Professional Insecurities and Approval

In a comment on a previous post, Kyle Whyte suggested that I say a bit more about how to deal with professional insecurities.  Because I think Kyle put the issues quite well and offered a nice solution, I'd like to quote him at length (hope you don't mind, Kyle!). Kyle wrote:

It doesn't appear to me that our field works in a succinct way in terms of our being able to have whatever our accomplishments may be at some point in time recognized without our having to tell someone about it. I think this is in line with what you were saying about it being hard to avoid seeking approval. You kind of have to, at one point or another, when you're hustling on the job market or trying to network within a philosophical community that you're new to, as well as other situations. So this puts us in this strange bind in which we have to express insecurities, and insecurities of several kinds, including what we've been talking about. I also think there's a general insecurity in our field that comes from the fact that, although we know that it's highly possible for one's article to get published and never get any uptake, it is nonetheless unsettling to have to have this reality on our minds. I think there are other insecurities like this that have to do with the fact that there's no precise road to recognition in the field (and I mean recognition just in a very modest and appropriate sense as opposed to in terms of "fame"). When you're fresh off the dissertation or fresh in a TT or non-TT job, this is precisely the time you don't want to have to now deal with insecurities related to this fact I perceive about the field, plus the insecurities you inevitably have about the quality of the arguments in your own work. Then you're confronted with this challenge, like you indicated, that there are better or worse ways to manifest your own insecurities, and you see other people who you think do it badly, and maybe make you feel bad. Nuts. I'd be curious what some good ideas would be for how to manifest it appropriately. I think that one of the strategies might be related to how we engage with other people on shared interests. For example, if I approach someone whose work I think my own work is related to, and may even contribute to, instead of announcing my beliefs (along with superficial credibility boosters) about this as the lead in, I should instead focus on asking questions about his or her work, and delving into a bit, and seeing if the connections come up naturally, without having to rely on boosters like, "You should read what I just published in xyz," or "I'm working on this paper with so and so to send to journal xyz," or any other expression that indicates I'm trying to make my work sound credible before I've even said anything about the arguments. By asking questions in a spirit of curiosity and mutual support, it seems like the conversation would then begin to reflect the mutual interests that may be shared, which will build intellectual respect without the other person's even having to know whether you've published something or not, work with this or that person, etc. Perhaps that's the best kind of respect and approval. Just rough thoughts.

My experience, Kyle, is that your suggestion is right on the money. People are not attracted to the shameless self-promoter -- i.e. the person who trumpets their own successes (whether it be interviews, publications, etc.). In my experience, the best way (both morally and instrumentally) to get one's work noticed is to be genuinely interested in others' work and successes. People, perhaps more than anything else, want to be noticed and appreciated. It is not only a kind and good thing to be genuinely interested in what other people do; it reflects very well on oneself, and, in my experience, is often repaid with kindness and interest in return.

This way of comporting oneself -- having sincere interest in others, rather than seeking it out for oneself -- is, I believe, one of the very most important things to learn professionally. People (rightly) want to associate with and help others who go about their professional lives in a spirit of mutual respect, interest, and aid. In contrast, they avoid like the plague self-promoters who are only out for themselves. This is not to say that self-promoters always fail. Far from it. There are geniuses out there who can get along nice enough as intrepid egoists. But they are not the norm. 

Alas, if my experiences on the job market are any indication, the spirit that you (Kyle) and I are recommending also seems to be one of the things that graduate students are rarely taught, and which is in large part responsible for making the academic job market such a miserable experience. People simply do not need to hear how many interviews or fly-outs you have, or which article you published in The Awesome-ist Journal in the World. People also do not need to hear (or have it implied) that they have only published articles in The Fifth Crappiest Journal in the World. 

I do not hold up the things I have just written as The Truth. I am happy to discuss these issues in the comments section. Perhaps some of you think that philosophy is, and should be, a "dog eat dog" world. I don't. It is hard enough to be an academic philosopher without all of the insecure posturing and one-upsmanship. However successful the self-promoting egoists amongst us may or may not be, let us remind ourselves that success is not all that matters. I don't know about you, but I became a philosopher to become a better thinker and person -- and I want to be the kind of person who, to whatever extent I can, makes the profession a better place to be. If I wanted to sell my soul, I would have gone into business. Who's with me? ;)

Comments

[Moti Mizrahi]

Hi Marcus,

Your comments reminded me of this essay: http://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/blood_sport.htm. So I thought I'd share this link here.