH mustrevive,even resurrectthem. The infinitives of revivalare
"to reinvigorate"and, even more compulsively,"to restore." Later reportswill
praise and announce grants to study two publicationsby NEH chairmen that
lament the present and call for a better future: Bennett's bluntlyentitled To
Reclaima Legacy(1984) and Lynne V. Cheney's AmericanMemory(1987) mourn
the loss of the studyof historyand literature.In 1986, NEH, symbolicallybut
legitimately,creates an Officeof Preservationto expand materialeffortsto save
texts.4
Meetingthe need fora revivalof the humanities,NEH promisesto seek out
a particular kind of project, one with "quality." Although the 1983 Report
promisesto retainfairselectionprocedures,whichpeer reviewinsures,it mono-
tonously underscores an unexamined quest for "excellence," "the best," the
"finest,"the "great work," the "masterwork."Curricula,no longer sulkingon
the borders of the great traditions,will have a "core." NEH altersitscategories
to encourage projectsthat demonstratethisdecorum. The Report,for example,
happilydiscusses how well the Division of Education Program has encouraged
educational reform. It has installed a "Central Disciplines in Undergraduate
Education" program withcategories that include:
a. ImprovingIntroductoryCourses
b. PromotingExcellence in a Field
c. FosteringCoherence Throughout an Institution

Wary of seeming too elitist,the reportsdevelop a strainof populism,thatJohn

Agresto, as deputy chairman,outlines most transparentlyin the 1986 Report.
This NEH brings"the best" straightto the people. Givingpeople the best-the
great books, major themes, significanthistorical events- liberates minds and
imaginations.Aestheticand intellectualhierarchiesbreed not more hierarchies
but freedom. Agresto implies that his liberal predecessors were either rigid
specialistsor flaccidpandererswho gave the people "the worst,"two more signs
of the decay that the Reagan Revolutionaries have had to drill out. These
predecessorslurk between Agresto's lines:
We have resistedthe beliefthatscholarshipis forscholarsand thatthe
public will accept the humanitiesonly in adulteratedforms.We have
held fastto the notionthatexposure to the bestthe humanitieshave to

4. The 1986 Report,the 21st, liststhirty-two

grants,totaling$4,059,207 in outrightand match-
ing funds,forpreservation.No matterwhat theirideological persuasion,humanistscan agree on the
need to preservetextsthatare physicallycrumblingaway. The disagreementis over whichtextsand
for what purposes.

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.161 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:05:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Federal Papers 33

offercan be an educational experience that is neither narrow and

boring nor simplyentertaining.(p. 7)
One of the most irritatingchanges in the 1980s' reportsis the number of
self-righteousdeclarations that NEH grants will now be non-ideological,non-
partisan, apolitical, without any social agenda or advocacy. In that false but
common binaryopposition between ideology and excellence, NEH will choose
excellence, reason, and reflection.For FY 1983, in the 18th Annual Report,
then-Assistant Chairman Agresto's "Letter of Introduction"declares: "The ad-
ministration's firstobjectivethroughthe Endowmentwas to ensure thatfederally
funded scholarshipand culture are free frompolitical,partisan,or ideological
influences."(p. 8) Yet, the reportsare blatantlyifblandlypolitical. In the 1982
number,betweenthe reproductionsof St. Martinand theBeggarand a portraitof
James Madison, is a photo that takes up nearly the entire page, bled on three
sides. In the background is a row of flags.Standing before them,head cocked,
looking respectful,is WilliamJ. Bennett.Dominatingthe foreground,holdinga
sheet of paper, wearinga plaid suit,looking to the left,is Ronald Reagan. The
place is the White House, the occasion, on December 8, 1982, is the announce-
ment of special awards to selected research libraries.Reagan's microphonescut
across Bennett'schest,as if theywere militarysashes.
Opposite Reagan's photo is an excerptfromhis remarks.Astonishingly, he
cites Alfred North Whitehead's 1933 list of the qualities of a civilized society:
truth,beauty,adventure,art, and peace. The humanities,the Presidentvows,
provide their"intellectualunderpinnings."But the old privatizerhas a warning:
Don't expect the federal governmentto financethe humanities.It will support
only ". . . the basic disciplines and essential activities." This will, however,
stimulategivingfromthatold sugar daddy, the privatesector. In effect,federal
underpinningsare to be pin monies.
These presidentialhomilies accompanied the havoc Bennett wrecked on
the NEH budgets. Tracking NEH monies can be tricky.Grants are either
"outright" or "challenge," the latter requiring the recipient to raise other
monies. Administrative categoriesand programschange, appear, and disappear.
Nevertheless, between 1981 and 1982, the NEH budget dropped from
$144,366,330.48 to $115,818,324.49; the totalnumberof grantsfrom2,632 to
2,143. Big cuts came in public or general programming,special programs,
education, and fellowshipsand seminars.State councils for the humanitiessur-
vived because law mandated thattheyreceive,at a minimum,a certainpercent-
age of the NEH budget. By 1987, the total budget has increased by a littleover
$8,588,000, but NEH is no starfishwhose amputated limbs grow back.
In 1984, BennettleftNEH to become Secretaryof Education. Agrestowas
to serve as Acting Chairman until the Senate approved the appointmentof
Lynne V. Cheney in 1986. Agresto's introductionsget even more romantic
about the reversal of the ostensibledecline of the decades before Reagan. He

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.161 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:05:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
34 OCTOBER

offersan alternative vision of the humanities that at once essentializes and

nationalizesthem. In an apostrophe to Mr. President,he vows:
The humanitiesare vitallyimportantto the educational and cultural
lifeof our nation,constitutingas theydo the soul of civilization,which
has been formed over the course of the centuries. Preservingand
transmitting thistraditionserves to nurtureand sustainour national
character,helpingto make the United States worthyof its leadership
in the world. (20th Annual Reportfor FY 1985, p. 3)

Despite such militancies,the annual reports must strive for the serene,
quiet, dignifiedtone that they assert the humanitiessustain. These documents
pitchthe humanitiesin general and NEH in particularabove the fray.So doing,
they replicate that idealized, decontextualized picture of the humanitiesas a
precious,separate domain that miraculouslyreaches into our lifeonly to inspire
and enhance us. The reportsalso suggestthatthe pictureof the humanitiesthey
draw is the only plausible one for reasonable Americans. The descriptionof
awards,at best a sentenceor two about theirtopics,reinforcesthisunseasonable
tranquillity.One example: in 1984, Bennettgave a much-reported$30,000, as a
Chairman's EmergencyGrant,to the right-wing organizationAccuracyin Media
(AIM). The 19th Annual Report for FY 1984 lists thisaward alphabeticallyunder
"Humanities Projects in Media." Though it is identifiedas a Chairman's Grant,
the entryreads as if the producer, Reed J. Irvine, had neithersubject position
nor scores to settle.The mild and skim-milky language reads: "To supportthe
production of a two-hour televisionprogram in response to the previouslyaired
series, 'Vietnam: A Television History.'The programwill focus more generally
on the role of the media in creating perceptionsthat influencethe course of
history."(p. 79)
So constructed,so construed,these NEH textsare even less candid than a
corporatereport,whichmust,somewhere,in some footnote,murmursome truth
about the company'sfinancialconditionand prospects.Yet, duringthe Bennett/
Agrestoyears,NEH provoked politicalcontroversyaftercontroversyabout the
theoryand practice of the humanities.Visible and publicized, the fightswere
withCongress,its funder;and withacademics and intellectuals,its fundeesand
potential peer reviewers;and with National Committee members,its adjunct
administrators.Among the textsthat record the strugglesare the Congressional
Record,in which legislativemannerscan hone ratherthan deny disagreements;
publicationsof professionalorganizations;the press;and the occasional scholarly
workabout NEH. The NEH reportsignore,sanitize,and evade the dirtand grit.
Their apparent detachmentfromcontestsconveysthe impressionthatany con-
test that mighthave gotten firedup is either unworthyof notice or over.
To note but four conteststhat became disappearingacts:
1. Budgetary.Bennettconsistently soughtto reduce the budget forthe State
HumanitiesCouncils. In 1985, forexample, NEH asked for9.6 percentless than

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.161 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:05:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Federal Papers 35

it had received in 1984 and for a 21.45 percent cut in the Division of State
Programs. This Division, a remarkable innovation,seeks to bring professional
humanistsand the public, academic humanitiesand public issues, together-a
meeting that state-runorganizations orchestrate.Congress insisted on giving
NEH more than it wanted. Framingthisdebate was another,whichthe creation
of NEH and NEA in 1965 ought to have put to rest but which continueswith
increasingvirulence:whetherthe federal governmentought to be fundingthe
arts and humanitiesat all. Some radical conservativesoppose the mean, daft,
craftyHelms Amendment,not because they dislike Helms, but because they
would rather get rid of NEH than control it. Their rhetoricinvokes "the tax-
payers" as iftheywere deitiesto be placated, not throughgiftsand sacrifices,but
through the resolute refusal to take their manna to feed philosophers and
painters.
2. Contemporary approachesto thehumanities.NEH reports insinuate that
such new movementsas women's studies,which theyencode as "advocacy" or
"having an agenda," traduce the humanities.Many in the field fought back,
oftenimplyingor statingthat NEH had taintedthe peer reviewsystemin order
to get projectsfromnew fieldsrejected, usuallywiththe summaryjudgment of
"trendy." On March 23, 1982, for example, Joan Hoff-Wilson,the Executive
Secretaryof the Organization of American Historians,wrote Bennettin a pub-
liclydistributedletter:
As a historian,I am especiallyconcerned thatsome of the more recent
and productivefieldsof specializationsuch as familyhistory,women's
history,public historyand quantitativemethodologyso oftenutilized
by the "new social" historiansin general will not be given equal
considerationalong with more traditionalhistoricalprojects. (p. 1)
3. Governance.Fillingthe officeof the chairmaninspiredtwo outcries.One,
ironicallyamong conservatives,was over Bennett's appointmentin 1981; the
second, in 1985, between the Reagan Administrationand a coalition of oppo-
nents,concerned the nominationof Edward J. Curran, an ex-headmasterthen
deputydirectorof the Peace Corps. A Senate committeeultimatelyvoted eight
to seven againstthe nomination.In addition,Reagan appointees to the National
Council were often roundlyaccused of being unqualified,theirappointmenta
cheap politicalreward fora Reagan loyalist.In 1984, forexample, Helen Marie
Taylor of Virginiawas a candidate. In part,her resumeshowsthe startsand stops
of a woman of her class and generation.5A graduate of Waco High School in
1940, she trainedas an actress. Her career, however,seems to be less that of a
professionalthanof a philanthropist and civicactivist,who was even arrestedand
jailed in Richmond for "attempting to save the historicBenjamin FranklinPress

5. I am using a resume attached to a "Memorandum" of the Senate Committeeon Labor and

Human Resources,June 28, 1984.

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.161 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:05:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
36 OCTOBER

Building." Despite thisflirtationwithcivildisobedience, her politicalcredentials

are sturdilyparty-line:a Republican activist,a Reagan/Bush supporter, the
winner of a special recognition award from the American Security Council
Foundation in 1978, and two Eagle Forum awards in 1973 and 1980 for "dedi-
cated leadership for God, Home and America."
4. AffirmativeAction.Bennett consistentlyrefused to file an affirmative
action plan for the Endowment. So did the Departmentof Justice,the Depart-
mentof Education,and the Federal Trade Commission.CongresspersonCardiss
Collins,a Democrat fromIllinois,a black woman,held congressionalhearingson
his disregardof the law.
On April 15, 1988, Lynne V. Cheney, signingherself"Chairman," sent
the 22nd Annual Reportfor FY 1987 to the President. Facing her letter is a
reproductionofMark theEvangelistWriting froma Book of Hours displayedin an
exhibitNEH supported.Though Mark is a noun, a saint'sname, it can also be an
imperativeverb. We are to mark, to watch, evangelistswriting.The Reportis
obviously a text from its decade. The "youth grants," already declining,are
gone. Cheney invokes Madison's belief in the inseparabilityof "liberty and
learning." However, her signature is clear. She stresses her commitmentto
humanitieseducation in the primaryand secondary schools, inseparable from
her supportof the public humanities.Far less confrontationalthan Bennett,she
is farmore the fairadjudicator,a judge, but admittedlywithher own principles.
Agresto, now Deputy Chairman, has more of the old-timespiritand its
by-nowstock themes. A casual observer,he begins in his "Letter of Introduc-
tion," mightbe pessimisticabout the humanities.The numberof undergraduate
majors remains depressed. Moreover, some stubborn "professional organiza-
tions . . . do not hesitateto defendnarrownessand heightenedspecializationin
the academic realm." He, however, is optimistic.For people, defyingthese
interestgroups,are buyingbooks about "restoration."With the self-effacement
power can publicly display, he offerscriteria to measure the success of the
Endowment that are at once naive in their rudimentaryhumanism,covertly
aristocraticin theirtrickle-downtheoryof the distributionof humanisticvirtues,
and obedient to one version of the needs of "the taxpayers." Measuring per-
formance by means of the followingquestions, the criteriaare: how well has
NEH succeeded in "helping to restoreand transmitthe traditionof humanities
learningand teaching"? Has it presentedthe humanitiesto the general public in
ways that have been "truly . . . enlighteningand educational?" Has an elite
traditionbeen conveyedto a democraticaudience? Have the taxpayershad their
money spent on significantprojects and major issues? Have the "virtues and
uses" of the humanitiesbeen made available to "new institutions, new scholars,
new teachers,new students?"(pp. 6-7)

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.161 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:05:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 NAHONAI,
'IWENDOWMENT
FOR
THF
IIU
MANITI
DANNUAL
ENTY
-SECION ES
fTP0ftj'-
1987
N
Em?,"IES ---
......
-----
..Z
MMM-r
ISBN-
......
I...
......
....
....---
.............
mp..
.. ....
....
..
.................................
.........
-m .........
h.... .......
ME
..

Cover
fortheNEH's 22ndAnnualReportfor
FY 1987.

Despite the liturgicalcalls for submissionto "cores" and "excellences,"

culturaland social Fundamentalismhas not takencommand.Mark the Evangelist
is still a gallery exhibit, not required reading in every school in America.
Agresto's 1987 text lacks the certaintiesof the Helms Amendment,whichpoi-
sonously fused right-wingand certain radical feministcomplaints.The 1987
Reporthas itsgesturestowardsmoderation.The cover is a brightred apple with
its top cut and hingedat the back. Risingfromthe whole of the apple's interior,
notjust froma core, are figureswho blur canons of the nineteenthand twentieth
centuriesand an emergingcanon of the 1970s and 1980s: Hawthorne,Frost,
Cather,Twain, King,Jr.,Dickinson,andJohnGreenleafWhittier.One half-page
photo is of coal miners,a referenceto a book an NEH Fellow wroteabout black
coal minersin America.A one-eighthpage photo is of Anne Spencer,an African
American poet, a referenceto a grant to research a book on black American
women poets from 1915 to 1930. Finally,Helen Taylor is no longer on the
National Council, an erasure that firstappears in the 1986 Report.

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.161 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:05:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SydneyHook. 1984 Jefferson
Lecturer.(Photo: Cleanth Brooks. 1985 Jefferson
Lecturer.
MortonBroffman.)

Leszek Kolakowski.1986 Jefferson

Lecturer.(Photo: Lecturer.(Photo:
ForrestMcDonald. 1987 Jefferson
Layle Silbert.) JamesGleason.)

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.161 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:05:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Federal Papers 39

Let me tentativelysuggestsome reasons whythe "Reagan Revolution," so

effectivein achieving popularityand in its defense and fiscalpolicies, did not
drag NEH furtherto the right.The productof wise,even visionary,legislationin
1965, NEH had done a good job between 1965 and 1980 under four different
presidentialadministrations (Johnson,Nixon, Ford, Carter). To many,to charta
steady-as-you-go course was prudentand plausible.They included such powerful
congressmenas RepresentativeSidney Yates of Illinois and Senator Claiborne
Pell of Rhode Island. These legislatorscould check and balance NEH's surge
towardspower, especiallyunder Bennett'smacho, tough-guy-of-"standards" re-
gime. The fact that NEH does not provide all the financial support for the
humanitiesput furtherlimitson its influence.To be sure, NEH is a primary
source of research monies and individual fellowships.It is not, however, the
major supportforpublicationsor foracademic curricula.NEH's poormouthing
was, in part, a symptomof its lack of overwhelmingdominance.
Finally, the style of the NEH reports is more than a set of rhetorical
gesturesthat projects a picture of the humanitiesas smoothlytranscendent,as
airilyuniversaland unifying, in order to repressconflict,dissent,and the struggle
to definewhat the humanitiesare, who humanistsmightbe. That styleis also a
synecdochefor the humanitiesin the United States,despite our ferociousquar-
rels. Humanists do speak a common language, which incorporates terms of
disagreement.The tribe,for example, quicklylines up in formationon a battle
site labeled "transcendentvalues," "canon," "Shakespeare," or "narrative." In
brief,in simple,we share a professionalizeddiscoursein whichthe humanitiesare
a particularset of concepts,disciplines,and controversies.A confession:I could
probablytalkmore easilywithWilliamBennettthan withan old woman who was
poor, barely literate if at all, and a devout, self-humiliating believer in one
monotheisticgod or another. The quarrels among humanistsin the 1980s, hard
and volatileand uglythough theywere, resembledthose among politicalparties
in a systemin whichall partieshave some shared commitmentto the rules of the
game.
In 1990, however,Congress mustreauthorizeNEH. A numberof conserv-
ative congressmenwill fightto change the rules of the game, to do away with
NEH and its parallel endowment,the National Endowmentfor the Arts,or to
constrictwhatthe endowmentsmightdo and fund.I dread the possibilityof their
success,of federalpapers witha newlybarrenscriptand old fearsof freetongues.

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.161 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:05:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions