Anne, I want to question this statement: "I would enjoy seeing a professional paper on this, especially one that covers gmentoring,h ghumorh and ggetting it righth! 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 gboth sides of the fenceh 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 gmockingh is endemic to philosophy, and perhaps more so than other disciplines, both as we are the gcapstoneh discipline, and the arbiters of good reasoning practices. The fallacy of mockery, i.e. gif you canft convince them, get their attention, or get them out of your program, or journal, simply mock!h 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 gphilosophy of humor.h 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 Outlawfs work). Just one example, you can observe (experience it for oneself or witness others) in departments when people discuss or gwonderh who gXfsh replacement will be (gsurely not Y, as they cccc.."). And it certainly plays out in job scenarios. If you doubt this feminist philosophers can provide plenty stories, Ifve 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 gput in placeh both psychologically and scholarly. It sets a path of gcorrect thinkingh eg. as in gthey just didnft get it right!h requiring no further explanation or insight, and sometimes without even understanding the scholarfs 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 gmentoring,h ghumorh and ggetting it righth! 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 gboth sides of the fenceh 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 eridicule, derision, contempt, and scorn.f In my view, those attitudes donft 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 communicatorfs 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: >> >> >> Therefs 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 anotherfs 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 gcome off ith, 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