About

Jim1Jim Spates is Professor of Sociology Emeritus at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, New York. He can be reached at spates@hws.edu.

I have been working on John Ruskin for more than a quarter of a century, first introduced to him by a long-time colleague at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Claudette Columbus, in the mid-1980s during a semester when we co-taught a course on “London in the Nineteenth Century.” Sociologist that I am, I wanted our students to read the giants in my field who not only had lived in London during that tumultuous time, but who had written works regarded as classics of social thought while they walked and talked there–Marx and Engels prime among them. While Claudette had no objection to including such celebrated thinkers, her list, given that she was a Professor of English and Comparative Literature with a specialty in 19th century English writers, was different. We would read some Tennyson and Browning, she said, some Dickens, some Carlyle, and some Ruskin. Delighted with the suggestion of the first four, I was forced to admit, a bit sheepishly, that I had no idea who this last fellow, Ruskin, was. She said that, unfortunately, I wasn’t alone in my ignorance. Many were enveloped in the same darkness, a tragedy given the level of Ruskin’s genius and the depth of his thought on virtually every matter of significance in and for life.

Once I learned for myself how correct my colleague was, my intellectual life was transformed. For in this now-all-but-buried (once) eminent Victorian, I found what I had been looking for during the more than two decades that had disappeared after I received my PhD: a sociologist (actually, a “proto-sociologist”) whose analytical brilliance was not only unsurpassed, but whose approach to social life, in contradistinction to most of those who call themselves sociologists these days (the majority of whom regard themselves as “objective, scientific reporters” for whom value judgments are anathema), was unabashedly moral. Like Plato, my other great mentor in thinking carefully about the nature of social life, Ruskin took it as axiomatic that the reason anyone studied society was so that we might come to understand what forms of social arrangement were good for human beings and which were inimical. I haven’t looked back. For those interested in learning more about this journey, my paper, “Why Ruskin?”–written to answer the question I have been asked hundreds of times since I started down this remarkable, helpful path–can be downloaded on the Writing Ruskin Page. If you’d prefer, you can ask for a bound copy by sending me an e-mail at the address noted above. 

For anyone interested, below is a link to my Curriculum Vitae, which, in this version, attends mainly to my Ruskin work. If you wish to be in touch about any aspect of it, send an e-mail to the same e-address.

I hope you enjoy the excerpts from Ruskin’s works which are the raison d’etre of this site. For the quarter century and more mentioned they have enlighted and bouyed me up, especially during those moments when the daily conundra of life have seemed to indicate that nothing but tragedy and hopelessness will reign on our troubled globe. In such moments, Ruskin can be for us, as he was for so many of his contemporaries, a tonic, a still-shining beacon pointing us toward what Plaot called The Good.

Write anytime about any thing.

Jim Spates–Ruskin Vitae

One Response to About

  1. Pingback: John Ruskin | Inglenookery

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s