Last week, a reader by the name of 'Amanda' wrote into our most recent "How can we help you?" post with the following comment:
Okay,so I want to begin by apologizing for what is going to be a very negative post. Marcus I know that in the past you have written about falling out of love with philosophy, and I believe managing to re fall in love at some point. In any case, I have been feeling pretty down about philosophy lately, and find it hard to motivate myself to do my research, and other things that I should be doing to make myself a better philosopher. Here are some of the reasons I feel that way. (And,yeah, I realize these problems are problems for a lot of people, def. not just me, which is why I'm posting).
1. Being on the job market is a full-time job, and it has become even more so with the extended market. It seems like I am constantly either completing applications or preparing for interviews. Why this is frustrating, is it leaves little time to do anything else, and to improve my CV so I am more likely to get a job in the future.
2.Blind review is a joke. I know many people, both professors and students, who send their papers around to buddies before publication, or present them at conferences, and hence the person reviewing the paper knows who they are reviewing. What bothers me most about this is the guise of blind review and how people pretend that publishing is a fair assessment of philosophical ability. I do think there is some correlation between publishing and merit, maybe even a strong correlation, but it is absolutely not a fair game of blind review. I know a better person than me would just push on and write and submit the best work they can, but the insincerity of it all really saps my motivation.
3. I know that even when I do write great work and publish it, like less than 10 people will ever read my work. Once again, some people are better than me and can appreciate the intrinsic value of philosophy writing. I, however, love philosophy in so far as it is a conversation with others. I could do any old job and write my own philosophical musings in a journal. What makes the philosophy profession worthwhile is interactions with other philosophers. My writing however, seems to rarely result in such interaction.
4.Most work (or a lot of work) that gets published in top journals is 3/4 literature review and then makes a tiny point at the end. I find this kind of philosophy boring, both to read and write. Now it is fine that others like it, but I wish it was at least even and there was more space for new ideas that made major points rather than small adjustments to what has been said before. I do think a few journals are trying to expand their purview, which is a great development.
5. When I go to philosophy conferences, it seems that there is clear hierarchy for those who are big shots and those who are not. People have consistently been incredibly rude to me at conferences, as if their whole point is to tell me my paper is horrible and why the hell did I bother to present it? This happens all the time, and not just to me. Why does philosophy have to always be about showing someone how wrong they are? Why? In addition, it is common that I will raise my hand at a conference and am never called on, while all the big shots are called on.
6.The profession does not take teaching seriously. I was given absolutely no training as a teacher in grad school, and this is common. I wish we just cared a little more.
Okay, that's it for now. If anybody has any insights on how to get out of my super negative rut it would be much appreciated. And yes, I know my rant came off as whiny and unappreciative and I am sorry for that. It is because , however, that complaining in other forums is seen as socially unacceptable that I come here.
Thanks to all.
Amanda's frustrations resonate with me in part because (A) I did indeed temporarily fall out of love with (academic) philosophy in grad school for similar reasons; (B) I still struggle with some broadly related frustrations today; but most of all because (C) I have heard these kinds of frustrations (and many more) expressed repeatedly by other people I know in the profession, particularly (but not only) by early-career people.
Because in my experience frustrations with professional philosophy are not uncommon, I think indeed it might be beneficial to explore two issues in today's thread--namely:
- Things that people find frustrating about the profession
- How to grapple most effectively with those frustrations
I think exploring the first question may be helpful sociologically, to learn and draw attention to potential or at least perceived problems in the profession; and in turn, that exploring the second issue might be helpful not only to individuals (helping people like Amanda grapple with their frustrations in productive rather than unproductively), but also helpful to the broader profession, perhaps by drawing attention to ways in which we might all chip in to make our profession a better, less frustrating place to be.
I am not going to give much of a list of professional frustrations I've experienced. I've been quite fortunate on the whole, and am much more curious to hear about other people's experiences. But, in brief, most of the frustrations I've encountered are the usual ones--indeed, broadly the ones that Amanda mentions herself: multiple years on a brutal and seemingly-capricious job-market; frustrations with anonymized peer-review (which still seems to me problematic compared to other alternatives); and so on. Instead of focusing on these frustrations, I would like to focus briefly on a few suggestions for grappling with them.
In my personal experience, anon's reply to Amanda largely has things right:
Amanda,
I cannot tell you how your career will go. But I can share my experiences, which may be some grounds for hope. I had a rocky start. It took a while to get a TT job. I publish in very good specialty journals. I referee for journals on a regular basis, including some of the most selective journals. Though it was slow at first, my work is read (and cited - even frequently). I even get invited to talk at places despite the fact that I work at a state school that really is concerned with teaching undergraduates. I have a rewarding career. But it did not come to me over night. Push the bad thoughts aside, and do the parts of the profession that you enjoy.
This reminds me of some Stoic advice my father repeatedly gave me as a young boy: "Don't worry about the things you cannot control. Focus on what you can control. Do your best, work hard, try to enjoy what you do, and let the cards fall where they may." Although like most people I struggle to live up to this advice, all of these years later--particularly after all the ups and downs of graduate school and job-market--it still seems to me among the best advice I've ever received. The more I've been able to "let go" and just try to enjoy research, teaching, and university life for their own sake--and balance them against other things that matter (being a good spouse, etc.)--the happier I've been.
But I would also suggest adding a few addenda to this advice. First, I would also suggest to try to be the change you want to see in the discipline. Although this advice probably sounds a bit trite, I think it may be important to remind ourselves of it. In my experience, it is all too easy to fall into the same habits and norms as our predecessors. Memory, as they say, is short. It can be all too easy to forget, when you are on a hiring committee, how terrible the process is for candidates. Similarly, it can all too easy to forget, when you are reviewing a paper for a journal, how dispiriting it can be to receive a brutal, meanspirited review. And so on. My suggestion is: don't just fall into line, doing what everyone else does. If you were frustrated with the job-market when you were on it and you now find yourself on a hiring committee, consider doing whatever you can to make the process better for candidates. If you are like Amanda and are frustrated reading journal articles that seem like 3/4 literature review followed by one small philosophical move, try writing and submitting the kinds of more ambitious articles you would like to read (you might be surprised!)--and try being more open to those kinds of papers as a reviewer. If you are sick of feeling left out of the crowd at conferences, try to be cognizant of others who seem like they're "on the outside" of things at conferences, saying 'hi' and including them in your conversation or trip out for food or drinks. If, like Amanda, you believe that teaching matters, say so, and make it a point to insist on getting teaching experience--and don't be ashamed of it: because, for a good many jobs (and for the world we live in), teaching does matter.
Finally, I would also suggest not only being the change you want to see in the discipline, but also kindly and consistently pressing for positive changes you want to see in the discipline. One of the more depressing things I've encountered is just how many early-career people seem to live in fear. For instance, every time I have asked why so few early-career people blog, the answers are always the same:
Acedemic [sic] philosophy in the web 2.0 world has become so heavily "political," sensitive, and norm-volatile that any/everything you say can and will be held against you in the "court of public opinion." - Anon | 07/26/2015 at 04:10 PM
One simple reason: I'm going on the job market for the first time this year and I don't want to say anything that will sabotage my job search. AnonGradStudent | 07/26/2015 at 04:36 PM
Like others, I fear that blogging might be held against me. Nothing is anonymous. If someone wants to identify you via an IP address, they probably can. The cost/benefit calculation doesn't make much sense for me, personally. - another grad | 07/26/2015 at 07:15 PM
I don't blog or post named comments on blogs (although I do frequent all of the major ones, with this one being most useful to me) because I don't want my name attached to anything an advisor, admissions committee, search committee, etc. may see. It is important to have a very controlled online presence. Posted by: Anonymous | 07/27/2015 at 12:26 AM
I understand these sentiments--I really do. I lived with the very same kind of fearful outlook for much of my early career. Still, although I understand the outlook, here is what I found at least in my own case: it was an awful, paranoid way to live. Yes, of course, there are risks to putting yourself out there and pressing for changes you would like to see in the discipline--and by all means, if you do put yourself out there, it may make sense to do it cautiously. But, at least in my experience, there are real risks and personal costs of keeping one's head down, suffering in silence, and doing nothing. If you're not willing to press for a better profession now, when will you: in the future? What makes you so sure? If the "cost/benefit calculation" doesn't make sense to you now, what makes you think it will make sense later--say, when you have tenure? If you want a better profession, I say we should all do our small part to make it happen. Press for the positive changes you want to see in the discipline, kindly but consistently. I, for one, will be on your side--and you might just be surprised at how many other people turn out to be as well. :)
But these are just some of my own general thoughts, and they may not be right. What do you all think? In particular:
- What things do you find professionally frustrating?
- What do you think is the best way to grapple with those frustrations?
"I know my rant came off as whiny and unappreciative and I am sorry for that."
This is not exactly to the substance of the thread but I would like to say that I don't think you are being either whiny or unappreciative. Being treated with respect and with fairness is your right, and those who don't treat you that way are assholes (and whatever status and power they have doesn't change that, however strongly they might believe it does). I do not think you should be apologetic for insisting on being treated properly. Making you feel like you are whining and unappreciative is a tactic of control our 'superiors' use to keep us in line, to keep their power unchecked, and the culture of the profession unchanged.
Posted by: Philosophy Adjunct | 03/21/2017 at 10:40 AM
I take Marcus's points and I do think they're excellent advice. We can and should make a difference through individual actions. And we shouldn't live in fear. (This last one is something I'm struggling with after years as either an adjunct or "visiting" faculty.) But we shouldn't deny that there are huge systematic obstacles to better individual behavior and limits to what better individual behavior can do. Take Amanda's point about how little the profession values teaching. Now I think that's horrible for a lot of reasons, not least of which is that good teaching is a lot more important and meaningful than is vast majority of the so called "research" that so many philosophers spend their time on. I'll leave aside the legitimate questions about the basic validity good many research programs in contemporary analytic philosophy that people like Dennett and van Fraasen have raised, even though I tend to agree with them. Even assuming there's some merit to the research the odds are that if you teach an intro class well you'll do more to change some people's thinking or at least broaden their perspective than if you publish a paper in even the Phil Review.
So teaching is arguably a better investment of our time than is much of our research. However, if you make the choice to focus on teaching then you will almost certainly be punished for that choice unless you're full time faculty at a community college (as I am), full time faculty at a very teaching focused SLAC, or lucky enough to have one of those rare teaching gigs that aren't full time but have a lot of security and a real path for advancement. Teaching well takes time and most of us have only so much of it, so if you invest time in teaching that time has to come from somewhere. If it comes at the expense of your research then you'll hurt your chances at tenure or sabotage whatever chance you have at moving on from being an adjunct. You could always shortchange your hobbies or family, but that's asking for a lot of sacrifice. Add to that the fact that the low regard that many philosophers' have for teaching makes it extremely hard for most people in research focused schools to maintain their enthusiasm for teaching. If admin and your colleagues say with both actions and words that teaching doesn't matter that will have an affect on you. Good teaching is valued and rewarded at my current institution and it wasn't at my previous one. Now while I've always thought teaching was important, I'd be lying if I said that the institutional incentives and focus didn't push me to be a better teacher here than I was at the last place.
So there are real limits on this front to what individual good behavior can accomplish. The problem is that I have no idea how we can make systematic change here. The only thing that occurs to me is that if the public were really aware how little academics value teaching there may well be such a scandal that they'd be forced to.
Posted by: S | 03/21/2017 at 03:50 PM
I'm not sure how blind peer review is. I have few connections and unpopular views, but have managed to build up a nice publication list. So, it doesn't seem to be a big problem for me; perhaps I'd do better if it were more blind?
However, invited publications for edited volumes etc are clearly an in-group thing. Established people give their friends and students these invitations.
The result is that people with the right connections can be more or less handed publications, giving them a leg up, whereas the rest of us have to compete on the open market, so to speak.
I know invited publications are worth less, in theory. However, the way many people write their CVs it can be difficult to tell invited from non-invited (do they do this on purpose?). As such, I'm not sure they are always weighted less.
Posted by: Pendaran Roberts | 03/22/2017 at 05:29 AM
I understand Amanda's frustrations, and I would recommend getting out of Philosophy. By virtue of completing (or being close to completing) a PhD, and actually landing interviews, it is likely that you are an intelligent, talented, and motivated person. Intelligent, talented, and motivated people are in demand in the world. Leave academia. Be happier.
Posted by: Second Time Around | 03/22/2017 at 12:10 PM
Pen,
You might indeed do better if it were more blind. I would guess that around 30-60% of published pieces are actually done the right way, blinded. But that still leaves a significant percent that isn't. Rather than the thought the ordinary people have no chance with publishing, I think the more accurate summary is connected people have a huge advantage.
I appreciate everyone's feedback! I certainly think that it is incumbent upon those who stay in the profession to try and make it better:)
Second Time Around - I don't leave the profession because I love philosophy, and in spite of all the hardships I mentioned, there is still enough good stuff to keep me in. The other reason is that there is not an obvious alternative path. I think there are alternative paths, but the issue is most of the desirable ones really take a year of either full-time training or job searching. This is a hard thing to manage as a single person.
Posted by: Amanda | 03/22/2017 at 04:47 PM
Cronyism is a huge problem these days, in all its forms: from publication, in the ways Amanda and Pendaran Roberts point out and in other ways (e.g. through adherence to amateurish rankings of journals), to actual job hiring, both directly and indirectly (e.g. through a preference for supposedly better PhD-granting departments). Possibly even more of a problem is the chasm between the nature of supposedly top contemporary analytic philosophy and the nature of (Western) philosophy tout court, or even of analytic philosophy in its earlier days. Contemporary analytic philosophy's scholasticism is linked to its cronyism and each makes the other worse. No-one really complains as loudly as the situation deserves---I am no exception. Haack, Dennett, Searle, Unger, McNaughton and a few others sometimes speak out, but they are mostly ridiculed away as too old, confused or not sufficiently rigorous as philosophers to be worth engaging with. The decadence of analytic philosophy is a real thing, with its accompanying nominating-of-horses-to-senate practices. The reduction of trust in and consequently funding to philosophy on the part of institutional funding bodies is a consequence of the decadence of analytic philosophy. However, the absence of any real alternative (in Continental philosophy for instance) and the increasing adoption of the analytic framework in emerging markets (China for instance) make a real change unlikely in the short term. The revolution will come one day but, I worry, not soon enough for us to enjoy it.
Posted by: Analytic philosopher | 03/23/2017 at 09:48 AM
I think you're right Analytic philosopher. And I think there is a large contingent of professional philosophers who agree. However, there is also a very vocal contingent that disagrees, and when people speak out they are usually blasted in the most negative way (as you mention). Michael Huemer recently gave what I consider a great criticism of contemporary philosophy, but almost all responses criticized him for it. Part of me suspects this is due to his political views, but that's just a guess.
Posted by: Amanda | 03/23/2017 at 02:35 PM
Amanda & Analytic Philosopher: As luck would have it, I was already composing a post on this very topic for next week (or perhaps the week after). Stay tuned!
Posted by: Marcus Arvan | 03/23/2017 at 03:02 PM
Cronyism is a huge problem. It tends to be worse is highly competitive areas, because determining merit becomes too difficult. When there are so so many great candidates for a job, including your friend, it's much easier to select your friend, than when there are less candidates and some are clearly the best.
Posted by: Pendaran Roberts | 03/23/2017 at 04:32 PM
Great!
Posted by: Amanda | 03/23/2017 at 05:21 PM
Thanks, Amanda. I had not seen the Huemer discussion on Daily Nous. Marcus (if I may), I very much look forward to your discussion of these themes. Yours is quickly becoming the best philosophy blog I know.
If I may add one more root of the problems contemporary analytic philosophy faces, I'd mention the incapacity, for lack of selection committees' perceiving abilities, their disinterest or for external institutional constraints, to discern a good philosopher from their job applications. Knowing how to put together a convincing application is a skill, and mentors, academic consultants and the like can help with that. Knowing where to publish and how to publish where one wants to publish are also important skills and pieces of knowledge. But having these skills does not necessarily make one a good philosopher, nor does a good philosopher necessarily have those skills.
Is this a reality that is taken into account? Or is it simply brushed off below the proverbial carpet because it is easier or more convenient for one's own time or friends to do so? Or is it, perhaps even more worryingly, the case that it has become really difficult for philosophers to realize that philosophical quality is not covariant with good packaging, and to discern the latter from the former?
Whichever is the case, philosophy has a(nother) problem.
Posted by: Analytic philosopher | 03/23/2017 at 06:03 PM
Analytic philosopher: Thank you for your very kind comments on the blog! :)
I have been pressing on some of these issues for quite a while. Academic hiring practices are anachronistic and at odds with our best science. Decades of science show that we should hire people on the basis of past accomplishments and performance, NOT packaging (this is my spouse's field, who is a PhD candidate at the #2-ranked program in Industrial-Organizational Psychology).
http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2016/01/on-academic-hiring-practices-and-the-science-of-selection.html
http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2015/02/more-news-on-the-interviews-are-worse-than-useless-front.html
http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2016/01/more-reasons-why-interviews-shouldnt-matter.html
http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2015/01/nobody-wants-to-hire-weirdos.html
Posted by: Marcus Arvan | 03/23/2017 at 06:41 PM