Thank you John, for the fine example of sense!  You comments help move this dialogue forward, and I for one, find it a good use of my time to ponder.  This issue struck a chord.  I believe it important now, even if I be show otherwise later, as such is my love of the learning process.  I hope a couple comments here are helpful and again, I elite this to be an important issue, so I honor your participation.  (yay for john’s courage!)

1.         Actor/acted upon/audience/result.   I certainly agree with your perceptively astute comments and good use of sensei example.  An important difference to add to your considered judgment about this issue, note, is that sometimes mockery is being used toward teaching, sometimes it is not, or it may not (even for a sensei) initially be, but slides into something else, whether it is termed ‘punishment’ (rather than retribution or correction), or ‘enjoyment’ (the mocker actually begins to enjoy the arrogant position of superiority via the mocking) — I am reminded here of Marilyn Frye’s notion of the “gaze” which of course, can be used silently without notice, and in many different ways to send diverse messages.  I am also reminded that a particular sensei may enjoy using the power over toward self-enjoyment, lest we forget the role that the audience plays in relationship with the sensei, and as witness to the use of power.  (I do not accept the argument that one needs to learn to mock to be successful and protect oneself in philosophy, for if this is true, we should all be taking classes to learn how to better inflict such pain and embarrassment.)  And IS this really the kind of environment we wish for?  I take moment to mention I am a member of the two most competitive professions we have, philosophy, and law (the most competitive), and I see no need for mockery in either, indeed I see much reason to consider it a tool of the weak—we do not use it in formal legal debate (moot court) --and here is another thread to follow as to why!  I just have to ask, If that person were a good teacher, why not resort to a kinder method of teaching?  (Would you want your child to learn this way?)

2.         Mentoring.   I am reminded here, as teaching example, of Mitsuye Yamada, who wrote a poem about her son being accepted by non-Asian students.  He believes this is because he appears Asian on the outside; he is upset because he believes that because he is American on the inside, he should be accepted as an American.  Social acceptance is so important, that her son is willing to ignore, and wipe out, any Asian identity on the inside that he might otherwise own.  Our poet cautions him, however, indicating that as she sees his identity he needs to turn the outside in; he is both American and Asian on the inside, and this is what America looks like!  My point is, that there are perhaps better ways of teaching that to mock (or ridicule).  And just because one has not learned these skills, does not mean they should not learn them.

3.         Indigenous Context.    I am now thinking of another example about teaching in a Native Context.  In some tribes there is a character, like a clown among Hopi.  Clown serves purpose to pull one back to reality when one strays.  Sometimes if you are at a feast enjoying yourself, letting the mind flow abstractly in the enjoyment of watching the performers, or maybe not paying attention to what you should be, as children may, etc.  And then suddenly you may get a tug on your shirt, a tug that draws your eyes to the clown, to reality, to a grounding.  The clown does not rebuke, ridicule, nor mock you.  But the lesson is learned.  And accomplished with a gaze of remembrance, of remembrance of who we are in this world, of how fragile that world is, and what our role is in it.  (I sent my two girls to clown school toward purpose so they would learn this method of teaching as they grew to womanhood and became professionals themselves.)

4.         Context/Purpose.  Native teasing plays such a role, but it is not meant to be hurtful or embarrass the way mockery does.  If it does, it has not been done in balance.  Native teasing occurred recently on a phone meeting with a few other members of a group I was involved in….someone chided, yeah, that person never makes mistakes….and i had to stop and think, was this an attempt to tease or was it being used as a mechanism of quieting.  Sometimes when practices are taken out of context, they loose their import.  If the two individuals had been close in proximity to one another, a simple nudge or look or grin sent that way would have accomplished the task.  But taken out of context, on a phone, the chiding seemed mis-placed—it can only occur if there is already a minimal level of trust.  Context is everything to the mocker and the mocked!  More, successful mocking it requires it.  It requires a supportive audience that will sanction the act, in silence.  (If not silent, turns into mob behavior.)  Only a chuckling or smirk from the audience is required.

5.         Learning/Practicing.  I mention this only as example to point out that mockery in philosophy occurs within a particular context, a situatedness where one ought to be able to “fly like the acrobat” and everyone who practices, just like horseback riding or another sport, ought have the opportunity to shine, to glow, to be appreciated for their efforts.  And when we practice, we ought not be mocked. I find this, well, shameful and I am embarrassed of it for my own profession.  

6.         Judicial.  This mockery I think is something a judge would never allow in the courtroom unless in private with no one there but the two attorneys.  Indeed as I think upon it, my first reflection is that it would be more appropriate for an attorney to mock a judge, than the other way around, as the judge has all the power, and mockery, after all, is a cry that you have taken all my arguments away, you honor, and left me with nothing, so at least let me show my disdain to you! and in my experience, a judge will permit this mockery of themselves, for they know they hold the power!  But this is not what happens in philosophical contexts, it is the powerful who mock the powerless.

7.         Sensei.  In my experience have seen power abuse among sensei, John, though in theory I agree it is not supposed to happen.  I suppose in the end all we have are rules, and a faith, or trust that such rules will not be violated, alongside character.   And of course there are young people who have been mocked in martial arts courses—it is called bullying one’s colleague, I believe.  It may not even be so much a question of trusting, as setting a stage for “things to happen” — obviously some in philosophy do believe in the propriety of mocking, just as some used to believe in the propriety of the belief that women philosophers were there to be, well……there was a time, and sometimes it was around the time of comprehensive exams and for others around tenure time.  The most obvious time to mock graduate students would be at colloquia or conference sessions, but there are other advantageous times, depending upon one’s intention.  Office hours have held many a secret of mocking.  I guess I just don’t adhere to this way of teaching, indeed I find it horrendous when it is focused upon a particular individual or a group (those who studied at a community college rather than a private college, etc.)

8.         Harm/Trust/Propriety.  Consider another analogy.  We have rules against killing, but people still kill, as character is important, as is a lack of mental health.  I suppose I do not have the same kind of faith that I will not be killed when I walk on the street, as I do that I will not be mocked when I enter a philosophy department.  I would like to think both places are “safe” for me, but I cannot make this happen.  And perhaps my hesitation is based upon experience, or simply that I know, for example, some streets are dangerous, in the same way I know some departments do believe in mocking!  I want to employ a difference, here, as between killing a person, and killing a person’s career or desire to learn (which mocking may accomplish).  I cannot trust I will not be killed on the street, but I do want to be able to trust that I will not be mocked in a philosophy department.  But I have not thought out what kind of differences these are, or how a particular difference makes a difference in these simplistic examples.  Suffice it to say that we have no propriety of ethical rules, which of course would be a beginning to curb the over zealous ambitions of mocking philosophers!  But then, what kind of rules would be proper?  And how would one “clean up” the grey areas of the rules?  I am reminded of an article by Larry May, and I believe Peter French addressed this problem too, but not sure.  It had to do with the culpability of a supervisor.  The theory spread to judicial areas, and became the norm.

9.         Behavior.  Another analogy we may consider is the extent to which mockery is or is not like “spanking,” which was once appropriate acceptable behavior toward purpose of “correct rearing," but is now a crime.  The “spanker” frequently having been a victim of spanking themselves, may begin to enjoy inflicting the pain, perhaps just as their predecessor, and again, the “…..” runs downhill.  The judicial system tell us those who “spank” are also usually abused or an abuser in other ways, at home or at work.  In the same sense that  psychological theory tells us that, just as abusers, the “spanker” frequently having been a victim of spanking themselves, may begin to enjoy inflicting the pain (one of own mentors in the judicial system, a psychiatrist working with abusers and child custody regularly, theorized that such individuals would go into a cognitively awake, but subconscious “trance” where they re-lived their own experience, only this time they would be the abuser, rather than the abused.  In my legal judicial clerking, the judge would frequently, in child or spousal abuse cases, look for indications that this had happened, or might happen, suggesting some serious counseling be ordered to “get at” the “real” problem.  But again, the possibility of these avenues of counseling are affected by class, as is the use of the judicial system toward one’s advantage.  It is perhaps as easy to “buy” a judge in the U.S. as it is to “buy” a philosophy position—and I dare say low quality publications bear this out!

10.       Difference.  I’m not sure how the nuances of the difference would play out here, especially using theoretical constructs of “bullying.”  But at least we have three real life examples to analogize to see how our “mocking” behavior matches up against these others, theoretically.

11.       Cultural Misinterpretations.  Most importantly, I worry in many situations, that mockery is fraught wil cultural misinterpretations of both meaning and behavior.  This is an important observation, and I encourage anyone who can to notice whenever they can, because this is how we will ultimately make things better or worse.  We must first acknowledge that we do not come to philosophy in a vacuum, we bring our contexts with us, in all of their variety.  And sometimes mockery silences these important differences of perspective.  So also do the short quips of response that philosophers try to use in imitation of analytics philosophers.  I am of the opinion that if one cannot or wants not to tell the whole truth, one ought not bother to converse, for the hiddenness of conversation can deceive and later mock.  Short mocking responses frequently miss the contextual meaning of the other’s concern.  I have yet another memory, of Carl Wellman from Washington U at St. Louis, speaking at the APA.  He suggested that in Israel we ought simply recognize that whoever was there first has first rights to the land.  It was my first APA, I had read Carl’s work, and I knew I would TA for Carl the following year.  I wanted to participate in the dialogue as he had sparked my interest in the question.  He smiled as I raised my hand, and when called upon I simply asked him if he would say the same for indigenous america?  He paused a long time, putting his hand to his chin, as he many times did, and I knew he had taken my query seriously.  After a long pause, he looked at me and said, no I think not, but I’m not really sure why, I’ll have to think about that.  And then he turned to another with hand raised.  I am so glad I studied with Carl.  And this was at an analytic school, where it seemed that it was the lesser well known, and lesser proficient professors who did the mocking of students.   I mention this because it stayed in my mind as a learning experience.  Carl could have mocked me, as there were no other native americans around then, but he did not.  He was taken aback by the question, as were others in the room, but he turned it into a mentoring experience for me.  I can mention many more good mentors, which suggests to me that there is a better way to mentor, to respond, to do philosophy, and teach others how to with different techniques, and manners.  Mocking is a poor way to entertain reasoned thought, some may say a coward’s way.

12.       CLIMATE.    We cannot assume that when mockery is being used, that it is always to “teach the student” — indeed much mockery is toward a different purpose.  And if we take into consideration your astute observation, John, that the context of the act is one of a disagreeable climate for those already less empowered within the profession, then I suppose the query arises as to whether some of those not included now were indeed shoved aside, and some out of the profession as a result of mockery from mentors or colleagues, and secondly whether mockery then would be serving a current goal to continue the “pushing aside”

One other thing I think is important, is that class privilege permits individuals to do a lot of things that whose who are less empowered do not have the ability to do, and that these things have to do with beginning with and retaining a competitive edge—perhaps it is class playing out here? I honestly don’t know!  As to class, we can assume many of class privilege are given a pocketful of “aces” before they get onto the track.  Then if they start to falter and are really not that bright to begin with, they will have used up their aces already, and must resort to class advantage of language, ala mockery.

            Thanks you kindly for the opportunity to think more clearly about this issue John!  I appreciate your ideas and tinkering with this important social and political issue of “having manners” and “learning to teach well!”   Have an excellent day!  If you decide to write on this topic, I’d certainly be happy to read a draft for you!  I have no doubt your own interest in the topic is situated and sincere :-)

warm smile,

anne :-)

Dr. Anne Waters, J.D., Ph.D.