In the second part of this chapter, I will argue that Humboldt’s thought is directly relevant to the situation of the modern university and supports some proposals for its reconfiguration. First, however, I would like to return to the question addressed at the beginning of this book, which also focuses on the contemporary relevance of Humboldt’s thought. Why was the problem of language so central to the work of Wilhelm von Humboldt in the context of the European enlightenment and why does his account of language continue to make his thought relevant now?

The answer was suggested by a comparison of two responses to the theme set by the Prussian academy in 1784: Was ist Aufklärung? or What is Enlightenment? Immanuel Kant resoundingly announced the motto of enlightenment as “Habe Mut, Dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen!” (Have the courage to use your own understanding!) and its definition as “der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbstverschuldeten Unmündigkeit” (humanity leaving behind its own self-incurred immaturity). As we saw in chapter 1, Kant in this essay draws attention to a central problem that the realization of this imperative entails: the conflict, in all intellectual and political life, between what he calls the “private” (“privat”) and the “public” (“öffentlich”) uses of reason. As I have already explained in detail in chapter 1, Kant’s definition of these terms is highly specific. He defines the “private” (“privat”) use of reason as that appropriate to someone acting in a public role—for example, a policeman, judge, or priest—who should use their reason only “in private”: that is to say, without allowing it to affect the execution of their official duties. By contrast, he defines the “public” (“öffentlich”) use of reason as that appropriate to the same person thinking, reading, or writing in the universal public world of learning (“die Leserwelt”). Even beyond being potentially confusing because his usage of the two terms is not the same as their general use today, Kant’s radical distinction raises as many questions as it solves. The most important is whether the distinction is ultimately coherent. Where is the line between the public and the private use of reason ultimately to be drawn, and can it in any given society be drawn with absolute clarity at all?