Tuesday, April 16, 2019
Taking Back Philosophy
My review of Bryan W. Van Norden's book Taking Back Philosophy: A Multicultural Manifesto is, for a limited time, available here. Basically, I agree with him that Western philosophy departments should either rename themselves as such (rather than as simply philosophy departments) or else teach more non-Western philosophy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting review of a book taking up an interesting issue. But whether we ought to require philosophy departments to self-identify as Western only or something else, seems to go too far.
ReplyDeleteCertainly philosophers in all departments ought to be open to thinking from other cultures and traditions, if and when that thinking has a bearing on theirs (as it often does). But labeling departments in such a narrow way seems a mistake precisely because philosophy, whatever its tradition, ought to be open to any other tradition that has something to say to it.
Ethics, for instance, cannot be fully addressed without taking into account how other cultures have handled such matters. Confucianist or Buddhist approaches are surely relevant as are any other approaches derived from or found within other cultures. But philosophy first of all has to work within a tradition and cannot be everything at once as you note:
If Plato says one thing, Aristotle another, then Aquinas tries to improve on Aristotle, an early modern rationalist responds to this, an empiricist responds to that, and so on, then we have a tradition of thought in which non-Western voices do not arise. They simply are not part of that dialogue. Of course it might be both possible and beneficial to try to bring them in, but it might not be. Philosophers from other traditions might simply respond to different questions and different texts. Even if we could determine what the best Aztec philosophers would have said about Kant, for instance, it is by no means certain that they would have had much to say (if their interests lay in issues that did not much concern Kant) or that their contribution to the debate would have been fruitfully different from the many responses to Kant that have come from Western philosophers. In short, without thinking in any way that Western philosophy is better than other philosophy, one might believe that studying Western philosophy is enough (no one can study everything) and that attempts to bring other traditions into dialogue with it might not be worth the effort.
But I think it makes little sense to limit a philosophy department to any one tradition (though it is probably helpful to identify the traditions actually focused on in any given department).
If philosophy is actually a discipline that is "under attack from many quarters," as you write, then it does make sense to look for ways to make it more relevant. And surely expanding the zone of works considered makes sense. But I, at least, would suggest that it seems a very bad idea to seek to turn philosophy into a new iteration of ethnic studies.
Philosophy, by its very nature should be open to all comers, all thinking on matters of human experience and existence. Labeling a department "Western Philosophy" and thereby excluding other possibilities (even where the department has not realized those other possibilities in its faculty) looks like the very sort of narrowing which the book's author is concerned about. All philosophy should be open to all the possibilities, not delimited by artificial barriers and borders. If philosophy is, indeed, under attack in the universities, the way to address that is to be more inclusive in practice rather than narrower in labeling.
Thanks. I certainly don't think that philosophy should be some kind of ethnic studies, for the reasons you give. And I also agree that it would be better to be more inclusive in practice than narrow in labeling. But if a philosophy department really is going to teach only Western philosophy, then maybe they should say so. They could always change the name if they ever become more inclusive in future.
DeleteSince philosophy, as an academic business, is under attack, one way to defend it would be to appeal to non-philosophers politically. But if the appeal is aimed at the politically conservative it can expect push-back from the left, and vice versa. So being either more inclusive (as liberals are likely to want) or more traditionally Western (as conservatives are likely to want) is a dangerous game. It's probably best just to keep the labeling as honest and apolitical as possible. But I do think that more non-Western philosophy should be taught.
I agree about the need to teach more non-Western philosophy but should it be done in some formalized way? Better just to expose students to the possibilities and hire faculty with an interest, or expertise, in a broader array of traditions. On my view at least, philosophy is philosophy, whether western or eastern, southern or northern. We all face the same kinds of questions (even if we express them in culturally different ways and focus on different areas of interest). After all western philosophers have been aware of and open to other traditions (e.g., Schopenhauer) and I've seen many in the east who have become increasingly interested in western philosophical ideas and traditions.
DeletePerhaps a way around the problem lies in the enhancing description of the department rather than altering its "official" designation or label? E. g., "Philosophy" and then some shortish statement about the areas of emphasis currently available in the courses on offer, a statement subject to change with the change in faculties and interests.
Segmenting philosophy according to regions of development or their traditions is to artificially segment the field. No philosopher worth his or her salt can afford to ignore others' ideas.
Just my two cents for what it's worth from a non-academic with an abiding interest in this kind of stuff.
Yes, I think we're pretty much on the same page. I'm somewhat torn because, on the one hand, I don't think it would be unreasonable if a philosophy department in China focused on Chinese philosophy and one in India focused on Indian philosophy. With that in mind, maybe it's OK for Western philosophy departments to focus on Western philosophy. On the other hand, as you say, we shouldn't just ignore other traditions. So I think that any department that decides to do so (for good reasons or bad) should perhaps acknowledge in its name that it is a department of only one kind of philosophy.
DeleteMostly, though, I prefer what I think both you and Van Norden prefer, i.e., that philosophy departments simply call themselves philosophy departments and do not limit themselves to only one tradition, even if they do focus more on one than the others.