one way to encourage more philosophy in public discourse may be to draw up a list of good venues. So let’s do that.
Here’s a start:
The Stone, in the NY Times
NY Times op ed
And generosity from a very amateur singer.
In his opinion on the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs vs. Inclusive Communities Project — which interpreted “disparate impact” (i.e., discrimination without intent) as a legitimate cause of discrimination — Justice Anthony Kennedy writes, “recognition of disparate-impact liability under the FHA also plays a role in uncovering discriminatory intent: It permits plaintiffs to counteract the unconscious prejudices and disguised animus that escape easy classification as disparate treatment.” It’s terrific to see the Supreme Court seeming to recognizing implicit bias as contributing to discrimination. Also, as this Slate article points out, it also raises interesting questions about moral responsibility and implicit bias.
No comment needed.
My imagination utterly failed me on this one, but I wish I had had Frank Bruni’s thoughts:
…that’s because the Supreme Court’s decision wasn’t simply about weddings. It was about worth. From the highest of this nation’s perches, in the most authoritative of this nation’s voices, a majority of justices told a minority of Americans that they’re normal and that they belong — fully, joyously and with cake..
Dr Tania Lombrozo, a philosophically-minded professor of psychology at UC Berkeley, writes in a NPR commentary that some recent major news stories reveal how public discourse would benefit from input from academic philosophers. She cites the complex moral, social, metaphysical, and epistemological issues arising in the resignation of a NAACP official who was “outed” as white; in the white supremacist murder of nine black church-goers in Charleston; and in the stance taken on climate change by Pope Francis.
Two thoughts – neither of them particularly original – meant to complement Lombrozo’s insights: First, while stories of this magnitude serve as good examples of the need for philosophical contributions to public discourse, it is probably not an effective strategy to wait for stories of this magnitude before getting involved in public philosophy. Not only is there a good chance of the more subtle voices being lost in the commentary noise anyhow, but without a consistent public presence in the first place, philosophers will not be sought out for commentary either by readers and viewers or by venues and hosts. Only by contributing habitually on the small things, I think, are philosophers likely to find an audience for the big things.
Second, it is worth considering whether the strong disposition to do philosophy, and especially analytic philosophy, in terms of hyper-idealized fabricated examples might comprise a sort of anti-training for public philosophy. The message that real philosophy requires that issues first be framed in terms of the simplest (often bizarrely simple) toy scenarios plausibly socializes philosophers to feel uneasy about commenting in a professional capacity on complex cases – at least, without their commentary comprising a blizzard of caveats. If we want a more influential, vibrant public philosophy in the longer run, it is worth training philosophy students to be comfortable philosophizing about actual cases. Perhaps the most important step in that training will be to model the approach.
From today’s NY Times:
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that President Obama’s health care law may provide nationwide tax subsidies to help poor and middle-class people buy health insurance.
There are a number of reasons to be happy with this step. Most important, I think, is that a reasonable interpretation of the law allows millions to keep their health insurance.
Call for Abstracts: Gender and the Politics of Shame
London School of Economics and Political Science
14th November 2015
Recent decades have seen unprecedented scholarly interest in affect and the politics of emotion, particularly in feminist and queer theoretical frames. At the same time, activists outside the academy have drawn attention to the role emotions, particularly the self-conscious emotion of shame, have played in mobilisations against marginalised groups, and have suggested ways of countering the shaming of said groups. While significant advances have been made in the development of shame theory and in the further theorisation of affect and political emotions, scholars and activists are now invited to take stock of contemporary theoretical work on shame, and to present new and promising ways of thinking about and engaging the conference theme of gender and the politics of shame.
To this end, papers might address, without being limited to, the following topics:
– Shame and masculinities and femininities
– Shame and LGBTQI experiences
– Shame and class
– Racialized shame
– Shame and theories of emotion and affect
– Shame and related self-conscious emotions (embarrassment, guilt, pride)
– Shame and agency/subverting shame
– Body shame
– Shame and the nation-state
– Shame and aesthetics
– Shame and social movements/activism
Given the interdisciplinary interest in shame and the politics of emotion, papers from a variety of disciplines, including gender studies, philosophy, politics, sociology, cultural studies, and history, are welcome.
Confirmed keynoted address: Professor Bonnie Mann (University of Oregon).
Please submit abstracts of not more than 500 words by September 1, 2015 to firstname.lastname@example.org. Successful applicants will be contacted by 14th September.
This conference is supported by an award from the British Academy.
Over at Fit is a Feminist Issue, feminist philosopher Ann Cahill writes, “I worry that when we evaluate self-defense primarily in terms of how effective it is in preventing specific instances of sexual violence, we miss some of its broader possible effects. For me, one of the crucial elements of feminist self-defense courses is that they target, explicitly and concretely, some of the bodily habits that a rape culture imposes on femininely gendered bodies.”
For the full post, see What (Feminist) Self-Defense Courses Can Do – http://wp.me/p2H8o1-wrA
I’ve seen this policy announcement at a conference of an association for computer memory and at one for the vision science society. The second adapted the first’s. It ends with strong wording:
The open exchange of ideas and the freedom of thought and expression are central to ACM’s aims and goals. These require an environment that recognizes the inherent worth of every person and group, that fosters dignity, understanding, and mutual respect, and that embraces diversity. For these reasons, ACM is dedicated to providing a harassment-free experience for participants at our events and in our programs.
Harassment is unwelcome or hostile behavior, including speech that intimidates, creates discomfort, or interferes with a person’s participation or opportunity for participation, in a conference, event or program. Harassment in any form, including but not limited to harassment based on alienage or citizenship, age, color, creed, disability, marital status, military status, national origin, pregnancy, childbirth- and pregnancy-related medical conditions, race, religion, sex, gender, veteran status, or any other status protected by laws in which the conference or program is being held, will not be tolerated.
Harassment includes the use of abusive or degrading language, intimidation, stalking, harassing photography or recording, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention. A response that the participant was “just joking,” or “teasing,” or being “playful,” will not be accepted.
Individuals violating these standards may be sanctioned or excluded from further participation at the discretion of the organizers or responsible committee.
It is the last sentence that may be especially interesting to philosophers who were concerned about the APA’s reference to legal liability.** We probably should remind ourselves that actions do not necessarily follow words. For example, it may be that a complaint has to meet a very high standard of proof before any sanctioning occurs.
**(That is in fact a concern I share since I have seen how easily one can end up with costs over $100,000, and in fact for that reason declined to pursue fully my own interests in a case I initiated.)