A brief note against the notion of useless knowledge

I think any fact is a good fact, in fact 

- Karen O'Leary, Taskmaster New Zealand S04E04

There is a common attitude that one encounters as someone who has studied in the humanities, namely that those disciplines are full of useless knowledge. While I concede that there is such a thing as useless knowledge, most types of knowledge are far from useless, although the exact use of a particular kind of knowledge might vary significantly. 

 The idea of useless knowledge is often bolstered by the erroneous notion that what people in the humanities study tends to be niche, hugely specialised, obscure, and hermetic. And it is true that to some more competitively-oriented scholars, what exists outside of their particular field - however small and narrow - is not worth knowing anything about. However, by and large most people I have encountered in academia knows that it is necessary to accumulate knowledge about many different topics in order to properly understand one's own. Moreover, most of us also understands that by learning about things outside our respective specialties enable us to more easily broaden our horizons and comprehend our particular topic within a wider spectrum of facts and information. Knowledge is useful because it adds context, and the usefulness of knowledge is contextual. 

I was reminded of the usefulness of so-called useless knowledge when I was talking with a friend of mine at a café earlier today. We are both humanities scholars, and we talked broadly about things that came up. At one point, the conversation steered onto the topic of Latin American literature, and this prompted me to recount some of the main points in the novel Hombres de maíz, Men of Maize, by the Guatemalan novelist Miguel Ángel Asturias, published in 1949. The novel is a kaleidoscope that blends reality and mythology in a way that enables the reader to grasp nuances in the socioeconomic mosaic of twentieth-century Guatemala. One example is that the large-scale planting of maize is a hallmark of the upper social echelons of rural Guatemala, and that this is a practice which breaks with the older rural practice of harvesting wild maize. The large-scale maize cultivation is hard on the soil and takes up space that earlier was used to plant a greater variey of crops - as far as I recall from reading the novel two years ago - and those who have the land and resources to plant maize at this scale represent an extractive upper class that responds to the increasing encroachment of capitalist logic and demands in a part of the world beginning to feel the pressures and influence from the US businesses and governments. 

As noted, my memory of the novel is imperfect, and I have not yet anything more about Guatemalan history in order to further corroborate and contextualise the picture presented by Asturias. Consequently, my knowledge of the socioeconomical nuances of twentieth-century Guatemala is very limited, and it is so far from my own field of expertise that there is nothing I can do about this little piece of knowledge in a professional setting. However, the usefulness of this knowledge is not about the knowledge itself, but the realisation that this kind of knowledge is significant in order to understand the broader picture. Knowing that maize has significance as a marker of class and politics provides a starting point for learning more. In the same way, knowing that various details signify something more than the detail itself is what makes knowledge contextually useful, both in the sense that a piece of knowledge might be useful in a particular context, but also that this piece provides a clue to its own broader context.  

Knowledge for its own sake is insufficient, if not necessarily useless, but knowledge that contributes to an ever-growing, ever-deepening understanding of reality is valuable beyond the price of rubies. Our own historical epoch testifies to the truth of this on a daily basis.