Topics Profession

Question I read somewhere that, in her professional lifetime, Martha Nussbaum has averaged 3-5 published pages per day. This raises two questions: 1) Wouldn't that make her a great panelist candidate for this site (not exactly a philosophical question, I admit)? And 2) what is the relationship between prodigious output of thought and quality/clarity of thought? In trying to read Nussbaum on my own, I find that she has some really great nuggets, but there is a lot of sifting before I find them (_Upheavals_of_Thought_ as a case in point). This seems problematic. Moreover, does the process of publishing sometimes work to diminish originality of thought (generally) and/or dilute the acuminity of thought? I suppose this melds into a third question: how has philosophy changed in relation to the changing dynamic of publishing (from an emphasis on treatises like books to shorter journal articles - and THIS as an effect of 'publish or perish')? And what may we say of this change - is it a 'good' change; what does it say about the current state of philosophy; what does it mean for the wider access to philosophy? People talk about the death of the novel and I guess I also wonder the death of the treatise (of all types) and even the death of the Philosopher - despite (in my opinion) the inarguable relevance of philosophy. I studied philosophy as an undergrad. Thank you for this great site (and hopefully taking my question(s))!

Accepted:
March 25, 2006

Comments

Wow -- 90,000 pages over a career, the promise of a 300-volume set of her collected works!

I am not sure what to say on question 1. Nussbaum would obviously be a good, interesting panelist. But this would take time away from all her other pursuits, of which writing is only one, and the loss from that might exceed the gain to the users of this site. I suspect her own judgment is decisive here: If she wanted to be on the panel, she would be.

There is obviously some quantity/quality trade-off in the writing of philosophy. Looking at the profession as a whole, we seem to be erring on the side of quantity. Professional philosophy would be in better shape, I believe, if we published 60% (or even 80%) less while spending as much time as now composing it.

Why is so much philosophy being published? One reason is the one you give: "publish or perish," that is, the requirement on professional philosophers to publish (enforced through tenure, promotion, and salary decisions). From a world of a few thousand professional philosophers most of whom were not publishing, we have moved to a world of tens of thousands of professional philosophers nearly all of whom are trying hard to publish at least one or two pieces a year. This is bound to increase pressure on the "stars," as well, to publish more. With journals and edited collections proliferating and competing for attention, many will try to win a contribution from a star, regardless of whether it is poorly written or repeats points made before.

Bad as it may be, the trend is self-reinforcing. When most philosophy essays are read by fewer than ten people, then authors will not want to spend a huge amount of time polishing their piece and will be glad for any opportunity to repeat their better points in further publications. With so much stuff out there, readers will do a lot of skimming, further diminishing authors' reasons to polish their work.

Still, it cannot be said that high-quality philosophy (laid down in essays and treatises) is dead or dying. When so much philosophy is being published, authors have greater incentives to differentiate themselves. Probably the most plausible way of doing this is through writing something that really stands out through its quality -- something that will be assigned in classes at many universities, that others in the field will feel compelled to engage with in their own work, that will change the direction of the field and hence will be remembered and cited a dozen years later. This ambition becomes more realistic as others go further in trading off quality for quantity. And this ambition also requires not publishing too much (in any one area) so as to focus attention on that one piece an author can hope to make really successful. And so a certain balance is maintained which may keep up the quality of each decade's top 50 publications, even while the number of publications rises relentlessly and their average quality declines.

I sent this query to Martha Nussbaum, who was kind enough to reply:

I work very hard, and I never never read blogs or write on them. (I'm answering this question through an e mail message, and I have no intention of ever reading a blog.) I also have been very lucky to have a lot of leave time, and wonderful students to whom I can present my work in progress. Nonetheless, the average figure you quote seems to me rather ridiculous, and I am sure it is simply invented. As for clarity versus quantity: Upheavals of Thought was the product of about fifteen years of work, so I suppose it ought to take a relatively long time to read and understand also. It is highly interdisciplinary, so that the reader has to take a serious interest in psychology, literature, music, and other relevant disciplines. I think most philosophers today are rather badly trained in the humanities: thus it is not surprising to me that the most incisive discussion of the book came from the late Richard Wollheim, a man of deep culture and great love of art. (He disagreed with the primary thesis, so by "incisive" I don't mean "sycophantic.") I think all philosophers should pursue another subject first, such as literature or psychology, before doing philosophy. That would help deepen their reading and writing.