I suggest CEA should become a fee-paying members’ society that democratically elects its officers—much like the America Philosophical Association does.
Okay, but the American Philosophical Association “was founded in 1900 to promote the exchange of ideas among philosophers, to encourage creative and scholarly activity in philosophy, to facilitate the professional work and teaching of philosophers, and to represent philosophy as a discipline” with a modern mission as follows ” promotes the discipline and profession of philosophy, both within the academy and in the public arena. The APA supports the professional development of philosophers at all levels and works to foster greater understanding and appreciation of the value of philosophical inquiry.” Seems like a membership structure works well.
Or if it were a charity that ultimately had a global mission, I’d hardly expect their mission to best be served by giving as much decision-making power to an intern as a co-founder, even if the charity had a lot of power over the lives of their staff (which presumably it would).
Besides, the APA is just one example of a centralized service in analytic philosophy—Will lists several others, none of which seem democratically run to me (but I admit I haven’t checked[1]).
The more central something is, the more often we think it should be democratically controlled. The obvious example of this is the state. It has a big impact on our lives, it’s a natural monopoly, so we tend to think democracy is good to make it accountable. Rule of thumb, then: central role, decentralised control.
Yes, it’s the obvious example. The state is extremely different to EA. It’s generally hard-to-impossible to escape the state you’re born into and it has an enormous effect of your life. I don’t think you should adopt a rule of thumb “central role, decentralised control” based on the example with the strongest case for democracy.
Edit: If you want to judge for yourselves, the other examples are journals; the Philosophical Gourmet Report—which surveys ‘leading’ philosophers—and a competitor; the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; a range of services created by two philosophers; surveys of journal rankings; two news aggregator blogs.
Fair—but you probably wouldn’t pick EA’s structure either.
We like our current main billionaires, but from an ex ante perspective relying on billionaires to discern who the right leaders and technocrats are seems dicey. And of course, from the ex post perspective, we’ve had one awfully bad billionaire.
Okay, but the American Philosophical Association “was founded in 1900 to promote the exchange of ideas among philosophers, to encourage creative and scholarly activity in philosophy, to facilitate the professional work and teaching of philosophers, and to represent philosophy as a discipline” with a modern mission as follows ” promotes the discipline and profession of philosophy, both within the academy and in the public arena. The APA supports the professional development of philosophers at all levels and works to foster greater understanding and appreciation of the value of philosophical inquiry.” Seems like a membership structure works well.
If, on the other hand, the APA’s mission was to “help solve the greatest philosophical problems of our time by supporting philosophers” or some such, I personally think that a more meritocratic approach seems like a better fit. It’s certainly not obvious to me that a democratic membership structure would be superior.
Or if it were a charity that ultimately had a global mission, I’d hardly expect their mission to best be served by giving as much decision-making power to an intern as a co-founder, even if the charity had a lot of power over the lives of their staff (which presumably it would).
Besides, the APA is just one example of a centralized service in analytic philosophy—Will lists several others, none of which seem democratically run to me (but I admit I haven’t checked[1]).
Yes, it’s the obvious example. The state is extremely different to EA. It’s generally hard-to-impossible to escape the state you’re born into and it has an enormous effect of your life. I don’t think you should adopt a rule of thumb “central role, decentralised control” based on the example with the strongest case for democracy.
Edit: If you want to judge for yourselves, the other examples are journals; the Philosophical Gourmet Report—which surveys ‘leading’ philosophers—and a competitor; the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; a range of services created by two philosophers; surveys of journal rankings; two news aggregator blogs.
Fair—but you probably wouldn’t pick EA’s structure either.
We like our current main billionaires, but from an ex ante perspective relying on billionaires to discern who the right leaders and technocrats are seems dicey. And of course, from the ex post perspective, we’ve had one awfully bad billionaire.