I have been thinking more about gendered conferences. The question is what to do when one is invited to an all-male conference or workshop. This happens surprisingly often. I was invited to eight workshops/conferences in 2011. Three of them were all male. Should one simply refuse? Should one suggest politely that there are qualified women, and that one doesn’t mind giving up one’s slot for one? Or does one do nothing (except gratefully accept)?
It strikes many that doing nothing is cowardly and weak. Perhaps so. But for me it is the only permissible course of action. Let me explain.
You can infringe another’s autonomy only when you are in a position of transactional superiority.
I won’t try to define the terms, but here is an example. You can praise your young children for behaving well at a party. You are infringing their autonomy by offering positive reinforcement, but you have transactional superiority in virtue of your responsibility toward them. On the other hand, you cannot praise your spouse for behaving well at a party. You have no transactional superiority with respect to your spouse. Unless your spouse gave you transactional superiority by behaving horribly at the last party you went to.
Now, I am not here so much concerned with the above Principle of Transactional Superiority, as with an implied principle.
When you infringe another’s autonomy, you display transactional superiority. Even if you possess it, the display is hurtful, and therefore wrong (mutatis mutandis).
Praising your spouse for good behaviour displays transactional superiority, and even if you possess it, it is hurtful to display it.
Back to gender unbalanced conferences. A well-known philosopher (Welph) once said to me. “Mohan, when somebody invites you or me to a conference, they are doing us an enormous honour.” I like this proposition. It is possible to think that, on the contrary, you are doing the inviter a favour by contributing your knowledge and expertise. But I like Welph’s attitude much better.
Now, if Welph is right, it is the inviter, not you, who has transactional superiority. You are in his debt, not the other way around. It follows that you cannot infringe his autonomy. You are not in a transactional position that permits you to suggest a different line up.
Maybe you don’t agree with Welph. But here is a point. By suggesting a different line up, you are displaying transactional superiority. This is hurtful. Therefore you shouldn’t do it (mutatis mutandis).
This conclusion is perhaps surprising, or at least the route by which I got there. But it is in tune with a pre-eminent philosopher’s (Pemp) advice to his students and young colleagues. Never, says Pemp, never refuse an invitation to speak. (Of course, you might be booked up, and this is different.) Not because it is a smart career move to go to as many conferences as possible. Pemp is deeply principled and doesn't believe in smart career moves. Because it shows that you are insensitive to the honour thus offered you.
Here’s what I take from all of this: never offer unsolicited advice to people who are doing you a good. This includes those who invite you to all male, all white, all abled conferences. Of course, none of this means that non-participants, people who are not party to any transaction, should refrain from criticism. I make no comment about that.
Recent Comments