Justin at Daily Nous drew my attention today to a new anonymous group blog, "Against Professional Philosophy." I think it is well worth following, and, for what it is worth, am sympathetic to some of what its authors (one non-TT faculty member, one grad student, one tenured woman philosopher, and one previously tenured philosopher who left academia) have to say. Here is their Manifesto. And here is their self-introduction:
W, X, Y, and Z all share a deep love of real philosophy. By real philosophy, we mean synoptic, systematic, rational reflection on the individual and collective human condition, and on the natural world in which human and other conscious animals live, move, and have their being. Real philosophy fully includes the knowledge yielded by the natural and formal sciences; but, as we see it, real philosophy also goes significantly beneath and beyond the exact sciences, and non-reductively incorporates aesthetic, artistic, affective/emotional, ethical/moral, and, more generally, personal and practical insights that cannot be adequately captured or explained by the sciences. In a word, real philosophy is all about the nature, meaning, and value of individual and collective human existence in the natural cosmos, and how it is possible to know the philosophical limits of science, without also being anti-science. Finally, real philosophy is pursued by people working on individual or collective writing projects, or teaching projects, in the context of small, friendly circles of like-minded philosophers. Like-minded but not uncritical! Real philosophers read both intensively and also widely inside philosophy, and also widely outside of philosophy, critically discuss what they’ve read, write, mutually present and talk about their work, re-read, re-discuss, and then re-write, with the primary aim of producing work of originality and of the highest possible quality, given their own individual and collective abilities. They also seek to disseminate their work, through publication, teaching, or public conversation.
In view of this conception of real philosophy, we also share some serious worries about contemporary professional philosophy. More bluntly put, we think that contemporary professional philosophy is seriously [expletive deleted] up in various ways that, ironically and even tragically, oppose and undermine the ongoing project of real philosophy.
Finally, here is a brief interview with an untenured woman philosopher about the role fear plays in professional philosophy:
I just read some of the entries on the blog. The entries are wise, insightful, and while they do not ‘say something nice’ they at the same time point at problems that need to be addressed (at least in my view). I wonder what is at the basis of academia being as it is. Here are some thoughts from my perspective:
First, it seems that fear (be it fear of being rejected, fear of not being able to keep a job, fear of being criticized, fear of being excluded, or just plain fear of being wrong) plays a role in how people in academia decide and act. Of course, people are more complex than that and many people’s behavior will not be correctly characterized in this way. Nevertheless, thinking about this in terms of fear allows us to imagine how it could be different. So, what kind of academic behavior would ensue if suddenly the fear of being wrong, the fear of not getting a job or not getting tenure, or the fear of getting rejected, were to lose its motivating force? I bet many people would say that nothing productive would happen; but I do not think that this would be the case. As you yourself pointed out, most people who are in philosophy are really passionate about what they do and have an intrinsic motivation for doing what they are doing.
Second, and maybe related to the first point, many people (especially junior people) experience a certain urgency to justify their philosophical projects in terms of what is fashionable this year in some major publication outlets. My graduate students often express this urgency with the question: What should I do to be ‘marketable’? Of course, given the current academic climate this is quite normal and (maybe) a good strategy for survival. However, that just seems to me like a recipe for bad philosophical work (as if what is fashionable is per se philosophically worthwhile; even though it could be).
Finally, I do think that the problems in academia need to be understood in the socio-political-economical context of the US. When I graduated from [University U in country V] I had received an upper middle class wage for 4 years for writing my dissertation (in contrast to the debt that all my graduate students are racking up). In addition, at least at that point (things are changing in V too), it would have been feasible for me to get a fulfilling job outside of academia or to get another MA (in fact, I was planning to do so). This is thanks to the respect for intellectual accomplishments and education that still characterizes public life in C. If I, however, do not get tenure here in the US, I will most likely move back to V. Not only is the cost of living insane in the US, I also do not think that any non-academic employer would be impressed by the work I have done for the last few years. And that brings us back to my first point: fear.
I expect some readers will disagree profoundly with the kinds of critiques of professional philosophy the blog gives. But disagreement is a good thing. So is self-reflection on the state of our profession, and our own psychological lives as members of it.
Leave a Reply