Profession

Consider the following scenario: I am very good at doing analytic philosophy (though I am not a genius by any means), specially analytic metaphysics, but not limited to that field. I am well acquainted with the literature on the subject, I have an excellent grasp of the arguments and am pretty good at suggesting objections or proposing new arguments (or variations of old ones). Also, I have a pretty good command of the relevant technical material, that is, classical logic, modal logic, mereology and set theory, etc. Suppose I am capable of original and rigorous work. Suppose I profoundly dislike being taught in a university but have a fine time debating with (competent) professors, visiting lecturers and students (outside of the lectures), who, if asked, will acknowledge my philosophical ability. However, since I am not fond of the academy (as a student), I do not have any degrees. Suppose I am still young so I haven't published anything but I have plenty of ideas which, with a little work, might make it into publishable papers. Suppose I don't mind lecturing at all, and devote all my spare time to research. My question is this. Is there no hope for me to become an academic philosopher? That is, is there any possibility that I can devote myself professionally to lecturing and researching within academic circles? Do journals even publish such outsiders? (In theory the editorial board should review anonymous submissions, so no such personal information should be relevant in the process, but I don't know how it goes in practice). I know that people like Raymond Smullyan were unconfortable with "business as usual" as well in the academy but were, in time, able to become accepted in the fold. It may seem inconsistent to dislike the bureacracy and regulations of university life (as a student), yet have some strong desires to be in the academy, however two things may be said with regards to the scenario. The first is that I have a profound passion for the subject as well as a strong wish to contribute research, the second is that a philosopher also needs to have some financial stablity. I want to briefly clarify that I am passionate about analytic philosophy but am trapped in a country were most professors are only interested in Heidegger, Deleuze, Derrida and the like (I hope this doesn't ruffle some feathers, I don't mean to offend anyone). I hope my question doesn't strike you as pretentious or wholly misguided. I think the culture of credentialism is profoundly pernicious, though that is a subject for another question. Thanks.

Comments

One quick note on credentials. We rely on them because they are, in general, pretty reliable and they save an enormous amount of time. This bears on your question.

Suppose you applied for a beginning-level assistant professor job at my institution, having no degree. I would need to decide if it was worth the time to investigate whether you have the skills and knowledge needed, and a good deal of past experience with people from outside the academy who think of themselves as philosophers would make it a poor bet. You would probably get sorted very quickly to the "Reject" file in the triage process. That might be a mistake. But academics, like most everyone else, are busy people, and given the (literally) hundreds of applications that a job ad might generate, we have no serious choice but to rely on heuristics of this sort. We'd also wonder -- if we got around to it -- whether anyone who claims to be so averse to the academy as a student is likely to do well there as a faculty member.

That said, it's possible to get published even if you have no institutional address, and it occasionally happens. If I were trying to do that, I'd pick journals that have a blind refereeing policy. But before I submitted, I'd want to get some preliminary feedback from people in the field. And if you are averse to the academy, that might not be easy either.

Please bear in mind: none of this is about you in particular. You might be very talented at analytic philosophy, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. It's my description of the way most of us operate and the reasons why. But it leaves you in a tough spot.

One possible strategy: if you've read a recent piece in a journal, for example, and you have some crisp, compelling thoughts to offer, you might try emailing the author with a brief version of what you're thinking. If you are, indeed, talented at analytic philosophy, you might well be able to do that in a way that piques the author's interest. And that might give you at least a foot in the door to the circle of professional philosophers.

I think that only a genius would have a chance at getting a philosophy job without a graduate degree. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but if you are going to invest years into trying to make this happen you need to know what you are up against.

When you apply to a philosophy position, your application will generally be in a stack of 100-200 applications. If you don't have the traditional credentials via a degree your publications and letters of rec will have to be unambiguously BETTER than just about everyone else's in the stack (being as good as everyone else won't be enough). Furthermore, your lack of academic affiliation will be an extra barrier to getting those publications and letters. Yes, some venues use blind review, but not all do. Even if you could get a couple of respectable letter writers, you would need to get them to give you clear, very strong recommendations and say that you are as good as the top students in the programs they teach in.

At some schools it may be simply illegal or against policy to hire you without a degree. Other schools may wonder if someone so adverse to academia would be a good teacher or have the experience necessary to teach well. Yet other schools might wonder if you have an attitude problem (I don't think that you do... I'm just saying that someone else might).

If you were a genius who could consistently publish multiple articles in the very top journals, you might be able to pull it off. But, my advice is that if you want to be a philosophy professor then learn to tolerate the classroom enough to get a degree. Your odds of a successful career will increase tremendously (though even then it might be difficult...it is a difficult market for everyone).

To a certain extent I think you need to think about what itis about the academy that you so dislike. You seem to want to teach in theacademy but not gain credentials there, yet of course as you know in order toteach you first of all need to be taught. Certainly you could write good stuffand it would get published, no problem there, but I wonder if you could be adecent teacher without having had the experience of being a student. One aspectof teaching that you ignore is that it involves more than just knowing yoursubject. I have met several very skilled philosophers who just cannot teach andsome of them at least do not, they could not enter the profession due to theirinability to succeed in this area of work, and since there are very few postsin philosophy which just involve research, there is not much they can do.

In the past it was generally accepted that philosopherswould earn their livelihood doing something else, and it is really only fromKant onwards that we get the professional philosopher. This might be an optionworth exploring.

I think that Allen gives some good practical advice and that Eric discusses well some important bureaucratic/administrative challenges that you would face even if the strategy that Allen lays out went swimmingly. My answer, however, builds on a point that Oliver made.

First, I agree with Oliver that earning degrees in philosophy might be useful for reasons that your question does not address. Reflecting on--and growing from--one's experience as a student at various levels is extremely important for a successful academic career, and so your lack of that experience constitutes another significant challenge. This long process of education also serves to test your skills and passions (Are you really as good as philosophy as you think? Is your passion deep-seated and strong enough?) and to hone them -- I would think even a philosophical genius would grow significantly by working through high-quality degree programs.

Second, I have a practical suggestion. You describe yourself as young but located in a country where the philosophy degree programs do not fit your passion for analytic philosophy. Would it be possible for you to locate and enroll in high-quality analytic programs in another country? If so, this might be a way to pursue your dreams without having to fight all the challenges that my colleagues have discussed. Also, reflecting on to what extent you flourish or fail to flourish in these new academic communities would help you to know whether or not your description of yourself as "not fond of the academy" is a parochial one based on your experiences with local institutions.

Read another response by Allen Stairs, Eric Silverman, Oliver Leaman, Andrew N. Carpenter

Read another response about Profession