Thread by @tmbejan

In honour of a new academic year:

Why I find the word 'PROBLEMATIC' problematic:

A Thread

1. What do academics mean when we say (as we so often do) that some person or statement of affairs is PROBLEMATIC?

We're not saying that it's a problem.

Rather we're saying (or suggesting) that it rests UNEASILY with--or even violates--our prior commitments.

2. In political theory and philosophy, we often use 'problematic' as shorthand for saying that something is morally or politically objectionable, for some (as yet) unarticulated reason.

I have used it this way myself (see philpapers.org/rec/BEJFEO), as do many colleagues I admire.

3. But what are we *doing* when we designate something (or someone) as PROBLEMATIC, as opposed to 'morally or politically objectionable'?

Why don't we just *spell out* our reasons for objection in the first place?

4. We could say, for instance that it is (or they are):

- UNJUST or UNFAIR;
- RACIST, SEXIST, or otherwise bigoted;

- or maybe UNREASONABLE, WRONG-HEADED, or just plain WRONG.

5. I suspect that we don't do this because the word 'problematic' operates so effectively as an INNUENDO--

Or better, an *insinnuendo*

Rhetorically, it divides the audience between those who know ALREADY what *our* commitments are (often because they share them)...

6. And so are presumptively *IN THE KNOW* about what the speaker finds objectionable.

To this audience, 'problematic' indicates where the problem is, but they do not need to be told WHAT it is.

7. For those who don't *belong* to this community of judgment for whatever reason and so don't immediately grasp the objection...well:

The word 'problematic' conveys that *they themselves* are a PROBLEM!

8. It suggests that they had better get on-side, and quick -- whether they understand the objection or not.

In short: 'problematic' operates as an EXCLUSIONARY RHETORICAL STRATEGY.

9. Here, you may say:

'So? We are excluding the RIGHT PEOPLE.'

I say: 'How can you be *sure*?

Oh ye of little faith--in your students, and in yourself as a teacher!'

10. Because exclusionary rhetorical strategies like this are *disastrous* for learning.

They encourage a subtle sort of BULLYING in place of mutual justification or understanding.

They EXCLUDE, rather than EXPLAIN.

11. So: I object to the proliferation of 'problematic' in my discipline not *only* because it encourages SLOPPY THINKING and POOR COMMUNICATION among students and scholars alike...it does!

12. I object because it divides our audiences into in-groups and out-groups based on *unexpressed-yet-presumed* moral or political commitments.

By failing to express these as TEACHERS and SCHOLARS, we insulate ourselves from critique. We make ourselves *unchallengeable*

13. Moreover we suggest that those who don't share our particular judgments and commitments at the outset are *not worth* arguing with, let alone persuading!

In other words: We FAIL ourselves, our readers, and our students.

14. Such conversations may well teach students how to be (or how to SOUND) *righteous*.

But I don't think they encourage much learning or reflection on how to be *right*.

15: So the next time someone (including yours truly) dubs something PROBLEMATIC, your next question should always be:

How so?

This morning sermon may be of interest to @JoWolffBSG @CaitlinPacific @mrianleslie @sturmundstang and @danbutt whom I've owed an explanation!

also maybe @JTasioulas and @nescio13