Everyone,

I wanted to look at something in Anne's response: "The question i believe, is whether it serves a legitimate purpose? And correlatively, whether that purpose is a desirable purpose in the philosophical profession?"

If you will indulge a martial arts metaphor here: when pairing students, Sensei is careful not to allow one student to treat another student as a proverbial punching bag. Here I mean that sensei steps in when the senior student is acting in such a way as to prevent the junior student from learning technique. How the senior student is preventing the junior student from learning is irrelevant: the point is that the senior student is denying the junior student the opportunity to learn for themselves how to apply technique.

I view mockery in the field of philosophy in the same way. If mockery emerges during the course of a philosophical engagement, it serves no pedagogical purpose because it neither corrects an "improper" behavior," nor provides constructive criticism that the student can use to enhance their position. It does, however, serve the purpose of enacting violence upon a student or faculty. For a martial arts metaphor, this would be the senior student repeatedly bloodying the junior student's nose without offering the opportunity to apply technique. Eventually, the student will cease engaging and abandon the technique altogether.

Thus, in my view, mockery has no pedagogical purpose, and therefore no legitimate purpose within the field. Its only purpose appears to be to express derision for a particular philosopher and philosophy without providing substantive critique, commentary, or suggestions for improvement. In so far as it is deployed in unequal power relations, it serves to reinforce particular structures of oppression which are then repeated by those who look to the mockers as mentors.

To sum: constructive criticism, yes; critique, yes; suggestions for improvement, yes; mockery, no.

Second, I wanted to look at something in Thomas' response: "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."

This presumes that violence (which mockery is at ground level) is the only solution to the "pampered Sophist" example. I do not think this is the case. Again, a metaphor from martial arts: sensei does not simply bloody the nose of the student who is enamored with their own technique, they demonstrate the places where the technique is insufficient and requires modification to fit situations. In short, sensei cultivates out of the "pampered Sophist" their arrogance. Given philosophy's tendency towards being an "intellectual contact sport," I take it to be the case that the apparent need to hammer the sophist into the ground emerges from the way the field conducts debate, but this need not be a necessity.

Further, I disagree with the first claim made: our inability to mock respectfully in the field of philosophy is a climate issue. The way that the climate of philosophy has been established and maintained is such that there is a tacit understanding that mockery need not be respectful, and we may disregard the feelings of others when engaging in critique. Anecdotally, this has contributed to many of my non-philosophy peers' assessment of philosophers as rude and lacking in social graces, given how we conduct our "dialogue." To that end, I would argue that mockery can have a place in philosophy if the climate of philosophy changes such that mockery can be done respectfully.

To this end, I view mockery in its current state as a symptom of a larger climate issue within the discipline and not something isolated from the other issues (diversity, marginalization of philosophies, racism, sexism, homophobia) that plague the discipline. In order to change this climate, it is necessary to have these conversation publicly and to bring ourselves and our colleagues to task when they engage in these kinds of behaviors, particularly when they are detrimental to the learning environment.

John Flowers

On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, helen lauer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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 and http://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