A senior philosopher writes:
I've been a long-time APA member and I have to say that my membership was an overall plus to my career. For example, a co-author was someone I just happened to meet in an elevator in Chicago, and we became life-long friends and collaborators. But I have to say that Mohan Matthen's comment: "Election would, of course, depend on name recognition." depressed me. I have been nominated on several occasions for committee work, and even self-nominated a couple of times. I never was selected of course, because, well, I'm a relative nobody. Still, I had some demonstrable chops, and wanted to contribute. But it didn't happen because I had no real "name recognition" in the profession. No way I want to get into the APA fray now though. But I think there are tons of great people--not with "name recognition" though--who could be solid contributors to correct the real plight that the APA is currently in. Effective participation in the workings of the APA should not be some sort of American Philosophical Idol contest, especially since they take every minion's money for dues and passage, but only allow "stars" to steer the ship. Perhaps mere nomination by name is not enough--maybe there should be a process not unlike hiring--with CVs and "serving statements"--that ought be reviewed and considered somehow--with a form of affirmative action for good people who aren't big names. Yes, more work for some people, but maybe also fairer representation for us nobodies.
This is in no way a criticism of Professor Matthen, who simply described, alas correctly, the existing state of affairs. So let me encourage more "nobodies" to self-nominate and to reach out to me if you're on board with reforming the APA. Perhaps the "nobodies" might even be more focused on the crucial issues and core functions than the current leadership?
Recent Comments