Many of us, myself included, have become increasingly pessimistic about the potential for internet-based discussions of difficult issues to help us make philosophical and real-world progress. And if I don’t think blogs are a good place to discuss stuff, it becomes a little odd to keep a blog going. Not all of us agree with this, and there may be spin-off blogs by some of our more optimistic members, which we’ll link to. But this site will soon no longer be hosting blog posts. I feel OK about this, and really good about what we’ve accomplished, but I think the time for this blog is now past and we’ve all got other projects underway.--Jennifer Saul, "Closing down FP" Feministphilosophers.
I dislike mono-causal explanations for social affairs, but it would be no exaggeration to say that the portfolio of websites hosted by or associated with Feministphilosophers (see also the genderedconferencecampaign or 'what is it like being a women in philosophy?) transformed public perceptions of professional philosophy. They didn't just create a whole range of #metoo moments (before the term was invented) in professional philosophy, but they generated a discipline wide discussions (activism, conferences, etc.) about a whole range of professional and philosophical issues that percolated through the profession and made headlines in the international press. What seemed like a culture of silence (recall) frozen eternally, suddenly became an avalanche of bricks in the wall crumbling to dust. As this process unfolded it generated an intense set of public and more subterranean reactions many of which unsympathetic to the (diverse) aims of feministphilosophers, which changed the incentive structure for public speech. (Recall this post.) Philosophy generated its own dark web and with the frisson associated with dangerous thoughts it became a permanent, dissonant even intimidating counterpoint to feministphilosophers.
Before i comment on Saul's remarks (see also Yap), I turn to Brian Leiter's post which quoted remarks by one of my favorite scholars, Paul Russell:*
There is, in any case, little or nothing about the debate concerning Lenin/Bukharin/Gramsci et al in the SEP. What this shows is that there are significant movements and developments in philosophy (e.g. Marxism) that are still sorely neglected in the SEP. Despite its considerable merits and achievements, the SEP has a rather narrow and contentious conception of what 'philosophy' is. It is arguable that this reflects a deeper problem, with what could be called the "APA outlook". This is an outlook that includes a rather crude understanding of how philosophy can and should be politically "active". It is heavily focused on “professional” issues (and interests) and it is largely disconnected from real world politics and history - lacking any credible understanding of the role that philosophy has had and that it might play outside its narrow academic/professional concerns.
It is notable that a perfectly sensible point -- that SEP's coverage of the Marxist tradition is rather thin and unbalanced -- got submerged into a broader polemic. One could have made that point by noting that G.A. Cohen is discussed more frequently than Lenin or Luxemburg (who is curiously missing in Russell's remarks) in the pages of SEP. The SEP is a public treasure, but this kind of thing is not uncommon--there are huge path dependencies and the effects of idiosyncratic views that have shaped its development. (Just recently I noticed that a student or professional interested in the godfather of formal philosophy, and himself a pioneering feminist, Condorcet was badly served by SEP.) The nice thing about SEP is that they welcome corrective feedback and encourage new entries. It is an unfolding encyclopedia not a monument to a fixed view. So Profs. Russell and Leiter could have simply made their point and helped the editors of SEP coordinate a robust number of invitations to develop entries that provide a better coverage of Marxism and its complex development and history.
But this perfectly sensible criticism is presented by way of contrast with the rich coverage of feminist themes in SEP and not, say, Bayes (which is discussed in huge number of entries many more than feminism). If I had followed Russell's (and Leiter's) style of argument, I would have said (in line with my priors), that the SEP's fondness for Bayes represent an APA outlook (they even use "APA appratichiks"--this gave me the giggles) that favors technocratic (or scientistic) governance, etc. (Sadly no entry on Feminist Bayesianism yet.)
Don't misunderstand me, Russell and Leiter are right to ask us to reflect on the ways (recall) the steep economic and prestige hierarchies of professional philosophy, as other academic enterprises, reflect, reinforce, and help recycle (ahh) the superstructure of society. But it is a bit peculiar that they do so in the name of encouraging more focus on "real world politics and history" by complaining about encyclopedia entries about another philosophical movement. It's especially odd because feminism has been a means to advance and develop many marxist projects. (That's actually pretty clear from quite a few entries in SEP! Standpoint epistemology, say, is indebted to marxism.)
It's not that they don't have a point: I checked the number of entries on "social activism" and "political activism" (both negligible. By contrast the number of entries that mentions 'politics' is huge). No to put a fine point on it, and I am pretty bourgeois myself, it strikes me that the interests of capital are served just fine by marxist-feminist infighting over crumbs of online space. Why, if one wishes to advance the demise of capital, one would encourage such zero-sum infighting is one of the mysteries of life that elude me. Anyway, as I have argued, with the shift of global capital toward Asia, philosophical fashions and trends, even identity, will shift, too.
Be that as it may, it's possible that the brief effervescent age of the group philosophy blog is over. Quite a few group blogs have folded, and few new ones, it seems, are breaking out. There are three challenges to such blogs: (i) a lot of coordination time is lost to maintain minimal unity of the group; (ii) it is really difficult to remain fresh (and not to keep returning to same issues over and over again); (iii) because of the prevalence of online harassment and the relative slowness of blog discussions (compared to twitter), folk are increasingly unwilling to leave comments at blogs.
Plato says somewhere that all created things must perish. So, c'ést la vie. Even so, I worry that Saul's point -- she is "increasingly pessimistic about the potential for internet-based discussions of difficult issues" -- may reflect the success of the war of attrition against feministphilosophers waged by (what above I jokingly called) the dark web. But perhaps her new projects, and those of her collaborators , will prove to be as influential and stimulating to philosophical self-awareness.
Paul Russell asked me to post his response:
"Hi Eric,
As you know, I am not a natural blogger or, for that matter, do I especially enjoy online polemics. I tried to avoid encouraging that in my remarks on Brian's blog. For what it is worth, I think you make one or two interesting points and observations and I am not entirely unsympathetic to the more general point that you are making. Briefly:
1. I agree that Luxemburg is another glaring omission - she is a fascinating person and an important figure both politically and intellectually. I wish I had remembered to mention her (but I happened to be reading about Russian Marxism and the fate of Bukharin, which is the trivial psychological occasion behind my initial post).
2. I like your observation about Condorcet. You might add Diderot's name as well - there is no article about him in the SEP (another glaring, ironic gap).
3. The nub of your concern is with why I selected feminist philosophy and its (relatively heavy) representation as a point of contrast with (relatively) feeble representation of Marxism. I could go on at length about this but I hope the following brief points are of some help:
(a) As my own original remarks about this indicate, I hesitated about how to frame this and what to say about it. That is why I noted that other points of (relative) excess and neglect could also be found. It is also why I emphasize, as my first observation, that I share the general concern about a lack of interest and respect for women in any number of ways in "philosophy", including forms of neglect that are common in other venues (but not in the SEP).
(b) I went on to explain that I had selected the sharp contrast with feminist articles because: (i) in terms of content they are a relevant point of comparison (a few others might be available but none that seemed so obvious or relevant in this respect) and (ii) more importantly, the feminist representation is very heavy (relatively speaking) and that is something, I suggested, that requires further consideration and thought. I take it as obvious, however, that saying that any given topic is excessively represented - much less that merely noting that it is heavily emphasized - in no way commits a commentator to claiming that the topic is not important and worthwhile, or even that its current level of representation and emphasis cannot be justified. My own view is that topics of feminism are excessively represented and that to some extent this indicates professional/career interests in the subject - rather than some sensible aim to address important and neglected philosophical and political concerns. That is a view that will, no doubt, be treated as controversial and I realize that some may feel slighted by it - but no one should read it as dismissing the relevance or importance of feminist philosophy or issues (as I plainly and explicitly hold the contrary view).
(c) Finally, I understand why you might question my remarks concerning "real world politics and history" as it relates to the heavy emphasis given to feminism (i.e. in philosophy and the SEP). I hesitated over this issue and how to express the points that I wanted to make. Again, a lot could be said about this. For now let me say that I agree that feminist concerns and topics are obviously of more immediate real world importance than many other more "academic" interests in philosophy (e.g. as represented in the SEP). I would also agree that many feminist thinkers - past and present - have contributed a great deal to improving the lives of millions of people around the world (both women and men). I would not agree, however, that all activity labelled "feminist" has been constructive or effective. Nor would I agree that because it is associated with (admirable) aims and objectives that the motivations behind it - particularly in academic philosophy - are always admirable and worth supporting and encouraging. Feminism is by no means unique in this respect. Marxism has the same problematic legacy, which is one (very) important reason why its content and history should be well understood and its (relative) neglect in the SEP and more generally within the dominant ranks of professional philosophy is rather shocking and, in some ways, disturbing.
4. I hope the above points suffice to give you a general understanding of my response to your remarks and comments - and to clarify my own original comments and where I stand on these matters. Suffice it to say, with respect to the horrible and unpleasant tone that is now prevalent on internet forums and blogs, I could not agree more that everyone - whatever the issue or topic - should do her/his best to maintain a manner of expression that is restrained and civil. In particular, all such commentary should avoid personal abuse or sneering at and demeaning those we disagree with. Only genuine Fascists thrive in an atmosphere in which the tone is violent and dehumanizing.
Since these comments go to a primarily philosophical audience - and probably to one that is predominantly Left/progressive - I would encourage all my friends and colleagues to see the philosophical community as taking a real leadership role in this regard (since our own students read what we say and see how we present ourselves in these contexts).
All the best,
Paul"
Posted by: eric Schliesser | 04/26/2019 at 11:25 PM