Here Lyotard is icily precise: The university once held the high calling of “the formation and dissemination of a general model of life” in hopes that an educated population would create a better world. But in a world without grand narratives, “universities and the institutions of higher learning are called upon to create skills, and no longer ideals—so many doctors, so many teachers in a given discipline, so many engineers, so many administrators, etc. The transmission of knowledge is no longer designed to train an elite capable of guiding the nation towards its emancipation, but to supply the system with players capable of acceptably fulfilling their roles at the pragmatic posts required by its institutions.” 

Many popular defenses of the humanities—that they teach transferable skills, or that most graduates end up gainfully employed—preemptively concede that only instrumental knowledge can hold broader societal value. Yet many scholars are unable to articulate a more robust defense because doing so would require an appeal to grand narratives they themselves no longer believe. Without a shared system of values that gives social meaning to the study of the humanities, there is ultimately little reason for anyone to do so beyond personal enjoyment.