|
July 29, 2003
This article, from the Chronicle of Higher Education is a snap of the state of play in Anglo-American philosophy in the UK and the US. It is quite interesting. It suggests that U.S. philosophers are more open to interdisciplinary work than are philosophers in the U.K, and it identifies a resistance to the melding conceptual work with empirical work (by philosophers who think that philosophy is aligned with, and a part of, science rather than literature).
Now what catches my eye is different from what most academic philosophers would highlight from the text. My eye was caught by the article saying that what concerned the interviewed academics the most is academic philosophy's lack of engagement with the public issues. The article says:
'In a recent survey for The Philosophers' Magazine, a staggering 77 percent of academic philosophers from across the Anglophone world agreed with the statement, "Philosophers should do more to address the concerns of society." Of the 10 questions in the survey, that elicited the strongest response.'
The desire to reach out beyond the ivy covered walls of academe to the public world is not a new one. It has been there from the very beginning--with Greeks and the Romans. (Socrates, Plato, Seneca, Cicero etc) It was a modernist analytic philosophy that is the aberration: it self-consciously turned its back on that classical rhetorical tradition when it decided that philosophy needed to become professional and a part of natural science. You can trace the Anglo-American analytic concern with philosophy as a part of science back to Descartes and Hobbes.
Academic philosophy in Australia has been slow to re-engage with public affairs. It lags way behind what is happening in the US. Australian philosophy re-engages with public affairs under the label of applied philosophy, and it's most successful engagement with public issues is in the field of bioethics.
The Chronicle of Higher Education article then usefully suggests that ther have been two ways by which academic philosophy has re-engaged with public affairs:
"There are two broad models of how such engagement might best be achieved: what I call the participatory and the contributory. In the participatory model, academics engage in real-world problems by becoming members of the institutions that are directly involved with those problems. In the contributory model, academics remain in academe, but issue documents, books, and papers that are supposed to contribute to public life."
The contributory model is the one followed in Australia. The participatory one is still frowned on, eg., philosophy participating in public life on the model of the Romans such as Cicero or Seneca. Moreover, the work that is done in public life does not earn much in the way of academic kudos. It is seen as inferior.
This is still looking at the issue through the eyes of scholarship and academic. But why not look at it the other way? Instead of giving priority to the value of the work done by academics, why not think of the work on public affairs as a different kind of writing.
This weblog, for instance, has no pretensions to be academic. Its ecological concerns about water, and the governance of the landscape have little resonance in academia; water is an issue that has arisen from the world of public policy and enlightened citizens not academia. It aims to consider the public issues thrown up in greater depth than they are discussed in newspapers. Since it is more a participation in political life, and not a standing on the sidelines and offering expert advice from a disciplinary perspective, it involves a different way of writing philosophy to the more academic writing exeempliefed by Brian Weatherson.
This engagement in public issues implies a transformation in academia. one descpition is provided here. It refers to academia in America and it says:
"There has been a quiet revolution occurring in the academy over the last two decades. Civic concerns have achieved new visibility alongside the traditional academic mission of higher education.... Institutions have redefined themselves to be more responsible citizens in their communities."
A similar though more muted shift to civic engagement is happening in Australia. The implications of such a shift to educating for democratic citizenship is understood not simply as an extra-curricular option, but as a fundamental goal of a twenty-first century liberal education.
There has been other discussions of this article. They are concerned about different things and come from quite different perspectives to philosophy in political life perspective of philosophy.com
Update
There are brief discussions of the Chronicle of Higher Education article on the differences between Anglo-American philosophy in Britain and North America by Scott Martens over at Pendatry and at Crooked Timber by Brian Weatherson. Both are more concerned with the adequacy of the descriptions of academic philosophy in relation to the interdisciplinary work in the field of philosophy of mind.
Though Brian mentions the philosophy and public affairs issue, he does not explore it any depth. There is little discussion on the issue in the comments to the post, apart from references to "baby philosophy" done on committees concerned with medical ethics. What I detect here is the expert's voice of disdain about fumbling amateurs trying to do philosophy and not being as good at as the professionals.
Lawrence Solum over at Legal Theory Blog concentrates on the differences within Anglo-American philosophy in the different countries. He notes that:
---the philosophical community in the U.S. is much larger and more diverse than in other Anglophone countries.
---because the U.S. is just plain big, philosophers (even those working in the same field) tend not to know one another if they reside in different regions (excepting those who work in nationally prominent departments).
---there is nothing comparable in the United States to the role that Oxford plays in the United Kingdom. Oxford's faculty is huge by comparison to any other UK university. No place in the United States plays the same role.
So what? Differences are to be expected surely. After all we talking about different countries, and economics, society and culture would make an impact on an academic discipline such as philosophy. Oh, I know the counterargument, that philosophy is like mathematics and a universal language. National differences merely add a touch of local colouring.
Lawrence, to his credit has a stab at exploring the meaning the differences the above differences. He says that:
"All of these differences add up to subtle differences in the sociology of philosophy. I am very tentative about the following observation, but here goes: I think there is greater rigidity of opinion among philosophers in the U.K. that in the U.S."
Lawrence let me add here that Australia is much more rigid. Positively totalitarian in the way that disciplinary power is used to enforce conformity.
Lawrence, in true academic style, immediately qualifies his claim, but stands by it. He
"This is, I'm sure, untrue in many respects. There are, I am sure, lots of U.K. philosophers who are, as individuals, more flexible than most American philosophers. And it would not surprise me if there were particular issues or subfields upon which my generalization does not hold. But the antipathy to melding philosophy with empirical work that the Chronicle story notes might actually be some evidence for the phenomenon that I think I've detected."
I accept Lawrence's point about flexibility and this has nothing to do with the superiority of philosophy in the U.S.
A counter observation that plays around with Lawrence's difference. In a multicultural society Anglo-American means the hegemonic culture. It is to be contrasted with difference in the form of Continental (French or German) and Islamic philosophy. The significance of the observation? Anglo-American philosophy is encultured through and through. It is a part the national culture which has been traditionally Anglo-British. It is more like literature than mathematics.
|
