Women philosophers in the Philosophical Review (1900-1970) [Guest post by Joel Katzav]

[This is a contributed guest post by Joel Katzav (University of Queensland)--ES.]

The proportion of work published by women in the Philosophical Review (PR) drops substantially after the first three decades of the twentieth century and does not recover at least until the 1970s. The numbers in the first three decades are partly explained by the policies of PR’s editor, the Hegelian James Edwin Creighton. His death in 1924 and the policies of subsequent editors, including, among others, his Hegelian student Gustavus Watts Cunningham, help to explain the decline in women’s contributions to the journal. The takeover of PR by analytic philosophers, including, among others, Max Black, Norman Malcolm and Gregory Vlastos, in the second half of the 1940s sees a worsening of the situation. It is known that the emergence of American analytic philosophy was facilitated by the marginalisation of work by non-analytic philosophers at PR and other key journals (see here). This emergence also involved excluding the work of Indian philosophers from PR (see here). We can now add that it involved a worsening of the situation of women in academic philosophy, at least when it came to their place in PR.[1]

The first three decades of the twentieth century saw dozens of women publishing their work in PR, the most important philosophy journal in America at the time. The period 1920-1930 (inclusive) saw 19 women publishing in the journal. Their publications included 21 full-length articles, 1 discussion and 39 book reviews and notices. The full-length papers amounted to 9.5% of the full-length papers in the journal. The total number of items published by women in the journal was 61, which amounts to 8.1% of the items in it. The period 1910-1920 saw 7.7% of the full-length articles and 20% of the discussions being contributed by women. The total number of items published by women in the journal was 98, which amounts to 10.8% of the number of items in the journal. During 1900-1910, 7% of the full-length papers (16 papers by 8 women) in the journal are by women. In understanding these figures, keep in mind that only 29 women were awarded a PhD in philosophy in the USA before 1900 (Rogers and Dykeman 2005).

During the period 1930-1940 (inclusive), however, 4.7% of the full-length articles in PR are by women.[2] Moreover, things did not get any better in the following decades. The period 1950-1960 (inclusive) saw 18 women publish 25 items in PR. These include 8 full-length articles, 7 discussions and 10 book reviews. The full-length papers by women amounted to 4.4% of such papers in the journal. The total number of items published by women in the journal amounted to roughly 2% of the total number of items in it. The period 1960-1970 was comparable and saw only 16 women contribute to the journal. For comparison, Kieran Healey, with the help of Nick Bloom, reports that the percentages of articles by women in PR in 1993 and 2013 were 11% and 14% respectively.

 It thus seems that the first three decades of the twentieth century saw a percentage of contributions by women to PR that was higher than the three following decades. The period 1920-1930 had a proportion of contributions that was comparable to what was found at the end of the twentieth century. The 1930s saw a halving of the proportion of articles by women. In addition, the total number of items by women undergoes a fourfold reduction at this time. While the total number of women contributing to the journal in the 1950s is slightly higher than what it was in the 1930s, the community of American academic philosophers grew fivefold during the period 1920-1950, assuming the growth in numbers of APA members is indicative of the growth in the overall community of American, academic philosophers; there were 252 APA members in 1919 and 1248 members in 1950.

	1900-1910	1910- 1920	1920- 1930	1930- 1940	1950- 1960	1960- 1970
Percentage of articles by women	7%	7.7%	9.5%	4.7%	4.4%	5.1%
Percentage of discussions by women		20%	2%		4.6%	2.4%
Percentage of reviews and notices by women		11%	8%		1.8%	3.2%
Total number of women contributors		22	19	14	18	16
Total number of items by women		98	61		25	23
Percentage of items by women		10.8%	8.1%		2%	2.4%
Total number of items		908	758		899	669

The low numbers of women publishing in PR make it hard to determine precisely when its policy about work by women changes, but it is plausible that the change occurred by 1932; during the period 1900-1927, women publish full-length articles in PR every year, except for 1903 and 1918, but during the period 1928-1932 only publish papers in it in 1930 (though there are 3 papers in PR in that year). The numbers of full-length papers by women do not recover after this. There are a number of editorial changes at the journal that might explain the change in editorial policy at this time. For example, Ernest Albee is no longer editor from 1928, leaving two of those who took over from Creighton in place, namely William Hammond and Frank Thilly. It is possible that the decision was theirs when Albee left. Possibly, the decision was made in 1925. In any case, the changes in the team of 2-3 journal editors during the 1930s brought no further changes in journal content. The longest serving editor during this period, starting in 1930, was Cunningham.Part of the explanation for the numbers of women contributing to PR in the early decades of the twentieth century is its then being edited by Creighton. He was joint editor of PR, with his teacher Jacob Gould Schurman, from 1896 until 1902, and then main editor until October 1924. Schurman and Creighton were also the founders of Cornell University’s Sage School of Philosophy (Auxier 2005). A surprising proportion of Creighton’s students at the School were women. The 1917 edited collection of papers Philosophical Essays in Honour of James Edwin Creighton (Sabine 1917) is a collection of works by his students. 5 of the 22 contributors to the collection are women. In addition, during this period, Cornell was the most successful philosophy department at mentoring and placing women philosophers (Rogers and Dykeman 2004). Not surprisingly, quite a few of the women philosophers writing in PR during the first half of the twentieth century were Creighton’s students.

While the period during which PR was under the influence of Hegelians saw fluctuations in the fortunes of work by women philosophers in its pages, the decades immediately following its takeover by analytic philosophers in the second half of the 1940s did not. Indeed, it appears that the period 1950-1970 was one during which it became even more difficult for work by women to find its way into the pages of PR. As noted above, the number of women publishing in PR in the 1950s and 1960s was slightly higher than the number doing so in the 1930s, but there was also a fivefold increase in the number of academic philosophers between 1920 and 1950. Whether the worsening of the situation of work by women philosophers in PR was primarily due to the numbers of women in the profession, to the openness of PR and its analytic editors to work by women, to some combination of these factors, or to other factors, is an issue I leave open.

In summary, while the early decades of the twentieth century saw an impressive (given the period) number of women philosophers contributing to PR’s pages, the rest of the twentieth century did not. It seems that the takeover of PR by analytic philosophers in the second half of the 1940s saw it become even more difficult for work by women to make its way into the journal. Perhaps this should not be much of a surprise. We already know that the emergence of analytic philosophy in America involved the exclusion of non-analytic work from prominent journals when these were taken over by analytic philosophers. We also know that the takeover by analytic philosophers of PR involved excluding work by Indian academic philosophers from its pages.

[1] In preparing the data for this note, women were first identified by their names and then, where possible, by independent checks. Men were identified by name and, in special cases, by subsequent, independent checks. Thanks to my student Bailey Carthouser for his help in collecting the data.

[2] The women publishing in PR during the period 1900-1940 include Alice Ambrose, Nann Clark Barr, Eleanor Bisbee, Gladys Bleiman, Gertrude C. Bussey, Mary W. Calkins, Ivy G. Campbell, Mary Sophia Case, Marion Crane Carroll, Helen M. Clarke, Mary Evelyn Clarke, Marie T. Collins, Marion Delia Crane, Lucy Shepard Crawford, Anna A. Cutler, Grace N. Dolson, Seba Eldridge, Mary P. Follett, Katherine E. Gilbert, Marjorie Glicksman, Kate Gordon, Winifred Hyde, Marguerite W. Kehr, Marjorie S. Harris, Estelle Allen De Lacy, Christine Ladd-Franklin, Margaret W. Landes, Frederica de Laguna, Grace A. de Laguna, Flora I. McKinnon, Diana Monsman, Vida F. Moore, Elsie Murray, Marjorie H. Nicolson, Hilda D. Oakeley, Helen H. Parkhurst, Ethel D. Puffer, Clarissa Rinaker, Eliza Ritchie, Eleanor H. Rowland, Ethel E. Sabin, Edna Aston Shearer, Ellen Bliss Talbot, Alma Rose Thorn, Margaret F. Washburn and Mabel V. Wilson.

References

Auxier, R. E. (2005) “Creighton, James Edwin”. In The Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers, J. R. Shook (ed.), 549–55. Bristol: Thoemmes.

Katzav, J. and Vaesen, K. (2017) “The Emergence of American Analytic Philosophy”, British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 25(4): 772-798.

Rogers, D. and Dykeman, T. B. (2004) “Introduction: Women in the American Philosophical Tradition 1800-1930”, Hypatia, 19(2): pp. viii-xxxiv.

Sabine, G. H., (ed.) (1917) Philosophical Essays in Honor of James Edwin Creighton. By Former Students. New York: The MacMillan Co.

Comments

[ab]

I'd love to hear more about the policies alluded to in this post ("policy about work by women changes", "change in editorial policy at this time"). What were these changes?

[Joel Katzav]

The Cornell family hired Schurman to chair philosophy at Cornell in 1885 and he becomes president of the university in 1892. Ezra Cornell, one of Cornell’s founders and the source of the money for the university, was explicit that he wanted to found a university that would eliminate discrimination. Schurman becomes president of Cornell in 1892. His commitment to ending discrimination is found in an 1888 address, ‘A People’s University’. Moreover, he supported African Americans at Cornell as well as provided scholarships for Chinese students. Schurman hires Creighton in 1889 and they found the Sage School together. And Creighton becomes, in addition to PR editor, the Dean of the Graduate School from 1914 until 1923. This background, along with the relative numbers of publications in PR and Creighton’s role in training women philosophers, is why I think it is plausible that what we see in PR in the early decades of the twentieth-century reflects a policy not to discriminate. In later decades, I think it is plausible that, at least, there was no longer an effort to pursue all the earlier ideals of the university. I do have some archival material indicating that one 1930s editor (Sabine) did not endorse these ideals when it came to women and acted accordingly.

[Matt]

"Schurman and Creighton were also the founders of Cornell University’s Sage School of Philosophy (Auxier 2005). A surprising proportion of Creighton’s students at the School were women. ... In addition, during this period, Cornell was the most successful philosophy department at mentoring and placing women philosophers (Rogers and Dykeman 2004). Not surprisingly, quite a few of the women philosophers writing in PR during the first half of the twentieth century were Creighton’s students."

I would think that an alternative interpretation of the above is that, during this period, a degree of nepotism was practiced in favor of Creighton's students. When he, and people closely influenced by him, were no longer involved, this nepotism no longer took place, and levels returned to a more "neutral" level that they would have been at w/o the nepotism. (Scare quotes are needed on "neutral", of course, because this means w/ the background level of bias against women, not an actually neutral field.) Maybe that's the wrong reading, but if so, why? Was this considered carefully? How, if at all, was it eliminated as a hypothesis?

[Joel Katzav]

The prominence of Cornell graduates in PR continues after Creighton dies in 1924. So too, Creighton’s students, including Cunningham and Sabine, continue to be editors in the 1930s and 1940s. In any case, I do not want to deny that Creighton might have given Cornell graduates preferential treatment; it would still remain the case that he played a role in determining the proportion of women among those who received preferential treatment and that it is plausible that this was due to a policy relating to discrimination at Cornell. I also wouldn’t want to exaggerate Cornell’s influence. There were many women (about 70% is my guesstimate) contributing to PR that graduated at other institutions and PR was not alone in having a surprising number of women contributors in the relevant decades.

[Alison Stone]

This is fascinating, Joel, thank you for investigating this. It is interesting that in the 19th century US - and into the 20th century too, it seems - Hegelianism was relatively hospitable to women (judging by Dorothy Rogers's work). But this is presumably not an intrinsic feature of Hegelianism, since with the rediscovery of Hegel in the Anglophone world since the 1970s the Hegel scholarly community came to be a bit of bastion of men-only philosophy (though it's changing now). Or is it in some way intrinsic - it seems that your thesis is that there is something about analytic philosophy, or mid-twentieth-century, that made it intrinsically exclusive? Or am I misunderstanding?

[Joel Katzav]

I think that there is some connection between the critical approach that characterised analytic philosophy during much of the twentieth century and analytic philosophy’s epistemic conservatism, overconfidence and relative lack of inclusivity at the time. The speculative side of American Hegelianism and pragmatism, I also think, helped them make room for, and become part of, a kind of speculative philosophy that was pluralistic about philosophical approach, and that tended to encourage greater inclusivity about who was allowed to be part of academic philosophy. It is a complex story, though.

P.S. I seem to remember talking to you about not unrelated aspects of Hegel some twenty years ago, in Cambridge.

[John McCumber]

It may be worth noting that in the US, the McCarthy Era (which began in 1947 and is in some respects ongoing) was distinctly hostile to women. Landon Storrs in her book "The Second Red Scare" documents the purging from American government of women who had risen to important positions during the New Deal—and also of the husbands of distinguished women, who were labelled as "effeminate" because of their wives' achievements. This was contemporaneous with the "journal capture" that Katzav documents.