Excellent point Johnatham!

I believe your comment speaks to the need of an anthology that both perceives, and conceives, the issue from various positions, as how we are situated in the profession creates some fundamental differences as to our experience of, and as reflection upon, this practice, both as giver and receiver.  You comment "My thinking is that input from graduate students (and undergrads too) is necessary and even valuable, especially in light of the observation that mockery may flow downwards.”  is very important, and I fully agree, as the “bottom-up” always provides a good view of those who lead the way by modeling such behavior (everybody watches models!)!  Feminists have noted this, as well as race theorists for along time!  Thank you for directing our attention to this importance.

I am also of the persuasion, and suggest you might agree that those at the top, with years of experience, have their own unique voices to contribute—I’m not talking about the silent ones, who side-step and red herring the issue, but those who genuinely understand the importance of human civility, and are indeed troubled by having been and remaining, a part of this culture—those who treasure diversity in their hearts, of all sexes, genders, races, ethnicities, etc.  The class issue of course is always the hardest to understand, as there is such protection there, and much of it verbal, for we all know there is a separate class vocabulary that must be attained only by participation in that class, and that there is sufficient encouragement to remain in that class (whether business or academic—the latter only a subset of the former).

As for your comment, "At present, the discussion seems to be concerned with faculty mocking one another, a situation of near equals…”  Obviously this is a serious issue, but of course many times it is graduate students who must be the silent ones as this is played out, whether at a departmental colloquium or an APA hotel room of gathering.  I believe that only seniors can speak for themselves, and I haven’t a clue whose career might be strong enough to take on this task!

Your statement, Johnathon, about “equal” does suggest that graduate students, and undergraduates as well, do this with “cross-equals” so as to gain an “edge” in the eyes of a senior, or simply affect the self-esteem of the colleague, who is seen as a competitor (and of course mockery would not be necessary unless one viewed the other seriously, I think, but have not thought this out).

It seems that an anthology might look from various positions, i.e. senior to others, and from seniors as well, and similarly undergrads and graduates, as well as from seniors to those they must indoctrinate, as well as those they want to dispose of….and I suppose the other groups would parallel such a constructional framework.  Sounds interesting, and profitable for those wishing to truly bring about a civil ambiance of our discipline.  In practice, as distinct from theory, it would mean that the “witnesses” would be required as “activists” to interrupt such mockery, and of course one must learn to do this.  But this is also part of the “mockery game” that is play, because one learns not only to “mock” but to protect “one’s own” from the “mockery of others.”   So you see, there is an anthology to be had!

I am most impressed with the members of this forum who have addressed issues of “civility” and “politeness” or shall we say “manners.”  One important thing to note is that as we look at such experiences, race theory has taught us that the north, south, and west of this US have varying methods of this type indoctrination.  I do not know how it is played out in other countries, my guess would be that it is also played out in political arenas, significantly relations among and between indigenous nations and non-indigenous nations.  But these are mere meanderings, and I hope that this generation of philosophers will not fall into these same traps of behaviorism and “bullying."

One significant place i have observed the practice of “mockery,” putting the personal of myself and others aside for a moment, is the political arena of the philosophical discipline itself.  The quiet cold wars of analytic and continental thought have played themselves out not only in colleges and universities, affecting hiring, but also in the graduate student programs, as students are “weeded out,” and in organizations of polemical struggles, such as the APA.  Only recently have departments made efforts to “diversify” as to analytic and continental philosophy, and only recently has the dialogue begun among philosophers ourselves (especially those like myself, who were trained in both, as well as comparative philosophy).  

And even though the “mockery” issue can be considered as a moral dilemma, social construction, and political strategy, I believe that it is important to understand it in the current context of “bullying” which is becoming internationally recognized as a human value issue, of resources such as food, water, shelter, race or ethnic esteem, etc.

Emma has just joined this conversation, and provided another important situatedness of her own experience, referring to a “fascinating thread.”  Thank you Emma, for sharing that your "own struggle to question that effect. In terms of the hierarchical effects, I don't recall any of us being the objects of mockery, but given the extreme levels of anxiety and vulnerability involved being at grad school, the effects of witnessing derision and laughter *among faculty*, insofar as they create a much-desired sense of cultural and discplinary norm, and thus community and insider-ness, can be powerful - and powerfully pernicious - indeed.”  I am inclined to suggest that the voices of those who “made it through the hoops and now teach in philosophy departments” may be a bit different from those who felt they were perhaps “bullied” out of the field at least that would be my guess.  So the importance of re-engaging conversation with those who were perhaps “bullied out” might be worth providing some important understandings.  But here we engage an important, if not, as Emma notes, fascinating conversation!

I hope you, Johnathan, and Emma, and other scholars will take these subjects up with the seriousness they deserve, and that your past, current and future colleagues deserve.  I am wondering how this differs from what is now being exposed among the athletic scholars, who have not been protected from such abuse?

Dr. Anne Waters, J.D., Ph.D.
[log in to unmask]
http://foxgull.com/aswaters/default.html
http://philpapers.org/profile/61350
http://www.apaonline.org/members/


On Oct 4, 2014, at 1:12 PM, Johnathan Flowers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Anne, I want to question this statement:
> 
> "I would enjoy seeing a professional paper on this, especially one that covers “mentoring,” “humor” and “getting it right”!  Indeed it could be a topic for Hypatia!  But, it could only be successfully accomplished, I believe, by those who have tenure, who have been on “both sides of the fence” as it occurs in many subtle and nuanced ways."
> 
> My thinking is that input from graduate students (and undergrads too) is necessary and even valuable, especially in light of the observation that mockery may flow downwards. At present, the discussion seems to be concerned with faculty mocking one another, a situation of near equals (and I am aware of the ways in which gender and race play into the dynamics of infra-faculty conversation), as opposed to faculty/graduate student relations or graduate student/graduate student relations. 
> 
> I pose this question in light of the way in which mockery might contribute to the further marginalization of areas of thought and thinkers, as has been indicated by others in this thread. Imagine the effect that a faculty mocking a graduate student, particularly one focusing on an underrepresented space in philosophy, as they move forwards. Particularly if that student lacks an institutional support structure. 
> 
> Further, the ways that graduate students duplicate the actions of the faculty can compound the effects of mockery especially if we take this to be a defacto practice in the field of philosophy. I am sure we all are aware of the conception of philosophy as an intellectual contact sport. 
> 
> John Flowers
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Oct 4, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Anne Waters <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 

>> Hope everyone is have an excellent week end!
>> 
>> I agree with Nancy and Helen,
>> 
>> I tend to think, at this historical time, that “mocking” is endemic to philosophy, and perhaps more so than other disciplines, both as we are the “capstone” discipline, and the arbiters of good reasoning practices.  The fallacy of  mockery, i.e. “if you can’t convince them, get their attention, or get them out of your program, or journal, simply mock!” is well known to philosophers, as we have all witnessed this in the profession, consciously or not.  I believe this fallacy falls under the category of “philosophy of humor.”  After all, we all know the Hypatia story of the soiled article. 
>>  
>> So I doubt any current faculty member has escaped the phenomenon, in either the receiving or giving.  And, philosophical psychology tells us, it travels downhill. It is a moral as well as political question whether it is a good thing for our, and other disciplines.  It has a purpose, which is to train, in a Skinner behaviorist manner, young individuals (especially graduate students and junior faculty, both young), to think as one wants them to, in order to duplicate (psychic reproduction) oneself in the profession (see Lou Outlaw’s work).  Just one example, you can observe (experience it for oneself or witness others) in departments when people discuss or “wonder” who “X’s” replacement will be (“surely not Y, as they …………..").  And it certainly plays out in job scenarios.  If you doubt this feminist philosophers can provide plenty stories, I’ve heard many.
>> 
>> Is mockery there?  Yes, the facts bear this out, whether collected as data or not.  Whether blatant at a conference, or in quiet when the person is not present, it serves personal purposes of arrogance and narcissistic tendencies, and political purposes of making junior faculty (and students) be “put in place” both psychologically and scholarly.  It sets a path of “correct thinking” eg. as in “they just didn’t get it right!” requiring no further explanation or insight, and sometimes without even understanding the scholar’s work that is mocked.  Senior scholars are frequently shown great respect in their mocking abilities.
>> 
>> The question i believe, is whether it serves a legitimate purpose?  And correlatively, whether that purpose is a desirable purpose in the philosophical profession?
>> 
>> I would enjoy seeing a professional paper on this, especially one that covers “mentoring,” “humor” and “getting it right”!  Indeed it could be a topic for Hypatia!  But, it could only be successfully accomplished, I believe, by those who have tenure, who have been on “both sides of the fence” as it occurs in many subtle and nuanced ways.
>> 
>> best 2 cents today,
>> warm smile, :-)
>> anne 
>> Dr. Anne Waters, J.D., Ph.D.
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://foxgull.com/aswaters/default.html
>> http://philpapers.org/profile/61350
>> http://www.apaonline.org/members/
>> 
>> On Oct 4, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Potter,Nancy Lee Nyquist <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>>  
>>> I have a difficult time understanding why there should be a place for mockery in philosophical discussions/debates, for two reasons. First, the OED synonyms for mockery are ‘ridicule, derision, contempt, and scorn.’ In my view, those attitudes don’t have a place in constructive exploration and critique of ideas; they serve to put down and humiliate the communicator. The spirit of philosophical engagement, which is what I assume we are striving for,  is broken or at least damaged when the communicator’s ideas make her feel humiliated and scorned. But more importantly, the fact that we can find evidence of the use of mockery in philosophical debate is no defense of the moral appropriateness of it.
>>>  
>>> Respectfully,
>>> Nancy
>>>  
>>> From: Feminist ethics and social theory [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of helen lauer
>>> Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2014 12:45 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Good conduct in philosophy: in defence of mockery
>>>  
>>> Dear Thomas, Seth,
>>>  
>>> I'm sorry I'm a little confused by all this anxiety about mockery.  With due respect--if I could find even ONE woman who hadn't been openly and blatantly mocked at least once in her training as a student or in her post-doctoral career in philosophy, I would be glad to offer a year's salary as a forfeit.
>>>  
>>> Helen Lauer
>>> professor of philosophy 
>>> University of Ghana, Legon
>>>  
>>> On Saturday, October 4, 2014 3:20 AM, Thomas Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>  
>>> There’s been some discussion lately of good conduct in (especially oral) 
>>> philosophical debate. An emerging view is that we can consistently 
>>> maintain high standards of critical, reasoned debate and polite, 
>>> respectful standards of behaviour. I am not so sure. Bullying (especially 
>>> of the weak by the strong) is intolerable. Mockery, however, for example 
>>> of the absurdity or vacuity of another’s position, is an important 
>>> rhetorical device that is central to our tradition. We fondly teach 
>>> instances by e.g. Socrates, Hume, Russell and Anscombe. Mockery *can* be 
>>> gentle and respectful, but it is never polite. Nad it may be hard 
>>> (especially for the powerless and inexperienced, with few resources at 
>>> their disposal) respectfully to mock. To conclude that we should not mock 
>>> when we cannot do so respectfully, would be a mistake I think. Every 
>>> conference hall contains a pampered Sophist, who may be doing their honest 
>>> best, but who needs to “come off it”, and a whip-smart novice with thirty 
>>> seconds with which to address them. They should not be meek, and may mock.
>>> 
>>> Thomas Smith
>>> Philosophy
>>> University of Manchester
>>> 
>>> Messages to the list are archived at http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/philos-l.html andhttp://blog.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.region.europe.
>>> 
>>> Current posts are also available via Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PhilosL
>>> 
>>> To sign off the list send a blank message to [log in to unmask]
>>> 
>>> Discussions should be moved to chora: enrol via
>>> http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/chora.html.
>>> 
>>> ############################
>>> To unsubscribe from the FEAST-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link:https://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FEAST-L&A=1
>>> 
>> 
>> ############################
>> To unsubscribe from the FEAST-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: https://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FEAST-L&A=1
>> 


############################

To unsubscribe from the FEAST-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
https://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FEAST-L&A=1