David V. Johnson recently proposed a “vision of public philosophy” in a post for this blog. While this was a thoughtful article, containing a worthy vision of a model of public philosophy, I was struck by how this model was formulated within certain unquestioned assumptions common to much “public philosophy” discourse. I believe those assumptions should be questioned, and that by making them explicit and challenging them it will be possible to articulate an alternative mode of public philosophy which may in turn challenge our understanding of philosophy itself. While I will be using Johnson’s post to highlight these implicit assumptions, this isn’t intended as a specific criticism of Johnson or his vision of public philosophy. Nor is the vision of public philosophy I want to propose inconsistent with the public philosophy which Johnson endorses, but rather a complementary alternative based on a different set of values.
Johnson’s opening sentence describes public philosophy as “understood minimally as philosophy addressed to a more general audience than the narrow one their work in peer-reviewed journals commands”, where “their” refers to professional philosophers employed by academic institutions. This is the general model within which Johnson proceeds to construct his own vision. “Public philosophy”, then, is to be distinguished from “philosophy” as normally understood, which is contained in academic institutions and carried out by professionals. “Public philosophy” is addressed to an “audience”: the public are presented as more-or-less passive consumers of philosophical content. There is a hierarchy implicit in this minimal definition. Experts who have received appropriate training deliver material to lay-people, who are not apparently expected to respond or produce philosophical discourse of their own. There is also a dichotomy: philosophers are not the public; the public are not philosophers.
These themes continue throughout Johnson’s own vision of public philosophy as “philosophy in the public interest.” Good public philosophy on Johnson’s model is something that “our non-philosophical citizens” can “read … in order to make sense of a public issue.” Philosophers ought to “address the public as experts in their field,” while of course avoiding “[a]ttitudes such as arrogance and mocking disdain.” Those whom Johnson calls to do public philosophy are “professionally trained philosophers who can take up the mantle.” As I remarked, Johnson’s vision is in itself a good one. But public philosophy can, and should, go further. What if, rather than conceiving of public philosophy as philosophy addressed to the public from a professionalised academic sphere, we understand it as philosophy done by or with the public?
First, it is worth exploring some of the motivations for challenging the dominant model of public philosophy. The professionalisation and institutionalisation of philosophy is a relatively recent phenomenon, and it is only within the last couple of centuries that “philosopher” has come to mean someone holding such a position in a university. Likewise, the peer-reviewed journal article that Johnson identifies as the primary locus of philosophical activity is too a product of the modern academic system. When considering “public philosophy”, then, it is worth bearing in mind that philosophy’s current status as a professional academic discipline is a new one. By interpreting “public” philosophy as something other than the default of professional philosophy (which usually receives no specific label of its own), a historically contingent mode of philosophy is reinforced as the norm. Philosophy by non-professionals, aimed at non-professionals, has been common enough throughout philosophy’s history as not to require a dedicated category – rather, that has simply been philosophy.
By assuming that public philosophy is delivered to a non-philosophical public by professional philosophers, we are continuing to confine philosophy to academic institutions and, furthermore, blindfolding ourselves to the insights which the public can give to academic philosophy. Another reason for expanding our vision of public philosophy is to open ourselves to what the “public” can bring to “philosophers”–and not just the other way around. This need is especially urgent if we consider who has access to institutional philosophy and who does not. The troubling lack of diversity in academic philosophy is well-known: women, people of color, and members of other minority groups are underrepresented in journals and in philosophy departments. The APA’s own demographic data are indicative of the problem. Furthermore, there are financial barriers for many to pursuing the level of university education required to become a professional philosopher. Even setting aside the marginalisation of specific demographics in professional philosophy, it seems plausible that people living and working outside academic institutions might have access to different and important areas of experience, and be able to provide insights which are less available to professional academics.
What does my alternative mode of public philosophy look like? I want to take as an exemplar the Stuart Low Trust Philosophy Forum in London. This is a project aimed at vulnerable people in Islington, including those with social isolation or mental health issues. Every week, a presenter will give a two-part talk about a philosophical topic, broadly construed – recent sessions include Lucretius, well-being, Simone Weil, and tribalism – and at the end of each part pose a question for discussion. Participants then form small groups, each with a volunteer facilitator, to engage with the question, before returning to discuss the issue with the whole room. The volunteer facilitators, who have some philosophical training or background, moderate discussions, help participants to explore and articulate their thoughts and put arguments and ideas in conversation with each other in a productive way. Their role is not to teach philosophy, but instead to draw out philosophical dialogue among the participants. While many of the weekly presenters do have formal philosophical training, it is also common for the participants themselves to present: recently, participants have presented on Deleuze, Adam Smith, and personalism. This interaction between the public and professional philosophers is of demonstrable value not just to the public but to professional philosophers: an insight provided by a participant during discussion after my own presentation on the early modern philosopher Mary Astell has continued to influence and shape my thinking on the topic.
The key features of the Philosophy Forum as a mode of public philosophy are as follows. First, the participants – the public, in other words – are encouraged to become philosophers. They are not consumers of philosophy; rather, they contribute to its production. Second, it is dialogic and communal. Rather than individuals producing philosophical tracts or articles, participants engage in a collective search for wisdom and knowledge through a critical and open discussion. Thirdly, it is non-hierarchical: while the volunteers and often the presenters have some level of formal philosophical training, they are not in the position of philosophical experts but rather of facilitators. Everyone is treated as an equal source of philosophical insight.
My own vision of public philosophy, then, is one which focuses not on delivering philosophy to a non-philosophical public but instead aims to assist and facilitate members of the public in doing philosophy: in developing their own philosophical arguments, insights and, perhaps, ways of life. The role of those with formal philosophical training in this vision can be seen as akin to midwives, to use Socrates’ self-comparison in the Theaetetus – they are helping to bring forth people’s philosophical views and arguments, rather than presenting their own. In this way, public philosophy can encourage the “love of wisdom” that once grounded philosophical practice. Public philosophy so understood need nottake the form of articles in newspapers or magazines, although these may have their role. Instead, the emphasis should be on creating spaces, whether real or virtual, in which dialogue and philosophical discussion can occur.
The role of articles, books, podcasts or other media in this vision of public philosophy should be directed towards providing the public with the information and tools to reflect philosophically or, as in Massimo Pigliucci’s modern Stoicism movement, to live philosophically. We can see precedent for this in many historical philosophical texts: Descartes, to take an obvious example, encourages his reader to undertake philosophical meditations themselves; Mary Astell, addressing female readers in A Serious Proposal to the Ladies (1694, 1697), instructs them in the best method for learning how to argue and reflect philosophically.
I don’t want to claim that this model of public philosophy is a truer or more authentic way of doing philosophy than dominant modes of philosophical practice: after all, philosophy has developed in such a way that it is in fact now primarily a professional activity undertaken in universities. I do, however, want to suggest that my model is true to a major historical mode of philosophical practice, one which is in unfortunate decline. By envisioning public philosophy as something done by the public as part of a communal enterprise, we might be able to re-envision philosophy itself as a communal, dialogic activity, in such a way that “public” philosophy no longer needs to be marked out as a separate activity. Furthermore, we might be able to open professional philosophy to the philosophical insights and concerns of a philosophical, if non-academic, public.
Simone Webb
Simone Webb (@SimoneWebbUCL) is a PhD student in Gender Studies at University College London, researching the early modern philosopher Mary Astell in conjunction with the later thought of Michel Foucault. She has a Master’s in Women’s Studies and a BA in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from the University of Oxford. Interests include feminist history of philosophy, philosophy as self-cultivation, therapy and a way of life, Hellenistic philosophy and early modern women philosophers.
A great, inclusive vision of public philosophy . . . very thought provoking. Bravo!
Cheers,
Thank you very much, Michael!
I’m not sure you have really represented Johnson’s perspective fully accurately, (he would be the authority on that) but in any case I find myself in general agreement with your outlook.
Where I find myself somewhat frustrated is that, so far at least, I can not develop any evidence that you have implemented your own policy. I did explore your blog, but well, you know what’s there and what isn’t. Perhaps I’m not looking hard enough so corrections are welcome.
Face to face meetings are great, but quite limited in scope due to the inconvenience involved for all concerned.
The most useful tool for implementing your vision would seem to be old fashioned online discussion forums. I’ve been suggesting a forum for this site for months, to pretty much exactly no response, which perhaps explains some of my whining above.
Anyway, forum software is the right tool for this job. The problem with forums is not technology, but rather the “almost anybody can say almost anything” publishing model used by almost all forums everywhere. This is a very democratic and inclusive publishing model, (ie. it’s politically correct and fashionable), but it inevitably leads to an ever dropping signal to noise ratio. This significant problem can be solved by skilled editors such as we have here on APA.
Imho, the real problem is that academic philosophers would appear to have very limited interest in dialog with the public, or even with each other, as evidenced by the empty comment section of this prominent philosophy blog. I don’t have a solution to that, as should be overwhelmingly obvious to anyone who has observed my months long struggle to stimulate the very processes of dialog that you have argued for above.
Here we are folks. If we want to engage in dialog no one is stopping us. The APA has provided a mechanism for conversation. Not a perfect one perhaps, but surely sufficient to get the ball rolling.
Less theory, and more ACTION please.
Thank you.
Hi, Phil!
As regards implementing my own policy, I have been a regular volunteer at the Stuart Low Trust Philosophy Forum since last October. I’m currently at the beginning of trying to get a similarly structured initiative going at a mental health rehabilitative facility near where I live. In August, I’m organising a “Philosophy in the Park” public discussion event in Regent’s Park. This autumn, I’m hoping to join the working group for the “Philosophy in Prisons” initiative spearheaded by a philosopher at King’s College London. Also in the autumn, I’m attending a training course from the Philosophy Foundation, which aims to help people work with children in philosophical inquiry. (Of course, at the same time as trying to do all this I’m also working on my PhD thesis, teaching, etc, etc…) Regarding online engagement, I certainly try to talk about philosophy with people on my twitter account, although I hadn’t conceived it explicitly as a tool for public philosophy on my model. I don’t think it’s entirely fair, given the above, to accuse me of all theory and no action: I’m very very keen on joining and initiating more projects of the kind I outline in the post, but face inevitable constraints of time, money, energy, and finding other people who also want to give their time and energy.
I think your suggestion of forums is a great one: you’re right that the internet should make this kind of communal dialogue a lot more possible.
The Free Philosophy Project – https://freephilosophyproject.org – sounds similar to the Stuart Low Trust Philosophy Forum.
Thanks for this insightful and important discussion!
Hi, Phil!
As regards implementing my own policy, I have been a regular volunteer at the Stuart Low Trust Philosophy Forum since last October. I’m currently at the beginning of trying to get a similarly structured initiative going at a mental health rehabilitative facility near where I live. In August, I’m organising a “Philosophy in the Park” public discussion event in Regent’s Park. This autumn, I’m hoping to join the working group for the “Philosophy in Prisons” initiative spearheaded by a philosopher at King’s College London. Also in the autumn, I’m attending a training course from the Philosophy Foundation, which aims to help people work with children in philosophical inquiry. (Of course, at the same time as trying to do all this I’m also working on my PhD thesis, teaching, etc, etc…) Regarding online engagement, I certainly try to talk about philosophy with people on my twitter account, although I hadn’t conceived it explicitly as a tool for public philosophy on my model. I don’t think it’s entirely fair, given the above, to accuse me of all theory and no action: I’m very very keen on joining and initiating more projects of the kind I outline in the post, but face inevitable constraints of time, money, energy, and finding other people who also want to give their time and energy.
I think your suggestion of forums is a great one: you’re right that the internet should make this kind of communal dialogue a lot more possible.
Hi Simone,
Yes, my comments were unfair, given that I was ignorant of your other activities. Sorry about that, thanks for the correction. And good for you for the efforts you are engaged in.
Ok, it’s certainly true that face to face is valuable, and the preferred medium of many. I have nothing against it other than that it’s a highly inefficient method of exchanging ideas. Most of the philosophers I’ve read on this subject do understandably reference time constraints, and so my mind reaches for ways to do more with less.
Forum software is clearly the best technology for facilitating in depth online conversation (Twitter???) but that doesn’t solve the real problem, a general lack of interest in engagement by all parties. Well, I should be more precise…
General public philosophy forums do often contain a significant amount of engagement. As the number of forums multiplied the audience has fragmented and there are fewer members on any particular forum, but the genre as a whole still survives. So if we are talking about public <=> public conversations, that is available.
When it comes to academic philosophers I can only speculate, but there may be at least two problems.
1) As discussed, they simply don’t wish to engage.
2) They don’t have much if any experience with forums, and thus don’t realize what could be possible in the right hands.
2b) As self defined experts, they are perhaps incapable of learning from anyone who isn’t higher than them on the academic totem pole?
This experience of this site suggests the core problem is probably #1, and thus #2 doesn’t really matter.
If academic philosophers don’t wish to engage here on a prominent philosophy site piloted by skilled fair minded editors who diligently review incoming comments in timely manner, I can’t really conceive of an environment they would find inviting. Forum software wouldn’t solve this problem, and so I should probably let that subject go.
For this one particular member of the public, a matter of no real significance overall, the problem is more than I don’t perceive academics as being capable of focusing their intelligent lens on the topics that, to my mind, most matter. It’s nobody’s fault, but our interests may simply not overlap. If I should ever cure myself of typoholic mania disease that will be the reason that I disengage.
Anyway, good luck with your projects. Hopefully the face to face realm will offer you more opportunities for engagement than are available here.
Here are two more examples, one where scholars address a question from a listener to the radio show and podcast, Philosophy Bakes Bread:
https://www.philosophersinamerica.com/2017/09/23/046-ep42-bc9-overcoming-redneck-state-stigma/
And here’s one where scholars listen to and respond to a listener’s great answer to a question that we raised in an episode:
https://www.philosophersinamerica.com/2017/06/23/025-ep21-bc2-what-to-do-about-wicked-problems-voicemail-response-breadcrumb/
Public philosophy today can more easily than ever before be transactional, two way engagement. Thanks for your piece!
Eric Weber
Exec. Dir., SOPHIA
All this chatter about public philosophy seems to me very abstract, more devoted to talking about talking about doing public philosophy than actually doing it. The difference between Anglo-American analytic philosophy (with a few exceptions) and Continental philosophy, is that Continental philosophy, like, for example, Giorgio Agamben’s ‘Homo Sacer’ series, is always already public philosophy, engaged in the political controversies and public events of its time: the US war on terror, the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, the subversion of civil and human rights by the self-declared state of exception, the legitimization of torture, the wholesale destruction of whole countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria) by the US military, Israel and Russia etc. But Anglo-American philosophy spends more time (excuse me!) rehashing concepts from 17th and 18th C. British empiricist philosophy and Cartesian rationalism (panpsychism, the mind/body dualism, etc.) than addressing contemporary political issues and current events. Maybe that’s why much of the public and many undergrad students (not to mention the non-American world) are more interested in Derrida, Foucault, and Agamben, than in Kripke or Nagel (although I’d add that Thomas Nagel’s Vietnam era work, ‘War and Massacre,’ was a great example of public philosophy, and still has some bearing on contemporary events). And maybe that’s also why my reviews of Agamben get much more attention than my own work! even when I write about Putin, Trump, and the US war on terror, and trying to bring the Continental perspective into American discourse. But I’m not French! Or Italian! Or whatever… And see, I’m really just complaining because nobody at APA bothers to comment on my APA blogs!…
Flashback: I remember when Trump got elected and all the radical leftist APA members were going to ‘resist normalizing Trumpism…” and ‘smash fascism in the USA!’ and so on. And I tried to explain that spouting 1970s-like slogans and parading around in black military drag, playing so-called ant-fa anarchists, would not do anything to stop Trumpism from carrying out, for example, its Muslim ban, or the wholesale bombings of Mosul and Raqqa. And now, a few months/years later, all those radical protests (see the pitiful videos from the Portland rallies…) have done nothing to stop the Muslim ban or the Afghanistan war, not to mention the wholesale massacres of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Mosul and Raqqa. And after a few demo-liberal-lefts decisions by the US district courts (almost certain to be overturned…), the US Supreme Court has predictably put the stamp of approval on the Obama/Trump Muslim ban, giving The Prez more sovereign executive powers to wage war (and commit war-crimes) than ever before.
If American public philosophy is going to have any effect on contemporary political issues and current events, American philosophers will have to step out of the seminar room and graduate lounge and challenge the Trump administration in Congress and the courtroom, where the real decisions are made that affect US foreign and domestic policy, and therefore affect all of us, including ‘the public’ which public philosophy claims to address, while often only speaking to other philosophy profs. and grad students in the demo-liberal-leftist jargon of ‘entitlement’ that they all share, but which the public finds elitist and off-putting. And, I’d also add, which I myself, despite my graduate education and sympathy for philosophy grad. students, can’t help but find smug and self-serving, when it ignores the real suffering of so many people in the Two-Thirds world, where both Anglo-American and Continental philosophers too often fear to tread.
And may I also suggest that if American public philosophy is really going to accomplish something, American philosophers need to come to grips with how the American so-called democratic system really works, with brutality cynicism and absolute callousness toward American political dissidence and toward the civil and human rights of non-American citizens. And American public philosophers will have to face up to the harsh realities of the contemporary world, in which tens of thousands of innocent human beings are suffering starving and facing death on a daily basis by cruel unusual and inhumane methods sanctioned by, if not committed by, the American democratic system and its sovereign military-industrial-technological complex. (Should I mention the US-backed horrors of the Saudi war against the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen?)
And maybe then American public philosophy will not just speak to US grad students and Asst. Profs. afraid of losing their stipends and tenure-track positions, but to the suffering millions of the Two-Thirds world who live in crushing poverty and abject misery on a daily basis, when they are not dodging US drone strikes on their wedding gatherings and US bombing missions on their hospitals and homes, just trying to survive for another day…
Eric,
What you’re describing isn’t really public philosophy, but public politics. Public philosophy might look something more like this…
Philosophers could start with the left/right political divide in American politics. Then they might expand the lens to observe that such divides arise in all political and ideological situations in every time and place, such as for example, religion, any religion.
Seeing that such divisions arise in all ideologies in all times and places raises the theory that the source of the division isn’t the content of any particular ideology, but rather what all ideologies have in common, what they’re all made of, thought itself.
This seems an important observation because it suggests that even if say for example, the Democrats were to win 100% of the votes and completely take over the American political landscape, it would only be a matter of time before their unity started to fracture in to competing internal factions. And then the divisive polarizing conflict we see today would continue largely unchanged, except for the different colored flags being waved.
If you doubt this spend some time on say, the Catholic web. Catholics are all on the same team, right? Nope, their internal battles are more fierce than any conflict they have with external ideologies.
If we can see that the polarizing divisive conflict can not be solved by somebody winning, then the quest for victory becomes less urgent, and that lets some of the air out of the conflict balloon. The problem is not solved, but it is at least put in to some perspective.
The fundamental source of the vast majority of our problems is not that fellow over there, and not even the fellow inside ourselves, but rather what all the fellows are made of, thought. Thus, the problems can not be solved by any philosopher or any philosophy, because all philosophers and philosophies are made of thought, and thus will inherit the divisions built in to that medium.
Having said all of that the public philosopher will then lose at least 95% of his public audience because what they are really interested in is not philosophy, but the emotional release that can be obtained by screaming, “TRUMP IS A LIAR!!!!”
And having said all of that the philosopher will also lose about 95% of his professional peer audience because their agenda is to do philosophy, not proclaim that philosophy, any philosophy, is inherently incapable of solving our most fundamental problems. Such an insight diminishes the importance of philosophers, so one should not expect to be rewarded for it.
Having thus followed the trail of reason where ever it may lead, and thus alienated most or all of their audience, the sincere public philosopher finds him or herself now largely removed from the conversation. Still a philosopher, but no longer public.
And this is where it gets interesting because once the illusion of accomplishment is removed one has the opportunity to learn how to enjoy philosophy, not as a means to some other end, but for itself.
You have an idea. The idea has no impact upon anyone, not even you. But you smile and then laugh, as you are fulfilled, you’ve reached the goal line of enoughness, having done what your brain was born to do.
Dear Ms. Webb,
I really liked this post. Thank you for writing it.
In Cleveland, we have the Moral Inquiries ( https://www.meetup.com/The-Moral-Inquiries/ ) and a number of other philosophy groups on that platform. The Moral Inquiries is the community-based spin-off of the Ethics Table ( http://artsci.case.edu/ethics/beamer-schneider-professorship/the-ethics-table/ ) and related programs ( http://artsci.case.edu/ethics/beamer-schneider-professorship/beamer-schneider-lectures-in-ethics-morals-and-civics/ ).
(part II — the website did not allow one post for some reason)
I’ve found that slow moving, relatively small group and persistent discussions among people who get to know each other over time are the best forums for philosophy done democratically (my way of parsing what I see in your view of public philosophy). Social practice art, philosophy as a way of life (as “ascetics”) and “radical” pedagogy helped me see this, especially when thinking about how to work through conflict and develop learning relationships. I talk about some of this relation to social practice art in a series of eFlux articles ( https://conversations.e-flux.com/t/democracy-as-relationship-by-jeremy-bendik-keymer/6519 ; https://conversations.e-flux.com/t/art-s-plain-art-of-living/7933 and, following a debate on protest begun on Hyperallergic, https://conversations.e-flux.com/t/jeremy-david-bendik-keymer-the-neoliberal-radicals/5986 ).
I was also excited about your post because the editors here will be publishing a post on the practices and experiments I just mentioned later this week, “How to disagree,” if the title remains the same. The two posts — yours and the one coming out — have productive comparisons.
Good luck with your work. I hope to hear more about it.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Bendik-Keymer
(part III — apologies — the website is not liking the links!)
This was at the end of the paragraph on social practice art:
See, for instance, the project at SPACES currently in Cleveland ( https://www.spacesgallery.org/project/a-color-removed ) — it does public philosophy by other means. And so does a project at Unsmoke Systems in Pittsburgh currently ( http://unsmokeartspace.com/index/#/the-family-system/). Chloe Bass’s work is very strong too ( http://chloebass.com/work/the-book-of-everyday-instruction ).
IV (finally, the last link, which appears to have been activating the spam filter by its mistake):
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bk_y6R1BkOp/?taken-by=mistyemorrison
Apologies for the four part post — persistence, though!
— JBK
Thnak you for this post – and sorry that it has taken me so long to read and respond!
I really like your account of the work that takes place through the Stuart Low Trust, and the goal you want to set for public philosophy as a non-hierarchical approach to creating space for communal philosophy where those without formal philosophical training can develop and articulate their own arguments (and way of living, where philosophy is understood as a project for developing a way of life). The obvious next step for me is the incorporation of developments from this work into more ‘formal’ philosophy to widen that conversation (as you have pointed out has happened in your own work) – and that is where I think there can be more resistance. I think that philosophy can sometimes have a tendency towards snobbery – as seen in the relative value accorded to philosophical theories and approaches which are seen as coming from outside ‘canonical’ sources. Feminist philosophy, philosophy of race and gender – none of this could exist WITHOUT the philosophies of people outside the academy and the very best work (I think) continues to be in conversation with this. But I think there are a good number of philosophy departments where this is considered a fringe activity – not really ‘proper’ philosophy.