Western philosophy departments must open their minds

Academic focus on ideas from a small range of European countries would not be tolerated in other disciplines, says Lloyd Strickland

三月 1, 2018
Lloyd Strickland
A statue of the philosopher Maimonides

There is nothing uniquely Western about humanity’s attempt to understand the world and our place in it. Yet prospective philosophy students comparing university prospectuses will quickly find that the vast majority of Western departments completely ignore the long-standing and esteemed philosophical traditions in China, Japan, India, the Muslim world and Africa.

In 2016, Bryan W. Van Norden and Jay Garfield carried out a survey of philosophy departments throughout the US and were dismayed to find that most focused exclusively on philosophy derived from Europe and the English-speaking world. In the UK, the situation is even worse. Most departments do not offer modules in American philosophy, while even what they describe as “European Philosophy” is much more parochial than the name implies, focusing almost exclusively on thinkers from Ancient Greece, the UK, France and Germany.

If a geography, history or politics department were to offer a similarly narrow syllabus, we would probably think that it was not fit for purpose. The same should be true of philosophy.

Diversification is desirable for a number of reasons. It makes good strategic sense in that it would contribute to some of the more laudable commitments routinely adopted by Western universities, such as to promote diversity and to help students grow into “global citizens”. It makes good societal sense, as it could help to address the high dropout rates of ethnic minority students, which a recent report by the Social Market Foundation blames in part on a “lack of cultural connection to the curriculum”. And, above all, it makes good pedagogical sense, enriching the curriculum with the thought of such luminous figures as China’s Fazang, Ethiopia’s Zera Yacob and the Jewish philosopher Maimonides.

But diversifying the curriculum will not be easy as the roots of philosophy’s parochialism run deep. For example, they run right through the Quality Assurance Agency’s 2015 Subject Benchmark Statement, which sets out expectations for philosophy degrees in the UK. The statement starts well, rightly noting that “philosophy has been practised for thousands of years, and in many different cultures, giving rise to a diversity of traditions”, but the remainder of the document makes no reference to the philosophy of different cultures, and alludes merely to the analytic and continental “traditions”, both of which fall squarely within Western philosophy. We can only hope that the next iteration of the statement abandons this parochialism by including a strong commitment to the inclusion of non-Western voices. Sadly, it is not due to be published until 2022.

However, it should not require a nudge from a quango to prompt philosophers to diversify their courses. The discipline of philosophy has, in fact, shown itself quite capable of effecting positive change through its own initiative. For example, in recent years there have been attempts to diversify the curriculum by including the work of more female philosophers. While there is still progress to be made on this issue, momentum is building.

In the shorter term, Western philosophy academics should read up on how non-specialists can teach various non-Western philosophies (there are many relevant articles in a journal called Teaching Philosophy). This would allow them to start to integrate these ideas into pre-existing modules, not as token curios but as ideas to be taken as seriously as any other. This can easily be done in various areas of philosophy, including ethics, political philosophy, philosophy of mind, metaphysics and philosophy of religion. My own tentative attempts have been well received by students.

In the longer term, departments should look to develop dedicated modules on specific areas of non-Western thought. But having those taught by specialists in Western philosophy like me is very much a second-best solution. A more sustainable and effective way of diversifying the curriculum would be to change hiring practices to seek candidates who can at least teach some form of non-Western philosophy – and, better still, do research on it, too.

Such a change would be easy to make, but would pay dividends in terms of strengthening and enhancing the curriculum, and ensuring that philosophy maintains its relevance in the years ahead.

Lloyd Strickland is a reader in philosophy in the department of history, politics and philosophy at Manchester Metropolitan University.

阅读更多相关文章
阅读更多相关文章: 
Humanities
Teaching and learning

后记

Print headline: One-track minds

请先注册再继续

为何要注册？

  • 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.

Reader's comments (2)

#1 Submitted by canyouseeit on 三月 23, 2018 - 10:49pm
There are interesting diverse systems of thought worth including in philosophy education, but I doubt Western lecturers are going to be goaded into deep reading of multiple translations of obscure texts from unfamiliar cultural contexts to tease out the nuanced points of view required to legitimately take non-Western ideas "as seriously as any other". I think the author's time would have be better spent spreading ideas on how to include specialists with diverse view points and academics from other cultures. Or better yet, publishing material engaged with their work, rather than accusing his colleagues of xenophobia – this is almost a replica of the linked NYT article. It's hard to read these articles without seeing the "white saviour" trope playing out. How many departments in the non-Western world have courses dedicated to thinkers and ideas from other non-Western countries? How many non-Western researchers have cared enough to gather this information and be dismayed by it? Perhaps nothing is more Western than asserting sole responsibility for the flourishing of other cultures, and as a non-Westerner, I find it quite patronising and colonial – albeit in a trendy post-post-colonial way. These accusations of neglectfulness unkindly disregard the practical and cognitive difficulties in faithfully bridging diverse reference points (especially if the named luminous theologians are meant to be representative – especially if one lacks the ideological zeal) and infantalises the cultures apparently suffering this neglect. Intellectual trade, not aid! If there are no specialists available, I'd rather spend a semester with a moderately well-versed one-track mind than the disinterested dilettante's musings on Ethiopian apologetics, however ennobling the later situation might make us both feel. Additionally, it's blatantly false to suggest that, "If a geography, history or politics department were to offer a similarly narrow syllabus, we would probably think that it was not fit for purpose." A glance at the names in a textbook from any subject also refutes this – or better yet, publication and citation stats on this website. The cited SMF report quoting “lack of cultural connection to the curriculum” as a key reason for minorities dropping out of other subjects also suggests otherwise. The fields mentioned in the article are diverse in content but not viewpoint; in Geography (literally the study of the world) all the standard projections place its Western creators on the psychologically significant top of the globe, we're often taught only Western names for various features, populations are analysed with Western assumptions, etc. History is the worst possible example, as it's the main academic scapegoat for anti-Eurocentrism and anti-patriarchism. Pretty much any language-based cultural artefacts consumed in any "lingosphere" will tend to be produced by the lingosphere – provided it has the productivity to satisfy demand. The best way to demonstrate the richness of the work of other groups is by engaging with them deeply and critically like you would any other work, thereby exposing them to other professionals. Put your money where your mouth is instead of merely name-dropping random theologians in polemical articles. Who will join me now in protest of the underrepresentation of the longstanding and esteemed musical traditions of Native American, Eastern European and Pacific Islander peoples in drive-time radio?
#2 Submitted by J Rodriguez on 三月 27, 2018 - 7:24pm
Exactly. Prof. Strickland (the article author) is publishing a lot on Leibniz, is he citing papers on Leibniz by non-Westerners? Seems there is more interest in preaching multiculturalism than taking intelectuals from other cultures seriously.. superficial politics that says "virtue-signalling". Maybe he also should wear traditional dress from the other cultures to show the students when he gives the lectures on how "oppressed people are clever too".

您可能也喜欢