Counter New York Time Petition

Professor Agnes Callard wrote a recent piece critiquing specifically philosophers who choose to be ‘political’ by writing or signing petitions.  We are a group of three philosophers who are editors of the Radical Philosophy Association Magazine {insert link to Mag}: we are overtly political in the aims of our organization {see link to mission}, as philosophers, and – moreover -- we do not believe that there is anyway to be “a-political.”  We agree with Iris Marion Young when she says (paraphrasing) that that ‘the philosopher either reinforces or struggles against oppressions.’ We argue that as professors, we have a responsibility to teach towards the liberation of our students and the world.  On the other hand, we have the view of Professor Callard who refuses to sign political petitions “because I believe that petitions, regardless of their content, compromise core values of intellectual inquiry,” and who thinks that to do so is to “adopt an unphilosophical attitude toward” the political issue at hand.  She writes that “my target is instead the politicization of philosophy itself” and that “If we are going to have professional…we should do so philosophically and not by petitioning one another.” Instead of joining movements with others, signing petitions with likeminded comrades, or presumably any other collective action--  she claims that the individual philosopher should “argue” for her position. 

Of course, as philosophers we agree with the importance of creating strong arguments (we leave aside whether this is every really done as some lone individual).  Ms. Callard calls our attention to two known logical fallacies, appeal to popular belief (it is not rational to claim that just because a lot of people believe X, that X must be true or good) and appeal to authority (it is not rational to claim that just because a famous or authoritative person claims X, that X must be true or good).  We agree with this.  As radical philosophers, we know that unpopular ideas like communism or veganism are not wrong just because most people in the USA disagree with them. And we certainly also believe that just because a well-known person states something (be that person Donald Trump or Judith Butler), that it is not right just because they said it.

But is that what is really going on in petitions?  Perhaps these appeals to popularity or authority are part of what is going on—as it is true that petitions often gain strength with number and or the fame of its signatories.  But they don’t send out a blank page with names.  There is an argument for the position.  And one signs or doesn’t sign the petition because of that argument.  Reading an argument to see how ethical, just, rational, compassionate the view is – is exactly what we do when we consider whether to sign it or not.  

We also want to make a deeper point: there is no way to be “objective” and “neutral” with regards to these political and ethical positions.  In our experience, this is a commonly held view at universities – that the professor ought to remain cold and above the fray of the political battles of the day-- that in order to best teach our students, we must appear to be ‘objective’ and that, indeed, ‘rationality’ itself requires us to be neutral bystanders.    Our view as radical philosophers is two-fold: (1) there is no way to be objective, and (2) even if there were a way to be -- or, stated more correctly, to appear -- objective, doing so is not good, is not liberatory. We believe that liberating our students and moving society towards more just and egalitarian relationships requires that we teach against ideology and from the underside of power, and this is and always will be political. 

Herbert Marcuse, in his work on “repressive tolerance” critiques a liberal, individualistic understanding of “tolerance”—i.e., encouraging and welcoming all sides. He writes, “To treat the great crusades against humanity…with the same impartiality as the desperate struggles for humanity means neutralizing their opposite historical function, reconciling the executioners with their victims, distorting the record. Such spurious neutrality serves to reproduce acceptance of the dominion.”  What Marcuse advocates – and we advocate as well – is liberation.  Liberation is not neutral.  And people—including philosophers-- should use many tactics towards the liberation of the world – forming and joining movements, writing and signing petitions, teaching and writing about liberatory ideas, and living the ethical standards that we have.