In good ol’ philosophy fashion, we may ask, what is a club and what should a club be like? The following is merely a sketch of the NDUS (North Dakota State University) Philosophy attempt to answer those two questions.
The former question may be generically considered as an organization of people interested in the club’s content. Further and more interesting, are the two main types of clubs one may come across. The first is that of what I will call ‘professional’ or ‘career-orientated clubs.’ This is the type of club, in my experience, that names itself after a major or is closely related to a major at university, such as “Psychology Club,” “Criminal Justice Club,” or “Accounting Club.” The primary focus of these types of clubs is career opportunities, for instance, bringing in guest speakers from various jobs, networking, discussing career avenues, and preparing for graduate school. One who attends, say, an accounting club of this type, is not going for the love and interest in accounting for accounting’s sake, but to be better off after college.
In contrast to career clubs, there are what we may call ‘subject-matter clubs.’ Examples of these types are sports clubs, like a rock-climbing club. One attends a rock-climbing club for the love of the sport. Other examples would be an anime club, board game club, or running club. In these clubs the subject is the focus, whether one is watching, playing, or discussing the subject, professional or career opportunities/aspects rarely play a role in the club—the focus is on the heart of the club’s content for its own sake.
Regarding philosophy clubs, both types are available in modal form. NDSU Philosophy Club maintains that the latter is the better option, as our club has a shared commitment to the idea that philosophy is for everyone. To support this goal, our club is open to all and geared towards the expectation that everyone who walks in will have little to no academic philosophy experience.
One of the main concerns is how to make philosophy, something that often has the view of being abstract, esoteric, and only for those who have the privilege to think all day, accessible, interesting, engaging, and worth one’s time. Over the rest of this post, I will lay out our club’s guidelines for discourse, our structure of meetings, and how we present material in service of this goal.
The coming together of various people from different majors, life experiences, religions, genders, races, and more will naturally bring a wide range of views, perceived values, opinions, and hot takes. In order to have a productive rational discussion with a mix of people with conflicting views, our club operates on seven guidelines. We hammer them home by reminding the attendees of them every session. We must use the principle of charity, remember that topics can be emotionally charged, be respectful, try to stay on topic, not merely state our views but defend them with reasons, be committed to fallibilism, and finally have Good Sense. Good Sense is modeled from Hume’s use in his Standards of Taste. Essentially, we take it to mean one should continually cultivate the habits and virtues of the guidelines and always be aware of how well one is following them.
Philosophy being engaging and approachable is at the core of what we do. Present even in the structure of how we run meetings is centered around this idea. Our meetings typically run from 6:30 pm to 9 pm. This gives us roughly two and a half hours to go over the material and have discussions. What we have found to work well is splitting the time into a big group discussion at the start, then breaking into smaller group discussions in the middle, and ending the night by coming back together into the big group.
We do this to balance out the benefits and challenges of big or small group discussions. Another benefit is that two and a half hours of philosophy discussions can be a lot for most people. This breaks things up and is a great spot for respite, snacks, drinks, and side chatter.
A big group discussion provides a great opportunity for fresh and various ideas to be introduced. We start with the bigger general ideas at first to give us some grounding to work on. Let’s say the topic is on Redemption and Forgiveness and we present a cluster of questions like “What is Redemption?” “What is Forgiveness?” “How are they distinct?” Many ideas are put up on offer and it allows back-and-forth discussion from all angles to narrow down some problems with views, some better alternatives, or new takes that, as a single person, would be harder to come up with. This is the strength of big group discussions.
However, big group discussions have their own issues. People like to talk. Some people like only when they talk. The big group has a tendency to get dominated by a few very passionate members. Big groups can also be scary, especially for shy or new people. Many people are unsure of what they think and putting your idea out there for other people to chew on and come back at you with questions is a bit daunting.
Here we find where the strengths of small group discussions come in. Usually after 2-3 questions in the big group, we transition into small groups. Often, we do this by splitting people up based on how they respond to a dividing question. In the case of our Redemption and Forgiveness talk, we asked whether they think “people can change?” and supplied four rough answers to the question. We may sometimes put people with similar answers together or put people with opposing answers together. We could let people choose their own groups, or randomly assign people to a group but with the former, this can lead to people being left out, especially if someone attends alone. It was never fun being the person left when the teacher said to pair up into groups and you didn’t know anyone. The latter is just uninteresting. There’s a certain appeal to being with people with a similar view so that your similar views can get narrowed down and more precise and work out those kinks. There is also an appeal to be with someone who just does not think like you. This often provides a good discussion on some of the more fundamental ideas that leads to opposing views. In the end, this method of dividing by answer is at least more exciting.
In small groups, we find that people who are shy, new, or hesitant are far more likely to start talking than in the big group. Sometimes they are the most talkative! When you only have to talk to 3-4 other people, it is far less daunting. Also, within small groups, there is just more opportunity for sustained back-and-forth and more deliberation as you don’t have so many people trying to get in a word edgewise. We are also able to cover far more ground as people can talk through ideas a lot faster. These are the benefits of small groups.
Yet, they are not perfect either. There are tendencies for small groups to get sidetracked, lose focus/social cohesion, or become an echo chamber. A big group and various small groups both have benefits and issues and, by setting aside time, we can gain those benefits and switch things up as those issues start to creep in.
We think that having both groups contributes to making philosophy more engaging. It adds variety and offers multiple structures that each appeal to different people. We find that it makes it accessible as it also allows time to discuss and think things out, especially for those who may not be well-versed in a topic. In short, credence should be given to how a club is run, and it should be done in a way that makes the club more engaging, appeals to different people, and fun. This is part of the charge to make philosophy for everyone.
As important as the structure is the content. Getting people with little to no philosophy experience all on the same page to discuss a topic is indeed a challenge. Here, trade-offs are made. We know that we won’t be walking out of a club meeting with an answer, that isn’t our goal. What we do want people to walk away with is more questions than answers. A feeling of uncertainty. This is not to say confusion but an appreciation that they realized they knew less than they thought, especially on topics they had thought they knew well. Some Socratic humility. The topics we choose are ones that are familiar so that people feel like they have some beliefs on, and topics that matter to most everyone. So they’ll feel like they have some skin in the game. We don’t shy away from more “lofty” metaphysic topics, but we do make it clear how it connects to one’s life.
Lastly, on content, how a question is presented is just as important. The officers and I will often do a lot of research on a topic so that when we pose a question, we can present the core ideas or debates in the literature in a way that makes it seem like we’re just dealing with a regular question. An example of this is the question, “Can you take back forgiveness?” Something seemingly simple like this, once it gets started, opens the doors wide open on the idea of forgiveness. It seems easy to have an answer to that, and from there the discussion starts to shine a light on what we think forgiveness is, how it works, and what it entails. All without needing to have done any prior research by attendees.
The guidelines, structure, and the way material is presented all contribute to our club’s core idea of philosophy being for everyone. Every part matters.
The post Making a Club for Everyone first appeared on Blog of the APA.
Read the full article which is published on APA Online (external link)
