Issues in PhilosophyThe Why? Philosophical Discussions about Everyday Life Podcast: Philosophy Outside Academia

The Why? Philosophical Discussions about Everyday Life Podcast: Philosophy Outside Academia

by Jack Russell Weinstein

Philosophy needs ambassadors, not missionaries. Our profession has long regarded bringing people to philosophy as akin to saving their souls. Sometimes we hope to refine the mind of the democratic citizen; sometimes we aim to sharpen the mirror of self-reflection, and sometimes we hope to lead the great unwashed to happiness through virtue. Whatever the case, philosophers have long expressed a contempt for those who do not understand that philosophy is, to use the Taoist term, the way.

We also contradict ourselves. Our contempt for non-philosophers’ lack of knowledge comes hand-in-hand with the conviction that even if they were informed, they couldn’t do what we do. From Thales onward, we have lamented people’s inability to understand the subtleties and taxonomies we swim in. I had a colleague who would always respond exactly the same way to non-philosophers asking what he did. He would groan dramatically and say “you wouldn’t understand,” and then trail off mumbling to himself. He would then write op-ed after op-ed bemoaning how Americans don’t value the humanities. How can people celebrate that from which they are systematically excluded?

Like any true missionary, we demand that outsiders accept our claims on faith and harangue them when we don’t. We complain bitterly about not receiving the rewards we are entitled to, but feign insult when we are asked to justify our legitimacy. It is a self-destructive cycle that works against philosophy, against people in general, and against academic solvency.

Ambassadors play a different role. They welcome people, advertise the virtues of what they represent, and embrace the stranger’s interest. They know that tourists are the lifeblood of well-bounded cultures. It is the interaction with the outsider that reveals the beauty that insiders take for granted, not to mention continued economic support. An ambassador is an emissary, presenting his or her charge at its best, and trusting those who take an interest. Diplomacy is a reciprocal relationship. There’s give and take.

The public radio show and podcast Why? Philosophical Discussions about Everyday Life (Why? Radio) strives to realize the second vision, not the first. It is ambassadorial, committed to the principle that all academic work can be explained to all listeners, recognizing that public philosophy is an exercise in translation more than a classroom without borders. Why? Radio is broadcast on Prairie Public radio and distributed in an extended version as a free podcast. It is the flagship program of the University of North Dakota’s The Institute for Philosophy in Public Life (IPPL), whose motto is “because there is no ivory tower.” Both the radio show and IPPL try to reproduce the experience of philosophical discovery in a way that is accessible to all, regardless of experience with philosophy or credentials.

This February, Why? Radio will celebrate its tenth anniversary. As its host, I have interviewed some of the most well-known thinkers of the last twenty years (follow the links to the individual episodes): Martha Nussbaum, Peter Singer, Carol Gilligan, Charles Taylor, Gloria Steinem, Amartya Sen, Kwame Anthony Appiah, Seyla Benhabib, and Anita Silvers, to name a few. I’ve interviewed the great American playwright Tony Kushner in an auditorium of more than a thousand fans, and explored the nature of music with Sega band Noukilla in a Shanghai club, before a gig. The poet Mary Jo Bang made me tear up (again in front of an audience) and Native American theologian George Tinker made me livid in the face of injustice.

Obviously, not every one of those guests is a philosopher; the guys from Noukilla doubted that they had anything constructive to say at all. In fact, I have no idea what their academic background was. I went to China with two live interviews planned, but I found five: Noukilla, a Confucian political philosopher, two ex-patriate environmental activists, the principal (and possible owner, I was never quite sure) of a private high school in Beijing, and two university students who talked about growing up female in China. But this is the magic of public philosophy. It isn’t just an audience listening. It’s the Socratic commitment that if the questions are right, anyone can be a philosopher.

This is where I lose some academics, of course. There are plenty of philosophers who refuse to call what these folks are doing philosophy, because they aren’t trained. But as I have written elsewhere, I think this is mistaken. The division is not between philosophy and not-philosophy, it’s between professional and amateur. I’m a pretty crappy basketball player. There is very little resemblance between what I do on a court and what Michael Jordan did, but what I play is still basketball. Even if some of these people are not super sophisticated arguers or well-versed in the tradition, they are still doing philosophy. A heck of a lot of people in our audience love these forays into amateurism because they hear themselves in the guests.

Truth be told, the vast majority of Why? Radio episodes feature academics, easily more than 100 of our 121 episodes to date. But the freedom to embrace the non-traditional allows us to frame questions in ways that professional philosophy wouldn’t necessarily have thought of. One of my favorite episodes is titled “What does Buddhism offer an African-American Woman?” Another is “How to Read a Comic Book.” We’ve had a discussion on the philosophy of gardens and explored performance architecture; we’ve broadcast two episodes on the morality and politics of university sports (here and here), and one on the ethics of ghostwriting. And, at the same time, we’ve embraced the most technical philosophy with good humor, devoting a show to the question “Can Ordinary People Understand Advanced Logic?” only one episode before we asked “What a Food Magazine Tells Us about the World.” After ten years we have the security to both experiment and be traditional, bringing our audience into philosophy through every door we can think of. What is clear from the listener feedback, and what may be the greatest honor bestowed upon me as host, is that our audience trusts us. Listeners don’t ask “what’s on Why? Radio this month?” They ask, “What’s on Jack’s show?” and they listen based on the relationship we’ve created, even if they don’t think they’ll have an interest in the topic. They almost always develop one.

Why? Radio starts with a three-to-five minute monologue, during which I establish the themes of the show and try to contextualize the discussion. Then we talk, unscripted. The guest is told what the first question will be in advance, but that’s it. I rarely read questions from my notes; the conversation is spontaneous. My job is to advocate for the audience, not to direct the guest somewhere. I aim to anticipate what the listeners would ask if they had the time to reflect on the discussion.

Also, we’re non-adversarial. My interest is not in undercutting or critiquing the argument, but in celebrating the research. Here’s how iTunes reviewer Veritruvian puts it:

The problem I have with nearly every other philosophy podcast is the systemic negativity. I understand it is in a philosopher’s blood to find the failings of any affirmative position, but it gets tiring when hosts don’t even attempt to present the position being torn down fairly. J.R.W. will argue brilliantly for one side as he inhales then exhales, just as brilliantly the opposing position; all the while keeping in mind the whole point of the podcast, which is to answer the question ‘why?’

Needless to say, we highlight that comment on our webpage.

Let me be direct. This article is a rhetorical minefield. A piece on the official APA blog is a rich networking opportunity to introduce philosophers to my podcast and I am tempted to highlight the aspects of the show that would appeal most to professionals. There are plenty of episodes that could satisfy the most entrenched professional. If I were a better salesperson, I’d stop there.

But this is also an opportunity to speak to the profession and to touch upon the frustration I feel at the competitive, insular, dehumanizing aspects of academic philosophy. How many times can writers in the philosophy blogosphere take polls on the most influential journal or the most important political philosopher of a given century? How often have I heard in my career that the APA Main Program is meaningful, but that there is something lesser about being part of the Group Program? How is it that in what may be the worst job market in history, some still consider public intellectuals like Steven Pinker hacks, just because they disagree with his point of view? Academic philosophy is in a more tenuous position in terms of funding and security than it has ever been and we’re still competitive, we’re still insulting each other, and as a profession, we’re still mean.

I find it interesting to listen to the rhythms of the professional philosophers who appear on Why? Radio. There is always tension in their voices until the first break. I tell them, as I have told you, that my job is to celebrate their work, that I am not going to ambush them, and that the show itself is non-adversarial. Most of them don’t believe me. And for those guests, it can take 20 minutes of interview before they relax, and only then can you feel them exhale. “Wow! He really isn’t going to attack me,” they seem to say. “This is fun!”

The biggest mistake that I made in grad school—the thing that it took me the longest to learn—is that despite the mythology of being educated for the love of the discipline, Ph.D. programs in philosophy are vocational. Students are being socialized into the academic world and being taught, not just how to learn, but how to act. This is probably true of all Ph.D. programs, but in philosophy this means being acculturated into a skeptical, hostile, and confrontational methodology that pushes away outsiders. The sociology of professional philosophy is Darwinian; only the strong survive. It is everything I wanted to walk away from when I started Why? Radio ten years ago.

The thing that saved my soul was being given the opportunity to tell the world how wonderful other people’s research is. The greatest gift I have received as a professional philosopher is being granted the opportunity to showcase work that is not my own.

I can be as self-promoting as the next person, of course. There is some serious self-aggrandizement in this little essay. It is, as I have acknowledged, introducing prospective listeners to the radio show, first and foremost. But what makes Why? Radio a success is the joy we feel in helping scholars present their work to new audiences and accepting the responsibility of convincing our listeners that they should be interested in the research too. If there is an ivory tower, it is self-imposed. Philosophy contributes to the making of human knowledge, no doubt. But it is also a form of entertainment. What I want, more than anything is to share with guests and audiences the pleasures of asking why, and to glory in the wonders of philosophical discussions about everyday life. Please consider this blog post as your formal invitation to join us.

Jack Russell Weinstein is a Chester Fritz Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and the Founding Director of the Institute for Philosophy in Public Life at the University of North Dakota. He is the author of three books, most recently Adam Smith’s Pluralism: Rationality, Education, and the Moral Sentiments (Yale UP, 2013). He has edited five collections, including a special issue of the journal Essay in Philosophy on public philosophy. You can read a more academic account of his views on public philosophy from that issue, here. He maintains a blog at www.pqed.org and can be found on Twitter at @jackrweinsetin. More information about him can be found at www.jackrussellweinstein.com.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

WordPress Anti-Spam by WP-SpamShield

Topics

Advanced search

Posts You May Enjoy

International Women’s Day Profile: Cristina Peri Rossi

This post was originally published on Filosofía en la Red. It has been translated as part of the APA Blog’s ongoing collaboration with Filosofía...