Like any professional, I often get asked, âSo what do you do?â When I explain to people that I am a philosopher, they are always blown away. I take it that they have not met many philosophers and so I stand before them as a rare breed, perhaps even an endangered species. âSo what do you do?â is usually followed by another question; the same question. Although they are impressed that I am a philosopher they cannot really understand what it is that I do. Recently I was asked if I did philosophy âlike that other guy.â I said, âYes.â My inquirer was still confused. He could not connect the dots. Although he understood my academic pursuits (I said I write and teach), he could not understand how I could do philosophy and do anything meaningful or relevant. Days later, I was told by someone pursuing a doctoral degree in another department, but quite familiar with the philosophy department, that, âit is a privilege for philosophers to just think about stuff.â For her, we philosophers are privileged to make a career of disengaging from the world in order to think and this disengagement makes no contribution to the real world.
Although my mother taught me a long time ago not to be concerned about what people think of me, I cannot forget these kinds of encounters. Sometimes I have similar thoughts. I, for example, often participate in a universityâwide collegium for fellows. My participation makes me quite privy to what other academics are doing in other disciplines across the university. Several of my science colleagues are working on more effective diagnoses and cures for cancers. Another humanities colleague is studying Latino identification. When I stand to present, I worry that what I say may sound foreign, insignificant, or irrelevant to them. Will they see me as out of touch with the real world?
I am not suggesting that these anecdotes are representative of what all people think of philosophy but it has been my experience. At times what philosophers do in philosophy can be viewed as out of touch with the world or at least with real people and real issues in the world. This is reflected in the decline of undergraduates taking philosophy courses, the closing of philosophy departments or their merging with other departments, the few philosophers who serve as public intellectuals, the few nonâphilosophers who have access to or who have engaged in philosophical research, and the questions I get asked about the mystery of the profession. Scottish philosopher David Hume, over two hundred years ago, made a similar assessment of the philosopher.
Not all philosophers fit Humeâs description. He thought that he was doing philosophy in a radically different way attempting to make sense of human nature rather than ignore human beings. Still, the perception of philosophy Hume rebuked is commonly expressed. In the 2015 Republican presidential debate, candidate Marco Rubio received applause for stating âwe need more welders, and less philosophers.â I think things can change in philosophy. In order for this change to occur, professional philosophers need to seriously rethink how we do philosophy, where we do philosophy, and with whom we do philosophy. If we donât, we may witness the decline and even the eradication of the field of philosophy as we know it.
David Hume claims, âabstruse philosophy ⌠vanishes when the philosopher leaves the shade, and comes into open dayâ (1975, 7). I read Humeâs reference to âleaving the shadeâ as saying that the complicated, otherworldly, and outâofâtouch nature of philosophy disappears when, for example, philosophers get off of their isolated armchairs and become accessible, speak clearly, and engage with the public and with other thinkers. Coming out of the shade is the act of philosophers leaving their philosophical bubbles. It entails: (1) making philosophical work accessible in form and in medium; (2) not ghettoizing public philosophy but seeing it as a serious part of oneâs overall academic project; (3) doing philosophy in a way that engages with work in science, social science, and the humanities; and (4) getting over the fear and suspicion of public engagement. In the following I offer several suggestions for how philosophers can come out of the shade and engage with the world.
Accessibility in Form and Medium
Coming out of the shade requires that philosophers no longer write in an inaccessible language that only a few specialists can understand. It requires that philosophers no longer write so abstractly even if it brings with it the reward that the field will label it as âbrilliantâ â not because they understand it, but because it is impenetrable. As David Hume notes, they are wrapped up in principles and notions that they cannot possibly understand. Even if the philosopherâs words are clear, it is also important that this clear research is not kept locked away in the hidden archives of philosophical journals to be discovered and viewed only by the few.
Philosophy prides itself on rigor. Some philosophical texts are excluded from the canon and some articles are rejected from journals, not because they are not saying anything intellectually valuable, but based on the view that they lack rigor. If it is not confusing (I mean rigorous) enough, philosophers at times question if it is even philosophy. While I think rigor is important, it does not equate to abstruse, inaccessible prose. A writer can be rigorous and yet be clear. This obsession with rigor has not only excluded certain voices but it is preventing philosophers from coming out of the shade â thus limiting their own voices. We all want our research to be the very best it can be; for it to be representative of thoughtfulness and intellectual insight so that we can make a valuable contribution. However, just as rigor can vary in its presentation, it can also vary in its intention.
The obsession of some philosophers with rigor suggests intellectual posturing and elitism. On this view, the more rigorous a philosopher is, the smarter they look. The more effort a work takes to be understood, the more intelligent and philosophical the philosopher seems. Since the days of ancient Greek thinkers, the philosopher has been perceived as special and different from the regular citizen. For Plato, only philosophers are fit to rule. If the unexamined life is not worth living, according to Socrates, then we can infer that only those who examine their lives (philosophers) have a life that is worth living. In Greek society, philosophical thinking was an activity for the wealthy because they had the leisure time to philosophize. Today, I think rigor has been used as a way to exclude others from this âspecialâ activity; an activity that some suppose only they are gifted enough to understand and engage with. Instead of coming out of the shade, the shade has become their country club and their tent of intellectual apartheid that allows them to think of themselves as superior and special. Accessibility is a threat that puts them at risk of being like and with the people. The notion of accessibility reminds them that ideas are not the possession of the higher class; rather, they are gifts that can be shared with everyone.
Philosophy also prides itself on clarity. Philosophers, however, have a hard time understanding each otherâs work. If philosophers are to come out of the shade, they must endeavor to make their work comprehensible not just to the public but also to those other philosophers who are not in their particular subfield. Let us be honest, there are several sessions we attend at philosophy conferences in which we have no idea what is being talked about. This has nothing to do with technical language specific to a topic. It has everything to do with clarity. If philosophers cannot understand each otherâs work, what makes them think others outside of philosophy can understand it? Sadly, graduate school has trained students to write in an inaccessible way. The greatest challenge for those wanting to come out of the shade is unlearning this bad habit â a task that, although necessary, is not easy.
Just creating work that can be read and understood means nothing if that work never has the chance to be read. The profession of philosophy must figure out a way to make philosophical research more available to colleagues, academics in other disciplines, and the public. Although I do not have the space to discuss the obstacles to doing so, I think social psychology and science journals offer a best practice for making research easily available.
One way of making research easily available is by not charging to read journal articles. This is not to say that printed journals should be free, which would drive them out of business. But the cost of journal articles should not be a barrier to gaining access to them. âFor freeâ is one of the best vehicles of accessibility. It removes the obstacles to reading the work. I find it easier to discover and read new science and social science research from journals such as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and on sites such as Research Gate. This is because once I Google search the content, I am able to read the articles for free. When the articles do charge, they have brief free windows. Philosophy articles, however, are often locked behind paywalls, with some articles costing the price of books. These articles are not easily accessible to philosophers let alone to the public. Some philosophers have found a way to get around this by creating Facebook groups where they share articles with each other that some cannot afford, or articles their institutionsâ libraries do not provide. But such groups for philosophers are rarely open to nonâphilosophers.
Cost is not the only barrier to accessibility. Simply not knowing the work exists is also a barrier. When a science or social science article is published, universitiesâ public relations and communications departments inform the press of this exciting research by issuing specialâdirectâtoâmedia press releases about professorsâ research. It is not surprising that I am first made aware of science and social science articles via NPR, CNN, or by perusing popular science magazines and blogs. When philosophical work is published in journals, it is not well publicized like in other disciplines. As a result, the work tends to remain hidden from the world. I am surprised when popular media outlets reference new research by philosophers. When David Brooks, columnist for The New York Times, referenced philosopher Laurie Paulâs work on transformative experience in his August 2015 article âThe Big Decisions,â I was so proud and surprised. How often does that happen? Not very often. Paul claims that sales of her book increased as a result. The mention of her research made others outside the discipline much more aware and interested in her work. How awesome is that! I am not suggesting that all published work will be viewed as interesting, but no one will consider its value if we are not first made aware of it.
Making people aware of philosophy research should not be the responsibility of universities alone but also of journals and philosophers themselves. For all the time it takes to accept and publish work, just as much time should be put into publicizing the work to those in and outside the ph...
