A philosopher at a liberal arts college writes:
I’m writing to suggest a topic for a possible blog discussion that may be of potential interest to your readers.
At my college I have proposed the creation of a new 100-level course entitled Ancient Wisdom: East & West, whose course description reads:
"An introductory exploration of ancient classics of Western and Eastern Philosophy. Topics to be explored include accounts of personhood and the self, definitions of happiness, the nature of right and wrong, and the place of humanity within the larger universe. Readings will be drawn from Greek sources such as Plato, Aristotle, the Epicureans, and the Stoics; Indian sources such as the Upanishads, Vedanta, and the Buddha; and Chinese sources such as Confucianism, Daoism, and Mohism."
My proposal got rejected in its current form by my school’s Curriculum Committee. In describing their objections, they wrote,
"The committee has concerns that, with the way the course is presented here, the title and/or content of the course might be seen as reiterating problematic distinctions between 'the West' and 'the East.' Also, the two traditions seem to be presented in a comparative way, but the rationale does not address the reasons behind this. If this was an intention of the course, the revised rationale needs to provide pedagogical support for these distinctions and juxtapositions. The committee also recommended consideration of a modified course title that does not include such distinctions."
My rationale for the course in the proposal was admittedly brief, since the course seemed to me an obviously welcome addition to our curriculum. The rationale read,
"Our department is in need of more non-Western philosophy courses. The proposed course will allow students to explore ancient classics in Western and Eastern Philosophy, with the course spending one-third of its time on Greek Philosophy, one-third on Indian Philosophy, and one-third on Chinese Philosophy. Given the introductory nature of the course, it is offered at the 100-level and requires no prerequisite knowledge."
I’m confident that with a fuller rationale, and with a title change (Ancient Wisdom in Global Philosophy, perhaps?) the course will ultimately get accepted at my college. Reflecting on this case, I do see how general labels such as “the West” and “the East” might be thought by many to be unduly homogenizing, and maybe that does indeed suggest that I ought to think of a title other than “Ancient Wisdom: East and West.” Do your readers agree?
Moreover, I’m curious whether any such unease with a general East/West distinction also extends nowadays to labels such as “Western Philosophy” and “Eastern Philosophy.” Are these labels now widely considered “problematic” and hence, as better discontinued (in favor, say, of “Asian Philosophy” instead of “Eastern Philosophy,” or maybe “East Asian Philosophy” and “South Asian Philosophy,” or even “Indian Philosophy,” “Chinese Philosophy,” “Japanese Philosophy,” etc.)
Comments are open for reader feedback.
Leave a Reply