Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. LFC's avatar

    You’re right, that’s my mistake. Because the two incidents occurred a couple of months apart, I guess they often get…

  2. EAS's avatar

    This is incorrect. The incident involving Petrov occured on September 26, 1983. Petrov judged that the Oko early warning system’s…

  3. Gwen Bradford's avatar
  4. Anon's avatar
  5. Nathaniel Jezzi's avatar

    Although I didn’t know Dale well, I had the good fortune to meet and interact with him during graduate school…

  6. Abdul Ansari's avatar

    I am shell shocked. Dale was an exemplary and creative moral philosophy, rigorously engaged with the most foundational issues across…

  7. David Wallace's avatar

    This is sharply at variance with my understanding of the situation. The general consensus for some while has been that…

The Situation for Chinese Philosophy in the U.S. (Leiter)

Brian Leiter

MOVING TO FRONT from Dec. 5 in light of the continued interesting discussion in the comments section.
=========================

Manyul Im, a specialist in Chinese philosophy at California State University at Los Angeles, writes:

The following events have contributed to a very serious situation–I sometimes think, a crisis–for Ph.D. study of Chinese Philosophy in the U.S. or Canada and I hope you will share this with your blog readers:

*David Nivison retires at Stanford; PJ Ivanhoe leaves Stanford for Michigan; Ivanhoe leaves Michigan and briefly visits at Boston; and now Ivanhoe is at City University of Hong Kong. There is no indication that Stanford will fill the position again, which was long held by Nivison.

*Kwong-loi Shun leaves Berkeley for Toronto; Shun leaves Toronto for Chinese University of Hong Kong. There is no indication that Berkeley is interested in filling that position again, which was long held by Shun.

*Donald Munro retires at Michigan; Ivanhoe replaces him; then … see above. There is no indication that Michigan is interested in filling that position again, which was long held by Munro.

My pessimism about whether Stanford, Berkeley or Michigan plan to revive their Chinese Philosophy programs is based only on what I’ve heard through the grape-vine, so if anyone has more reliable but positive information, I would certainly be glad to hear of it.

Meanwhile here is the advice I’ve been giving my students for the past couple of years:

In my opinion, right now the only readily viable option for students seeking a Ph.D. that focuses on Chinese Philosophy and, when completed, have good Philosophy job prospects is the program at Univ. of Hawaii. However, students should be aware that at Hawaii, there are strong incentives and pressures to work with Roger Ames and to adopt his approach to Chinese philosophy–namely, a Whiteheadian process-philosophy reading of the major texts. That, by itself isn’t a crisis; it’s the current lack of scholars-in-training who have other approaches that is the cause for my concern. Of course followers of Ames might not think this is so bad but they should, since any philosophical analysis should be subject to serious criticisms in order to be tested well.

Utah and Oregon, which are listed in the Gourmet Report’s Programs Rated by Advisory Board, have excellent young faculty but until they have established their reputations more widely, students who go there for Ph.D. study will need to cultivate serious external working relationships with bigger names in the field to ensure good job prospects. I would also add Oklahoma to this category.

The current situation is that students who don’t want to study at Hawaii, Utah, or Oregon–or aren’t admitted to those programs–have three good and genuine alternatives, keeping in mind the desideratum of having good job prospects (based on quality and name-recognition of advisors):

  1. Study something other than Chinese Philosophy
  2. Study Chinese Philosophy at a department where the primary advisor, though working at least partly on Chinese Philosophy, would not be someone who has had serious Sinological training,   traditionally construed
  3. Study in Hong Kong (at the University of Hong Kong) or Singapore (at the National University of Singapore)

I don’t offer my students suggestion 1 completely tongue-in-cheek. Most often I have students who are interested in Chinese Philosophy because they already have serious philosophical interests in more traditional Western topics like Ethics, Metaphysics, or the Philosophy of Religion. Option 2 is possible at programs like Connecticut (with Joel Kupperman) and Duke (with David Wong).

Option 3 is getting more and more attractive as Hong Kong, which is not far from Singapore, is suddenly the hotbed of Chinese Philosophy. Three of the most recognized, active scholars are now there: Chad Hansen (Univ. of Hong Kong), Kwong-loi Shun (Chinese Univ. of Hong Kong), and now Philip Ivanhoe (City University of Hong Kong). There is also a less recognized but excellent senior scholar, Kim-Chong Chong at the Science and Technology University of Hong Kong. Chinese Univ. of Hong Kong also has one of the best young scholars, Chris Fraser.

The caveat here is that, as far as I know, only the University of Hong Kong has a Ph.D. program among the Hong Kong universities mentioned. Chad Hansen, who is at the Univ. of Hong Kong, will be retiring next year. I am told that they DO plan on replacing him. The National University of Singapore has a Ph.D. program and some excellent scholars of Chinese Philosophy, among them: Sor Hoon Tan and Alan Chan. I should note that both the University of Hong Kong and Singapore conduct their programs in English and should really be considered programs of Philosophy "in the English-speaking world."

I hope this will be useful information for you, Brian, and students who are thinking about Ph.D. programs in Chinese Philosophy. Some of this is strictly my considered opinion, but I stand by it and it is part of the advice I would give to my own students.

Comments are open for additional perspectives from scholars and students; non-anonymous comments are very strongly preferred.  Please post only once; comments may take awhile to appear.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

23 responses to “The Situation for Chinese Philosophy in the U.S. (Leiter)”

  1. Justin Tiwald

    As a specialist in Chinese philosophy who just finished making his way through the system in these less-than-ideal circumstances, I strongly agree with just about everything Im says here. I might add just one more option for aspiring scholars, and that is to find a major philosophy program that also has strengths in East Asian studies and Chinese philology. Once accepted to such a program, one could try cobbling together a dissertation committee that includes both philosophers and Sinologists (to get a job in a philosophy department, however, it should be more of the former than the latter).

    The chief disadvantage of this approach is that it probably requires some deception. Most major PhD programs in philosophy will not accept an aspiring China specialist while they lack the relevant faculty. But after being admitted, some departments might be sufficiently patient with someone working on "comparative" topics. It would also help to have much of the extensive language work under one's belt before entering a philosophy program, where there aren't many allowances for such things.

    But again, I strongly agree with Manyul's assessment of the current state of the field. It is quite likely that demand for specialists in Chinese philosophy will continue to grow, and it would be a shame not to have more well-trained philosophers working in this extremely rich area, not to mention greater diversity in approaches and lineages.

    Reply
  2. Benedict Chan

    "The caveat here is that, as far as I know, only the University of Hong Kong has a Ph.D. program among the Hong Kong universities mentioned."

    A correction: Chinese University of Hong Kong also has a Ph.D. program in philosophy.

    And obviously, for those students who know Chinese language, they have further options: there are also many good philosophy programs in Mainland China and Taiwan.

    Reply
  3. Roy Perrett

    Notwithstanding whatever Professor Im might have had in mind when he wrote that "students should be aware that at Hawaii there are strong incentives and pressures to work with Roger Ames and to adopt his approach to Chinese philosophy", students should also be aware that Roger Ames is only half of the Chinese philosophy team at UH. The other senior Chinese philosopher in the program is Chung-ying Cheng, who is editor-in-chief of the Journal of Chinese Philosophy and an enormously prolific and wide-ranging scholar, with an approach to Chinese philosophy quite distinct from Ames's.

    Reply
  4. Bernice Jones

    As a graduate student currently studying Asian (Chinese and Japanese)philosophy abroad, I'm hoping to generate a little discussion as to the viability of securing jobs in the States with non-Western credentials (especially State-side jobs in bonified philosophy departments). I have generally been told pretty discouraging things by my own advisors. Can anyone offer any advice in this regard?
    I would also like to point out that in my experience the types of themes and methods taken up by academics in religious studies departments (I am thinking, for instance, of Stanford's Buddhist Studies program) are often very different from those pursued in more traditional philosophy programs. I would tend to say this difference has a lot to do with a preccupation with history and historicity, as opposed to metaphysics, ethics,etc. etc. Is anyone aware of schools (or individuals) that do NOT fit this profile (e.g. Religious or Asian Studies programs that employ faculty with interests in Asian "philosophy" as opposed to Asian religious history or sociology)?

    Reply
  5. Bryan W. Van Norden

    Manyul Im has written a very thoughtful and informative letter that expresses a concern shared by many of us in the field.

    I think Im's "Option 2" (studying Chinese philosophy at Duke or the U of Connecticut) is worth serious consideration for any philosopher who has, or is willing to acquire, Chinese language and research skills on his or her own.

    It is perhaps also worth mentioning that Chris Fraser (at the Chinese U of HK) is a student of Hansen whose work follows Hansen's closely.

    For discussions of some of the scholars whom Im mentions, I would recommend the following articles:

    Stephen Wilson, "Conformity, Individuality and the Nature of Virtue," in B.W. Van Norden, ed., Confucius and the Analects: New Essays (Oxford, 2001). [Discusses Roger Ames's interpretation of the Analects.]

    Christoph Harbsmeier, "Marginalia Sino-logica," in Robert Allinson, ed., Understanding the Chinese Mind (Oxford, 1989), pp. 125-166. [Critiques some of Hansen's claims.]

    Bryan W. Van Norden, "How to Add Chinese Philosophy to Your Introductory Courses," APA Newsletter on Asian/Asian American Philosophers and Philosophy 3:1 (Fall 2003): 15-19. [Overview of some of the major primary and secondary texts for non-specialists.]

    — BWVN

    Reply
  6. Tim O'Keefe

    The obvious problem with trying to secure a job in the States with non-Western credentials is that most faculty in U.S. philosophy departments are ignorant about what sort of training a person gets from University X in country Y. And since most people are risk-averse when it comes to TT hires, applicants who are more known quantities will tend to be favored. (Especially with the job market being the way it is, search committees can afford to be very risk-averse and still get an excellent hire.)

    A few things that applicants can do to help overcome this problem, IMHO, are

    (a) Publish in reputable English-language journals.
    (b) Make contacts with people in Western institutions (via conferences, getting them on your diss. committee, having them review your papers, etc.), so that they can write you recommendation letters.
    (c) Describe in a bit more detail than applicants typically do, in your application letter/statement of research interests/whatever, what sort of training you received at your Ph.D. institution. (This might be tricky to do right, but I'd try to make it short, non-apologetic, non-defensive, and informative.)

    Reply
  7. Manyul Im

    Thanks for the correction, Benedict. That means Chinese Univ. of Hong Kong would be an excellent place to study, since both Kwong-loi Shun and Chris Fraser are both there.

    To say something about Roy Perrett's point: Cheng Chung-ying is at Hawaii and is indeed as well-known as Roger Ames. To be frank, I haven't seen a lot of Cheng's students on the market, although I have been involved in advisory capacity in two different Chinese philosophy job searches. I don't know what explains that; perhaps he is less of a pedagogue than Ames. Ames has had quite a few students in those searches, on the other hand.

    Finally, one thing that might be relevant to both Benedict Chan and Bernice Jones's comments: I was at a large conference in Taiwan last year in which one of the primary topics of discussion was whether Chinese philosophy was something that philosophy departments in the Chinese-speaking world should be interested in. The impression I got was that many of the young philosophy scholars, in Taiwan at any rate, are interested in "Western" philosophical topics and think of Chinese philosophy as more within the purview of traditional Classics and Literature training–and I got the sense, these young scholars do not or have not thought of it as having a lot of philosophical merit. I think that perception has been changing, but the distinct impression I got was that it has been largely because of the interest that philosophically trained scholars in Europe and the U.S. have taken in those Chinese Classics. So, the revival of philosophical interest in Chinese philosophy has in large measure–though not exclusively–taken place in the "West." Partly, I think that means the demand-side of the Chinese philosophy market remains largely in the West, and because of that a degree that Western colleges and universities know and recognize more readily, works in the job candidate's favor quite a bit.

    That should, as a side point to Brian, also speak in favor of inclusion in the Gourmet ranking of institutions like those in Hong Kong and Singapore that conduct study in English–even if they also require extensive competence in Chinese as well to be admitted into their Ph.D. programs.

    Reply
  8. Alexus McLeod

    I am a graduate student focusing on Chinese philosophy, at Connecticut. I have to agree with Bryan Van Norden that Im's "Option 2" (studying here at UConn or Duke) is a good one–better than the alternatives.

    Here are my reasons. Studying in Hong Kong is enticing, but it's simply not feasible if funding is an important consideration, as it was in my own case. I considered applying to HK universities, but when I learned of the cost of living, and relatively very low funding available, this simply became impossible.
    Going to Hawaii presents similar problems.

    However, Duke or UConn seem to me the best options for another reason: they are both strong programs in philosophy in general. In my own case, I already have a decent knowledge of Chinese, and gaining a strong philosophical background has helped, and I imagine will help on the job market. If one does not have a strong Chinese background, however, there are many opportunities in the area (both Yale and Harvard, which have EAS departments, are within an hour and a half drive of the UConn campus). I am not as sure about the Chinese situation at Duke.

    Reply
  9. Carl Seaquist

    Two quick comments. First, it looks like an increasing number of philosophy departments are looking for people who can teach at least a course or two in non-Western philosophy, though not necessarily Asian or Chinese philosophy in particular, and this seems most valued by what I call "teaching" schools (3-4 or 4-4 loads, no grad program in philosophy). So this might be another area where PhD programs are going in a different direction than the market for their graduates would suggest (it's a good reason for more grad programs to hire Chinese and Indian philosophy specialists).

    Second, I'll throw another example into the mix, my alma mater (Penn). Paul Goldin works in Chinese philosophy, though maybe not the way someone based in a philosophy department would, and if a student wanted to take Im's option #2, he'd be a great person to work with. Paul is wicked smart. The late Wilhelm Halbfass was also there, and though he became an Indian philosophy scholar his dissertation was on Descartes — so he was an example of someone who succeeded with option #2. I don't have any inside information on this, but this year the Religious Studies dept has placed an ad for "an open-rank, tenured or tenure-track post in South Asian religions. Preference will be given to candidates with expertise in Indian philosophical traditions and Buddhism in their historical and doctrinal contexts." That's right off the AAR website, so prospective grad students might look next year to see who they hire.

    Reply
  10. Martin Lin

    Manyul, you say that there is no indication that Standford, Berkeley, and Michigan are interested in fulling the positions vacated by the scholars you mentioned. Do you simply mean that you lack evidence that they are interested? If so, what conclusions can you draw from that? If they were interested, do you think you would have evidence to that effect? I would like to note that it is difficult for anyone to know about the internal deliberations of departments of which they are not members.

    Reply
  11. Paul R. Goldin

    How about an Option 4:

    Study Chinese philosophy in a department other than a philosophy department?

    (Such as, for example, East Asian Languages and Civilizations at the University of Pennsylvania?)

    Your job prospects in a philosophy department may not be great if you hold a Ph.D. from a traditional East Asian program, but, frankly, I think you have a better shot overall, because East Asian departments, history departments, and religious studies departments will all take you seriously.

    I share much of Manyul Im's pessimism about the state of Chinese philosophy today IN PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENTS, but not in American universities generally.

    Reply
  12. Steve Angle

    I also echo the concerns expressed by Manyul. As far as advice for aspiring graduate students goes, I think that one good option is to get a Master's at a Chinese university, and then look to PhD programs in the States. Another good idea, especially if one is following something like Manyul's option 2, is to get someone who *is* an expert to be interested in one's work, perhaps even as an outside member of one's committee.

    Let me add a few things about Chinese philosophy in China (broadly construed), in part as a way of suggesting places where a prospective grad student could look for an MA before returning to the States. The largest concentration of philosophers who draw both on Chinese and Western traditions is certainly Hong Kong; there are numerous other excellent scholars at universities there whose work actively spans traditions. If one is interested at least partly in political philosophy, remember to keep in mind departments of Politics and Public Administration, where you'll find people like Joseph Chan at HKU and Julia Tao at City University.

    As for the mainland and Taiwan, the general situation is that philosophy departments contain numerous specialists in Chinese thought who take a primarily historical approach to their subject, and numerous specialists in Western thought. For the most part, these two groups do not communicate with one another: do not attend the same conferences, do not publish in the same journals, etc.

    However, there are some significant exceptions. Senior scholars like Zhang Xianglong at Beijing Univeristy, Wan Junren at Qinghua, and Yang Guorong at East China Normal University all are seriously engaged in cross-traditional work — often with a forward-looking, creative orientation. I could certainly add other examples to this list. These senior scholars' students are able to pursue cross-tradition projects. (I'm avoiding saying "comparative" because I think what many of us are interested in is something that goes beyond comparison.) There are also some younger scholars who are already pursuing excellent cross-traditional projects.

    So I would say there's been some movement toward a better cross-traditional dialogue, but there's still lots of room for improvement.

    Reply
  13. Carl Seaquist

    Here's another variation on option #4, which might allow a graduate to seek work in philosophy departments and do constructive, perhaps cross-traditional, work. Get an MA in philosophy, then enroll in a philology or area-studies program for the PhD, and find a way to do serious work in one area of philosophy, e.g., ethics or history of modern, to get at least one solid recommendation from a prof in the philosophy department. Paul, how do you think EALC at Penn would look on such a candidate? How do other people think that other programs with strengths in Chinese language and literature would look on such candidates? I would think that some MA programs are at schools that offer modern Chinese, and would allow a student to take at least a year of the language in addition to coursework in philosophy.

    Reply
  14. Paul R. Goldin

    Carl Seaquist asks how our department would look on a Ph.D. applicant who holds an M.A. in philosophy. Answer: very favorably. In fact, we've just graduated a Ph.D. who entered with that profile: Thomas Radice, who now teaches at Southern Connecticut. We would need to see strong evidence of classical Chinese language skills for such a candidate to be able to compete for funding (there is no way that someone could survive in our program without being able to read primary and secondary sources in Chinese), but an applicant who can demonstrate those skills and also has an M.A. in philosophy would, generally speaking, be very desirable.

    As for the current search in South Asian religions in the Religious Studies department–that is an ongoing search, so I cannot speak too freely about it, but I'll stress this: the statement that "preference will be given to candidates with expertise in Indian philosophical traditions and Buddhism in their historical and doctrinal contexts" means what it says.

    I'll repeat what I said above: philosophy departments may be giving Chinese philosophy (and Asian philosophy generally) short shrift, but other departments are not, and graduate students interested in these traditions should seriously consider working in departments other than philosophy departments.

    Reply
  15. Chris Fraser

    I second a suggestion made by Steve Angle: Graduate students looking to work in Chinese philosophy might want to consider pursuing an M.Phil. at the University of Hong Kong (HKU), the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), or the City University of Hong Kong ("City U") and then applying to Ph.D. programs at Duke, UCONN, or other mainstream departments.

    (These HK schools generally offer financial aid to all graduate students, though I'm unsure how the amount of aid compares with that provided by North American schools. If you live on campus, the amount of aid should be sufficient.)

    These days it *might* be feasible, in terms of job prospects, to consider doing a Ph.D. at one of the HK universities, provided the future job candidate did a lot of international networking along the way. You would want eventually to get letters of recommendation from two or more of the senior people here in HK and from two or more well-known people in North America, the UK, or Australia.

    Whether a young scholar interested in Chinese philosophy will feel comfortable in an East Asian Studies or Religion program will depend on that particular person's interests and temperament. I doubt that someone with a background in analytic philosophy would feel at home in these types of programs.

    I was surprised to learn that my work "follows Hansen's closely," since I thought I agreed with Chad about some things, disagreed about others, and had written quite a bit on topics he says nothing about. Thanks for setting me straight; I guess I haven't been reading my own work carefully enough.

    Reply
  16. JeeLoo Liu

    I am very pleased to see all these discussions on the status of Chinese philosophy in the U.S. I want to thank Manyul for his informative and thoughtful discussion. The urgent issue is how to ensure more universities with Ph.D. program to seriously consider hiring specialists in Chinese philosophy. I see job listings for Chinese or Non-Western philosophy in JFP from time to time, but they are mostly from universities with no graduate programs. If we cannot train more graduate students in the U.S. (not just in the English-speaking world), this trend will not change. I also think that it is important to separate Chinese philosophy from Chinese religious studies or cultural studies (including East Asian Languages and Civilizations) – one should be able to study Chinese philosophy in a philosophy program to engage in more philosophical exchanges with philosophers in the Western tradition. Otherwise, Chinese philosophy will always be an isolated field, in a closed circle with limited audience.

    I wish to point out that there are a lot of (ethnically) Chinese philosophers in the U.S, with prior training in Chinese philosophy and training in Western philosophy in a graduate program in the U.S. I myself got a Master’s degree in Chinese philosophy from National Taiwan University before coming to the U.S. As far as I know, there are more than one hundred of Chinese philosophers working in the U.S. now, and many more have returned to their home countries. Speaking of the development of Chinese philosophy in Taiwan, I have a slightly different observation from that of Tim O’Keefe. During my visit back in Taiwan this summer, I made some inquiries about the current trend. It seems that many young scholars studying Chinese philosophy are trained in the Chinese Literature programs, and they don’t have sufficient training in Western philosophy or the ability to write in English. Their focus on Chinese philosophy is thus often ignored by people in the philosophy programs. However, among those scholars who have returned to Taiwan after getting their Ph.D. in a philosophy program in the U.S., there are renewed interests in combing Chinese philosophy with Western philosophy (in particular, the analytic trend). This new development could lead to the study of Chinese philosophy as an on-going philosophical tradition, rather than something from the ancient past.

    I think from the experience of Taiwan, we can see that Chinese philosophy must be placed in a philosophy graduate program for it to become a respected area of specialization.

    Reply
  17. Brian Bruya

    Students looking into the M.A. or Ph.D. programs at the University of Hawai'i might want to consider an opinion from someone who has graduated from the program rather than the rumor and innuendo circulating above.

    First, there is no pressure to adopt Ames' approach. He certainly presents it actively, but any student is free to challenge it, as often happens in class. I did it all the time, even citing inadequacies in his own books, and never suffered any sense of retaliation. He seeks out diverse opinions and welcomes debate with good-natured, self-deprecating humor.

    It should be noted that the U. of H. philosophy program is the only comprehensive comparative philosophy program in the U.S., with specialists not only in Chinese philosophy but in the Japanese, Indian, and Buddhist traditions, as well.

    Regarding cost to live there, it is manageable. The university offers tuition waivers, the department offers graduate assistantships and lectureships, and the East-West Center offers fellowships and opportunities for housing.

    Regarding the intellectual atmosphere, it is vibrant and collegial. Ames' classes are the best populated in the department, attracting not only philosophers but students from languages, education, political science, business, etc. If he is a pedagogue (as suggested above), no one at U. of H. has noticed yet. And whether he is your advisor or not, he'll go to bat for you. I had the outrageous idea to start a database for learning philosophy from digitized primary and secondary sources when I was a first-semester M.A. student, and he helped me get seed money from the university that we eventually converted to a $300,000+ grant from the National Science Foundation. His aptitude for collaboration is legendary. Not only does he espouse the creativity and cooperativeness of Confucianism intellectually, he lives it. That's why the students coming out of the U. of H. in Chinese philosophy are almost always his students. In addition, his sinological scholarship is impeccable. Consider that his two main teachers were A. C. Graham and D. C. Lau. As often as possible, Ames teaches special courses on Chinese source texts, without translation, like the courses I took there in recently excavated manuscripts. With all due respect, try to find courses like that at Connecticut, Duke, Oregon, or Utah.

    There are other reasons to study at U. of H. also–besides the fact that Waikiki beach is only a mile from campus. One is that the society of Hawai'i is inherently multicultural (Caucasians are a minority (except in graduate programs)), and so you have a vibrant mix of cultures that manifest in diverse programs and events both on campus and off. U. of H. also has the largest Chinese Studies program in the States, with participating faculty from an incredibly diverse range of departments and numerous visiting scholars (I shared an office, for instance, with one of the young leading lights of Chinese philosophy from China). Consider also that Hawai'i is halfway between the U.S. and East Asia, facilitating travel there.

    The U. H. also has programs for study abroad, especially at Beijing University, where Ames has been teaching as a visiting professor.

    Reply
  18. loy hui chieh

    Looks like I'm late to the discussion. Being both a recent graduate (May 06) from the Philosophy program at UC Berkeley (Kwong-loi Shun as main supervisor, but also lots of input from Michael Nylan from history) and a new member of the philosophy department at the National University of Singapore, I would like to comment on Options 2 and 3.

    Option 2:

    This was more or less the route that I took, though it seems bizarre to think of Kwong-loi as someone who "though working at least partly on Chinese Philosophy, would not be someone who has had serious Sinological training". Since actuality implies possibility, I would like to think of it as definitely a feasible option. But my sense is that it is most suited for a specific sort of candidate–someone who is at least borderline Option 1.

    This is because the candidate must be prepared to do lots of non-Chinese related course work in the usual mainstream analytic philosophy topics and also to interact with fellow grad students who will be largely doing such topics. In the meantime, he or she could and should make the effort to interact with and learn from fine faculty members in the History or East Asian/Chinese departments and possibly have one of them to be on the dissertation committee. In line with the above, I strongly second Justin's comment that "It would also help to have much of the extensive language work under one's belt before entering a philosophy program, where there aren't many allowances for such things."

    The upshot is that Option 2 is best suited for someone whose interest is not necessarily the 'Chinese' but the 'philosophy' part of the matter. I'm sure that sounds odd but that's the best construction I can think of for now. (This is the converse side of the point that Chris makes above when he doubts that "someone with a background in analytic philosophy would feel at home in [East Asian/Sinological] programs.") If this condition is met, then the "deception" that Justin speaks of does not have to be part of the deal at all–as long as there is a faculty member who can and is willing to supervise one for the dissertation. I was very open about working with Kwong-loi on early Chinese philosophy when I applied to Berkeley–while also (sincerely) indicated my strong interest in the other things that are offered by the department.

    Option 3:

    As Manyul Im pointed out, we have Sor Hoon Tan and Alan Chan at philosophy, NUS. The approaches here vary from doing Chinese philosophy with a sinological component, requiring strong language skills, to more comparative approaches with little or no knowledge of Chinese. For those working on Chinese-Western comparisons, we have colleagues doing comparisons with, e.g., Analytic, Continental and American philosophical traditions. For instance, one of my colleagues, Cecilia Lim, a Descartes specialist in the first instance, is also interested in early Chinese philosophy and has done some comparative work involving Confucius and Montaigne. We also have a faculty member who is an Indian philosophy specialist, Saranindranath Tagore. In addition, I should mention Yuet-keung Lo from the Chinese department, who is also interested in philosophy and is thus a potential co-supervisor.

    (For those who are looking for more information, Alan, Sor Hoon and Yuet-keung's webpages are at:
    http://profile.nus.edu.sg/fass/phickl/
    http://profile.nus.edu.sg/fass/phitansh/
    http://profile.nus.edu.sg/fass/chsloyk/)

    As far as I can tell, the funding situation for PhDs here is good–including funding for overseas conferences. Singapore is a popular stop-over point for scholars traveling to Asia and Australia/New Zealand, which means that though far away from the US/Europe, we do get our share of visiting scholars. The department has hosted seminars by prominent scholars and organized several international workshops attended by e.g., Roger Ames, Kwong-loi Shun Philip Ivanhoe, Bryan Van Norden, Chad Hansen, Lisa Raphals, Anne Cheng, Keith Knapp, among others. (All this also speaks to what Tim O'Keefe said above about making contact with scholars from Western institutions, for students concerned about job prospects in the US, etc.)

    Interestingly enough, there is a sense in which coming to NUS is not unrelated to taking up Option 2: This is a philosophy department, which means that the scope for purely sinological training–including language–will be limited (though there is always the Chinese department). My sense is that candidates who already have done their own language work and who are strongly interested in philosophy in general stand to benefit most from what the department has to offer. But unlike what might be involved in taking up Option 2 (with or without "deception"), the department as a whole is very supportive of research in Chinese philosophy: we would like to see it as one of our core strengths. In addition, this is a place where people working in Chinese philosophy rub shoulders with people working in other traditions as a matter of course.

    Reply
  19. Jim Behuniak

    In a truly sad showing of the state of Chinese philosophy, Manyul Im has groundlessly accused one of the field’s most generous advocates, Roger Ames, of being a “pedagogue” who uses “pressure” and “incentive” to get his students to “adopt his approach.” To prospective students: I share Brian Bruya’s overwhelmingly positive experience at the University of Hawaii.

    I am sure that you, intelligent reader, recognize ad-hominem when you see it, and that you will disregard Manyul’s comments about Roger Ames. Still, Manyul might consider apologizing for such serious accusations against a person's professional character.

    Reply
  20. Manyul Im

    Jim, I'm sorry to hear that you were saddened by my comment about Roger Ames. But fortunate for you, I actually meant to say something good about him by speculating that he was a better pedagogue than his esteemed colleague Chung-ying Cheng. I now realize that both you and Brian Bruya misinterpreted my use of the term "pedagogue." There is, of course, a pejorative sense of it but that use doesn't make sense in the context of my comment to which you refer. I clearly indicated that a possible explanation for why Ames has more students than Cheng is that Ames is more engaged in pedagogy than Cheng, while both are prolific scholars. So, I ask for some charity in interpreting my comment.

    While I'm asking for charity, let me also address the issue of "pressures and incentives" to study with Ames and to adopt his hermeneutic strategies. The pressures and incentives to work with him are ones that are self-interested for someone if she is a student of Chinese philosophy at Hawaii. To put things more coarsely: if someone wants to maximize chances of succeeding and getting a job, she should work with Ames. That not only compliments Ames, but it's advice I give to students who consider Hawaii for graduate school.

    On a more personal note, I'm not sure why someone like me should have any motivation at all to impugn Roger. On the contrary, I like him. He is very friendly at conferences and is indeed a major supporter of progress in our field. Nor do I have any motivation to steer students away from Hawaii if features of that department are attractive to them; indeed, one of my former students is currently there (Hi, Christian). Furthermore, if you re-read my initial post, you'll see that I consider Hawaii right now to be the only viable Ph.D. program in the States for studying Chinese philosophy in a philosophy department. Saying that would be a poor way to steer students away from Hawaii. To those students of Ames who mistook my comments for petty assaults on him or the program at Hawaii, I offer the points of clarification above. Finally, if my speculation about Ames's virtuous attention to pedagogy are mistaken, I'm happy to be corrected.

    Reply
  21. Jim Behuniak

    Thanks, Manyul, for clarifying yourself. As you now formulate them, the "incentives and pressures" of working with Roger are no more remarkable than they would be under any competent direction. So, there is no need for students to be especially "aware" of the "incentives and pressures" in the case of Roger.

    I fully agree with Manyul's larger point: what the field desperately needs is more venues in which one can "maximize chances of succeeding and getting a job" in Chinese philosophy. No need to admonish the "followers of Ames" to be more concerned about the current state of affairs [according to Manyul's initial post, we "followers" need to be told that the presence of "other approaches" is the good and right thing]. Does he think us so small-minded as to require such a (I'm sorry) condescending admonition?

    In the larger issue, I would not hesitate at all to send a student to an institution like Utah or Oregon that has a "young" scholar. Both of these "young" scholars are quite solid, and hiring committees will recognize the additional strengths of the programs at both institutions.

    We can only hope that Stanford, Michigan, and Berkeley revive their esteemed traditions in Chinese philosophy soon. In such a fast moving field as this, to imagine such interruptions as terminal is too tragic for me to contemplate.

    Reply
  22. Bill Taylor

    Just to let you know, all the Universities in Hong Kong have active and vibrant PhD programmes. Among the 7 institutions, the 4 you mentioned (Chinese U, City U, Hong Kong U and U of Science and Technology are the most noted). It is no coincidence that in your field, the first three have the most noted scholars.

    Reply
  23. Elizabeth Beltz

    If Loy Hui Chieh was late, I guess I'm arriving after the dessert.

    As a graduate student preparing for additional study of Mandarin in hopes of entering a Ph.D. track Philosophy program, this discussion was immensely enjoyable and informative. UH, which I had considered years ago but was nudged away from, seems now a viable option.

    Studying in Asia was always a great goal of mine and I am pleased to see so many American scholars congregating there. Just for fun I sent my GRE scores to Ivanhoe's school. I wonder if anyone will notice.

    Chris Fraser's comments were as helpful as his tongue-in-cheekedness was merited. After reading his paper on mass/count nouns how could anyone say he follows Chad Hansen closely?

    I only have one question. What's so bad about the University of Utah? I finished my Bachelor's degree there in 2006 and loved everything about it. The campus is gorgeous, there is an exciting leftist anti-LDS undercurrent, and the philosophy department is only getting better. I am surprised that no one has yet found reason to mention Eric Hutton, who began at the U of Utah the same year I began my undergraduate work and without whom I would probably still be drifting aimlessly from discipline to discipline (or lack thereof).

    Reply

Designed with WordPress