Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Fool's avatar
  2. Santa Monica's avatar
  3. Charles Bakker's avatar
  4. Matty Silverstein's avatar
  5. Jason's avatar
  6. Nathan Meyvis's avatar
  7. Stefan Sciaraffa's avatar

    The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…

Academic Generations (J. Stanley)

I was raised in an academic family, with some of the standard features thereof (for example, my babysitters were all graduate students of my father). But my father’s attitude towards his career was very different than mine. At various times throughout his career, he was asked to apply for jobs at other institutions, some of them institutions that were higher in the academic status hierarchy than his department at Syracuse. He never pursued these offers, and indeed they bewildered him; he had no idea why anyone would move from the department at which they started. An integral part of the life of the mind was a commitment to a single institution, and spending one’s life with the same community of scholars. He tended to value conferences, reading groups, and the development of links between the university and the community at least as much as his own written work. My father had a regular philosophy reading group attended by scholars across the university, and our living room was regularly filled with people who were utterly absorbed with ideas. His own production clearly suffered from his other activities. For example, he spent years working with a poor town near Syracuse on a project concerning the responsibility of companies to the communities they abandon. A lot emerged from this project; a documentary, several town-meetings, and a civics class for high school students in that town. But very few publications emerged from it. He also viewed his obligations to his community as extending to his family. For example, he sent his children to Syracuse city public schools. As a professor at the local good university, he felt an extra obligation to be a member of the community, rather than a lesser obligation.

I don’t think my father was unusual at Syracuse University at the time. The local city schools had a number of other children of like-minded professors. Many of these other professors reminded me of my father. Their houses were filled to the rafters with books, and as far as I could tell, like my father, they were interested in almost every branch of human knowledge. Most notably, a hierarchical model of academic advancement seemed utterly foreign to them. They were clearly not in academia to be successes in life. They were academics because they were imbued with an extraordinary sense of importance of their projects to the world.

I have the sense that my generation of academics is quite different. Since many of us either change institutions or dream of eventually changing institutions, we feel less loyalty to the communities in which we reside. I also meet many academics whose social status, salaries and even the furniture in their houses are as important to them as such symbols are to those in the business world. I think my father would have argued that this is due market forces impinging on academia, blurring the distinction between an academic and a businessperson (always his greatest fear about the future of the university). But I think this would be an overly simplistic view.

First, because of far greater sexism, in my father’s generation, an academic’s spouse (almost invariably female) was expected to go where ever the academic’s career led. But this has completely changed. In my generation, the need to move from institution to institution is usually the result of juggling two careers (as it has been in my own case). But when moving from location to location becomes a necessity for preserving one’s family, academics begin to develop a more mercenary attitude towards their current institutions; one begins to think of oneself as a free agent, rather than as a member of an institution and a community. Secondly, because of the ease of travel and communication, our academic communities are no longer anchored to our places of employment. I have a strong academic community, whose members I regularly see at conferences and talks, and chat with on e-mail and on the phone. But they are not anchored to my department.

On the one hand, I think both of these changes are positive effects of a more advanced, more equitable society (and furthermore I certainly wouldn’t want to trade my salary for that of my father!). On the other hand, I wonder how much of these changes make academics forget those aspects of academia that make it not just another way to be a success.

Leave a Reply to Lisa Shapiro Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

30 responses to “Academic Generations (J. Stanley)”

  1. I don't quite understand this post. You argue that sexism led your father's generation to stay at one institution, but that the difficulties of a two-career family lead to mercenary-like behavior amongst today's academics. At first glance, it seems to me that the sitution would be exactly reversed. A faculty member with an at-home spouse could be as mercenary as he wanted with no cost to others.

    Also, was your father's salary that bad if inflation is taken into account? $40,000 in 1985 is worth roughly $71,000 today. And $71,000 in Syracuse, NY goes a long way.

  2. Jason,

    Isn't there nowadays also an emphasis on the production of publications that didn't exist when your father was first cutting his teeth as a scholar? I should think that the habits academics have to develop in order to get positions at research institutions of their liking don't usually disappear as soon as they reach their desired position, but instead persist even after they receive tenure. I'm not entirely sure why this new publish-or-perish mentality (if indeed it is new) came to be, but I imagine it also undermines feelings of obligations to one's community by making it so much more difficult to engage in time-consuming projects on the side.

  3. Prof. Stanley,

    For all you say by way of an alternative explanation, your father may still be right. Sure, many career-juggling couples would have to make sacrifices to maintain ties to a community. But, as you said, so did your parents. Thus, we still need to explain the difference between the respective attitudes to pulling up roots. Have market forces turned us against our better judgment into careerists? Your 2nd explanation cuts both ways. Ease of travel and communication does make a scholar less dependent upon fellow scholars working nearby. But, by the same token, they enable us to interact fruitfully without having to move. (BTW, your survey of 20th century Phil Lang is on my reading list for this summer.) So, again, why are we so willing to sever ties with those around us? And I have to tell you, when I look at my neighbors here in Redford MI- resourceful and generous working class people, not a fucking capitalist in sight- and think of the “coming horror” in Iran- dear God please stop him- I realize that the day may be fast approaching when those ties are lifelines.

  4. Prof. Stanley, you've opened a can of worms, as you often do. i shall comment on one or two fieatures.

    i find it interesting that you offer a partial explanation of the mercenary feature of academic life by appeal to sexism. this is rather unreflective for someone who is as cautious as you usually are.

    universities value the reputation that stars provide for them more than they value a healthy, family environment. suppose a university and a philosophy department had the following policy: "while we recognize the value of US News and Leiter Report Rankings, we also recognize the value of a healthy and respectful academic environment. Therefore, if we believe that an academic will fit the needs of our department, we will do all we can to ensure that this academic's spouse will have a good job at our univerisity."

    Such a policy is, to some degree, impossible. For, it would require forcing other departments to take on as faculty people whom that department would not prefer to hire. in my home department, we faced such a problem but we were fortunate enough to find that both parties are fabulous academics who deserve and receive international praise. usually, what one finds is that in the marriage there is one very good academic and one mediocre academic.

    This would be less of a problem if the academic environment wasn't so sexist or racist. But it is both sexist and racist. So, the pool of people whom departments do not wish to hire are predominantly not white and not male. Therefore, it's usually men making decisions about where men and their wives will end up. It's rarely the other way around.

    I know nothing about Jason and his family. So, I presume to be saying nothing about his experiences.

    That caveat aside, I find the star system in philosophy disgusting. Brian Leiter is often blamed for this, but he is so committed to Texas that in a way he is a hero. Rather, perhaps Jason, and surely the Syracuse-Rutgers three earn my ire: is Syracuse that much worse than New Brunswick, or was it the allure of a high ranking that drove y'all to Rutgers? Couldn't Syracure have been as good a place to build a top-notch department – who _wouldn't_ have moved to Syracuse with John, Dean and Ted leading the way? It is a shame that philosophy has come to resemble free agency in baseball. If in fact it was the case that your families were better off at Rutgers, why is that the case? Is it because of sexism or just because of school districts?

    I have no idea. But, yes, justify yourselves. Really: tell us why you moved. Is that an intrusion on your privacy? You are stars in the academic community, If you wanted not to be so, you could have, by avoiding your en masse departure, avoided destroying what was once a fantastic program. So, yes, you owe all of us at non-top ten departments an explanation. And, pleading sexism is a disgusting form of blaming the victim. So, own up.

    There was a time when academics were committed to their institutions and their institutions were committed to them. Those days are gone and we are in a time of upheaval and transition. This is a good thing since often those ties were racist, anti-semitic and sexist ties. But, few are reflecting on how this change is moving forward. To where is the American academy going? Will the future be Jason Stanley and his fantastic, famous brethren; or will there be room in the future for regular folks who are good teachers and decent philosophers but just not famous? Science seems to have taken this latter route. But, in this day and age of American Idol, philosophers seem to have been teased into thinking that only the stars matter. But in fact, some have reason to believe that everyone matters, and so do their spouses and so do their students.

    What will the American academy do about it?

  5. As someone who has always been committed to working with the community I am in, but wasn't able to find the time to do so until post-tenure, I found your post interesting. One question and a comment or two:
    Can you elaborate on what you mean (or your father means) by 'market forces impinging on academia'? I actually think that might account for an awful lot: consider the relative salaries of professors to other professions over the decades; the way administrators think of the role of faculty; the size of classes; general workload issues; what counts as being a good colleague.
    Thank you for including the changing family demographic in your diagnosis. I wonder though, whether something more needs to be said. I don't know what your mother did, but my guess is that she (like many faculty wives) provided all kinds of home support, with regards to raising the kids, hosting the dinner parties, making sure the students had snacks, etc, etc. It is really hard for any individual to take the time to be engaged both with their colleagues and with others if they are swamped with various workload demands. Perhaps that explains the proliferation of blogging — though that is far less direct than your father's sort of engagement.

  6. Gerald,

    I assume that, ceteris paribus, people would stay at the institutions that initially hire them. A two-career couple forces one to consider other options.

    T.C.,

    You raise one point that is a misunderstanding of my post, and another that is false. First, you say that to appeal to "sexism" is "a disgustung form of blaming the victim" (presumably you mean the institution being left). But this is a total misunderstanding of what I was saying. I was talking about the sexism *of older academics*. This may be uncharitable to my parent's generation, but I think a number of them wouldn't move to accommodate their spouse's careers. I also wasn't thinking of academic-academic relationships, so your comments about spousal hirings are irrelevant. My wife is not an academic; she is a medical doctor, and each of my moves has been triggered by various components of the American medical system (medical school, residency). I have not pursued various career options or fellowship possibilities because of her career, and she has not pursued various career options or fellowship possibilities because of my career. That's just the reality of an equal relationship. Many members of my parent's generation didn't do the math that way. I wasn't at all suggesting that departments should make spousal hires, and that isn't my view.

    Continuing on the irrelevant 'spousal hiring' vein, you write:

    "The pool of people whom departments do not wish to hire are predominantly not white and not male. Therefore, it's usually men making decisions about where men and their wives will end up."

    In philosophy at least, this is just false for people in my generation in Leiter top-20 departments. I share your concerns with the star system. But there are now plenty of women stars.

  7. TC,

    Yes, fetishing stardom is ugly or worse. Fortunately, it is prevalent mostly among those who read (and write) weblogs. The cyber- silent majority rightly ignores this silliness.

    The real worry about the brave new Leiter world is that perpetual free agency makes it hard to develop departmental community, and that the lack of a salary cap promotes Yankees-style inequity. (Good thing there are no steroids in philosophy.) In this vein, however, you were very unfair to the Syracuse department. Far from being "destroyed", they have thrived in the past few years, making excellent appointments both junior and senior. Your comments on our departure don't sit well with your — correct — picture of the philosophical world as one of many wonderful contributors, not just a few "stars".

    As for your invasion of my privacy, I accept it and will respond. In deciding where to live and work, there are many considerations. Your post presupposes a ranking of these considerations in terms of nobility. School districts: noble. Quality of the department: ignoble. ? We must all choose life-goals and what to value. I chose proximity to NYC and an exciting philosophy department at Rutgers. There were no family considerations. There was more potential for future recruiting (e.g., Jason). The salary was better. (If I were an athlete I could please you by saying "I need to provide for my family".) I embrace these values; do you condemn them?

  8. Prof. Stanley seems to be confused about the number of women and (disadvantaged-group) minority "stars" in top-20 departments. Otherwise, he quite clearly would be supporting a lower threshhold for what counts as "plenty" of women as compared to men stars; or he would be employing a less selective standard of stardom when it comes to women. Even more clearly, t.c.'s claim is not "just false" with regard to race. Philosophy in general and especially its leading departments have conspicuous race issues–despite the rationales and excuses of decision makers (see the familiar, boilerplate "affirmative action" notices in JFP) concerning the whiteness of the discipline. It is unfortunate that Prof. Stanley remains silent on this point, but such silence or substantive inaction is overwhelmingly the norm. Of course, this norm is fairly easy to get away with when there are so few African Americans, for instance, in philosophy, and still fewer working in the most privileged (i.e., "core") areas.

  9. T.C.,

    I find most of your remarks baffling and your attack on the three metaphysicians who moved from Syracuse to Rutgers off-putting. This isn't the feudal system where surfs are tied to the land. Thank goodness we are free to live and work where we like, without justifying ourselves to you. And why shouldn't major league baseball players be able to play for whatever team they want? They are not chattel. Sheesh! If we were all was so loyal to our community that we never got curious about what was over the next hill, we'd all still be living in caves.

    Martin

  10. I don't want to seem cold-hearted (in fact I'm far from it), but what's the point of being committed to your community if no-one else in your community is committed to it? If everyone in the community (and in the University) knows that everyone else in it is liable to move at the drop of the hat, that is a major disincentive to invest ones time, energy, and sentiment in the place. And, there is less to invest in than there once was; as Lisa points out, a generation or two ago there was a large core of smart and talented adults whose identities were bound up in their families and their communities, and who on a day-to-day basis devoted themselves to making things work. Women. Now they are just part of the paid labour force, paid mainly by companies that are interested in making profits rather than undergirding the community. As a result many communities are just thinner than they once were.

    Finally, as our society has gotten much wealthier, people (wrongly I suspect) believe that they need ever larger incomes to guarantee the relative success of their children (in material terms).

    There is one way in which society is more equitable than it was; women and racial minorities now have somewhat closer to equal opportunities with men. But in many other ways it is a less equitable society; income inequalities are greater than they were, and poverty is both more prevalent and a worse experience than it was. It is no easier than it was to climb the (steeper) ladder to material success from a low point; its better than it used to be to start out female or black, but it is worse to start out poor.

    Academics are no less likely to be influenced by these changes than anyone else. I think Jason is just describing the academic version of a general tendency of upper middle class people to find their own personal success more interesting and important than the prospects of those less fotunate.

  11. K.M.,

    I have problems with the 'star' system. That said, there are plenty of female 'stars' in Leiter-top 20 departments 40 and under (call that 'my generation'). There are stars who happen to be black women (Delia Graff, philosophy of language and philosophical logic) and stars who happen to be Hispanic women (Carolina Sartorio, metaphysics). This year, a junior woman candidate who works in technical philosophy of language received 5 offers from Leiter-top fifteen departments. Sometimes, unwillingness to recognize achievements of young women philosophers may betray bias against M&E. I trust that isn't what's going on here.

    That said, obviously non-whites are under-represented in philosophy (both blacks and asians). This is a very tricky issue, and needs to be given its own distinct post and coverage. I would sharply distinguish this issue from the issue of representation of women in philosophy, where we are (finally) starting to see genuine progress.

  12. Harry,

    Those are good points. But I had the sense growing up that my parents' generation of academics viewed themselves as somewhat immune to general tendencies affecting the upper middle class, since they viewed academia more as a calling than as a profession. Because of this perhaps, they seemed to be immune to certain false beliefs affecting the upper middle class, e.g. that children brought up in privileged circumstances surrounded by other children of privilege grow up to become happier and more valuable members of society than children brought up in a more economically diverse background. Has our society changed so much that this is now a true belief? Or have academics changed, and adopted more of the values of the society around them?

  13. The issue of the push-to-publish is surely a significant one here, as Robert Gressis points out above in the comments. I can't help but be reminded of the somewhat poignant prefaces to Dummett's Frege volumes where he chastises the recent trend towards putting premium on quantity over quality regarding publications, and discusses his own reasons for putting his publishing career on hold to involve himself in social issues he took to be more important; Dummett realised even back then that we were moving into a period where such priorities would be hard to sustain if one wanted to progress in one's academic career.

    There is what seems to me to be a very positive point in Jason's post that hasn't received discussion in this thread yet. I doubt anyone has lost sight of the importance of being in a department with smart people to bounce ideas off, but I think Jason's right to suggest that perhaps part of the reason people see themselves as less tied to a particular department is not because they resist the idea that they are part of an academic community, but because they view the community that they belong to as having boundaries that extend far beyond those of their present institution. That's not to suggest that nothing gets lost in such a shift of perspective, but I agree with Jason that there's something very healthy about the idea of building a widely dispersed academic community who interact with each other in ways that simply weren't available to earlier generations of academics. In my experience, it's an attitude towards academia that's as alive in my generation of philosophers as it is in Jason's.

  14. Ted S got to the rather simple heart of one part of this issue: "We must all choose life-goals and what to value." Opportunities to move, when present, will then be weighed in light of those choices.

    From talking with some colleagues from the older generations, it seems that there are more chances to move these days, at least within a certain range of schools: the schools really trying to improve their departments and increase the external recognition of their departments. As has been widely discussed at this site and others, more departments are trying to be "top 10" or "top 30" or… than in the past. And this is the case in most major academic fields these days.

    We do see more (senior) movement to schools explicitly trying to strengthen graduate programs / recruiting / rankings than to good regional schools and non-competitive graduate programs despite the fact that there are far more jobs to be had at these other schools. In talking with friends at such schools, the common refrain seems to be something like "it's hard to convince an administrator to make a senior appointment when we can make a junior hire to cover the same teaching at less than half the cost". Senior movement outside the range of programs trying to improve graduate departments seems limited to mostly administrative appointments and the occasional endowed chair dedicated to a department.

    Once more schools got into the serious competition for relative prestige, it didn't take long for the market to kick into overdrive in all the normal ways. Many of us think it's a very good thing that in addition to the Princetons of the philosophy world, we also have the Rutgers / Pittsburgh /Arizona type schools. And I bet most of us think it's a good thing that more and more schools that used to think of philosophy as an unimportant random humanities department now prioritize it and devote resources to improving it. That this leads to more competition for talent and greater mobility for some members of the profession (and movement for those whose value choices lead them to move) is inevitable and not so obviously a bad thing. Ted S is right that community building can be more difficult given these realities. But it does seem to happen still: the past 20 years have been pretty "movement intensive" and yet at most of the major departments we see long runs of department stability.

  15. Alwaysanononblogs

    Like others, I too was somewhat taken aback by some of the more vociferous comments above: I took it that Jason was simply noting something that also seems to me true, i.e. that we academics today are less attached to our institutions than our forebearers. Jason, I take it, was opening up a dialogue on a) the causes thereof and b) whether we have lost anything, and if so what, in this transition.

    That said, and in the same spirit of dialogue in which I took Jason to be engaging, here are a few additions I'd make to Jason's own list:
    1) Not so much an addition: I cannot second heartily enough Lisa Shapiro's remarks. Think about the most ordinary of academic events: the colloquium reception. *Someone* has to make the house presentable (minimally) for such an event; *someone* has to prepare the food for such an event (or else there needs to be such vast funding available from either the department or the person throwing the reception to have the thing catered); *someone* has to clean up after the event, and the spouse who is not a member of the dpt (excepting, of course, those cases in which both spouses are members of the dpt) has to either find an elsewhere to work during the period of the reception (often considered bad form) or else drop whatever he or she is doing, and help manage the reception. That is but one of many examples of the sort of thing which weaves one into the life of an institution, but which require a good deal of non-academic work on someone's part. It would be foolish to deny that these activities are more difficult for single people and people in two-career families than for faculty whose spouses are domestic engineers.

    2) An addition to Jason's reflections on the effects of two-career households in this arena: There are not only a great many more two-career academic households than there once were; there are also, as a subset of that, many more dual-academic families than there once were. And while I'd venture to say that the vast majority of us seek a permanent non-commuting solution to our 'two-body' problem, the facts of the market are such that most of us in this situation will spend the majority of our years as junior faculty (at least that) as one-half of a commuting couple. Again, in the most ordinary ways this makes it more difficult to be involved, and feel attached to, the life of one's institution–not impossible, but much more difficult. For instance: "home base" has to be *somewhere*–and the only options are: 1) locale of the institution of one-half of the couple, 2) locale half-way in between the two institutions, or 3) two separate 'home bases' — a depressing necessity for some couples. When the love of one's life is elsewhere, so is one's heart, and it should not be surprising in that light that people feel less attached to their home institutions. Add to that all manner of practical considerations–time spent on planes, trains, automobiles and cell-phones, etc. …

    3) Tc's, no doubt well-meaning, speculations about dual-academic couples raised again for me something about which I have often wondered. TC remarks that often one half of a dual-academic couple is "mediocre". I don't doubt that that is sometimes true. What I do very much doubt is how often that is the case, and I would be quite concerned if many in the profession share Tc's assumption and allow that assumption to pollute the spousal hiring waters. I was once (am not now) a member of a department where it was absolutely clear that some of my older male colleagues had a very strong form of this attitude. Whenever the dept was presented with an opportunity of hiring either one half of an academic couple, or both halves, these older colleagues *insisted* on treating one as the "star" (inevitably, and no matter what was on paper, the male half–these were all cases of heterosexual couples) and the other half as "mediocre". Over time, I came to see this as one of the vestiges of the sort of sexism of which Jason speaks–i.e. the old sexism where a male academic was expected to have a "wife" at home who did not have a career outside the home, and would manage all practical aspects of the family life. That assumption had, in the minds of these older colleagues, simply transmuted into the presumption that that instead of back-up practical support, the "wife" was now expected to be "back-up", or "second-class" academic. I've seen nothing remotely like this assumption at work in my present institution, and hope with all my heart that it is an increasingly uncommon attitude. But I can well imagine (getting back to Jason's original question) that for a couple that sees themselves as academic equals, were they to accept a position at such an institution in the effort to solve their two-body problem, they wouldn't much feel attached to it. I wouldn't much feel attached to a place where I was treated as second-class to my spouse, nor would I much feel attached to a place where my spouse was treated as second-class to me!
    Again, I optimistically hope that that sort of attitude is increasingly rare. I certainly have found nothing of the kind at my present institution. But it's not difficult to imagine that there are a substantial number of couples who, for the moment, are caught dealing with colleagues who do have that attitude.

  16. Jason,

    This is a bit of a side issue, but I don't think that there is a plausible interpritation of "plenty" under which you really would want to say that there are "plenty " of female members, let alone "stars" at top departments. Here's the break down for the Leiter top-15 (I don't have time to do more than this)

    NYU- 2 out of 22
    Princeton- 3 out of 18
    Rutgers- 4 out of 29
    Michigan- 2 out 22
    Pitt- 5 out of 28
    Columbia- 8 out of 22
    Harvard- 5 out of 16
    MIT- 2 out of 11
    Stanford- 8 out 33
    UCLA- 3 out of 16
    Cornell- 3 out of 16
    UNC- 2 out of 24
    Notre Dame 6 out of 42
    Texas- 2 out of 34
    Berkeley- 2 out of 16

    Columbia does the best, with just a bit more than 1/3 female members. Most of these departments are much less than that, some with 1/10th or less female members. (counting only tenure and tenure track faculty.) It's plausible to say that the situation is improving, or that it's not as bad as it once was, or that the bias against hiring women is at least much less strong, but it's not plausible, I think, to say that there are "plenty" of women or female stars at the top departments (or any departments, I'd guess- I have no reason to think that other departments are much different.)

  17. Matt,

    I'm sorry, I thought I was very clear. When I wrote "there are plenty of female 'stars' in Leiter-top 20 departments 40 and under", I did not mean to include people over 40. My claim was that things have changed for the better in the last five years or so. Part of the problem substantiating my claim is that to do so I'd have to list lots of information that couldn't be listed in a public forum, e.g. which younger philosophers got multiple offers in the last five years from Leiter top-twenty departments (some of these people, for various reasons, didn't accept those offers). I won't do that. But if we think of the social construct of a 'star' as someone who has received multiple offers from Leiter-top 20 departments (there are obviously not many such people), recent years have seen "plenty of women stars". That's not to deny the reality and indeed ubiquity of sexism in philosophy (and the world), but it is to say that things are getting considerably better (another mark of this is that our graduate programs have many more women).

    Anyway, this is I think a topic for another day.

  18. Jason,

    It's nice to see a post about very human concerns as opposed to technical philosophical matters or politics (not that those are bad things). Rest assured that the changes you describe are true for software and other engineering professionals — and likely everyone else.

    I think some of the forces are work are (1) what is negatively called greed and positively labeled "a desire for security"; (2) the employer's desire to get attention; and (3) increased recognition that "moving house" is not so difficult in both practical and social senses and becomes easier as our society becomes wealthier, for example with more and cheaper forms of transportation and communication. None of these forces are new and (3) is the reason you see a difference between our generation and the one before us.

    As more people can and do move around and do it more quickly, isn't it a natural outcome that — much like the widening gap between the rich and poor, average pay and CEO pay, top and bottom baseball salaries — to see a widening gap in overall quality between philosophy departments? In response we are faced with the age-old ethical dilemma between competition and cooperation. Competition creates hierachies, cooperation works against them. The talented person might say, "I can stay in place, establish roots, and work improve things here professionally and in the community, or I can move over there to that nicer place, keep looking around, and hope to move an even more attractive situation." Do we seek the beautiful gated community (a metaphor for wealth and power) or work to make where we are more beautiful? One answer leads to a society much like the one we have now.

  19. Lisa,

    You ask:

    "Can you elaborate on what you mean (or your father means) by 'market forces impinging on academia'?"

    I don't have a snappy answer here. But I think it involves universities thinking of their primary focus as building their endowments, rather than seeking to make genuine advancements in the fields represented by their faculty. If you view your mission primarily as building your endowment, you will want faculty who write for the New York Times, rather than for the Journal of Philosophy (this has obvious links to my post defending baroque specialization). It involves thinking of your faculty as people you market to potential donors and students, rather than as scholars seeking to advance a discipline by research, mentoring, and teaching. Such an attitude on the part of adminstrators will create academics who think of themselves more like salespersons than scholars.

  20. Jason,

    some of it is true, but most of it is still not. Here are two conjectures. 1) That academics still think they are immune to various social pressures and 2) that they were never as immune as they thought they were. Society has changed a lot, but academics still have a similar relationship to it. My explanation of your experience of your father's attitudes would be that he was more unusual than you think/thought he was. Maybe, anyway. I'm curious what other academic children of academics think. My sense is vicarious because my father only became an academic after I did, and I grew up in a very different culture than I live in.

  21. Patrick S. O'Donnell

    Dear Jason,

    Given the salaries of academics in affluent societies of the North, it's hardly surprising they would succumb to the temptations of conspicuous consumption and insecure emulative status identification (discussed, for instance, in the work of Juliet Schor, Pierre Bourdieu, Nicholas Xenos, and, alas, the late John Kenneth Galbraith, among others). And it seems fairly obvious that today most colleges and universities are operate as institutions wedded to imperatives dictated or distorted by neo-liberal economic forces associated with 'top-down' globalization (wherein, for instance, 20% of the world's population secures 82.7% of world income). Fortunately, we're blessed with some fortuitous combinations of conscience and considerable philosophical acumen: Peter Singer, Peter Unger, John Hope Franklin, Thomas Pogge, Martha Nussbaum, Allen Buchanan, Allen Wood, Jonathan Wolff, Amartya Sen, Meghnad Desai, Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Orlando Patterson, Robert Goodin, Mary Kaldor, David Held, Richard Falk, Carol Gould, Brian Barry, Cornel West, Ian Shapiro, Noam Chomsky, Partha Dasgupta, etc., etc.; yes, I know, the list is idiosyncratic, but you get the picture). I suspect that these academics are likewise 'imbued with an extraordinary sense of importance of their projects to the world.' And I think in each and every case you would find that, along with your father, they are rather, and rightly, acutely sensitive to the market forces impinging on academia.

    At the risk of indulging in the contemporary penchant for narcissistic self-expression, the description of the circumstances of your father and 'like-minded professors' accords well with my own: a home filled to the rafters with books, an interest in almost every branch of knowledge, an utter lack of personal investment in the hierarchical model of academic achievement, and so forth. Yet in my case the contributory reasons are a bit different, apart from the background condition of having parents without college degrees: I entered the academic world in my 40s (after a career as a carpenter); I teach part-time; and family and other commitments preclude any sort of academic mobility (even if the opportunity presented itself). Being tenuously tied to the academic world does seem to give one a different perspective on things. In other words, it was heartening to find you wondering aloud 'how much of these changes make academics forget those aspects of academia that make it not just another way to be a success.' I'm convinced such reflections are all-too-rare these days. What is more, my admittedly limited experience in academia suggests that in many ways those in the academic world are afflicted by the same kind of ethical myopia and the same sort of psychological vices that flourish in our day and age outside the ivory tower. Indeed, many academics I've encountered lack the social graces and rudimentary etiquette practiced by my working-class neighbors. The fact that you had to add the admonition about mean-spirited anonymous postings is more evidence of same. (And may account for the fact that I often feel compelled to qualify a Leftist political orientation with a Confucian-like stance on broader cultural matters.) In short, I concur with the sentiment above: 'It's nice to see a post about very human concerns….'

  22. T.C. and alwaysanononblogs have both remarked on the perceived tendency of an academic couple to consist of one "star" and one "mediocre" academic. Whether or not there are unfairnesses of perception (as I'm sure there often are), just given that there are so few "stars", it would be surprising if academic spouses of stars were generally stars themselves, when there are so many more "mediocre" (which is itself an extremely unfair term given that one in a sense has to be a star to stick all the way through to a tenure-track job at all) people out there. And thinking of the prominent dual-philosophy couples I've heard of, a decent number of them have the woman (I don't know of any same-sex couples in this sort of situation) as the star, so perhaps the market perceptions aren't as sexist as they once were. Or else I don't know enough of the market perceptions, which could well be for the best.

  23. Jason,

    One thing in your post interests me, but also worries me in various ways.

    I refer to the idea that because "of the ease of travel and communication" we can make communities outside of our home departments and so attachment to the local community is less important.

    First worry: the ease of travel — for whom? This ease is present for those who are single, and for those with a spouse but no obligations to care for children or elderly parents. But for myself, with three children who have grown up throughout most of my academic career (I am in my 20th year of teaching and my oldest is 16), doing enough conference attending to make it possible for me to build a real community in that way has never been possible. This is, in part, because I am part of a two-career couple with children, and every conference I attend requires that my wife take over all family responsibilities while I am gone. I think anyone who is married with kids and does a lot of traveling is either better paid than I have been for most of my career, or is in fact willing to lean on his or her spouse (mostly "his" I'd guess) in a way not that different from the older generation's dependence on their wives' labor.

    Response: OK, I can build community in more innovative ways, through e-mail, weblog, what have you. I don't deny that this is a real possibility. But I think it has it's limits. As human beings we need a community involving physical proximity and interaction. We aren't disembodied spirits and shouldn't pretend to be.

    Leading to second worry: for those of us who don't have access to travel time of the sort that some enjoy, the result of community-building away from home departments can be isolation, unhappiness, and other bad stuff. This can happen because the community that might otherwise be built in one's home department isn't being built, as one's colleagues flit around the world, attending to their real community, perhaps only sticking around for a couple of years before moving on to greener pastures. (I understand very well the motives for leaving one university for another, having done so myself a few years ago. I don't mean to criticize, only to raise some worries.)

    And a third worry: where are the students in all this? Graduate, and even more, undergraduate students? If the universities they attend are not the primary intellectual communities of the faculty who teach them, well, I'm inclined to think they will get a poorer education as a result. Not that I have studies or even anecdotes to contribute here. Just a sense, that others might disagree with.

  24. Two observations. First, Jason's father sounds like neither a market-driven star, jumping ship for personal advantage, nor a baroque specialist, steadily working away at the pure life of the mind. He (evidently) had a third code of values, which we can call "humane" for lack of a better term.

    Second, apropos something Michael Kremer mentioned. The building of a non-local community, assisted by easy travel and communication, sounds exactly like what Nicholas Lasch described in "The Revolt of the Elites": a relatively wealthy professional class with ties only to each other, and no longer concerned about the ties of nation or local community. Lasch thought it was the weaker members of communities who suffered most from this loss of solidarity. It's a fair guess that it's the weaker members of the wide community in which academics might be engaged–students especially, but also the university generally and local cities–who suffer most from the change of loyalties in academia between the elder and younger Stanley generations.

  25. Becko Copenhaver

    Jason,

    As a fellow academic brat, I agree with you about the contrast between our parent’s generation and our own. I also think that Lisa Shapiro's point is extremely important.

    I would like to suggest that part of the reason for the contrast between the generations is that there has been a shift in the conception of what constitutes success. The academics I grew up with conceived of success as doing good work. I think this is still part of the content of our concept of success but that it has also come to contain a great deal more than it used to about the job market. I suspect that there are plenty of philosophers out there, at various sorts of institutions, who judge their success by their position relative to the "top ten" programs. I suspect that most of them know just how distorting and punishing this sort of exercise is, but that they can't help but engage in it.

    I also agree with you that philosophers are a lot better off than we used to be about the number of women in our community and how we are treated. Ironically, however, as more women enter philosophy (including the top tier) it may exacerbate the phenomenon of judging one's own success by market factors. In my experience, women in philosophy tend to have very high expectations for themselves (yes, yes, I know, so do men – don't get distracted!) and, like anyone, tend to search for concrete signposts by which to judge their progress. It is tempting and natural in today's atmosphere to use the prestige of one's job as the primary indicator of success.

    I think this conception of success can be very corrosive individually and in the profession as a whole. I'm not suggesting that there aren't better or worse programs or that it would be wholly irrational to want to aspire to be in a program that is better placed. Rather it is the relative importance this is given when we assess ourselves and other philosophers – in my mind, the quality of the work ought to be primary. It is the thing of which we ought to be most proud and the thing about each other we ought to celebrate most.

  26. David Velleman

    I would like to add to the comments of Robert Gressis and Harry B, both of whom point to ways in which the institutional environment discourages the sort of loyalty that Jason's father felt for Syracuse. Another relevant feature of that environment is the death of meaningful faculty governance. Faculty used to feel a stronger commitment to their institutions because they had a sense of ownership: the institutions were *theirs* in the sense that they, as faculty, determined how the institutions were run. Now that universities are run by a class of professional managers, faculty feel more like employees.

    What's more, faculty employees do not receive much loyalty from their institutions — not even as much as employees in large corporations. I have sometimes been shocked at the way that my university sloughed off retiring or deceased faculty — people who had, like Jason's father, devoted their entire careers to the institution but were allowed to disappear without acknowledgement. Say what you like about Exxon, they at least show appreciation for their people.

    Universities show appreciation for those who lend them prestige — not those who have shown them loyalty in the past. So, to echo Harry's remark, why show loyalty that won't be reciprocated?

    I think that universities and their faculties need to negotiate a new social contract, giving the faculty a renewed sense of ownership in the institution, in return for a greater sense of civic responsibility on their part. I am pleased that the current president of my institution is thinking along these lines (http://www.nyu.edu/about/sexton-teachingmission04.html).

  27. physicist's kid

    Could some of the economists around here weigh in on the simple issues of relative salary/purchasing power?

    I remember DeLong had a post up a while ago about a professor of music at Berkeley at the turn of the (previous) century, describing what an opulent life he led on an academic salary, and commenting that academic salaries these days are nowhere near where they were relative to other salaries. (Rough idea: a full professor's salary used to make you upper middle class, like fourth quintile. Now it puts you slightly above median).

    My father taught from the 50's through to the 90's, all of it at the same place. Yes, much more rooted. His salary was not great. But he had a *far* higher standard of living, on only one salary, than my wife and I can scrape together on two. Raised many more children. Had a bigger house. Much more leisure time. And so on.

    My own sense is that the middle class as a whole has taken a lot of knocks in the last few decades, many of them the result of Republican class warfare. But I also have the sense that the professoriate has been hit especially hard, i.e. slid further down the economic ladder (relatively, of course), than other parts of the economy. But there are numbers out there that might either validate this guess, or show that it's nonsense.

    On other issues, I also think that the teaching professional as a whole has taken a hit in social prestige and respect–not just the professoriate, but also high school teachers, primary teachers, and so on.

  28. I'm a second generation academic, who also married an academic. We've made our children sign legal documents swearing that they will only pursue business or medical degrees.

    My father was much more rooted to the community than we are. Instead of publishing, he became involved in local environmental causes and started a small third party. Partially, it was the times. He went from the civil rights movement to anti-war to the environment. And today, everybody is more disconnected to community.

    But he also had more time to do the community work. There wasn't the pressure to publish. He supported a family on one academic salary, so there was no need to pitch in with the housework. He didn't have to move around, because there were plenty of jobs every where.

    Being involved in the community is an important reality check for academics. It's a way to operationalize theories and an opportunity to gather new ones. My dad was a political scientist who put his utilized his theories of social protest and electoral processes. He also gave back to the community in a real way. Wish I had the time for it.

  29. Laura Wolfson

    Jason, as you know, I grew up just around the corner from you in Syracuse, and my father was a member of the discussion group you mention. As I read your description of our fathers' attitudes toward their work, their university affiliations, their projects and the community they lived in, I felt a shock of recognition. Your description is quite accurate, and touching.

  30. Dean Zimmerman

    I’m not a blogger, but one of my students sent me a copy of the above posting, in which someone “calls me out” to explain why I moved from Syracuse to Rutgers. Another thing that needs explaining is why I moved from Notre Dame (where I was happily tenured, and surrounded by excellent colleagues and plenty of smart grad students interested in metaphysics) to Syracuse, and then so quickly moved to Rutgers. But I don’t believe I have an obligation to explain these moves to the philosophical community at large; only to my former colleagues and the administrators at ND and SU. And I tried to do this. I feel confident that none of them think I moved from ND to SU, or from SU to RU in mercenary pursuit of the prestige of being at a “top 10” department. Both moves were quite painful, personally. And my former colleagues know this, and they know something about why the decisions were hard and the moves difficult, and the reasons we made them anyway. I liked ND a lot, and could see myself being extremely happy at Syracuse, with or without John, Ted, Tamar, Daniel Nolan, and Brian Weatherson (some of the “younger” people who passed through there during my time). I’d be happy there now, I am sure. They’ve replaced us with stellar philosophers with whom I would have clicked just as well, and from whom I could learn tons, just as I did from these other friends who left. So I feel very wistful about that move, and sad to have made life harder for the more senior profs at SU by my coming and going — job searches are an exhausting business, and I caused them another one. These moves took a lot out of my family, too; having stayed at ND for 9 years, never having moved with children before, my wife and I weren’t prepared for the chaos that ensued. (And chaos did most definitely ensue, when our home in Syracuse burned the day we moved in; being displaced for most of our time in Syracuse — with three young children — made it much easier to imagine leaving; we never really felt fully settled. On the other hand, I milked that fire for years as my reason for not meeting deadlines, so I did get something out of it….)

    So I’d rather not go into all the complicated reasons why we decided to move when we did, their being painful to think about, and my having no obligation to do so that I can make out; still, I had a thought to throw out here. My dad was also an academic (surprise surprise). He went to his hometown state college in Eau Claire, Wisconsin; and got his Ph.D. in nearby Minneapolis at the U. of M. And for most of his career he taught at nearby Mankato State University (my alma mater; it’s now known as “Minnesota State University, Mankato”). I love Minnesota more than anyplace, and often wonder why I’m not living there now — though I can’t imagine circumstances that would allow us to move back there anytime soon, either. One factor that seems to have made a big psychological difference for us (my wife and me) is simply the fact that we knew, going into grad school, that wherever I would go to grad school, we wouldn’t be there for long (so why not move across the country to an interesting place, like Providence?); and that, given the job market at that time, I would have little to no choice of where to live upon graduation (in fact, I had one job offer, and, although it was a dream job, for me; still, there was no question of deciding to go somewhere else closer to Minnesota or in a bigger city or with a better climate or…). Once you have committed to a profession that you know will require you to make several major moves, probably from one end of the country to the other… well, one has decided that that is the kind of life you are going to lead. Personally, I’m sick of it! My kids were still young enough for us to move without their missing a beat; but for us it was very hard, and we’ve decided we’re not cut out for that kind of free-floating lifestyle. East Brunswick is the place for us! But moving across the country certainly seems like more of a live possibility when you’ve signed up for a profession that will force you to do it several times, whether you like it or not. When my dad signed up, that wasn’t the case. You could expect that, if you wanted to stay put, you could get a job at a reasonably appropriate school right out of grad school at an institution in your state. Or at least I think that’s how things were.

    How do you guys find time for this blogging stuff! I’m kicking myself for writing this much – now it’s time to go to a faculty meeting already, and so much is left undone… Grrrr.

    Dean

Designed with WordPress