Those who endorse and practice the Gendered Conference Campaign are often asked: why focus on gender instead of other under-represented groups, such as people of color, disabled or GLBTQ philosophers? This question comes up so often that I thought it might be worth trying to formulate an answer to it.
First of all, let me submit that we should worry about under-represented groups in philosophy specifically and predominantly with respect to groups that have been historically oppressed. A friend half-jokingly asked me why I do not worry about the under-representation of skate-boarders at philosophy conferences; without having to resort to essentialism, I suppose we can all agree that there is an important difference in historical background here. That women, members of certain ethnic groups, disabled people, GLBTQ people, and specific other groups have a long and complex history of systematic oppression and social injustice, in particular with respect to education and academia, is (I suppose) beyond doubt. So no, it is not any random, gerrymandered under-represented group that deserves the same focus; there are long histories of inequalities for specific groups that we are trying to catch up with.
Secondly: given these four groups I just mentioned – women, people of color, disabled, GLBTQ – why focus exclusively on women for a conference campaign? Here, the relevant facts are not so much the historical ones, but rather the current situations of each of these groups in the philosophy profession. While women constitute about 20% of the members of the profession, people of color constitute a much, much smaller percentage of professional philosophers (that is, in Europe and North-America at least, which are the areas that the GCC tends to focus on). Given this radically different starting point, it seems rather obvious to me that different measures are called for (besides some general ones). While the presence of inspirational role models is crucial in both cases, I submit that in the case of people of color, much more implementable and effective measures should aim at attracting more students of ethnic minorities to philosophy at early stages. This may be done with regular visits by professional philosophers to high-schools with a large proportion of ethnic minorities, mentoring programs, summer schools specifically designed for philosophy students who are members of these ethnic groups, among other tactics. Moreover, the very generic sortal term ‘people of color’ hides the fact that different factors are arguably in play for the under-representation in academia of the different groups in question. But as long as the proportion of members of these groups in philosophy is so ridiculously low, campaigning for their presence at philosophy conferences seems to be aiming in the ‘wrong’ direction (wrong in the sense of not focusing on where action is truly needed) -- which is not to say that conference organizers would not do well to keep ethnic diversity in mind when drafting lists of speakers! But arguably, this is not where action is most needed at this point.
With respect to disabled people, similar considerations can be adduced; again, I submit that the situation is different from that of (non-disabled) women in relevant ways, so that different measures are required. One particular aspect is that, while gender is usually (though not always) an immediately salient feature of a person, disability may not be. Some disabled people prefer to be discreet about their disabilities (which may be not externally ‘visible’), and this is obviously a choice which should be respected; now, this clearly makes the implementation of a ‘disabled conference campaign’ very different from (and arguably more problematic than) a ‘gendered conference campaign’. What is beyond any doubt of crucial importance is to ensure that conferences and events are prepared to receive participants with specific needs: they should be wheel-chair accessible, attention should be paid to those with hearing disabilities, and so on and so forth. This should most certainly be campaigned for, and as far as I can tell this has been a topic of concern for us here at New APPS and elsewhere (e.g. Feminist Philosophers) (I personally remember blogging on this at least once). But of course, it can and should be much more emphasized than it has been so far. More generally, accessibility remains the biggest practical challenge for people with disabilities: because they do not have the same opportunities to go to libraries, work, travel, etc. they are systematically discriminated against even on a basic, practical level.
In sum, my suggestion here is that the specificities of each of these situations of imbalance and inequality require different measures and tactics to mitigate and redress them (besides some general, common measures). They are all equally important, all being manifestations of long histories of social injustice and exclusion, but in significantly different ways. Given the particular situation of women in the profession, a campaign to improve gender balance at conferences seems not only feasible but also potentially effective, in ways that are not (yet, alas) the case for other under-represented groups.
Recent Comments