Regular readers of this blog are familiar with my practice
of taking a daily early morning walk, during which, in the pre-dawn quiet, I
meditate on this and that, often writing a blog post in my head before later transcribing
it here. This morning, I found myself
reflecting on my exchange with Professor Tony Couture on the possibility of
podcasting my Marx lectures next semester.
Tony [if I may be so informal] included a link to an on-line course on
Justice taught at Harvard by the well-known political philosopher Michael
Sandel. The course is astonishingly
successful, enrolling more than one thousand students each time it is
taught. Sandel, who is a Professor in
Harvard's Government Department, first came to prominence with a book
criticizing the methodologically individualist presuppositions of Rawls' A Theory of Justice. In his comment, Tony noted the rather lavish
production values of the video of the Sandel lectures. I decided to take a look, and picked the
lecture on Kant's ethical theory, for which the students are apparently asked
to read the Groundwork of the Metaphysics
of Morals. I made it through two and
a half minutes of the lecture, which, by the way, was held in Sanders Theater, and
then clicked off, deeply offended.
On my walk, I began to think about what had bothered me so
much. Lord knows, it wasn't the subject
matter. Getting a thousand Harvard
undergraduates to read the Groundwork
has got to be a good thing, right? Sandel's
opening remarks were a little inaccurate, but not more than what one would
expect at that level. [The First Critique was not the first thing
Kant published, but only Kant scholars like me would quibble.] Was I merely envious of this good-looking man
in the really good-looking suit who was so obviously adored by more than a
thousand good-looking, bright, and probably rich young men and women?
I found myself thinking of Marshal McLuhan's old mantra that
the medium is the message. McLuhan's claim, which echoes Aristotle's
insistence on the primacy of form over matter, is that the form in which ideas
are presented inevitably and unavoidably shapes the content of those ideas,
regardless of the intentions of their author.
I recalled the two and a half minutes I had watched of the video. When Sandel made a humorous remark about the
years Kant spent as an unsalaried privatdozent,
paid according to the numbers of students he enrolled, the camera cut to the
audience and focused on an attractive young woman who laughed and began to
applaud.
And then it hit me.
Sandel was doing stand-up. His
subject might be justice. The topic of
the day might be Immanuel Kant. But he
was doing a stand-up comedy routine that he might as easily offer in a
Cambridge coffee house. The form of his presentation had taken control
of the content. The medium
is the message. And the message
is: This is fun, this is entertainment,
albeit the sort of refined entertainment that one has every right to expect at
a classy and expensive place like Harvard.
And then, my mind being what it is, I recalled the Whore
of Mensa. There may be some of you, especially
among my younger readers, who are unfamiliar with the Whore of Mensa. Even though I am fond of quoting the King
James version of the Bible, this is not, as you might imagine, an invocation of
Revelations. The Whore of Mensa is a short story by Woody Allen, published just
forty years ago in The New Yorker. It tells the
sad tale of a man, hiding behind the pseudonym "Flossie," who has
started a Call Girl service. He hires
young women from elite women's colleges who, for a fee, will meet you in a
motel and talk to you for an hour about Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Kant.
It would be cruel, I think, to describe Michael Sandel as a
Whore of Mensa, but if the bustier
fits.
Interesting rumination on Sandel, who clownishly skims the surface of philosophy while gesticulating in his awkward suit on a gilded stage at Harvard. Some philosophers have indeed turned into rock star sophists. The poor philosopher podcasting in his wake will look like a busker--unless all this over-production kills the spirit of philosophy by turning into 100% theatre, rather than some Socratic formula where it is 33% theatre/33% arguing or dialectical technique/33% ability to dig up knowledge or question and assert the authority of reason. --Don't call me Anthony unless I am in trouble! I should also say that you may wish to think further on the role of the philosopher as stand up comic. Think of Nietzsche's advocacy of comedy in book 4 of Zarathustra and other places, and revaluation of the traditional value of comedy as opposed to religious seriousness, or other opposites. Comedy is goofing off, not being serious about justice, putting on a show and posturing instead of single-minded search for truth. John Morreall's Comic Relief (recent book I highly Recommend) is a powerful reinterpretation of the use of comedy in modern culture. ALso, go to Youtube and watch the stand up act of Robin Williams, Bill Hicks, George Carlin or others doing thinking person type comedy. Sandel is like Jerry Seinfeld when he goes through the motions of his gentle introduction to justice, this was made for prime time TV. I also recommend the film, The Angriest Man in Brooklyn, to show how comedy talks you directly into the heart of human matters, and allows easier dialogue about many philosophical issues or problems. But my thesis is that a good philosopher is never reducible to or only a comedian. Comedians move between the real world and a possibly comic world, balancing or moving back and forth along a contrast line between what we take seriously and what we joke about (that contrast effect of moments of seriousness and irony is the spark that makes our bodies explode in laughter). In Episode 1, where Sandel discusses cannibalism, he makes a joke about the sailors being rescued and that the rescue interrupted their "breakfast" (a part of the cabin boy's body they were using to survive their shipwreck). The great irony is that his 1000-strong elite Harvard audience bursts out in disgust, but that if capitalism is a form of life by which the rich cannibalize the poor, then the elite are being taught a sensibility to arm them for a life of sucking the life out of others.
ReplyDeleteI can send you a podcast of the first class for my UPEI course on Radical Philosophy (anarchism, Marxism and feminism) if you are interested in my idea of using lowtech to free philosophy from the latest forms of capitalism, if you wish to gauge the quality you can get from a digital voice recorder in class or how it might affect your teaching (you tend to write on board less). One problem with Sandel is that you are distracted by the audience and the "talk show" atmosphere that he cultivates on his gilded stage--an audio recording abstracts from the "show" and makes for a better path to inwardness. Pardon me for the length of this comment, but I think many more philosophers ought to put free philosophy online (without overproduction). THIS is a start of a revolution after all!
There is a whiff of Puritanism about this post. Is it a curmudgeonly reproof that philosophy should be hard and boring? Oddly, Robert Paul Wolff has never been boring in his life, so I wonder if he isn't reacting to something else. Myself, I'm not sure that being the Whore of Mensa is such a bad thing. But, I will have to watch Sandel's for myself and judge.
ReplyDeleteNo, no, no. There is all the difference in the world between being amusing or even funny while teaching philosophy and becoming a performance artist rather than the teacher. It has everything to do with the message communicated to the students.
ReplyDeleteOh rats. I thought I could make a deep and important point in a witty and amusing fashion, but it would seem that I need to spell out in painful detail the complexity of my thought if it is to be taken seriously.
Sigh.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDifferent Kevin here (there are two who comment here?). I dunno, I think I got RPW's point pretty clearly. I don't see how one gets out of what he says that philosophy should be a bore. It's the upper-class knowingness of Sandel's performance that is irritating.
ReplyDeleteI made some spelling mistakes in the previous post. Here it is with the mistakes corrected.
ReplyDeleteThere is also the unsavory political dimension of Sandel's MOOC course on justice. Ironically, having himself been a steadfast critic of market fundamentalism, he is now materially contributing to the neoliberalization of post-secondary education in the US and the displacement of in-person professors by online videos. Last year, he was involved in the controversy at San Jose State University when administrators attempted to force the philosophy faculty to offer Sandel's MOOC as a departmental course.
Despite being an apparently affable and kind person - I've only met him once - and an ethicist, he is making an unjust situation worse.
I'm pasting what I wrote in a comment a few posts down:
ReplyDeleteThere's an underlying insidiousness to Sandel’s popularity, in that he's now world famous for basically asking the same question: but should the market infringe upon X? X being peoples’ votes, healthcare, scientific analysis, pregnancy, etc. Point being he's very concerned when the market takes on a role in certain aspects of our lives that were previously considered too sacrosanct for market transactions. Who isn't? But he never asks the far more important - and Marxian - question: WHY does the market keep spilling over into these previously secluded aspects of our lives? If he’d make his way around to Vol I, he might get some answers to the more important question.
All that aside, I actually try and mirror some of his teaching style which wasn't present in the first 2:30 of that video. He'll often poll his students on where they stand regarding a moral issue, and let them debate one another. I find this strategy really helpful in my own class. It always keeps students engaged, intrigued, and alert...which is helpful for a 9AM course of freshmen!
For a longer discussion of MOOC and related issues, I recommend "The High-Tech Mess of Higher Education" recently published in The New York Review of Books:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/aug/14/hi-tech-mess-higher-education/?insrc=hpma
Jamie speaks of the "neoliberalization of post-secondary education in the US." While the neoliberalization of education may take different forms in public schools, it stems from the same market forces that universities are subject to now. I have thought for some time that university professors should be joining common cause with those of us in the public schools. What neoliberal "reformers" have done to public schools they will do to universities, unless we all get organized and fight back.