New APPS

[UPDATE, 1 Jan 2014, 12:10 pm CST: Here is the narrative form of the talk.]

I've been invited to take part in a panel on inclusivity in conference and essay collection organizing, to be held at the 2013 APA Eastern. Session GVIII-1, Sunday 11:15 am. Here are my notes. (Comments welcome to me by email too.)

I propose organizers take three steps: 1) reflect; 2) clarify audiences and goals; 3) make invitations.

STEP I. REFLECT. The first thing we need to do is reflect on our normal practices. Unfortunately, it seems many organizers just say to themselves, "let's get the best folks we can on topic X." I think this is so from a common response to a question about a poor inclusivity roster: "well, we tried to invite world-famous Professor X but he / she was busy."

To me this implies that the organizers used some sort of one-dimensional "merit"[1] measure and then rank-ordered the people who come to mind on that axis, starting at the top [of whatever section of the list they thought they could conceivably afford / interest][2] and working their way down.

Here, I think, is where the implicit bias claim explains just how and why these names "come to mind," thereby perpetuating a positive feedback loop locking in historically over-represented groups across generations. 

But this rank-ordering by "merit" also has a questionable metaphysics: it looks to me like "merit" is seen as a property inherent in individuals that can be discerned, extracted, and then compared to others on a single scale.

Now I happen to be a Deleuzean: for me, it's all about multiplicities and individuations. That is to say, there is a multi-dimensional matrix of qualities that each person individuates.

Let's not get hung up on the metaphysics though: I think we can just think about the many philosophical qualities each of us condenses in our talks and essays:[3]

1. Rigor and clarity of expression;
2. Breadth and depth of the field coverage;
3. Historical awareness of predecessors / analogues;
4. Originality: fine slices of an established field or establishment of a new field?

STEP 2: CLARIFY YOUR AUDIENCES AND GOALS. But the choice of invitees doesn't occur in a vacuum. So even before thinking about whom to invite, organizers should think about the audiences and the goals of their project. And these are similarly multi-dimensional – and intertwined.

Audiences

1. Philosophical:
1. Age / rank: UG, grad, junior, mid-career, senior
2. Areas: 
1. M&E, Mind, Language (MMEL = "core").
2. Ethics, Politics, Aesthetics;
3. Social Theory: Feminism, Disability, Queer Theory (and their intersections.)
4. History of Philosophy [updated: h/t to "Clerk" in comments]
3. Positions: naturalist / anti-naturalist; realist / anti-realist; historicist / anti-historicist; ideal theory / political embeddedness …
4. Genres: AP, CP, pragmatism, Asian, African, Comparative
5. Social groups within philosophy: over- / under-represented. How many dimensions and how do they intersect? Also, "the embarrassed 'etc.' "
2. Other academic disciplines
3. The "public" (including admins)

Goals:

1. Many conferences / volumes seem to have only an implicit horizon of benefit to the profession and the narrow circle of invitees.
1. Cutting edge research: sure, this is worthwhile, but are we overdoing it? If there's a settled consensus as to what the problems are in a field, do we really need another round of fine distinctions? I'm not saying we shouldn't have some sessions at conferences be specialized, nor that we shouldn't have specialized volumes, but do all of them have to? Maybe the next goal is in order?
2. Historical / revision: have we overlooked something? What are the implicit assumptions behind our research programs, our canons? Can they be challenged, contextualized, overturned?
2. There are also benefits to audiences and invitees that should be explicit goals
1. Audiences:
1. For UG and G students, a chance to experience philosophy
1. Modeling performance:
1. Intellectual content
2. Affirmation, via exhibition, of the affective dimension of philosophy: seeing how our eyes light up.
2. The actual real diversity of philosophy and philosophers
2. For academics in other fields, a chance to experience philosophy
1. That might help them (and us!) see chances for interdisciplinary work
2. And it might help chip away at our isolation.
3. For the public (and admins): perhaps at least one session at each conference should be dedicated to "outreach" to these group
2. Invitees
1. Professional development for juniors:
1. Expert feedback
2. Personal contact with mid-career and senior scholars
2. For seniors:
1. An opportunity to help mentor young folks (a form of professional development, especially for those who don't teach in grad programs)
2. A chance to hear new folks and maybe freshen up their work
3. To catch up with old friends – there's nothing wrong with that!
3. There are also some temptations to be avoided.
1. Are you sure you don't just want to invite some pals and / or show off how many big shots you know?

STEP 3: INVITE FOLKS. Invitations can and should take all the above into consideration. Also,

1. If we don't just aim for world-famous folks doing cutting-edge research, we can avoid the overload on senior folks in under-represented groups.
1. If we're not just inviting those few senior people, it's because we recognize that professional development is a valid criterion, benefitting junior folk (especially, but not exclusively, those in under-represented groups) as well as the senior folk in over-represented groups who could help mentor them, along with the people they already have on their side.
2. Also, junior folks can do cutting-edge research too!
2. I'm not saying you shouldn't invite senior people. But here are some other considerations:
1. Are your invitees good speakers? Are they open and eager to engage in the Q&A?
2. The probability that senior professor M will actually try to mentor junior folks, and be good at it too, is a valid criterion for consideration. If professor M just shows up for the keynote and spends the rest of the time at the museum, in the hotel pool, and in fancy restaurants, well, sure, you got 75 minutes of their time. Is that worth the honorarium and travel you shelled out?
3. Finally, make sure you have a good process: make sure you have a wide-ranging organizing committee, and circulate drafts of your conference / volume audiences and goals to others, as well as drafts of the invite lists once you've clarified your audiences and goals.

—

NOTES 

[1] Merit is a very emotional subject. Even abstracting from the uni-dimensional vs multi-dimensional problem, we have lots of raw feelings here. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that — notwithstanding some exceptions — merit is a necessary condition for placement and advancement in university philosophy programs. But it doesn't follow from that that merit is a sufficient condition. But this injection of sheer luck is hard to accept for some people; they want to think that those who end up in precarious labor deserved it somehow; the reason they didn't make it was some lack of merit on their part. In other words, some folks just don't want to accept that we have a tragic job system where bad things happen to good people.

There's a wrinkle here: if you don't win the early TT job lottery, your work conditions are going to be such that your productivity will suffer and it will look like you lack the merit that would have warranted your getting a TT job. But this lack of productivity is produced by external circumstance as much as – or better, more than – it is an exhibition of some inherent quality of the person.

 [2] There's an interesting psychology here about invitation acceptance: location, time of year, weather, money, company, workload …. (I know I see them everywhere, but this is another multiplicity which is individuated in each response.)

[3] It can be that some folks are very good writers but not very good speakers; or they are good at delivering prepared talks, but not very good in Q & A; these relative strengths can be taken into account in organizing.