We are all heirs to the 60s. Civil rights, feminism, gay liberation, Coltrane. By "we" I mean me, and everyone else I know in academia of my generation, a little older, and younger, as well as non-academic ex-hippy friends in my town. What parts of it you like or identify with most I can't say (maybe not Coltrane; maybe you are a hippy but not a pacifist, or you pick and choose your causes. Maybe you don't like how Castro treated the gays, but still aren't happy with conservative Cuban exiles.). I'm too young to have been hippy, and my parents too old, but it was that legacy that changed everything.
In the larger society, the change happened culturally in many ways, but yet still elected Nixon twice, Reagan twice, the Bushes and Trump, albeit without the popular vote in some cases. I have a deep, visceral reaction to all of them.
It was natural for social justice to be conceived of as the raison d'être for the humanities themselves, given this culture. If you are a Hispanist, then you like the Republican side of the Spanish Civil War, and you get to celebrate Lorca, Machado, and Hernández.
So let's also make social justice the content of the humanities, abandoning all those stale old disciplines.
Here's where it gets tricky, for me, because, well, I kind of like my discipline. I would also point out the difference between a discipline and a field or area. A field is where you work, and a discipline is how. It is a craft or way of knowing. I like interdisciplinary work, but I don't like anti, non, or undisciplined work. I like to dabble seriously. In my music major you still learn to read music.