Vanity of vanities: why the pandemic should perplex us, but not disempower us in our academic work

Right now, lots of academics are struggling with doing research. The Covid-19 pandemic has ushered in a host of adverse circumstances including fear, job uncertainty, job loss for some of us (especially on fixed-term contracts), a gloomy academic market outlook for grad students and others on the market, a makeshift move to online teaching, perhaps also having to homeschool our children.

But many of us are also coping with an overwhelming sense of futility. What's the point of our work now? As one (very prolific) academic recently wrote to me, "It's hard to take philosophy seriously right now though. It doesn't seem very useful."

I do think it's important to be reflective, not just in times of pandemic or other disaster, but just regularly, about whether our research is time well spent or whether we can put our energies elsewhere. Typically, discussions on the usefulness of philosophy lack nuance. A focus on immediate usefulness (as we see in discussions in the public sphere, or in demands of granting agencies) doesn't allow for the indirect value that lots of work provides later on. At the same time, the way journals operate continues to generate incentive structures for us to work on minutiae that are not of large societal interest and that, if we're being honest, we don't care deeply about either. 

Therefore, it is good that many of us become reflective of whether our research is useful. We should allow ourselves to be perplexed by this pandemic. Jane Addams (1902, Democracy and Social Ethics) shows the value of perplexity, both philosophically and meta-philosophically. Jane Addams (1860-1935) was an American social reformer and philosopher. She recounts how her social work with immigrant communities baffled her, and transformed her preconceptions. She could have gone on with business as usual. But instead, she allowed herself to be perplexed, and thereby gain new "sensibilities" that informed her work. 

The state of perplexity is characterized by Charlene Seigfried (2002) as follows: 

‘‘perplexity’’ refers to someone’s personal involvement in a situation that baffles and confuses her, because her usual understanding and responses are inadequate to explain or transform a troubling situation. She can either continue to hold on to her assumptions or begin to call them into question. But in order to resolve the problematic situation in fact and not subjectively, she must first undergo a painful process of rethinking her presuppositions and values. (xxv–xxvi)

When our usual understanding and responses seem inadequate, we can take time to let it sink in, to see how it challenges our philosophical assumptions.

Maybe our perplexity will lead us to change the research questions we want to pursue, or how we want to write, for what audiences, and how. Maybe you decide, that even though it seems futile in light of the magnitude of the pandemic and its wider effects, your research still matters. Ultimately, if your research is worthwhile, if it contributes some good, whether epistemic, practical, or is maybe even if it's just fun and playful, it is worthwhile doing it also now, maybe especially now. If your research contributes some good that is not pandemic related, it's worthwhile to keep doing it. If we value the long-term goals we pursue, ethical, aesthetic, epistemic and so on, if we value this world and want to help improve it, those goals remain worthwhile also now. 

Maybe, if you are like me and have done some public philosophy, you might wonder what you could contribute in writing about the pandemic. While there are lots of philosophers who can say useful things about it, who have the expertise and prior knowledge to do so, not all of us can or should be expected to do so. Indeed, epistemic humility is probably advisable given that we are dealing with rapid decision-making under huge uncertainty. 

Comments

[david]

It turns out that many of the greatest philosophical ideas and systems were conceived in times of catastrophe, crisis and upheaval. This is true also for many great works of literature, art, etc. So while this is perhaps an act of shameless self-promotion, I therefore offer this link to my recent edited book, Catastrophe & Philosophy, which I hope some of your readers will find relevant:

https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498540117/Catastrophe-and-Philosophy

[Polaris Koi]

Do you have tips for those of us who feel that we would have something to contribute but are inexperienced in public philosophy? For example, what would be good platforms for popular articles or blog posts on the topic?

[Helen De Cruz]

Hi Polaris! Yes. This is a thread I did on how to do public writing. It is essentially a write-up of a panel by religious studies scholars but a lot of this applies to philosophy too https://twitter.com/Helenreflects/status/1198284813901320192
Both The Conversation and Aeon are open to longer, reflective pieces and work with you (you can pitch them) if you have a timely (or timeless) piece with an original angle. If you have no patience for pitching and that sort of stuff, you could also just write your own blog (I recently got a wordpress account to do that. Their cheapest plan is not expensive).

[Polaris Koi]

Thank you Helen! That's very helpful. Have you come across resources on how to write a good pitch? Perhaps sample pitches even?

[Polaris Koi]

Addition to previous comment: also looking for tone basics -- e.g., do I start my pitch "Dear editors", or will that come across as stiff?

[Bethany Laursen, Editorial Assistant, PPJ]

The Public Philosophy Journal is currently accepting submissions related to philosophical issues and the pandemic: https://publicphilosophyjournal.org/full-record/?amplificationid=2120. Please email [email protected] with your pitch or your piece.

[Bethany Laursen, Editorial Assistant, PPJ]

In fact, we'd love to invite the author of this piece to submit to the PPJ!

[grymes]

"But the contemporary prejudice against the useless obscures the value of studying the useful just
as insidiously as it obscures the value of studying the useless ... So those who argue for more professional programs, those frogs in the swamp who equate education with vocational training, have missed the boat. If education does not focus on developing
the desire for the useless, then it cannot produce anything truly useful. Aristotle understood this. Why can’t we?"

- David Curry, "Uselessness: A Panegyric"

https://philpapers.org/archive/CURUAP.pdf

[Helen De Cruz]

Hi Polaris -- I'm probably not the best person to give advice on this as I have relatively few public philosophy pieces in vetted venues (I'm a long-time blogger and I just can't bring myself to jump through lots of hoops to pitch to venues, so I only have a piece in The Guardian, a couple of pieces in other outlets, a forthcoming piece in Aeon). With that limited info, I think that editors don't really care much about how formal you are but they just want as clear (and brief) as possible a pitch that shows why your piece is relevant now.

[Eric]

Thanks, Helen. This is a nice piece, a welcome perspective. Two cheers for the point about epistemic humility during a period of rapid decision-making under uncertainty. Thanks also for the point that if one's research was worthwhile before COVID-19, it's probably still worthwhile. If the crisis does reveal our work to be less important than it formerly appeared, reflecting on that fact might do many of us some good. Painful, but possibly liberating. Derailed or disoriented isn't always disempowered.