This is part of a 3-part series. You can find the first and third posts here and here.

In my last post, I wrote about the referee crisis and its relationship to neoliberalism. In short, there’s a backlog of papers in the publication pipeline because there aren’t enough referees to review them. Why aren’t there enough referees? Part of the problem is that referees aren’t paid anything. Although tenured and tenure-track professors receive a salary that, in principle, covers professional service (alongside teaching and research), professional service is no more than 20% of their official workload, it encompasses many other tasks (e.g., speaking at events, hosting reading groups, serving on task forces, reviewing grant applications), it isn’t mandatory, and the most privileged academics do the least of it. Due to the referee crisis, editors resort to using grad students, adjuncts, and independent scholars (the ‘academic underclass’) as referees, even though they receive nothing for their service. 

This system forces the academic underclass into (de facto) unpaid internships with no professional benefit, since refereeing doesn’t count for anything on the job market. According to the Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA), internships are legal only if the intern is “the primary beneficiary of the arrangement.” Since underclass philosophers gain nothing by reviewing papers, it’s hard to square current editorial practice with the FLSA. Of course, unpaid referee gigs are not internships de jure, but instead something akin to volunteer work. Yet who amongst us applied for these thankless volunteer gigs? While most volunteer positions require an application, philosophers receive unsolicited referee requests in their email inboxes on a regular basis, often as early as grad school. (I started receiving them in the third year of my PhD, before I had even published anything or chosen a specialization). 

Perhaps the solution to the referee crisis is to stop asking underclass philosophers to referee…? This inside-the-box ‘solution’ would solve one structural injustice while exacerbating others. First, it would increase the publication rate of ‘sad beige philosophy,’ the hegemonic standpoints of an elite few (viz., the ‘securitariat’ who gatekeep philosophical discourse). If academic elites referee all the papers, they will approve of more papers that confirm their own disciplinary biases, reducing epistemic diversity in the field and accelerating the production of (what I have called) ‘sad beige philosophy’ (SBP). SBP is the philosophical version of ‘sad beige parenting,’ the trend whereby parents decorate their children’s playrooms in “drab monochrome” colors, most notably beige. (It’s not just parents who are adopting this trend – beigification can be seen in hotels, AirBNBs, workplaces… everywhere). 

Why beige? For one, it increases the resale value of the house. In an economy where the average American moves to a new address every five years, resale value matters. As a result, “your house is never a home but a commodity you’re waiting to sell when the market improves.” Beige is also conducive to short-term rentals (AirBNB). Beige, too, has come to symbolize the “suburban American dream” in the popular imagination due to marketing by “real estate agents…, HGTV,” and celebrities. Beige has become a “subtle signifier of wealth.” 

Image of a minimalist beige room with a beige sectional sofa with white pillows next to a plain end table with lamp on the right and a white door with white sheer curtains on the left.

In philosophy, SBP refers to the trend whereby academic elites publish drab, monochrome papers that reflect the inherited wisdom or ‘commonsense’ of the profession, papers that are seen as intuitive and objective, and that win funding, grants, and promotions. SBP has ‘resale value,’ it appeals to the rich, and it’s a subtle class signifier. SBP, as the aesthetic of the securitariat, is imposed on junior philosophers who may want to write something colorful, playful, and revolutionary, but are raised up in a sad, beige ‘playroom’ constructed by their forebears, i.e., an “exclusive club” of mostly able-bodied, white, cisgender men from the Global North. When the academic elite referee papers, they ensure a steady flow of their own W.E.I.R.D perspectives, which do not resonate with the majority of the global population. In doing so, they give their own work the illusion of objectivity and universality, ensuring that they can publish more of it in the future. Hence, the SBP trend continues.

Beigification is also a problem in electoral politics, and there are correlatives in philosophy, which ought to be democratic and procedurally fair but isn’t. Charlie Stross blames the failure of democracy on “the beige dictatorship” – that is, government by “reassuringly beige nobodies” who “have converged on a set of policies that they deem least likely to lose them an election.” The Beige Brigade is more interested in avoiding controversy than acting in the best interests of the public, at the risk of losing popular support. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have tacitly agreed to campaign on sad, beige policies that “support the status quo” rather than fostering meaningful change. (Trump may seem like an exception but his policies are continuous with America’s eugenic past). Hence, Americans confront a tragic dilemma. 

In academia, philosophers try to ‘game’ the system by publishing ‘safe’ papers in ‘top-tier’ journals – that is, journals specializing in “analytic philosophy of language, epistemology, metaphysics, and philosophy of mind, the so-called ‘Lemming’ subdisciplines” (DeCruz 2018: 23). The high concentration of Lemming publications harms both epistemic and demographic diversity – epistemic diversity because it crowds out alternative discourses, and demographic diversity because Lemming subjects are the historic dominion of privileged white men, who remain overrepresented in these areas. Because these sub-specializations confer cultural capital, they also appeal to rich donors and academic bureaucrats. In the neoliberal academy, “most philosophers tend to measure impact and demonstrate their worth to the managerial class in terms of publications in ‘top’ journals and bringing in grant money” (McKeown 2022: 107). Indeed, “academic praxis is now about obedience to bureaucratic authority and adding to the institution’s financial prosperity,” not “advancing human knowledge and cultural progress” (ibid.). Colorful philosophy is out, beige philosophy is in! 

The philosophical ‘beige dictatorship’ undermines democracy in the profession by reproducing dominant discourses and kowtowing to the managerial class, typically while paying lip service to diversity, inclusion, and equity. Elite philosophers have converged on a set of practices that they deem least likely to lose them a job, and these practices support the status quo rather than fostering structural change. Hence, the profession remains “depressingly white, male, able-bodied, middle/upper-class, and educated at a few elite Northern universities (McKeown 2022: 100). Rather than a rainbow, we get a beige sludge. 

Philosophy students are trained to participate in the beige brigade. They’re advised to specialize in marketable areas of specialization, not crip, addict, or Marxist philosophy (e.g.,). They’re warned about the risks of coming out of the closet as disabled, polyamorous, addicts, etc. They’re advised to showcase their publications and grants at the top of their CV, followed by teaching and professional service, consistent with colonial/patriarchal value systems that prioritize the written word over oral traditions and ‘genius’ over cooperation. When philosophers write reference letters, they’re cautioned to avoid feminine adjectives like “caring,” “compassionate,” and “helpful,” instead of interrogating the colonial/patriarchal norms that denigrate these prosocial qualities. Philosophers are encouraged to follow ‘commonsense’ conventions and avoid ‘ideological,’ ‘activist,’ and ‘polemical’ writing. In short, we are encouraged to assimilate into SBP rather than contest it.

Do tenured professors have the freedom to contest SBF? In theory yes, but in practice, tenured philosophers often jump from job to job, chasing money and prestige. If you’re always on the job market, you’re always beholden to the rules of the job market – rules that reward SBP. There are also grants, promotions, and other incentives to play it safe. While tenured elites might think that they’re the most liberated and creative ‘geniuses’ in the profession, the reality is that the ones who take the most risks don’t get jobs in the first place. The safe-bet philosophers are the ones who rise to the top, not the freaks and misfits.

Allowing clout-chasing academic elites to gatekeep academic journals is a terrible idea. While it would protect underclass philosophers from exploitation by editors, it would exacerbate the beigification of philosophy, while simultaneously reducing demographic diversity, democratic legitimacy, and accessibility. This ‘solution’ would do nothing to address these other structural injustices, which are effects of unjust editorial practices. 

The very fact that some people think that this could be a solution underscores the crisis of SBP. Making small changes within a corrupt, neoliberal system is a perfect example of sad, beige thinking. The only real solution to the referee crisis, and the beigification of academia, is collective resistance to neoliberalism, white supremacy, ableism, and interlocking systems of oppression. That is, the solution is not piecemeal reform but revolutionary activism. Piecemeal reform inserts elements of color into a beige landscape while keeping the beige palette intact. Revolutionary activism rejects rules of color combination from above. It aims for what Maria Lugones describes as a playful “world” in which no rule is “sacred” (1987: 16). Beigification is the result of too many people following a rulebook written by too few. Giving gatekeeping privileges to the small group of academic elites who won the “hunger games” of academia won’t change game, since winners have too much skin in the game.

Revolution will come from below, from the philosophical underclass, the queers, crips, and freaks.

 Solidarity.