Abstract
Feminist philosophers have challenged a wide range of gender injustices in professional philosophy. However, the problem of precarity, that is, the increasing numbers of contingent faculty who cannot find permanent employment, has received scarcely any attention. What explains this oversight? In this article, I argue, first, that academics are held in the grips of an ideology that diverts attention away from the structural conditions of precarity, and second, that the gendered dimensions of such an ideology have been overlooked. To do so, I identify two myths: the myth of meritocracy and the myth of work as its own reward. I demonstrate that these myths—and the two‐tier system itself—manifest an unmistakably gendered logic, such that gender and precarity are mutually reinforcing and co‐constitutive. I conclude that feminist philosophers have particular reason to organize against the casualization of academic work.
Highlights
Feminist philosophers have challenged a wide range of gender injustices in professional philosophy
One glaring injustice that has scarcely been mentioned in the annals of academic philosophy1 is the problem of contingent faculty who cannot find permanent employment
I argue, first, that philosophers are held in the grips of an academic ethos that obscures the structural conditions of precarity, and second, that the gendered dimensions of such an ideology have been overlooked
Summary
I begin with some terminology and assumptions. For simplicity’s sake, I focus on the US model as the starkest case, designating as “tenure-track” (TT) all faculty who are (or expect to be) employed on a permanent basis to perform research, teaching, and service. I am concerned with NTT faculty who aspire to but are unable to find TT or otherwise more secure employment, whom I refer to as “contingent.” Contingent faculty are often precarious in multiple senses Their employment depends on factors outside their control and is subject to frequent and unpredictable changes, of which they are sometimes notified only days in advance (Baldwin and Chronister 2001; Hart 2011; Waltman et al 2012). Tenure itself—once understood as necessary for protecting the integrity of academic research conceived of as a public good—has been largely rebranded as a private benefit awarded to meritorious individuals (Robinson 2010, 537) Against this background, it is clear that the attraction of contingent faculty lies in the fact that they are—as they have long felt and perceived—cheap, flexible, and disposable (Bousquet 2008; Brown, Goodman, and Yasukawa 2010). I want to consider the ideological aspects of precarity: why has precarity been neglected by many who are otherwise highly attuned to injustice? Why is it so difficult to organize concerted action against casualization? Third, I want to expose the gendered dimensions of precarity, which become apparent once we explore these questions
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
