It's Monday and I'm mad at philosophers
I'm still a member of the Facebook group for my university's philosophy program, despite not having been a student there for half a decade. This is probably weird and I should probably leave it, given that I've never participated in any discussion there. But I do like maintaining a connection to the discipline that I once though would be my life's work- I enjoy reading easily-digested philosophical articles, despite having lost my taste for the hard stuff (i.e. I can't understand a word of it). I took the day off work today and was planning to spend it utterly relaxed, but that damn philosophy group has me riled up.
This morning someone in the group shared this article. My ears perked up at the mentions of feminism and its' contributions to analytic philosophy, so I read it. It was enjoyable, overall- the author details some of the major ways feminist philosophers have contributed to the discipline as a whole, by upending long-established truths in areas like ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. Great! Wonderful! I was loving it until I reached the concluding paragraph:
"Feminists’ personal and political rage against injustice (and parallel emotional reactions against their claims) could, of course, create an atmosphere inimical to fruitful philosophical reflection."
I sat up, indignant. ( Did I mention it was 8:30 AM and I was still in bed? ) Did he really just say that? Did this professor of philosophy at Notre Dame just succumb to the not-uncommon-but-still-despicable impulse to suggest that feminists are too angry to be taken seriously?
I wrote a comment to that effect on the post- which I have never done before, but I'm so tired of this stance, you guys, I couldn't help it. I got up, huffing, walked my dog, huffing. Of course, I immediately started to doubt myself. "That was a knee-jerk reaction", I thought. "This guy is certainly not alone in making this suggestion, and he probably didn't mean it in the way I interpreted it. I shouldn't have said anything- the real philosophers will be rolling their eyes at my rancor."
But that's exactly it! I was talking to myself in precisely the way people speak to oppressed groups all the time. "#notallphilosophers, Reilly", I was saying. "They didn't mean to upset you- you shouldn't be so emotional. They were just making a point. You're not giving it the most charitable read. If you get angry like this, no one will listen to your point of view."
Well, you know what- white men don't deserve our most charitable read, and by white men, I really mean members of the groups directly responsible for perpetuating systemic oppression of minority groups across centuries. I say this acknowledging that I'm a member of the Oppressor group in many ways by being white, cisgender, and able-bodied.
Oppressors haven't earned the most charitable read, in large part because they would never grant and have never granted the same courtesy to those they oppress. Oppressed people are allowed to feel angry, a little- allowed to smile blandly while simmering under the surface in the face of a society screaming hate back at them. They're allowed to take it. Depending on the context, they might be allowed enough space to demurely suggest that something is kind of bothering them these days but it's really not a big deal. But to really feel and display the anger that is completely justified and unsurprising? Horrid! You might make the white people uncomfortable. The same discomfort is why you can't pry the expression "Black lives matter" from the mouths of many white people even though they claim to disavow racism- those protestors just seem so... mad.
White people deserve to be uncomfortable when confronted with the human impact of their privilege. Men deserve to be uncomfortable. Able-bodied people deserve to be uncomfortable. Cisgender people deserve to be uncomfortable. Heterosexual people deserve to be uncomfortable. Christians deserve to be uncomfortable. And all the people they (we) oppress deserve to be angry.
I understand that the author of this article was pointing out that anger, as a general rule, has no place in philosophical argument, and historically, I’ve agreed. "Argument" in philosophy bears little, if any, resemblance to the colloquial use of the term. Philosophical examination is about being on a mutual quest for truth, and the emotions of the participants are largely irrelevant. The reason I am so frustrated isn't really because the author feels emotions don't have a place in the discourse, its because he felt compelled to specifically point out that the anger of feminists has no place in it. As I mentioned in my comment, I would be interested to know if the author also feels compelled to point out that the unruly emotions of white men may stand in the way of their perceived legitimacy. I'm willing to bet he doesn't.
Feminists are sometimes angry, just like all people are sometimes angry- just like people who are fighting against a system that actively seeks to destroy their personhood might have a tendency to be. I think it's okay that I'm angry- and if some of that anger were to appear in a philosophical discourse, it might not be ideal, but I still expect the other party to continue listening. I still expect them to treat my viewpoint with respect, especially when the other party is one who is actively engaged in WHY I AM SO ANGRY. Letting me finish talking seems like they very least they could offer me, given the circumstances.
I feel like I'm arguing in circles here (talk about something that has no place in philosophical discussion) and I guess there isn't a neat conclusion. I guess what I'm thinking is this- if all you want from your philosophical discourse (or, you know, any discourse) is a polite conversation with others who are emotionally detached from the topic at hand, that mostly ensures you'll only discuss these topics with other people who already agree with you, or at the very least, people who are not directly affected by that topic. I'm sure lots of men, especially white ones, could sit calmly in a circle and discuss the vast injustices feminist philosophy explores, without raising their voices. But if those injustices don't impact anyone in the room, the discourse is lacking.
Engage in the discourse even if the other person gets a LIL ANGRY AND IT MAKES YOU UNCOMFY. Discourse for discourse's sake is one thing, but these are human lives we're talking about- actual people are impacted. It's not Descartes sitting in his living room with his goddamn ball of wax, trying to decide whether he exists. It's millions of people across the globe shouting that they know they already do, and they have some thoughts about the way their existence is allowed to proceed. Let them be angry.










