[EF: I discussed the blogpost "Job-market catastrophizing?: a conversation" with Krishna Del Toso, who continues to write and think as a philosopher but is no longer paid as one. He agreed to share his reflections below:]

Here's my two cents.

I must say that, as I see it, the root of the "catastrophizing" lies in the fact that as far as the academic work is concerned (whether it is philosophy, literature, physics etc.), you aren't totally in control of the effects of your choices, whereas in other domains you are. This condition that characterizes wannabe academics bring about two aspects: 1. you don't need to train the instant reactivity to external stimuli (I'm talking about the kind of reactivity that can make the difference between leading a business brilliantly… or not), 2. you enter a sort of vicious circle in which the "catastrophizing" is nothing but a passive, fruitless, element that nourishes, and is nourished by, the observation that things go as they go because of a sort of inviolable and tacitly admitted norm (kind of Heidegger's "das Man world").

Of course, I was myself in this very vicious circle when I was hoping (mind the word: hoping!!) for a position at the university, long ago, and I was wearing myself out of "I've never done enough", not to speak of the struggle for publications (a struggle often driven by the aim of adding an extra title in my cv: mere form, devoid of real substance… should research be like this? Definitely not!) and of the almost depressing waiting-time in the maybe-you’ll-be-the-next "parking lot" for researchers after a position. I was waiting for others to decide for me, and that, back then, looked quite obvious, normal.

Fortunately all this no longer wears me out, fortunately we live in a fast-changing world… and fortunately the Aristotelian saying, often remembered but rarely put into practice, according to which "being (and so philosophy too) can be said in many ways" remains always valid.

Now I'm bringing my knowledge of philosophy into non-strictly-philosophical fields, such as early-stage business (I'm currently working on a book on this subject) and personal growth (a colleague recently asked me to make together Youtube video conversations on this matter). The time to actualize the aforementioned Aristotelian message is ripe: consider that Google inaugurated the CPO position, Chief Philosophy Officer, not because it's cool but because they need philosophers. I also continue as an independent scholar with my research in the spare time, avoiding all boring stuff and focusing only on arguments that really tantalize me (of course now I write less articles than before, but they're published on the same international journals). But the most important aspect is that now I know (I mean, crystal clear awareness!) that if I work well, I pick up all the fruits of my actions because I damn deserve that, if I don't, the bad effects are entirely on me… because I damn deserve that. Such a huge relief!

Posted in , ,

4 responses to “Job-market catastrophizing? It is not the only way”

  1. Amanda

    Cool story – I am glad you managed to get out of the very unhealthy aspects of professional philosophy culture. I am hesitant to say that success and failure, in nearly anything in life, is because we deserve it. Seems like more of a spectrum where some things are more in our control than others, but most things we admittedly have at least some control over, even if indirect. And it is sure a lot healthier strategy to focus on the extent that we can control things to the extent that we can’t. So perhaps your attitude is what we should all be aiming for.

  2. Amanda

    I have also done some research on different cultural beliefs, and I am always struck one of the most significant differences between US and European culture: At a much, much, higher rate, Americans believe the things that happen to them in life are of their own making. I don’t want to get into whether this is overall a good or bad thing – there are pluses and minuses on both sides. But I think it contributes to the greater “catastrophizing” amongst US job marketers: we are raised to believe most things are, and everything out to be, within the scope of our efforts. And when this doesn’t play out on the job market it is very hard to handle. I find it interesting the way you seem to have taken this attitude and made it in to a positive thing about philosophy and employment. (I also suspect you are not from the US, correct? That is interesting in itself…)

  3. Hi Amanda, thanks for the suggestion. Out of my experience, I would agree with you about the US rhetorics concerning one’s ability to change one’s destiny and perhaps this might be part of the reasons of one’s disillusion. I wonder whether another part might be the professionalisation of philosophy which makes one think that in order to be a philosopher one needs to be paid to be one in an academic institution. What do you think?

  4. Amanda

    Hi Elisa – yes, I definitely think that the cultural norm within the US (is it only the US?) that one cannot be a “real” philosopher unless you are employed by a university (or even worse, a TT position in a philosophy department at a university) is a major reason why so few PhDs seriously look into alt-ac employment, and why people feel taking that option is failing, why people stay in high workload, low-paying positions for so long, etc.
    The above is, to some degree, connected to the achieve anything belief: because one wants to be a “real” philosopher, and because only academics are real philosophers, PhDs want this and many naively believe that if they work hard enough they can achieve it. When this doesn’t happen everything falls apart…

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading