By Gottfried Schweiger (University of Salzburg)
At the moment most of us are sitting at home and are observers of events that are radically changing our lives and for which the outcome is open. The universities are closed and what remains for philosophers is online teaching, writing papers and books. As long as there are no childcare obligations that make all professional activities much more difficult and tedious, if not completely impossible, one might think that the COVID 19 pandemic does not change much for philosophers. Yes, there are no more conferences and jetting from one talk to another is no longer possible. Also the change to online teaching is challenging, but is possible in philosophy in principle, unlike laboratory-based teaching. My impression from my own experience and conversations with colleagues is that productivity is decreasing. On the one hand it is often not so quiet at home, on the other hand the overall situation is stressful, exhausting, even frightening for some. The COVID-19 isolation at home is not a nice writing retreat for most people. This can become a problem especially for early-career colleagues who depend on publications for job applications.
But since we are all thinking about the current situation and what is probably still to come, it is a chance for philosophy and especially for philosophical blogging. Many philosophical questions arise: Allocation of scarce resources, the weighing of different goods (health vs. economic losses), the legitimation of far-reaching state measures and surveillance. At least three debates are now needed: First, a public debate in which all sciences with their different expertise should participate. Secondly, internal debates within the discipline, including a debate in philosophy on the above questions. Thirdly, a debate on the role of philosophy in interdisciplinary and public debate and what role philosophy can play for the public right now. The COVID-19 pandemic has an existential dimension, which is also reflected in all kinds of practical advice on how to deal with it and reflections on the changes in our everyday lives. Questions about the meaning of life and one's own vulnerability now arise for many. This should also be a field for philosophy.
But what does this have to do with philosophical blogging? Philosophy tends to be a slow discipline - you can tell just by how long it often takes in our discipline to write, review and publish a journal paper. In medicine, there are already hundreds of peer-reviewed papers on COVID-19, but in philosophy, outside of medical ethics, I would guess none yet. Yes, you can't just compare disciplines so easily. But I do see a problem here. A double one. On the one hand, the questions that now arise must be answered. This applies, for example, radically to ethical recommendations on who should be treated in times of overcrowded intensive care beds. Or to the question of whether the government measures that are now being taken are justified. It's nice when philosophers write essays on this subject that will appear in a year's time, only then, if at all, can they have an influence on coming pandemics. Perhaps all questions have already been answered and no really new ones arise. That may be so. Then it is mainly a problem of dissemination, which should also concern us. But I do not believe this – really new questions do arise and need new answers.
On the other hand, there is the existential situation mentioned above. Many people are now looking for answers to their questions of meaning and existence. Again, I don't believe that philosophy already has all the answers that fit the current situation. Perhaps professional philosophers think they are too good for that, because it puts them close to guidebook literature. But philosophy should also be concerned with the communication of difficult philosophical questions in a clear and understandable way. The public also has an interest in understanding what ethical criteria should be used to decide whether they should stay at home, if that means losing their job.
For both tasks blogging can be important and fill a gap to allow rapid philosophical interventions and debates. Journal articles and books come later - for example in the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, which just published Call for Papers for special issues on the COVID 19 pandemic. Blog posts cannot replace peer-reviewed articles, although a (rapid) quality control is also possible for blog posts. In any case, blogs can be used for internal debate to quickly present different perspectives, arguments and counter-arguments. An interdisciplinary exchange is also possible here, at least in principle. After all, blogs offer all the possibilities of linking, commenting and also adapting texts, together with a useful way of making these changes visible and traceable. Blogs can be real discussion forums that can be read by everyone without access restrictions.
This brings us to the second task mentioned above, namely to address the public, especially in times of such social crises as the COVID 19 pandemic. Blogs are certainly not the only way here - there are newspapers, magazines, radio and TV. But blogs are also a communication channel that should be used more often. It would be quite possible to prepare philosophy in a way that it is interesting for (almost) everyone, especially when it comes to topics that directly and immediately affect (almost) everyone. Blogs are thematically open and by linking other media (videos, pictures, etc.) they could be made more accessible than mere heaps of text, which unfortunately is rarely done. Blogs do not have to stand alone; texts can be shared, sent, linked, published and distributed on different platforms. Another advantage of blogs is that they can be set up in such a way that they reflect a broad range of opinions and allow many different voices to have an equal say. This is an opportunity, especially for early-career philosophers.
Of course there are also critical voices. Some say blog posts are of inferior quality. What is now being written about COVID-19 can only be preliminary and not thought through, because we still know too little. These are fundamental criticisms, some of which are certainly true. But what is the alternative? To say nothing? To put everything in the hands of other experts; to leave people in this situation alone with their ethical and existential questions or to let others fill the gap - psychologists, theologians, coaches, politicians? That seems to me to be the wrong way. We have to act now, we need answers now and we all have to deal with it. Perhaps the influence and scope of philosophers is limited - that may be, but it is a general and structural problem of our discipline.
Another objection might be that many people don't have time to deal with it now, and those who can, have little reason to do so, because blog posts are not "worth" anything in the academic world. Again, both observations are probably true. As I said above, this would require a change in culture, a new recognition structure, that it is worthwhile to express oneself quickly, to invest time in these short texts and to be present in public. This will certainly also be associated with injustices - it is unfair that the brilliant young colleague can now neither write a blog post because she has to look after her children, nor that she is invited to television or for a column in a major newspaper because she is not famous and only the established professors (it is still predominantly men!) are given the opportunity to voice for their thoughts there.
Comments