A Defense of Philosophy on Financial Grounds (Part 1)

It seems somehow appropriate that I should begin the first post of my first blog with a defense of philosophy.  To those of us who make our living as professional philosophers, there is little need to defend something whose worth, value, and intrinsic importance are without question.  The arguments in favor of philosophy (and in favor of it as a core discipline in higher education) are so numerous, obvious, and powerful that this would be a much, much longer post if I enumerated them all.  Of course, I’m happy to do this for anyone willing to listen, but I have begun to notice a strange divergence when it comes to defending philosophy and this divergence is one that I find intensely fascinating. 

First, the prompt for my defense: philosophy departments are closing or being cut at an alarming rate.  Middlesex is the most obvious and egregious example, but there are plenty of others.  The University of Louisiana at Lafayette has cut its Philosophy department, while Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and quite a few other states are debating the elimination of a philosophy major at some of their public universities.  As the recession continues and jobs of any kind are hard to come by, philosophy and other humanities disciplines are, I suspect, in for a severe beating when it comes to the allocation of funds.  All disciplines, as I understand it, are being asked in one way or another to defend their fiscal importance and economic viability.  Money is a driving factor, and tight budgets, state cuts, and decreased funding for higher education means schools have to save costs, cut corners, consolidate programs and drop “low-performing” majors and programs.  Often, these cuts and consolidations are indifferent to the intrinsic value and importance of what they cut.  “Traditional” majors and “core” programs mean less and less as financial concerns force colleges and universities to reevaluate their mission and goals.  At an increasing number of institutions, philosophy is suffering. 

Yet I notice that as philosophy departments and majors are being cut, there is an unambiguous awareness of the importance and value of philosophy.  I say “unambiguous” because all of the parties involved – from the Regents to the faculty – are deeply and even sympathetically aware of the worth of philosophy.  All recognize its preeminent place in the historical lineage of liberal arts and “humanities” education that shapes the origin of our colleges and universities.  And all seem to show an awareness of the necessity of asking big questions, interrogating the world beyond what is given, and learning to think critically and reflectively about important dimensions of life and experience.  Even as they eliminated the Philosophy major at UL Lafayette, the Board of Regents "...agreed with faculty members that the subject is “a traditional core program of a broad-based liberal arts and science institution.”" (NYTimes article, "Making College 'Relevant'," no link)

And in the midst of this unambiguous awareness and sympathy for philosophy, departments continue to be eliminated, reduced, cut or reorganized. 

As I think about a defense of philosophy in today’s climate, I come back again and again to this strange phenomenon: philosophy suffers even as the whole of the Academy recognizes its importance and moreover, is not indifferent to that importance.  Colleges and universities understand the value of philosophy even as they cut its programs and departments.  Very strange. 

I can think of many reasons for this: indifference to claims of traditional value and institutional “integrity” in the face of pressing financial concerns and “bottom-line” thinking; the prevailing view that philosophy has no practical use for students with real-world concerns and the economic necessity of finding a job; a deep distrust with “pure” intellectual pursuits; an increasing trend in colleges and universities to provide vocational training in which “useless” degrees have no place.  I could go on and on.  But what I am most interested in for this post is the divergence between what is said and what is done with regard to philosophy programs at colleges and universities.  Suppose I wanted to defend philosophy in the midst of this strange divergence between what academics and deans and provosts and presidents are saying about philosophy and what they are doing when they cut philosophy departments and majors.  What would I say?  After all, every one of the arguments I might marshal to my defense, they already agree with!  Arguments about historical importance, traditional value, institutional integrity (the so-far-unsuccessful “what is a university without a philosophy major?” argument) are not disputed by those closing philosophy departments.  Arguments about the importance of critical thinking, “big-picture” thinking, ethical awareness, and the draw of deep questions about our nature, origin and purpose – again, these arguments fall on sympathetic ears.  So how do you defend something that clearly is not in need of defense within the Academy and yet, even in spite of that sympathy, is still suffering?  This is the question I want to answer.

Suppose I assume – and I believe this to be true – that academic officials are acting in good faith when they agree to the importance and deep value of philosophy.  And suppose I assume – as I do – that in quite a few cases these cuts are motivated by an enforced need to attend to financial bottom-lines given the tightening budgets of nearly all colleges and universities.  In other words, if I grant reasonable good faith all around, what becomes clear is that there is an operative assumption that philosophy (and a philosophy major) cannot make money, cannot succeed financially, and is not a good investment of valuable education dollars all  things considered.  Happily, there are quite a few elements here that are empirical, and in many ways this is an empirical, not a conceptual, question.  If students are not enrolling in a philosophy major, is this a good investment of money, etc…

But I wonder: is there a financial defense of philosophy?  Suppose I assume all of the benchmarks of success that would make a major a worthwhile investment, both for colleges and for students: job potential, employability, earnings and earnings growth, and external measures of success and excellence…would a philosophy major succeed using these benchmarks?  If the concern is money, then why should we not ask whether there is money to be had in philosophy? 

I know, I know.  Certain dimensions of thinking and education are valuable beyond price.  The freedom and vitality of education should not be measured according to economic or vocational standards.  Philosophy transcends economic considerations in the value that it adds to our engagement with our lives, our cultures, and our communities.  Not only am I, as a professional philosopher, sympathetic to these claims, but so are those who are cutting philosophy programs.  So they’re off the table.  Granted as givens…but off the table. 

Is philosophy valuable?  Is it profitable when measured against financial benchmarks of success?  So far as I can see, no one has asked this question.  And I find that fascinating.  After all, even many philosophers accept the premise that philosophy cannot be profitable along economic lines, that as a major it asks colleges and students to invest in a long-term view of worth rather than short-term interests of employability and earnings potential.  I think that’s a lot to ask.  And I don’t think the premise has to be granted that philosophy is not financially feasible. 

So I decided to prove it. 

Stay tuned.  Part two will put forth the evidence I have in favor of the financial success of philosophy as a major.  But while you wait, I wrote an article, shortly to be published, where I make this argument as best I can.  If any would like a copy, let me know in the comments.  I’ll happily send it along.