There has been quite some pushback against Peter Singer, who recently said in an interview in the New Yorker that he was not particularly interested in working together with African philosophers. Because many people do not have a subscription to The New Yorker, I put the relevant part of the interview below:
Daniel Gross: "A lot of your works cite white male academics who, for lack of a better phrase, take up a lot of space in intellectual conversations… Because so much of your work is fundamentally about equity, I wonder if that is something that’s on your radar."
Peter Singer: "That’s the manner in which I was educated, I suppose, and which still is very influential in the ideas that I’m involved with. I’ve certainly worked with a lot of philosophers who are not male, but they have been white generally. I’ve got a project now about the issue of global population, with Alex Ezeh, a demographer of Nigerian origin at Drexel University. I worked with Pascal Kasimba when I was at Monash University, who is of African descent, on a project relating to in-vitro fertilization. I have also co-authored things with people of Asian descent, with Yew-Kwang Ng, for instance. But, I have to say, I want to work with people whose ideas are, you know, at a level of discussion that I’m interested in, and that I’m progressing. If you’re thinking of the work of Africans, for example, I don’t know the work of many of them that is really in the same sort of—I’m not quite sure how to put this—participating in the same discussion as the people you’ve just mentioned."
This is not an uncommon sentiment, though it is rarely expressed in this explicit manner (but then, most academics aren't interviewed and aren't asked this question!).
The sentiment is that philosophers from the global south are not really worth engaging with, because their work would not be at the same level as the more prestigious, well-known (mostly white and male) philosophers from wealthy countries.
I want to argue here that this view is mistaken, and also that not engaging with philosophers and philosophies from the global south presents a missed opportunity. I write this in response to Singer, but I also aim this discussion to the wider readership here. (For example, if you think that you are not subject to these ideas and you're at an American or British department, try to think of e.g., some philosophers working in Ghana or South Africa, two African countries with a vibrant philosophical history and tradition. It may be hard to do so!).
Let's look more closely at Singer's idea of "participating in the same discussion". It is true that disproportionately many philosophers outside the anglophone west are not partaking in the most prestigious academic discussions, as is done in top peer-reviewed journals, monographs and edited volumes by presses such as Oxford University Press, Cambridge, Princeton etc. They do not participate in the prestigious conferences, they are not part of hiring networks and citation networks. As far as this goes, Singer is correct that there is little "participating in the same discussion".
A different way to look at this lack of participation is to shift perspective: anglophone, western departments are insular, mostly engaging with a narrow group of narrow peers. We are a bit like Mrs Bennet in Pride and Prejudice, who proudly declares that "we dine with four-and-twenty families". Obviously, there are many more families, but these are not of the correct social standing, and deemed not worth engaging with. This gives the illusion of interconnectedness while one continues to engage only with a narrow subset of people.
Because publications in the most prestigious venues in academic philosophy (overwhelmingly by Anglo-American philosophers) are so insular, they don't really need to engage with works from other countries or traditions. As Eric Schwitzgebel summarizes "97% of citations are citations of work originally written in English; 96% of members of editorial boards of elite Anglophone philosophy journals are housed in majority-Anglophone countries".
The way in which anglophone, western departments cite, invite and hire primarily from each other is not purely due to meritocratic reasons, but rather, to what Eric Schliesser calls the "credit economy" of academic philosophy, as he writes, "Professional philosophy is best compared to a credit economy with currency controls".
We try to curry favor with prestigious individuals and departments. The credit economy of academic philosophy further amplifies existing inequities, given that research-focused American departments (who disproportionately benefit from the credit economy) already have so much structural advantage in terms of research funds and academic freedom. More engagement with philosophers outside of the credit economy would diversify the field.
In addition to this consideration of justice, there are also practical considerations for Peter Singer (and all of us, as I said, this failure to engage philosophies and philosophers across the globe falls on most of us!). Namely, building out a truly global philosophical community would make us better philosophers. It will also help us to make philosophy do what we want it to do. That is, for Singer in particular but for many of us, to improve the philosophical infrastructure of our societies. Mary Midgley calls this "philosophical plumbing"
Plumbing and philosophy are both activities that arise because elaborate cultures like ours have, beneath their surface, a fairly complex system which is usually unnoticed, but which sometimes goes wrong. In both cases, this can have serious consequences. Each system supplies vital needs for those who live above it. Each is hard to repair when it does go wrong, because neither of them was ever consciously planned as a whole. . . . Whether we want it or not, the way our society is organized is deeply philosophical (Midgley, 1992, 139)
How will we, for example, as philosophers consult and help with the vexing problem of locust plagues in East Africa, a result of complex patterns of climate change? The locusts swarm out from the deserts in the Arabian peninsula and the Sahara, if there is abnormally much water and vegetation, this changes their physiology and behavior and gives rise to devastating swarming behavior, causing some of the worst outbreaks in Kenya and surrounding places since 70 years.
It will simply not do for western outsiders to make a quick and easy effectively altruist calculation of the ideal dosage and distribution of insecticide, at least not in the long term, as this is a stopgap measure. Rather, we need conversations about how we will globally come to terms with, mitigate, and further prevent the adverse effects of climate change. Such conversations require some form of localism, i.e., talking with stakeholders and people who are directly affected.
The paternalist attitude of trying to solve this with abstract models like the veil of ignorance just not going to suffice. Our philosophical plumbing is insufficient. Not only will localism help to get a genuine conversation with stakeholders, not just treating people in the global south as some passive recipients of help waiting to be saved, it will also improve our philosophy. Already now, we are benefiting from insights from African philosophy such as the concept of ubuntu (listen to this podcast for a very clear, helpful explainer) which gives us new insights into how individuals can relate, retain their individuality and their specific strengths and weaknesses, and help each other flourish.
I want to end by briefly reflecting on our experience with the project "The Cocoon Goes Global", an initiative of The Philosophers' Cocoon to give a truly global picture of how philosophy is being done around the world. Running this has been a sobering experience. It is striking how large the variability is of support for philosophers between different countries. For example, departments in South Korea or Colombia offer decent wages, incentives to publish or to organize conferences. On the other side of the spectrum you have philosophers who work under shockingly adverse circumstances, including violence, very low wages, aging libraries, in Nigeria. There are huge variations across the world.
In some countries I am unable to recruit any philosopher to write anything, because they are concerned about limitations on freedom of speech by governments and even the university (which might terminate their contract if they didn't write a glowing picture!) I think that philosophers at anglo-American departments don't quite realize how much freedom of speech they have! This realization is very daunting, along with the almost non-existent support in some countries for philosophy, it urges us to express more solidarity.
Another striking observation is that philosophy in many countries across the world ties in in a very concrete way with the concerns of students and with the local political situation. Philosophers at departments across the globe reckon with the often racist legacies of colonial predecessors, and frame and examine emergent situations and challenges using their philosophical tools. As Santiago Amaya wrote about philosophy in Colombia
You’ve probably heard about the Colombian peace process. (If you haven’t, please take a break from reading philosophy blogs and read some real news.) It started in 2012, reached a peace agreement in 2016, and is bringing to an end a 50-year conflict between FARC and the Colombian government. Today we’re going through the process of its implementation. In political terms, it’s been a struggle: war is profitable business for politicians. In philosophical terms, it’s been a Socratic dream.
The thirst of students in countries across the globe for philosophical thinking and for new ideas to help undergird societal changes convinces me that solidarity between philosophers, globally, and collaborations, are not just a matter of justice but also of urgency.
[minor edits for typos–thank you to those who pointed them out!]
Leave a Reply to JamesCancel reply