I've mentioned previously the absurdity of the fact that two academic presses now publish books in the "popular culture and philosophy" genre. The recipe is simple:
1. Take some pop culture phenomenon, such as a band, a TV show, a movie, a sport, etc.
2. Commission several short, poorly written, and more poorly argued essays about that phenomenon from people employed as professional philosophers who can't get their work [sic] published elsewhere.
3. Stick the essays together, without bothering to proofread, edit, or even read them.
4. Add a cover page containing the name of that phenomenon followed by the words and philosophy. And a book is born.
I used to think of these books as harmless, useless, fun. But now I see them as a positive menace. The essays are almost uniformly shoddy and philosophically inept; they leave the casual reader with the impression that philosophy is just what they'd always took it to be: self-indulgent bullshit.
I just saw a call for contributions for a proposed Transformers and Philosophy book. Isn't it long past time to call a moratorium on this crap?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Would, in your opinion, this ever-growing phenomenon, be an indication of disciplinary Doom?
In one respect, as you note, these pop culture-philosophy readers serve as more *proof* of the self-indulgent nature of the discipline. It is more visible and apparent *bullshit* in that respect, and, ironically, the very motive of the phenomenon--making philosophy appear to *relate* (in that general way of *relating*)--ultimately undermines itself. The incessant demand to make philosophy *relate*, is a suspect demand.
Someone we both know once admirably protested at some administrative task-force initiative thing that the main learning objective in an intro. to philosophy course was to effectively *confuse students.* When challenged that students arrive uncertain and confused and a learning objective should *clarify* and remove confusion, he ingeniously replied that students arrive quite certain of whatever it is they are certain of. People were upset to hear this. Philosophy is very hard, not only because of rigorous standards, but precisely because it demands that people stop *just relating* to whatever ideas they happen to hold near and dear. There is a hell of a lot to *relate* to, though only after one finds to ability to break habitual forms of *relating.* This discussion between philosophy and the powers that be is a very old one. Like, very old, if you can relate...
There is also a very strange blurring between Cultural Studies and these books, which really irks me. Sokal Hoxes aside (and there's plenty to be said on that), if philosophers want to publish in a serious way on subjects outside of disciplinary journals, it is possible to get into the best of those conversations with serious people (I do this with some of my own work on poetry)--but this requires engaging those research agendas and their standards, not making up a book, "reviewed" internally (if peer review even applies to the pop culture-philosophy series).
729:
Nicely put. One consolation is that these books are probably very rarely read by anyone. They're purchased as memorabilia or collectibles: For the fan of U2, there's a *U2 and Philosophy* book that can sit on a shelf along with the autographed concert program and the ticket stub. It's an exercise in intellectually validating vacuous diversions. A way of helping fools to confirm their delusion that liking, say, Pink Floyd or South Park means that they're smart.
At least there isn't, as far as I know, a *Tickling and Philosophy* book.
Oh No!
I might've spoke to soon;
PHILOSOPHICAL PERIODICALS. 157 'A Qualitative Analysis of Tickling ...
mind.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/XVIII/1/157-b.pdf
But I don't have access to read this. Is this a sign of the coming Apocalypse?
I like this post and 729's comments, especially as regards relating.
I've been privately compiling a list called "How to Tell When Philosophy has Finally Crawled All the Way Up Its Own Ass and Died." Most of the items on that list come from the new-fangled scholasticism that passes for analytic metaphysics and epistemology. It occurs to me only now to put contributions to the "...and Philosophy" trend on that list.
Unfortunately, people I like have edited and contributed to a few of these volumes, so I'm a bit reluctant to condemn the whole enterprise. And also, there's still a chance that there'll be a cfp for "Ass-to-mouth Porn and Philosophy."
Anon:
when you think about it, ALL philosophy is about tickling....
Anon:
I'll get the pdf and send to you. You NEED to read this. It's crucial to your research on JUSTICE.
imipolex:
I keep a list like this, too. I count the prevalence of the claim that there could be arguments that are circular but nonetheless not viciously so as a clear indication that it's very close to being all over....
I once had a drunken conversation with someone about doing a volume on *Porn and Philosophy*, with every contributor adopting a porno-style name, and every contribution drawing from a famous philosophical text (viz., "Posterior Analytics"). Then we got sober and it didn't seem all that funny anymore.
I happened upon the tome, "The Dharma of Star Wars" as a friend of mine very much into Bhuddism recommended it. I have to say, I have read a lot of "pop" Bhuddism books and a lot of crap Star Wars books, but this was absolutely the worst book I have ever read of that "pop philosophy" sub-genre, as if merging the the two crappy genres elevated its crappiness by the power of 2. Hence to say, this friend has lost a certain gild off the lilly for that recommendation.
There is something good to be said about bringing Philosophy out of the classroom and into the kitchen or having it relate to the general public as John Dewey tried to do in certain works. There is something infinitely valuable in having non-philosophers challenge their ideas and why they do hold so fast to them as opposed to alternative ideas that may compete with them.
Carl Sagan was very successful in that regard in openning up astro-physics to the masses with "Cosmos" (both the book & miniseries) without pandering or really dumbing down the subject matter, so it can be done with the right people behind the project.
However books like the "Dharma of Star Wars" and their ilk, when they are executed poorly, really cheapens Philosophy and makes the enterprise of widening the audience or introducing Philosophy to the general public seem cheap and pandering or just reduces the view of philosophy to utter *bullshit* in many people's eyes after such experiences.
Santa:
Agreed. I'm not an opponent of "public philosophy" as such. The trouble, of course, is that most of the people who uphold the "public philosophy" ideal in fact do little more than talk (to other philosophers) about how sad it is that philosophers don't "go public." It's a not-very-subtle form of self-deception: uphold (in speech only) the need for more than just speech, then feel like one has done something beyond just talking. But in fact, talk is just talk, and a theory about how theories must be put into practice is, alas, just a theory.
Spiros: Perhaps a better point of entry then would be to get the ages 10-18 set engaged in Philosophy.
I remember working on a Poetry for Young People and Literature for Young People series which used a top notch expert on each writer to show in down to earth terms why the particular writer matters, edited "condensations" of the writers own work (with a glossary included for unfamiliar terms), and really cool artwork by a reknowned artist that interpreted the ideas in the stories. It sold really well.
Perhaps some publisher or PBS would take a risk in doing such a project with really good philosophers showing why "x" philosopher matters and how he/she shaped world thinking.
Santa:
In my view, the "10-18 set" can go piss up a rope. As Aristotle teaches, philosophy is for grown-ups.
I'm noticing more and more typographical and other errors in scholarly texts, and in graduate/faculty papers that are accepted at conferences and for journals. It seems to me that things such as proper punctuation have become less of a priority in academia (which sucks, not only becuase it points to declining research standards, but also because I'm a professional proofreader, and in a just world, I could be making some serious bucks off these errors).
Mary:
Agreed.
Post a Comment