Volume 08, Number 1 Fall 2008
APA Newsletters
© 2008 by The American Philosophical Association
NEWSLETTER ON ASIAN AND ASIAN-AMERICAN
PHILOSOPHERS AND PHILOSOPHY
FROM THE GUEST EDITOR, AMY OLBERDING
ARTICLES
Part I: Perspectives from the Field
STEPHEN C. ANGLE
“Does Michigan Matter?”
ROGER T. AMES
“A State-of-the-Art Reflection on Chinese Philosophy”
BRYAN W. VAN NORDEN
“Three Questions about the Crisis in Chinese Philosophy”
JUSTIN TIWALD
“A Case for Chinese Philosophy”
MANYUL IM
“Taking Stock: A State-of-the-Field Impression”
INTERVIEWS BY CHEUNG CHAN-FAI AND LIU XIAOGAN
“Professor Donald Munro on the State of Chinese Philosophy
DAVID B. WONG
“The State of Chinese Philosophy in the U.S.”
Part II: Perspectives from Hiring Departments
HUGH BENSON
“One Perspective on Chinese Philosophy in a Ph.D. Program”
LESLIE P. FRANCIS
“I Cannot Imagine Our Department without Asian Philosophy”
Part III: Data on the Profession
AMY OLBERDING
“Ph.D. Granting Programs in the United States with
Faculty Specializing in Asian Philosophy”
AMY OLBERDING
“Job Postings in Chinese, Asian, and
Non-Western Philosophy, 2003 - 2008”
APA NEWSLETTER ON
Asian and Asian-American
Philosophers and Philosophies
Chang-Seong Hong, Editor Fall 2008 Volume 08, Number 1
FROM THE GUEST EDITOR
Amy Olberding
University of Oklahoma
Some time ago, a colleague alerted me to a discussion about
Chinese philosophy on the Leiter Reports blog.1 The discussion
there centered around perceptions that there is a “crisis” in
Chinese philosophy in the United States and the difficulties
faced by students who wish to enter the field but find relatively
few choices in selecting graduate programs. It occurred to me
that an organized effort to assess the state of the field in the U.S.
would be useful and that is what this issue of the Newsletter
aspires to provide. While the essays collected here are diverse
in their interests and orientations, each undertakes to assess
the state of the field, with a particular focus on the opportunities
for graduate study in Chinese philosophy.
As many of our authors observe, a key measure of the
health of the field is its sustainability. Like any area of philosophy,
it is not enough that there be talented scholars producing
research and “moving the field forward.” There must also be
reliable graduate programs through which new generations of
scholars can arise. We require, in short, not simply good work
but the promise of more to come. Thus, while there are surely
other important gauges by which we might evaluate state of the
field, the focus of this issue is on opportunities for Ph.D. study of
Chinese philosophy. It is in this sense forward-looking, aimed at
evaluating not simply where the field is, but where it may go.
It is perhaps necessary at the outset to articulate the
limitations of the discussion offered here. Both the scholarship
in Chinese philosophy and the scholars working in the field
come to it from diverse quarters. Many scholars publishing in the
field are professionally placed in disciplines outside philosophy.
Likewise, much work in Chinese philosophy is, of course,
produced outside the boundaries of the United States. The
field is by no means confined by disciplinary or geographical
boundaries. However, this issue of the Newsletter must be
understood to treat the field in a somewhat artificially narrowed
fashion, looking principally to the discipline of philosophy and
to departments in the United States. While this narrow focus is
deliberate and self-conscious, it may be necessary to explain
its rationale.
In corresponding with colleagues about this issue and in
the Leiter Reports blog discussion, one source of worry that
emerged was that while Chinese philosophy may be flourishing
as an intellectual endeavor, it may do so elsewhere, outside
the discipline of philosophy and outside the United States.
Impressive philosophy programs have developed in Hong Kong
and Singapore, impressive scholars are located in Religious
Studies and East Asian programs throughout the U.S., but these
developments have served, for some at least, to emphasize
the contraction of offerings in U.S. philosophy departments. In
short, there is a concern, among some at least, that the health
of the field qua intellectual endeavor has come apart from
the health of the field qua professional disciplinary domain in
the United States. In order to address this local and particular
aspect of the field, the scholars invited to write for this issue of
the Newsletter are all placed in, or spent their careers in, U.S.
philosophy departments.
The Newsletter is divided into three sections. The first and
largest section consists in essays solicited from a variety of
specialists in Chinese philosophy who currently hold or have
recently held positions in U.S. philosophy departments. Some
of our contributors have long worked in the field and watched
its progress over long careers; others are newer to the field and
offer insight derived from recent experiences with both graduate
study and the job market. All are actively engaged, in a variety
of ways, with promoting the study of Chinese philosophy in
the United States.
The second section of the Newsletter offers two essays from
faculty well placed to address the field from an external vantage
point, Hugh Benson (University of Oklahoma) and Leslie Francis
(University of Utah). Both Professor Benson and Professor
Francis chair departments that, while predominantly Western
in orientation, include scholars of Chinese philosophy among
their faculty. They were invited to speak to their departments’
experience with Chinese philosophy in their graduate curricula
and offer their reflections regarding the inclusion of Chinese
philosophy in the wider profession.
The third section contains empirical data on the situation of
Chinese philosophy in the Unites States. Here we provide data
assembled to give definite shape and context to the reflections
included in the essays. The material provided here both outlines
the opportunities for Ph.D. study presently available in U.S.
philosophy departments and gives a snapshot of recent hiring
patterns.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to those who
assisted in assembling this issue. Chang Seong-Hong, Chair
of the Committee on the Status of Asian and Asian-American
Philosophers and Philosophies, provided very helpful advisory
assistance; Roger Ames, Philip J. Ivanhoe, and Steve Angle
all provided valuable advice regarding how to structure the
discussion and organize the data collected here. I am also
grateful to the editors at The Chinese University Press for their
permission to reprint an excerpt from Professor Donald Munro’s
new work and to the staff at The American Philosophical
Association for their assistance in producing this issue and in
gathering the data from Jobs for Philosophers included here.
While we would surely need multiple issues of the
Newsletter to provide a truly comprehensive review, the material
gathered here, it is hoped, will prove a helpful marker for those
in the field and those considering entering it.
— APA Newsletter, Fall 2008, Volume 08, Number 1 —
— 2 —
Endnotes
1. This discussion may be accessed at: http://leiterreports.
typepad.com/blog/2006/12/the_situation_f.html.
PART I: PERSPECTIVES
FROM THE FIELD
Does Michigan Matter?
Stephen C. Angle
Wesleyan University
When I went off to graduate school, specialists in Chinese
philosophy taught in philosophy departments at four significant
graduate programs: University of Michigan, University of
California at Berkeley, Stanford University, and University of
Hawai’i. Today, of those four programs, only Hawai’i—which,
in contrast to the other three, has not been viewed as a strong
broad-based graduate program1—still has specialists in Chinese
philosophy. My question here is: Does this matter, and if so, to
whom?
First of all, it matters to prospective graduate students.
In saying this, I do not mean to slight the Hawai’i program,
which has trained many excellent teachers and scholars. I also
recognize that there are several options that a student might
consider today. To see why it matters that Michigan, Berkeley,
and Stanford have dropped out of the game, let us consider
these other options briefly:
1. New U.S. philosophy Ph.D. programs with specialists
(e.g., DePaul University, University of Oklahoma,
University of Oregon, University of Utah)
2. U.S. philosophy Ph.D. programs with faculty who,
despite not having graduate training in Chinese
philosophy, have developed strong research and
teaching interests in it (e.g., Duke University, University
of Connecticut)
3. U.S. Ph.D. programs outside of philosophy (e.g.,
East Asian Languages and Civilizations or Religious
Studies) with faculty centrally interested in the
Chinese philosophical/religious tradition (e.g.,
Harvard University, Indiana University, University of
Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State University, etc.)
4. A U.S. philosophy Ph.D. program with no faculty
strongly interested in Chinese philosophy, but having
a specialist as an outside member of one’s dissertation
committee (anywhere, in principle)
5. A non-U.S. philosophy Ph.D. program with specialists
(e.g., Chinese University of Hong Kong, National
University of Singapore, Peking University, etc.)
Next, let us think about what an aspiring student would want
to get out of his or her graduate training:
A. Broad foundation in the Chinese philosophical
traditions—texts, commentaries, and secondary
literature
B. Deep understanding of at least one time period or
tradition, including engagement with Chinese (and
perhaps Japanese or Korean) scholarship
C. Strong linguistic and sinological training
D. Broad foundation in relevant history of Western
philosophy
E. Deep understanding of relevant area(s) of philosophical
research cognate with one’s interests in the Chinese
tradition
F. Original and insightful dissertation project
G. Excellent teaching skills
Certainly it is a tall order to acquire A through G. But there is
actually one more thing that a student wants, namely:
H. Prospective employers (especially U.S. philosophy
departments) recognize that the student has acquired
A though G
How well do institutions of types 1 though 5 fare in
preparing students, by the criteria A though H?
Let me immediately acknowledge that there is nothing
uniquely magical about being employed by a philosophy
department. For many people, it may make most sense and be
most attractive to aim at other disciplines instead. But I do think
that there is something distinctive and valuable about the project
of philosophy, and so I empathize with those students who
desire a career teaching Chinese philosophy in a philosophy
department. For them, I submit that it is difficult for any of
options 1 through 5 to be as good at meeting our desiderata as
would a top U.S. philosophy Ph.D. program with one (or more)
specialists. The reasons are various and mostly obvious. I will
comment here only on the importance of D and E, and on their
relation to H. I take it that a key goal of those doing research
on Chinese philosophy today is (or should be) to engage our
colleagues whose research is on historical or contemporary
issues in Western philosophy in constructive dialogue. We
should be striving to learn from them, and they from us. We
should be challenging one another. This is a crucial ingredient
in philosophical development, whether that development is
accounted in terms of better interpretations of past traditions
or more meaningful work on contemporary issues. To be sure,
there is much more involved in either of these projects than
dialogue, but dialogue is important. Therefore, D and E would be
important even if they were not also instrumental to achieving
H. As it stands, learning D and E at a strong graduate program
tends to result both in learning D and E well, and in having this
strength recognized (i.e., H).
So, it matters for prospective students that top graduate
programs in the U.S. no longer have specialists in Chinese
philosophy.
I have just asserted that not only the study of Chinese
philosophy but also the study of Western philosophy would be
better off if scholars of each tradition were in dialogue with one
another. This may be controversial but I believe it to be common
sense: our philosophical work is enhanced by challenges from
different traditions pursuing similar-enough questions, and
once we start looking, we see that there are many, many areas
in which various traditions are similar enough. It is, of course,
critical to avoid reading one’s own concerns into another
tradition; the role of comparative work varies, depending
on whether one’s main project is historical interpretation or
contemporary philosophical analysis and construction. But
in most cases there is room for constructive stimulus from
comparative perspectives.2
If this is so, then it is not just potential students of Chinese
philosophy to whom it matters that specialists in Chinese
philosophy no longer teach at places like Michigan, Berkeley,
and Stanford. It matters to the faculty at these schools, it matters
to their students no matter what their area of focus, and it
matters to all those who are influenced by the writing and
lecturing of scholars at these prominent institutions. My claim
is not that cross-tradition dialogue and stimulus is impossible
without specialists in Chinese philosophy at prominent graduate
— Asian and Asian-American Philosophers and Philosophies —
— 3 —
institutions. It is starting to happen in spite of the obstacles
created by such a lack. But there can be no question that this
(hopefully inevitable) progress would be accelerated if more
scholars and students at schools like Michigan, Stanford,
and Berkeley rubbed shoulders with specialists in Chinese
philosophy.
Endnotes
1. For whatever it is worth, Hawai’i does not rank among the
top sixty programs according to the “Philosophical Gourmet
Report” (http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com).
2. Two examples of Western philosophers being stimulated
by Chinese traditions might be helpful. In his “The Way
of the Wanton” (available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/
abstract=1006893), J. David Velleman draws significantly on
Zhuangzi in order to further develop ideas of Harry Frankfurt.
Paul Woodruff ’s Reverence: Renewing a Forgotten Virtue
(Oxford, 2001) is importantly informed by his understanding
of early Confucianism, especially concerning the relation
between ritual and reverence.
A State-of-the-Art Reflection on Chinese
Philosophy
Roger T. Ames
University of Hawai’i
I would like to join the discussion over the “crisis” in Chinese
philosophy in America by appealing to the Chinese expression
for “crisis”—weiji, literally, a correlation of “danger-opportunity.”
The insight captured in this term is that a “crisis” is potentially
a real danger, but at the same time, it presents an opportunity
to someone who can turn it to advantage. I would like to
focus my comments on the “opportunity” side of this familiar
expression.
Let me begin by observing that there are more jobs in
Chinese philosophy being advertised today than a decade
ago—that is, more by a power of ten. Chinese philosophy is on
a roll. And most of these jobs are in philosophy departments.
The exponential rise of China economically and politically has
not gone unnoticed in America and, as we all know, culture
follows wealth. China is “hot” in American education, and the
pressure for a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding
of this tradition is coming from below (students), from
above (administrations), and from outside the walls of those
philosophy departments that would continue to understand
philosophy as essentially an Anglo-European profession.
Just as culture follows wealth, supply follows demand.
While some of the recent graduates from the University of
Hawai’i have found replacement positions—positions that
were previously defined as Chinese philosophy—an important
number are filling new faculty lines. And I suspect that this
positive trend will continue to grow as the interest in Chinese
language and culture continues to expand.
Do students who ultimately want to find employment
teaching Chinese philosophy in the U.S. have to graduate from
philosophy departments in the U.S.? I do believe that we have to
locate the study of Chinese philosophy within the discipline of
philosophy proper. “Comparative philosophy” will have worked
its magic when this geographically rather than philosophically
determined term has become obsolete. I think that students
who have strong Western philosophical training do Chinese
philosophy better, and I also believe that Western philosophy
students who have strong Chinese philosophical training will
do Western philosophy better. The post-Darwinian revolution in
Western philosophy has produced an internal critique under the
banners of hermeneutics, post-structuralism, deconstructionism,
pragmatism, phenomenology, existentialism, and so on, that
has opened the door for an increasingly important exchange
between these two worlds—an exchange that will transform
and enrich them both, and that will in the fullness of time make
the notion of “exchange” itself an old vocabulary.
Chinese philosophy in the U.S. took a dramatic turn in 1989
when many P.R.C. graduate students studying in America were
granted asylum here. Many of these students had undergraduate
and graduate degrees from China’s finest institutions, and were
pursuing a Ph.D. within the context of an established American
philosophy program. Two decades later, these American
Ph.D.’s have now become an important resource in institutions
across the country for training a new generation of Chinese
philosophers and have raised the bar on both proficiency in
language and in philosophical training. What they have also
done is closed a gap, making education at and degrees from
Chinese institutions a desirable if not a necessary part of the
Ph.D. process. While in the old days Chinese philosophy in
America had little to do with Chinese philosophy in China, the
demand for new Ph.D.’s is that they have the language skills and
the personal experience that locates them within an increasingly
inclusive conversation. The presumption that the prestige of a
Ph.D. from an American institution is a necessary condition for
securing a good position is giving way to an appreciation of what
is available within the context of China itself. Indeed, if I were
at the beginning of my career, I would take the opportunity of
being trained in China and of finding a lifetime position in China
as a very important option. I would certainly include Hong Kong,
Singapore, and Taiwan in this possibility, but would perhaps be
even more interested in the exciting opportunities increasingly
available on the mainland.
Do I think that the evaporation of the positions at the elite
institutions such as Stanford University, University of Michigan,
and University of California at Berkeley signal a danger to the
future of Chinese philosophy in America? Certainly it is bad
news. But it is not a fair gauge of what is going on in the country
as a whole. Such news is offset at least in some degree by
increasing opportunities for those who in their lifetimes will
do more to transform the discipline of philosophy itself than
any generation that has come before. Such is the nature of our
current “crisis.”
Three Questions about the Crisis in Chinese
Philosophy
Bryan W. Van Norden
Vassar College
The primary question we have been invited to address is
whether there is a crisis in the field of Chinese philosophy. In
many