Philosophy for What and Whom?
Note: Continuing the Miami Institute’s philosophy forum, Michael McEachrane shares a slightly edited version of a panel presentation he gave at the second ‘AICRE+Philosophy’ webinar on February 15th. For more on the University of California, Irvine initiative AICRE+Philosophy, with whom the Miami Institute has co-curated this forum on the field of philosophy, please see Tiffany Willoughby-Herard’s post, “AICRE + Philosophy—Picking up a Dropped Stitch in the Humanities.” Please follow this link to register for the the third and concluding session of the AICRE+Philosophy series taking place on April 28th.
I have decided to call this brief presentation, “Philosophy for What and Whom?” which I believe is a critical, but not widely asked question for Philosophy to ask itself. This is true of Philosophy in general, not least when considering the increased emphasis at the University of California, Irvine and other universities on being socially responsible, relevant and engaged. Moreover, with respect to the theme of the AICRE + Philosophy webinar, it is true regarding the relevance of race, racial justice and equity to American Philosophy and universities writ large.
To directly address the specific context of the AICRE + Philosophy lecture series, I will use as a reference point the Department of Philosophy at UCI and the Vision, Mission and Strategic Pillars of UCI of equity, inclusion and social service. Not to put the Department of Philosophy and UCI uniquely on the spot, but as examples that are both directly relevant and illustrative of broader issues across the US and other parts of the world.
The Vision, Mission and Strategic Pillars of UCI reflect, as they should, the guiding values and principles of the university. For instance, the first strategic pillar of UCI calls for research that makes a difference in the world, in how we look at and act in it; the second pillar calls on the university to enrich the minds and spirits of its students, prepare them for productive lives and empower them to make the strongest possible contributions to our world; whereas the third pillar calls on the university to serve, engage and collaborate with the community in an inclusive manner. The fourth pillar is mostly concerned with the financial and institutional sustainability of the university.
In recognition of the centrality of higher education in producing and reproducing a knowledge-based society, the social responsibilities of universities, perhaps especially of public universities funded by tax payers as well as the growing demands—in my mind legitimate demands, but for reasons I’ll mention seldom consequential ones—for research to have a social impact, be available to the public and ethically responsible, the avowed objectives of UCI are indeed excellent ones.
However, their successful attainment requires a form of self-reflection which, I dare say, is rare in academia or at least typically not considered fundamental to it: that is, reflecting on the social values of research, questions and topics, if and how they so to speak “make a difference,” where, when and to whom.
To what extent UCI practices what it preaches and makes sure that such reflections are an integral and fundamental part of its knowledge production and curriculum, I do not know. However, I would be as delighted as I would be surprised if such practices actually are mainstreamed at UCI, maybe even are requirements for researchers and subject to reporting and monitoring.
For example, what if it was common practice for researchers at UCI and elsewhere to reflect and elaborate on the following question: “Of the endless amount of research questions and topics that you could have chosen, why did you choose this one—do you have an idea of why and how it might be of value to people?” Such questions may be considered existentially fundamental to pursuits of knowledge, though it is arguably not a part of mainstream academic culture to be in the habit of asking them.
The reasons for this may be many and are open to speculation. For example, in part, it may be due to ideals of science as value-neutral or -free even in its motivations and possible applications; ideals of academic freedom where researchers and students should be free to pursue any knowledge they want irrespective of whatever values may or may not be ascribed to it (perhaps as long as it’s not directly harmful); and, the idealization of academic research as inherently of high value, not least the works of canonized thinkers and particular topics as is the case in Philosophy, which perhaps more than any other academic discipline is based on intellectual canonization.
Regarding Philosophy, be it at UCI or elsewhere, we need to begin asking ourselves what its questions and topics are for; whom they serve; what they serve; and how. This is not merely critical to the social efficacy of Philosophy in general, but to a Philosophy that is mindful of how it may or may not be of value and to whom—including how it may or may not be racially inclusive and flexible enough to address the needs of anyone irrespective of their racial, ethnic, cultural or national background and/or whatever socially salient needs there may be with respect to such backgrounds.
What I am calling for here is a Philosophy that does not seek to increase its “diversity” merely by adding it on to the curriculum and faculty as it were, but to treat such aspirations as integral to an open-ended process of striving to be socially relevant and significant. This will also mean opening up to a willingness to discuss the social values of even the most canonized Philosophical interests and topics without taking the value of any of it for granted.
Unless we do this, we run the risk of conceiving of White European Philosophy as the real, undoubtedly important and even universal Philosophy against which non-White European Philosophies are to be measured, judged and included as an addition in the name of diversity or excluded as irrelevant and/or sub-standard. This risk is real in contemporary American Philosophy, where there is a growing recognition of the need to give room to non-White European Philosophies such as Africana, Asian, Native/Indigenous American and Latin American Philosophies.
In many US Philosophy Departments, you will now find “Non-Western Philosophy” included in the curriculum, either with alternative Non-Western views on a given topic such as the nature of the Mind or Religion as seems to be the case at UCI and/or as freestanding courses, such as a course on so-called “Asian Philosophy” as also seems to be the case at UCI, sometimes taught by Professors who specialize in a given Non-Western Philosophy. In addition, it is becoming increasingly popular in the US to recognize the need to include the Philosophy of Race as well as Gender as subject areas of research and teaching. In the case of UCI, philosophy of gender seems to be included in the curriculum, but not race. Albeit these developments towards “diversifying” philosophy are small steps towards creating a Philosophy that is socially equitable, inclusive and valuable: It will by default not go all the way in creating such Philosophy.
What I am calling for here is similar to, but broader than, calls in some pockets of contemporary American Philosophy to “decolonize” it. According to such calls, mainstream American Philosophy needs to question its Eurocentric interests, curricular design and contents; its universal and equal relevance to all human beings; its lack of persons of color in its faculties and reading lists; its absence of interrogating its contributions to racist ideas and practices; and its lack of engagement with the particular situations, experiences and traditions of people of color. All this strikes me as true and fair. However, I would add that at heart and fundamentally this has to do with developing a Philosophy that is socially relevant, significant and equitable.
Trying to achieve a socially relevant, significant and equitable field of Philosophy can be a painstaking process, especially if one is of the view that White European Philosophy is of indisputable and supreme value, as it is, without any further need for discussion or qualification. On the other hand, if one is willing to admit that at the very least the indisputable and supreme value of White European Philosophy might need to be explained, then we may have the beginning of a much-needed conversation.
For such a conversation to be open and truthful, we may need to face some truths that may be experienced as hard or otherwise uncomfortable. For example, we may want to ask ourselves what it says about the UCI Department of Philosophy, its practice of Philosophy and perhaps US Philosophy in general that—although it is nearly gender equal—it seems to be all-white or nearly all-white? What has made it possible for a university, on former Acjachemen and Tongva ancestral lands at the Pacific Ocean near the US-Mexican border in a highly racially and ethnically diverse state with a high percentage of Hispanics, to not have any of this reflected in its faculty, research interests or curriculum, but at the same time have an international Pan-European faculty with members from the US, Germany, Italy and the UK? You may find—or at least be willing to carefully consider—that this state of affairs is connected to histories and legacies of colonialism, racialized oppression and exclusion. You may also find that in order to be socially responsible and relevant to the context of UCI, its students and communities, considering such histories and legacies should be part of the Department’s efforts to develop.
The ethos of such reflections that I am calling for here may be described in terms of the Xhosa and Zulu term “Ubuntu” to stress the social values and aspects of knowledge production in ways that honor our social and environmental interconnectedness. A shout out to my fellow panelist here, José Cossa. The urgency of developing knowledge, curriculums and global citizens that speak to our social and environmental interconnectedness can hardly be overstated.
The reflections that I am calling for here are also similar to the US Pragmatism of John Dewey and William James. Although not wedded to Dewey’s assumption that the genuine source of philosophical reflection is social difficulties, nor to James “difference-principle” that the values or significances of knowledge pursuits is the difference they make to our lives and societies, I agree that reflecting on the social values of Philosophy and other academic knowledge productions should be integral to it. Furthermore, I stress that such self-reflection in whatever field we belong needs to be done by carefully examining the roles that the topics we choose to study and teach play in our lives as a way of examining what they may or may not mean to us, how, when, and for whom.
-Michael McEachrane
A prominent voice in Black European Studies and a seasoned international advocate for the human rights of people of African descent at the European Union and United Nations, Dr. Michael McEachrane is the editor of Afro-Nordic Landscapes: Equality and Race in Northern Europe (2014) and author of “Universal Human Rights and the Coloniality of Race in Sweden” (2018). McEachrane has a PhD (Philosophy) from Åbo Akademi University, Findland. For a list of McEachrane’s publications, please follow this link.
