Jessica Wilson on the PGR and late-stage ranking systems: I wont be signing the September statement. Heres why. Everybody agrees, including Leiter, that Leiter has been problematically intemperate---though from what I have recently learned about the impacts of his letters, seriously injurious would be a better description. (He has also been an articulate and tireless critic of destructive political and social policy, and an important defender of legal and other rights.) But it is a major distraction to take the upshot of these unquestionably problematic episodes to be that Leiter should step down from the PGR, since in so doing the deeper crisis affecting our profession---the fact of and destructive impact of implicit bias---will remain unaddressed and moreover be perpetuated. The problem with the PGR is not Leiter, but the associated ranking system, which is tailor-made to encourage and encode implicit bias. Nor is there any realistic hope or case to be made that there presently exists any alternative ranking strategy, whether it involves publications, citations, invitations, honorary positions, or what-have-you, which does not reflect and codify a half-centurys worth (at least) of implicit bias. Whether we replace Leiter or the means of ranking or both, itll be a case of Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Moreover, in my view there are at least two good reasons to think that the entire project of trying to sort philosophers, philosophy departments, philosophy specializations, and philosophy papers into one or more broadly linear rankings makes no sense (here I respond to Mitchell Aboulafias excellent call for debate on this topic). First, of all the disciplines, philosophy is arguably the most diverse in terms of topic, approach, and methodology: anything is potentially a topic of philosophical investigation; there are multiple canons and associated traditions or approaches to any given topic; and even among those taking a common approach into the same topic, there is often basic agreement about methodology. Such diversity is to be applauded and, with very few exceptions, encouraged---we are too far from the end of philosophical inquiry to be dogmatic (see my paper, Three Dogmas of Metaphysical Methodology). That we can or should be trying to pull broadly linear rankings out of this wonderfully blooming buzz is, I think, ridiculous: one might as well try to rank flowers, cuisines, or cultures. Second, ranking systems encourage premature dogmatism, whereby the favoured topics, approaches and methodology of those working at the top-ranked institutions (either absolutely, or relative to a given speciality) takes on the sheen of to be accepted by others. Hence it is that so many talented philosophers of the past generation have spent their valuable time working within frameworks whose foundational presuppositions are clearly and immediately questionable, while more plausible and illuminating approaches to the topics at issue are neglected (again, see my paper). What goes for premature dogmatism concerning which methodology is correct also goes for premature dogmatism concerning which topics are worth working on. And the people most likely to think, falsely, that there is a reliable correlation between the top departments/philosophers and the best topics and methodology are... you guessed it, the very people who are invoked as most benefiting from the PGR rankings: graduate students. What is needed is not a changing of the guard, but a complete rejection of ranking systems in philosophy, and an associated revolution in how we go about doing philosophy. I truly appreciate the remarkable and sustained effort Leiter has put into the PGR, in service of what he and many others have seen as a service to the profession. But, like late-stage capitalism, the rankings have become oppressive. We need to grab the means of production, and stop looking to others to tell us who and what is of philosophical value. The world is our philosophical oyster---lets be creative! Lets work on what interests us, and with who interests us, and articulate what we are doing in terms that dont just iterate the latest citation circle. Lets read elders and others that no one is discussing, read philosophy in other areas and traditions, study fields that might have who-knows-what impact on our work. Lets make our case, and make up our minds, on our own terms. But what about the graduate students, poor little lambs---how will they figure out which grad school to attend? I suggest that the APA or other institution manage an informational website with lists of/links to every single philosophy department in every country. (No doubt others may have suggested this or other strategies.) Let the institution get information from each department about what faculty members (and perhaps also graduate students) work on, and provide links to faculty (grad student) websites and PhilPapers profiles, and allow the overall lists to be restricted to those with one or more faculty members working in a given area or topic. The grad students will have to do more work, but theyll manage, and it will be good for them. More generally, getting rid of the rankings will be good for both philosophy and philosophers. So lets do it.
Posted on: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:50:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015