Dan Levine posted the following comment on the discussion of queering the analytic/continental distinction. I thought it was important enough to have it's own thread. In the first comment I explain a bit of my thinking, but I have very little of substance to add.
Dan Levine wrote:
I hope this isn't a thread-jack, but your post has put me in mind of worries I have about 'sociological' divides beyond the analytic/synthetic one. So, take African philosophy (I suspect similar things apply to things like Native American philosophy, etc. but I'm not familiar with them). As I know Mark knows, I'm off to an African uni for a semester, and I'm bringing with me a stack of books requested for their department - and it turns out what they requested was 95% African philosophy, by which I mean not "philosophy that happens to be written by Africans or African-Americans," but "ditto, plus self-consciously on 'African' themes and with little discussion of European philosophical traditions." In addition, I've been asked by them in my time of contact for advice on Ph.D. programs in the US, which has often been awkward, since they've mostly wanted advice for students who want to study African philosophy (in the same sense), which is not well-represented at most departments I know of.
All of this leads to a similar sort of ghettoization of African philosophy that you talk about for continental (or "continental"). There are a few solid philosophers who just happen to be African (like Appiah) and a few who write mostly on issues that might be "African philosophy" in this sense but are in substantial contact with other traditions (like West), but lots and lots of folks who are writing almost entirely within a proscribed sphere with limited engagement with the broader philosophical community.
On the one hand, I think most of us are going to quickly agree that this is a problematic situation, for everyone involved. On the other, I can see why there would be some impulse from the African philosophy side to maintain it - I was at a conference, in Ghana, with about 90% African attendees, where one session looked like it might come to blows (seriously, like, shouting and making threatening body language) over the speaker's suggestion that Senghor and Nkrumah ought to be read as "real" political philosophers alongside Locke and Rousseau. So I could see, e.g., if I was really into Senghor, mostly wanting to hang out with the other folks into Senghor and not bothering to read much Rawls, let alone try to go talk to the Rawlsians about differences/similarities.
Given my "other hand" concern, I'm not sure what the best approach is for trying to bridge the gap. It seems reasonable to want to build up a sort of in-group of folks who share your concerns and respect for a non-mainstream set of philosophers, to improve your footing when you tilt with folks in the wider world. But it also seems really hard to avoid a sort of entrenchment/ghettoization or relegation of your work to doing a sort of history of philosophy status.
(Granted, I think this is similar but different from the state of continental philosophy in the US/Europe - there's enough weight, both in terms of writing readily available and folks working on it, to make it harder to justify someone wanting to circle the wagons around continental philosophy).
Recent Comments