Edith Hall posed (and answered, because she does that) a similar question when I was studying with her at Durham. Her question was about Classics in particular, but for ancient history, literature and history are closely linked subjects (and I would argue should be closely linked for all periods). Her answer was something like "I don't need to create value for society; I'm engaging my own interest."

That's a common answer, at least that I've ran into.

Another common answer (which some of the linked posts engage), is that the study of history is a platform for learning the skills of critical thinking, writing, and communication, which can be put to use in another field.

I find both of these approaches unsatisfying. Here's why: the university tried to close the Classics department at Durham the year before I got there (they were still debating it after I got accepted!). My alma mater, PLU, completely eliminated their Classics department in the last couple years. At UCSB, during the Great Recession, administration somehow decided reducing the shelf space in the university library allowed to Classics would save money? Many other humanities departments have been eliminated or threatened with elimination in the last 20 or so years. You see the converse of this same phenomenon in the drive for producing more STEM students. The political environment is driving students to STEM topics and away from Humanities, and consequently driving funding in the same direction.

Hall's answer I don't think is useful because it is essentially refusing to play the game and taking her ball home. I agree with her ideologically; I too look forward to the robot slave economy in which humans can engage their personal interests while universal basic income supports their daily needs. We don't have that robot slave economy yet, and we still need to convince the people who have the money to fund us. Hall's approach doesn't do that, because it doesn't really address the question.

The second approach I mentioned, the "platform for learning skills" approach, I don't like because it doesn't give any value inherent to the study of humanities. It basically caves to the STEM argument; study of anything is only worthwhile if it produces revenue. That argument justifies studying history because the skills one learns studying history are transferable to a more economically viable field. My problem here is that history is not unique in that respect; you could teach logic, technical writing, whatever, independent of any historical context. It also accepts the premise of the question, that value is measured in dollar signs. If you can't make money doing history (and most historians don't make Amazon level money), what's the point? Well, you take your skills elsewhere. That's not a justification of history per se; it reduces history to one method of teaching skills that can be taught elsewhere, and history is still something that can be eliminated.

Both of these answers reflect that we live in a society that largely judges value by dollars. When we have institutions that are funded by tax dollars or private lenders, we have to find a justification for the use of that money. Again, I look forward to the scarcity-free world the robot slave economy will bring, but we don't have that yet. In the meantime, we need money to do history, and we need an argument to convince people who have money to give it to us.

Oddly enough, the most clear, concise argument for the value of humanities I know comes from a 1993 movie. What Malcom's talking about in that scene is the lack of introspection of the company.

This is my defense of the value of history: history, literature, and the other humanities give us the tools to be introspective about our actions, individually, and as a society. They let us attempt to understand our circumstances and, while they can't be predictive, they can give warning. For instance, the president recently and mistakenly claimed the 1918 influenza ended WWII (off by what, 25ish years? I didn't do the math). That statement is in every way wrong. In fact, because of historians who research the 1917 pandemic, we know wearing masks help curtail transmission of these diseases. These moral and practical insights don't always have a dollar value, but they do improve life.

That's my defense. Introspection of ourselves and our civilization makes our lives better, and I hope more pleasant. And while it may not have a dollar value, y'all will miss it if we stop doing this work.

/u/commiespaceinvader and /u/caffarelli (and other flairs who do not begin with the letter C) have previously discussed What role and responsibility does the historian/archivist have in society and politics?

/u/Snapshot52 has previously addressed the question Is Research Value-Neutral?

The subreddit FAQ also has a special section about history as a vocation.

Based on previous answers, I'd say there are two directions in which you can answer this question: by examining the method and the results. Or, why the study of history is important versus why the study of history is important. It's easy enough to explain the latter, but the former is something that's a fair bit more overlooked.

On the matter of results, this thread with contributions from u/WARitter and u/bitparity et al is relevant to us.

On the matter of method, u/restricteddata has an excellent post here.