On Blogs in Philosophy

Yesterday, I was discussing the philosophy 'profession' with an eminent scholar. In my typical impatient fashion, I was expressing exasperation with the relentless focus on Brian Leiter's blogosphere behavior; I explained to him my theory about how convenient this focus is for the savvy greying professional heavies -- say some of the senior folk that have been a lifetime at Princeton -- that have been at the center of the various networks in the discipline; they are never scrutinized in discussions about how the profession polices itself while they (and their proteges) are the main beneficiaries of existing norms as well as the Leiter guided Philosophical Gourmet report. (See the footnote at the end of this post for my views on the Gourmet report.)

He interrupted me, rather gleefully, 'Of course, Eric, the focus on philosophy blogs is ephemeral.'

Well, wait a second.

Here are the hard facts: most blog posts at the main professional philosophy blogs are read by the majority of their readers within the first six to eighteen hours unless they get a second life through links and social media. (Even then, it's rare to see links to posts that are older than a week; I have never understood this--folk can make something 'news' at any time.) This audience decline is even true for blogs that offer substantial content; it is rare for a blog post to get a steady stream of regular visitors, although they do exist (especially if they are related to popular essay questions or striking scientific/mathematical phenomena). So, yes, blog posts have a short audience life-span.

But it does not follow from this that they are entirely ephemeral sociologically and philosopically.

First, the obvious fact: led by Leiterreports, the blogs have changed professional dynamics. Undoubtedly, blogs have generated lots of undesirable consequences, and I trust that my readers are familiar with them. On the plus side, they have facilitated discipline-wide discussions, the sharing of information, they have called attention to lots of local injustices and sclerotic idiosyncrasies. They have allowed for the sharing of best practices, and the mobilization of various sub-communities. Crucially, the blogs have largely destroyed the information and status monopoly of what I will call, local gurus.*

And, this last sentence, also points to the wider philosophical significance of blogs.

It used to be that what (counts as) good philosophy is was pretty much defined by a subtle interplay between leading journals, a few presses, and the local gurus. Sometimes a philosopher would hit a nerve with a wider audience and bypass these mechanism (and simultaneously risk ejection from (ahum) serious consideration).  Blogs have added a layer to these mechanisms.

 

Blogs can direct philosophical attention to otherwise overlooked topics or people. Let me offer a self-serving example (because I played some role in it). This now famous paper was listed among a call for papers (cfp) in a forthcoming special issue of an established, but not influential journal. (There is still time to submit papers, I think.) As it happens I had read a draft of the paper after, its author, L.A. Paul, had sent it to me after this blog post. I used the cfp as the occasion to write a post about the piece in my then weekly philo of economics column at NewAPPS.

 

Now, Paul is a fantastic philosopher, who was already well known in the profession with an established position. I don't insult, I hope, her by saying that she knows the value of social networking. I hope that one day she shares the publishing history of this paper. What matters for my present purposes is that after I wrote my entirely non-sensationalist (!) discussion post about it, the paper quickly became much discussed on other widely read philosophy blogs (as well as more columns by others at NewAPPS), other academic blogs, and then the wider media (you can follow some of this on Paul's personal home-page). It's quite possible that the book Transformative Experience, listed asForthcoming (2014) with Oxford University Press, will generate another round of attention.

I don't claim that my role was necessary for making Paul's paper's famous. After all, papers have grown famous in philosophy prior to blogs (through widely used anthologies, and the combined opinion of local gurus). I don't even claim my blog was necessary to make the paper famous in the blogosphere. Within a week of my post, Crookedtimber posted her own blog post. It is an open question, of course, if the paper will prove to be enduring either (a) in the short term by generating scholarly responses and getting on course syllabi or (b) in the long term for later generations--this (b) will have to await the careful, slower judgments of readers who will find something of value in the piece.

My view is that the long-term significance of the paper is non-trivial in two distinct ways. First, Paul joins the short list (associated with names like Knight, Ellsberg, Allais) of profound objections to standard decision theory. Second, Paul's paper will be seen as the birth or coming of age of what we might call analytical existentialism (informed by what Paul, I think, prefers to call 'analytical phenomenology'). Obviously, analytical existentialism has a pre-history, and some other time I'll say more about this. Roughly, analytical existentialism is the use of an analytical style to investigate topics that matter to us as human beings capable of feelings and anxieties or joys while doing justice to our first-personal perspective on these topics.

For, without blogs journal editors and local gurus may well have prevented interest in Paul's paper from developing. It's hard to judge counterfactuals, but I feel extremely confident in claiming that whatever general interest her paper might have generated, if ever, it would have been far slower than we have seen happen. Thus far, my argument through example might all be thought to be sociological and not philosophical.

Moreover, and now I turn to the self-serving, myth-making part: when I called attention to Paul's paper I had been blogging about issues in the vicinity of her topic for considerable time; I can't prove what I am about to say, but I (and others) had helped prepare the climate of opinion such that her paper might well have a wider uptake. By this I do not just mean that I had developed a relatively loyal readership, but I also had developed some credibility among our readers. 

Now, I am not claiming that my post (or the ones by other bloggers) on Paul will endure with her piece. It's quite possible that these will be forgotten even by their countless readers. (Perhaps they will be discovered by future scholars and sociologists writing about her paper!) As it happens, I happen to think that my post introduced some subtle points--some of which I have been developing and will continue to develop through my blogging (and sometimes in other venues). As blogging has become part of my daily routine -- and yes the format of D&I is one essay per day --, it has become a place where I do philosophy (no, not all my philosophy) and, more important, where I am becoming the philosopher I want to be.

All good things must end, and so there is a sense in which all blogs are εφήμερος  literally "lasting only one day." So, I write each of my posts as if it's the last day, with time to spare to read them in light of each other.

 

*This is not to deny that there are LOTS of local gurus left many of which with considerable local influence.

Comments

[Stamatios Gerogiorgakis]

After I state how much I agree with your analysis of the "emancipating" role of philosophical blogs, I would like to say that I stumbled upon your usage of a Greek adjective in singular ("ἐφήμερος") as a predicative to "blogs" in plural. English texts shouldn't follow Greek grammar. However, in what you can call "high level pidgin" Greek words in an English text do follow Greek grammar to some extent. Greek (or Latin) adjectives, even if they do not agree with the English substantive in the grammatical case, do agree in number and gender. I would write that blogs are "ἐφήμερα".

[Eric Schliesser]

Yes, Agreed. Thank you.

[ingrid robeyns]

Thanks for this Eric! I am just amazed how you manage to write a post a day [I guess having English as (one of) your mother tongue(s) helps, but still I am deeply impressed.

If readers requests have any role in your decision what to write about: I would love to read more about Analytical existentialism!

PS: Crooked Timber is two words ;-)

[Eric Schliesser]

Apologies on the faulty spelling of Crooked Timber!
Thank you for your kind words, Ingrid.
Let me think about more topics related to Analytical existentialism!