I expect many readers to be following the ongoing debate, prompted by a poll run by Leiter last week, on the (presumed) effects that blogs have had for professional philosophy, both at the level of content and at the level of ‘issues in the profession’. (Roberta Millistein weights in at NewAPPS, and I agree with pretty much everything she says; another summary at Feminist Philosophers.) Now, there is a sense in which I am personally not in a good position to have an opinion on this, simply because I haven’t been around long enough to know what it was like before, and thus to be able to draw an informed conclusion. But I can say that my very process of becoming a professional philosopher (not so much content-wise perhaps, but in terms of deciding on the kind of professional I wanted to be) was considerably influenced by reading in particular the Feminist Philosophers blog. Also, I won’t deny that my career as a whole has tremendously benefited from my blogging activity at NewAPPS and at M-Phi, both in terms of the opportunity to discuss my ideas with a larger number of people than would otherwise have been possible, and (more pragmatically) simply in terms of increased visibility and reputation.
But obviously, my individual experience (or that of other bloggers) is not what is under discussion presently; rather, the question is whether blogs have been good for the profession as a whole. This, however, is obviously a multi-faceted question; it may for example be read as pertaining to the quality of the scholarship produced, to be measured by some suitably ‘objective’ criterion. (As a matter of fact, I do believe that blogs have been ‘good’ for philosophy in this sense, for reasons outlined here for example.) But it may also pertain to the overall wellbeing of members of the profession, in which case the putative effect blogs will have had could be conceived of in terms of a simple formula: for each member the profession (I is the set of all professional philosophers), estimate the net gain (or loss) in professional wellbeing by comparing their situation before (wb) and after (wa) the advent of blogs; add it all up, and divide the total by the number of members considered.
This would result in the average effect (positive or negative) of blogs for each individual. If the value of the summation as a whole is positive, then blogs will have had in balance a positive effect on collective wellbeing; if negative, then the effect will have been negative (and similarly for value zero). (Of course, in practice this is complicated by the obvious fact that the set I is not stable over time.) Notice that this approach allows for the possibility that, for some individuals, the comparison between now and before will yield a positive value, while for others it will yield a negative value. But the overall effect is a matter of balancing these values against each other.
One thing seems clear: blogs have altered ‘the balance of power in the profession’ (to quote Leiter’s correspondent). But whether it will have been a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ change will at least to some extent be a perspectival matter, depending on which side of the divide you are on, i.e. if your (wa – wb) value is positive or negative – more plainly put, if you gained or lost wellbeing. (I am correlating power with wellbeing here, which I realize is non-trivial. Check also this great post by Eric Schwitzgebel on the Utility Monster, which outlines some of the other limitations of a ‘quantificational’ approach to happiness.)
I submit that the number of people for whom the (wa – wb) value is positive is significantly larger than the number of people for whom this value is negative, and again for the very reason that Leiter’s correspondent identifies: we now have to pay attention to ‘the opinionated know-nothings’ who, prior to blogs, were simply not being heard – or had their voices discredited, dismissed and thus silenced by those in more influential positions. In other words (and this is not exclusive to philosophy blogging, obviously), the Internet allows for many more voices to express themselves; it generates at least the possibility for more democratic, more inclusive conversations.
This does not mean that all these voices will be heard in the cacophony that ensues, but if there is some substance to what they are saying, and if they use a minimally compelling rhetoric, chances are they will attract at least some attention. This in turn may have the effect of improving their overall position and professional situation, in particular by calling attention to systematic injustices that certain groups of people may endure. (Think of the ‘What it’s like’ blog and its companion, ‘What we’re doing’.) Now, in the consequentialist spirit of maximizing happiness, this can only be a good thing overall, even if for some individuals it represents a loss of power. From the looks of it, they’ll just have to get used to it.
New APPS 
Leave a comment