This morning at the APA Pacific there was a wide-ranging discussion on the topic of diversity in philosophy journals. The session was chaired by Eric Schwitzgebel, who introduced it as possibly the largest panel ever at the Pacific APA, featuring 7 presenters including Manyul Im, and 15 journal editor-panelists including Franklin Perkins. The audience was also substantial. Continue reading →
The 2017-18 Philosophical Gourmet Report (PGR) has been released here. It includes “specialty rankings” for various areas, including Chinese philosophy. This year, for the first time, I was invited to be among the evaluators, and after wrestling with this a bit, decided to give it a try. As explained at the top of this page, evaluators see lists of faculty and then choose one of the following categories:
- 0 – Inadequate for a PhD program
- 1 – Marginal
- 2 – Adequate
- 3 – Good
- 4 – Strong
- 5 – Distinguished
Evaluators can do this for the program overall, and then for the various specialties. I chose to only rank the Chinese philosophy specialty (I did not select overall rankings). The vast majority I assigned a score of 0. I believe that the highest score I gave was a 3. Programs that have one or even two specialists can be — other things being equal — good places to study. But in my judgment there are no English-language programs that merit “strong” or “distinguished” rankings. In my view, that would take multiple specialists, and others with cognate interests, in the context of an overall strong and supportive department. We may get there one day, but we’re not there yet.
I have mixed views about this whole rankings thing, which has been discussed before on the blog. What we have tried to do here at Warp, Weft, and Way is provide as much objective information about graduate study as possible. But since PGR exists and I was invited to take part, I decided to give it a try.
One other thing. As Bryan Van Norden (another evaluator, and also someone on the Advisory Board) explains here, PGR policy is that programs need to have a certain minimum overall score in order to be ranked. Programs with significant “specialty” strengths but without the minimum overall score end up being listed as “Additional programs not evaluated this year but recommended for consideration by the Advisory Board.” I agree with Bryan’s sentiment that the programs listed under this rubric are as strong as the ones officially ranked, and thus disapprove of this policy, which I find to be highly misleading.
Bryan Van Norden is interviewed about his new book Taking Back Philosophy: A Multicultural Manifesto by Dan Kaufman. Some of the topics:
- Just how Euro-centric are American philosophy departments, anyway?
- Is racism baked into Western philosophy?
- A brief account of Western dalliances with Eastern thought
- Why new movements in philosophy must kill their ancestors
- Why do philosophy departments stay white? Subtle self-selection, Bryan says
- Is philistinism killing philosophy as a discipline?
The Department of East Asian Languages & Civilizations at the University of Pennsylvania is delighted to announce an interdisciplinary symposium in honor of Nathan Sivin at Perry World House, 3803 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104, on Oct. 14-15, 2017.
The symposium is free and open to the public, but pre-registration is required. Just click here if you’d like to attend:
I post here Matthew Haug’s NDPR review of the new Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Methodology in order to highlight two things: (1) the decision by the editors of the Handbook not to include any non-Western philosophy or methodology; and (2) Haug’s extensive discussion of this fact, including the editors’ discussion of their decision (see the two paragraphs near the beginning, starting with “I’d also like to comment on the politically fraught issue…”). Interestingly, Haug himself says “Full disclosure: I edited a (less comprehensive) volume on philosophical methodology that also neglects non-Western traditions, for no good reason.” Clearly, he has come to regret that decision on his part.
The Student Union at SOAS (the School of Oriental and African Studies, part of the University of London) has issued their annual statement of their desired “Educational Priorities,” and one of them, “Decolonising SOAS: Confronting the White Institution,” has created a stir because of its demands concerning philosophy:
- “To make sure that the majority of the philosophers on our courses are from the Global South or it’s diaspora. SOAS’s focus is on Asia and Africa and therefore the foundations of its theories should be presented by Asian or African philosophers (or the diaspora).”
- “If white philosophers are required, then to teach their work from a critical standpoint. For example, acknowledging the colonial context in which so called “Enlightenment” philosophers wrote within.”
Media reports on this document have been full of hysterical criticism of “political correctness,” including a quote from Sir Roger Scruton announcing that “If they think there is a colonial context from which Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason arose, I would like to hear it.” Apparently Sir Roger is not familiar with Peter Park’s excellent book, Africa, Asia, and the History of Philosophy: Racism in the Formation of the Philosophical Canon, 1780–1830.
This column takes a more balanced view — noting in particular that the only degree in philosophy at SOAS is in “World Philosophy,” through the Department of Religions and Philosophies. Indeed, if one looks at the course of study for the BA in World Philosophy, it’s somewhat difficult to believe that the majority of philosophers studied aren’t already from “the Global South or its diaspora.”
In case you missed it, Nicholas Tampio recently published a short piece in Aeon explaining why he thinks Confucius (among other non-Western thinkers) should not be regarded as a philosopher, with implications for the philosophy curriculum and the makeup of philosophy faculties. This is a response to the recent New York Times piece by Jay Garfield and Bryan Van Norden. Tampio and Van Norden subsequently exchanged tweets on the topic. Amy Olberding replies thoroughly and with humor here, and Ethan Mills responds on behalf of Indian philosophy here.
Where to begin?
In response to my posting about archiving my papers, Brian Bruya and I had a bit of correspondence about the differences among home-grown archive sites (like the “WesScholar” site I am using) and others, such as Academia.edu, ResearchGate, PhilPapers, and perhaps others. Brian also pointed me toward this very interesting discussion of the pros- and cons- of various options. Just a couple days ago, a colleague in anthropology told me that in her field, it was very common to post everything — including PDFs of published articles, which I think violates the policies of most journals — on Academia.edu. The advantages in terms of ease of access are pretty obvious, although see the discussion referenced above for some downsides of just using Academia (or, perhaps, any single approach).
Brian himself uses a homegrown arching mechanism, as does Hagop Sarkissian:
I’d be interested in: (1) links to any other on-line sources of work in Chinese and/or comparative philosophy, and (2) any further thoughts about these topics.
Eric Schwitzgebel has published an Op-Ed in the LA Times entitled “What’s Missing in College Philosophy Classes? Chinese Philosophers.” If you are interested in more details about this subject, be sure to look at Brian Bruya’s article in the latest issue of Dao, “The Tacit Rejection of Multiculturalism in American Philosophy Ph.D. Programs: The Case of Chinese Philosophy.”