What Is “Public Philosophy”? A Pluralist Approach and Proposal
a (still rough) draft of a paper read at the 2023 Wisconsin Philosophical Society
(this was published previously in Practical Rationality)
Although it might appear so, the term “public philosophy” is not particularly new. In American academia and the broader culture, uses stretch back into the 20th Century. A few examples will suffice. Walter Lippman’s 1955 book The Public Philosophy and Noam Chomsky’s 1968 article “Philosophers and Public Philosophy” figure solidly within one main sense of the term, well represented by a more recent 2005 book by Michael Sandel, Public Philosophy: Essays On Morality In Politics.
Like several other fields, activities, or emphases in philosophy, far before the term is coined and circulated, we can look back and see philosophers engaging in multiple ways in what we denote as “public philosophy”. In the last several decades, it has become a much more commonly used term, but also one that is often ambiguous, and let us say “values-invested” and contested.
The goal of my paper is not to attempt to define “public philosophy” once and for all, perhaps after carrying out a comprehensive literature review. Nor at another extreme, is the point to suggest that “public philosophy” should be a term with meaning so elastic as to encompass anything one might like to christen. Neither of those proves useful for those who wish to understand what public philosophy is, could be, ought to be, how it fits into the broader field of philosophy, or how it connects with other disciplines and discourses.
Instead, I will eventually outline a more complex characterization of “public philosophy,” one that encompasses several main senses of the term, that is, distinct and substantive ways in which philosophy is particularly “public”. In practice these different modes of public philosophy often intersect and overlap, but in the interests of analysis, I will treat them as distinct.
My proposal is a deliberately pluralist one in several manners. First, I outline a plurality of different senses and modalities of public philosophy, maintaining that public philosophy is not reducible to one core meaning or mode.
Second, while I hold that the six meanings of “public philosophy” I identify and discuss cover much of the ground of what those engaged in public philosophy mean that term, I do not claim that these six encompass the totality of what “public philosophy” is, could be, or should be. I expect and welcome that others contribute additional conceptions of what counts as public philosophy. My aim here is essentially to place a proposal on the table in order to foster ongoing reflection and dialogue.
In the time allotted here for my paper, I intend to do five matters. The first is to discuss the recent rise of interest in “public philosophy”, as well as associated terms (e.g. “public-facing philosophy”, “philosophy in the public sphere”, and why public philosophy is viewed as important and timely.
The second is an examination of definitions or characterizations of public philosophy provided by several organizations and researchers devoted to it.
The third is to explain and argue for a deliberately pluralist approach to public philosophy.
The fourth part proposes an outline of six main meanings, modalities, or dimensions of public philosophy.
I will close by raising but not resolving one key issue, the ongoing need to draw boundaries and make evaluative judgements about public philosophy.
1. Interest in and Importance of Public Philosophy
Lee McIntyre, one of the originators of the “Ask A Philosopher” booth, and co-editor of A Companion to Public Philosophy, suggests that when it comes to the term, the notion, and the practice of “public philosophy,” “[t]his is more than just the philosophical profession ‘having a moment’ over an enlarged view of what issues count as philosophical and who counts as a philosophical audience. Instead, in his view, we are seeing “a full‐fledged acknowledgment that public engagement is now returning to the rightful place it had at the time that philosophy was founded.”[1]
This might be a bit optimistic of an assessment, but several things do seem fairly evident. First is that in recent years there certainly is a lot more philosophy being done, discussed, and disseminated in quite public ways. Just to take my own modest case as an example, last night I spoke about Anselm of Canterbury as part of the “Philosophy Eats” monthly series at the Womens’ Club of Wisconsin, posted an interview about Anselm’s thought I gave the Dogs with Torches podcast, and released a video discussing another Medieval thinker’s analysis of the emotion of anger.
I regularly read posts by, and sometimes engage with, colleagues on Twitter considerably more engaged in public philosophy, like Helen de Cruz, Bryan Van Norden, or Donald Robertson. If you spend much time in philosophy-connected circles and sites online, you’ll see more public philosophy content of all sorts than you could possibly take in.
In the past, not a few professional philosophers have evinced suspicion of some of the activities falling under the rubric of “public philosophy,” perhaps rightly so. Worries about a lack or loss of rigor, of debasing philosophy by popularizing it, of allowing amateurs to come in and try their hand at explaining or applying great thinkers, texts, or topics from whatever canon we recognize — those have been long expressed, and perhaps dissuaded some from engaging various non-philosophical and even non-academic “publics”.
Times are changing, admittedly not always in ways great for the profession as it has been traditionally conceived, practiced, and reproduced. But there are also several factors coming together in the last several decades that constitute a significant opportunities for public philosophy in the present.
One of these is the general condition of the academic humanities increasingly needing to provide justifications for the ongoing work and even continued existence of the profession to those outside of it.
A second is a need, a desire, a demand that is out there among at least some members of the general public for substantive but accessible engagement with ideas, largely unmet by popular media and culture but also by academic institutions.
A third is the incredible potential reach the internet penetration of our world now affords, allowing one to find and reach a public online at relatively low costs.
A fourth factor is one highlighted by C. Thi Nguyen in his “Manifesto for Public Philosophy,” who notes that “if you don’t have any training and you go online looking for philosophy you can actually understand, 9 out of 10 things you’ll find are from the hate-web.” That number might well be off, but he highlights a significant issue. If philosophers aren’t providing philosophy in ways accessible to and of interest to the public, people will get highly distorted facsimiles of it from others.
We can perhaps agree that, without replacing or supplanting philosophy as traditionally taught, done, fostered, published, and conceived within the academic institutions, there is a role and need for more philosophers engaging in public philosophy. But then, we have to ask, what is “public philosophy? Another remark Nguyen makes sets the stage well: “I just spent a couple weeks at a philosophy workshop for public philosophy, and I came out convinced that most of us have an incredibly narrow view of what public philosophy could be.”
2. Definitions of Public Philosophy
Numerous definitions or at least accounts of “public philosophy” have been brought forward over the last two decades. Some of these attempt to encapsulate what public philosophy is within one formula. Others adopt the approach of delineating multiple core elements, characteristics, or dimensions. Understandably all of them make some reference to a public considerably wider than just philosophers as an audience, and perhaps even as peers and participants.
One of the commonly referenced definitions in the growing literature is that provided by Jack Russell Weinstein in his essay “What Does Public Philosophy Do?”: “public philosophy denotes the act of professional philosophers engaging with non-professionals, in a non-academic setting, with the specific goals of exploring issues philosophically.”[2]
Michael D. Burroughs provides a “stipulative definition of public philosophy as a philosophical practice that engages and/or collaborates with stakeholders beyond the academy toward the end of improving our communities.”[3]
Lucia Ziglioli offers another: “Public philosophy is best understood as an activity that aims to promote rational thinking in anyone it can reach. Public philosophy is a catalyst to thought.”[4]
Massimo Pigluicci and Leonard Finklemann write that “’public philosophy’ refers to a heterogeneous set of developments that have taken place over the past several years, broadly characterized by a conscious attempt on the part of (some) professional (usually, but not only, academic) philosophers to engage the public at large”.[5]
Each of these attempts to say succinctly what public philosophy is highlights some important aspect, but doesn’t encompass the totality. Perhaps what is needed are characterizations rendered more specific by encompassing the multiple aspects or modalities of public philosophy.
Sharon M. Meagher’s and Ellen K. Feder’s 2010 report “Practicing Public Philosophy,” of an APA Committee on Public Philosophy-sponsored meeting, which recommended the creation of a Public Philosophy Network, noted three main positions participants articulated:
“philosophical practice [as] a public good”
“public philosophy [having the] explicit aim of benefiting public life”
and “public philosophy [as] liberatory . . . assist[ing] and empower[ing] those who are most vulnerable and suffer injustice.”[6]
Michael Burroughs and Desiree Valentine suggest: “Public philosophy takes many forms — from ‘applied ethics/philosophy’ and ‘field philosophy’ to ‘philosophy outreach’ and ‘service learning.’”[7] They propose “field philosophy”, “popular philosophy”, and “activist philosophy” as three main functions or modalities.
Lucia Ziglioli’s review of the recent (2022) A Companion to Public Philosophy, which calls that volume “a collective attempt to provide a meta-analysis of what is at issue,” suggests at least three possible ways to understand the relationship between the two poles of “public” and “philosophy,”” these being:
“activities essentially performed by professional philosophers to bring philosophy to non-professionals”
“the contribution that the public can make to the work of philosophers
and “the public and the philosopher, working together in a mutual and reciprocal relation in order to deal with issues that concern the community.”
These three construe public philosophy as “a form of public education,” “an antidote to epistemic injustices”, and “a form of cooperation with and for the community”.[8]
How do organizations and institutions explicitly advocating for and selectively supporting public philosophy define it? Looking at publicly available information from websites of the APA Committee on Public Philosophy, the Public Philosophy Network and the connected Public Philosophy Journal, The Institute for Philosophy In Public Life, and the Society of Philosophers in America, one finds no definitions of “public philosophy,” but a lot of discussion about features and functions of it, as well as advocating for extending and expanding it.
The APA Committee on Public Philosophy, for example, declares their “belief that the broader presence of philosophy in public life is important both to our society and to our profession,” and aims “to find and create opportunities to demonstrate the personal value and social usefulness of philosophy.” Nine distinct kinds of activities are identified, many of which bear on getting philosophers, programs, and events into the media.[9]
The Public Philosophy Network aims to support philosophers as they “engage the public by working with professionals in government, business, and healthcare, promoting community discussions, teaching in schools and prisons, and writing for the popular press,” and through skill-building workshops, organizing scholarly conferences, providing mentoring, facilitating network-building, and assisting with projects.”
The affiliated Public Philosophy Journal website suggests that most attempts at public philosophy take two forms: “articulat[ing] philosophical ideas in popular terms and through popular media”, or “orienting] itself toward the “practical” by engaging in a variety of “applied” studies: business ethics, environmental philosophy, etc.
The Public Philosophy Journal instead intends to foster a third modality: “a collaborative activity in which philosophers engage dialogically with activists, professionals, scientists, policy-makers, and affected parties whose work and lives are bound up with issues of public concern.”
The Society of Philosophers in America has the mission of “us[ing] the tools of philosophical inquiry to improve people’s lives and enrich the profession of philosophy through conversation and community building.” The work of the organization and its chapters is aligned by four core values, which encompass the conception SOPHIA articulates of “public philosophy”:
“Building philosophical community and engagement”
“Philosophical inclusiveness”
Respectful communication”
and “Professional excellence and public relevance.”
The Institute for Philosophy In Public Life’s intention is “bridg[ing] the gap between academic philosophy and the general public.” Their contribution to public philosophy involves “cultivat[ing] discussions between professional philosophers and those with an interest in the subject, regardless of their experience or credentials.”[10]
3. A Pluralist Approach
After this brief examination of scholars’ and organizations’ views on the topic, it should be evident there is no agreed upon definition of, or even delineation of the main functions or types of, public philosophy.
There are recurring features referenced that we might view as providing a sort of core, but there is no general consensus on precisely what counts as public philosophy. Given that this is the case at present, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future, perhaps we should recognize that there is a legitimate plurality to views on what constitutes public philosophy articulated by those who engage in or advocate for it.
A pluralistic approach doesn’t require we quip “let a hundred flowers bloom” and regard anything someone calls “public philosophy” as just as valuable, legitimate, or well-grounded as any other. Perhaps we have to supplement such an accommodating cliché with its literal antistrophe “let a hundred schools of thought contend”.
The multiple authors of “Public Philosophy and Philosophical Publics” put matters well. Their aim is not assuming or even “establish[ing] meaningful academic consensus concerning public philosophy.” Instead they propose that we regard “the absence of such consensus . . . less as a lamentable deficiency and more as an important opportunity for investigating possibilities during a time of transition.”[11]
The approach they advocate and I endorse not only recognizes a legitimate plurality of irreducible and non-hierarchized modalities to public philosophy, but also proposes an inevitable and desirable pluralism of perspectives or accounts, as well as of organizations and institutions engaged in promoting public philosophy.
4. Six Main Modes of Public Philosophy
Multiple typologies distinguishing different modes of public philosophy have been proposed in recent years, as the topic has gained more attention, and as ways of doing philosophy that could be distinguished as “public” have both expanded and gained wider attention. I will not review these here, but instead will offer a typology that incorporates distinctions and characterizations I think are useful from earlier proposals.
An earlier and somewhat different version of this typology was developed in a “one-sheet” for a Milwaukee chapter of SOPHIA session specifically focused on public philosophy (held at the Mitchell Street Library) in 2018. That version included five main modes, and those were:
academic philosophy directed at a broader public
philosophy in the public interest
academic philosophy made plain and accessible
philosophy done by non-philosophers
and philosophy done side by side with non-philosophers.
These have been reformulated to some degree in this paper, rolling the first category into the second and third, and distinguishing another modality:
philosophy applied within broader public or professional contexts.
Reflecting on ongoing discourses by philosophers focused specifically on the topic of public philosophy, I also suggest a sixth mode:
discussion of public functions of philosophy in writings of (mostly academic) philosophers.
This last modality or sense of public philosophy is explicitly meta-philosophical. It involves philosophers examining and reflecting upon public philosophy, and using some characteristic tools of philosophy, including distinctions, argument, analysis, criticism, to articulate those reflections, and perhaps engage in advocacy or proposal-making. What we are engaged in right now provides a prime example.
Historically, the term “public philosophy” seems to have been applied earliest to the first sense, philosophy intended and carried out in the public interest. The practice dates far back before the term was used. Ancient philosophers, including Plato and his successors, Aristotle and his, the Stoics, and eclectics like Cicero certainly viewed philosophy as a field extending naturally and normally into the public sphere, including but not restricted to the political domain.
This continues on into the present, where longstanding representatives include Peter Singer, Martha Nussbaum, Massimo Pigliucci, and Jurgen Habermas among a great many others. Philosophers engage in analysis, argument, and advocacy, using resources and insights drawn from philosophy, aiming their work, in forms ranging from books to op-ed pieces or interviews, to engage a broad public.
A good bit of this type of public philosophy is done by people who were trained as philosophers and still hold academic positions, but there are exceptions to this, for example Bruce Weinstein, trademarked “The Ethics Guy”, who writes popular pieces for venues such as Forbes, publishes books, and engages in public speaking.
Philosophy applied within broader public or professional contexts is a second sense of public philosophy. A significant part of this involves application of concepts or approaches drawn from ethics and social-political philosophy to broader domains of public and professional life. But other domains of philosophy have much to contribute as well, for example philosophy of emotion, philosophy of technology, or philosophy of communication, epistemology, or even metaphysics.
The “publics” involved in this might include governments and agencies, companies and corporations, professional organizations, hospitals and other medical institutions, educational institutions and organizations, communities debating or making decisions about issues. In the globally connected, internet-permeated world of our present, it is quite possible for these instances of public philosophy to proliferate from an initial context into other ones. Examples of this type of public philosophy would include philosopher providing thoughtful and useful reflections, arguments, and guidance about the very conception of artificial intelligence and the many matters that full under that umbrella term.
A third distinct modality of public philosophy involves philosophers taking philosophical arguments, problems, positions, and themes and popularizing them, as well as making them more accessible, understandable, and applicable for an audience largely composed of non-philosophers.
This might include lifelong learners who have an interest in philosophy as a field or in particular philosophers, movements, topics, or fields within philosophy. It can also include students looking for help in their own current academic studies and assignments, previous students who want to refresh their knowledge or learn more about philosophy, or even people not involved in academia who are interested in and involved in (mainly online) communities.
While relevant applications of the ideas presented might be a motivating draw for the public, the main point is helping a non-philosophical audience adequately understand those ideas, perspectives, thinkers, or movements. This is carried out by a vast variety of books, articles, blog posts, workshops and other presentations, podcasts and videos, even infographics, with varying degrees of success and competence.
In the present, there are also many instances of a fourth modality of public philosophy, namely philosophy produced, provided, and engaged in largely by non-philosophers (perhaps with philosophers). People not trained or working as academic philosophers may be interested in philosophy, and carry out independent study, research, and even produce writing or other media on philosophical matters.
More common and readily visible are the vast number of online groups, communities, and forums, as well as in-person meeting groups, devoted to sharing interests and inspiration, discussing and debating, or resources and study, centered on philosophy in some way. One interesting example of this would be the global Stoic Fellowship, an organization dedicated to supporting and connecting more local in-person and online groups of people interested in modern interpretations of ancient Stoic philosophy and practice. While there are some academic philosophers involved, the global organization and the local groups are composed and led largely by laypeople interested in the philosophical tradition.
Philosophy done “side by side” is arguably a fifth distinct meaning and modality of public philosophy, which can also be understood as a model worked out deliberately and explicitly by SOPHIA. Their mission statement frames the task of the organization and its chapters as “use[ing] the tools of philosophical inquiry to improve people’s lives and enrich the profession of philosophy through conversation and community building.”
Central to the approach is the “need for philosophy to be engaged not only within the academy, but also in conversation with people from other fields and from beyond higher education settings,” and a “recognition that people beyond the academy can contribute invaluable insights for scholars — that philosophy and wisdom are a two way street in philosophical conversations.” The “side by side” (which I’m not wedded to) denotes that, in this model, professional philosophers are just one set of interlocutors within inclusive and participatory conversations.
A sixth meaning of “public philosophy” is explicitly metaphilosophical, and encompasses all of the discussions, proposals, and debates concerning public philosophy itself. Again, that is what we are engaged in here in this paper, and hopefully will continue to in discussion.
5. Are There Any Boundaries?
I bring this paper to what I’ll admit and you’ll see is an abrupt close by raising a set of problems for public philosophy for which I haven’t a solution. I have hopes we can grope our way towards solutions through discussion. I think those involved in conversation about this would share several assumptions, namely:
that public philosophy is legitimate, valuable, and needed
that there is no consensus definition of public philosophy
that the term covers a number of distinguishable modalities, and extends to specific instances of those
that we can make judgments of better and worse, and that some people on some bases should be better judges of this.
and finally, some products, projects, and people, even if philosophy is referenced or invoked by them, shouldn’t be regarded as “public philosophy”.
One example might be social media accounts whose content consists entirely in “quote” images reposting passages often not from the philosopher whose image they include.
We have to draw lines somewhere between what is public philosophy and what isn’t, but we have no clear consensus even within the portion of the profession deeply engaged in it. We also need to make judgements of value, advocate for paradigms or priorities, open scope for experiments and development of new generations.
At the same time, we also presumably want to avoid discouraging philosophers and non-philosophers by too-rigid or elite-serving gatekeeping, about what gets to be called, publicized, or supported as public philosophy. This has certainly been a problem with some of the organizations specifically devoted to public philosophy.
There are related concerns which would need to be explored, for example Shane Ralston’s about a “romanticization of public philosophy” that “whitewashes . . . the dangerous reality of doing public philosophy.”[12] Or Helen De Cruz’ point that public philosophy risks being or already is “an oligopoly within pop culture”[13]
So, I will simply leave off here and see what sort of discussion precipitates out of this room saturated with people interested in, devoted to, and practicing the discipline of philosophy.
Notes:
[1] “What Is Public Philosophy?” in A Companion to Public Philosophy, Lee McIntyre, Nancy McHugh, Ian Olasov, eds. (John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2022)
[2] “What Does Public Philosophy Do? (Hint: It Does not Make Better Citizens)”, p. 38. He adds: “In other words, public philosophy involves getting people to think about the assumptions that govern the things they do, the controversies they are immersed in, and the experiences of their day-to-day lives by looking at those aspects that are either invisible to them or taken for granted.” p. 38
[3] Supporting Public Philosophy Two Lives and Three Strategies”
[4] Public philosophy is best understood as an activity that aims to promote rational thinking in anyone it can reach. Public philosophy is a catalyst to thought. Its goal is not to disclose the results of the philosophical tradition or research. At least not exclusively, and not primarily. Its main aim is to introduce the audience to the philosophical practice of thinking critically: that is, to the problematisation of the given, the critique and analysis of a question, and to a dialectical confrontation. Lucia Ziglioli What public philosophy is, and why we need it more than ever (Psyche)
[5] The Value of Public Philosophy to Philosophers, p. 86–7 (2014)
[6] (p. 4–5)
[7] Toward Engaging a Broader Public Children and Public Philosophy
[8] Metaphilosophy. 2023;54:175–179.
[9] 1. Organize and support programs that demonstrate the personal value and social usefulness of philosophy, such as suitable lecture series, and radio and television appearances by philosophers.
2. Organize and support programs that bring public attention to philosophy and philosophers, such as book signings.
3. Establish ties to national and local media.
4. Prepare appropriate news releases for the divisional meetings of the APA and for other events of philosophical significance.
5. Serve as a conduit so that media and other inquiries can be channeled to appropriate individuals in the profession.
6. Create or support the creation of audiovisual materials useful for calling attention to philosophy and for garnering support for philosophy.
7. Encourage APA members to engage in public debate about significant issues by such means as sponsoring op-ed essay contests.
8. Establish contact with politicians, civil servants, and opinion makers to impress upon them the full scope of the contributions philosophers can make.
9. Make common cause with ethics institutes and other organizations in promoting the engagement of philosophy with broader publics.
[10] IPPL is founded on the premise that anyone can do philosophy, and we recognize that philosophy relates to our day-to-day lives. Philosophical communities are fun, fulfilling, and essential for democracy.
[11] “The emergence of new platforms for public communication, public deliberation, and public action presents new possibilities for forming, organizing, and mobilizing public bodies, which invite philosophical reflection concerning the standards we currently look to for coordinating public movements and for evaluating their effects. What looks to many to be a time of crisis concerning public standards can well appear to philosophers of a certain mindset to be, instead, an opportunity to demonstrate some of the productive roles that philosophical discourses can play during the periods of upheaval that characterize the historical existence of even the most stable of cultural institutions.” André Rosenbaum de Avillez, Mark D. Fisher, Kris Klotz, Christopher P. Long “Public Philosophy and Philosophical Publics: Performative Publishing and the Cultivation of Community”, The Good Society, Volume 24, Number 2, 2015.
[12] “On the Perils of Practicing Public Philosophy,” Philosopher’s Cocoon
[13] “Public philosophy is an oligopoly — and here why this is a problem”, Philosopher’s Cocoon
Gregory Sadler is the president of ReasonIO, a speaker, writer, and producer of popular YouTube videos on philosophy. He is co-host of the radio show Wisdom for Life, and producer of the Sadler’s Lectures podcast. You can request short personalized videos at his Cameo page. If you’d like to take online classes with him, check out the Study With Sadler Academy.