[Y-Indology] Eurocentrism in Philosophy Departments?

[Guest guest]

Rajiv Malhotra wrote:

 

>The above changes slightly over time, but remains 100% western. It is

>noteworthy that there is NOT A SINGLE non-western writer in their

>reading list. Yet their stated mission is: "The St. John's curriculum

>seeks to convey to students an understanding of the fundamental

>problems that human beings have to face today and at all times."

 

To quote Dominik, since he no longer participates here:

 

"This message, and others like it, are not relevant to the subject

matter of INDOLOGY, which is the study of classical Indian culture and

languages, and not political activism. I am not making any judgement

about the worthiness of any political causes, but this is not the

place to discuss them. There are many internet forums which welcome

and encourage such discussions. There are very few forums which do

what INDOLOGY tries to do. So please respect the goals and scope of

this particular discussion forum."

 

Regards,

Rohan.

[Guest guest]

Dear Rajiv,

 

On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 10:33:57AM -0400, Rajiv Malhotra wrote:

 

[snip]

 

> I assumed (naively) that US Universities' Philosophy Departments

> would find this troublesome, but one US university after another

> turned out to be Eurocentric in its curriculum. I discovered that

> the Univ. of Hawaii and U-Texas (Austin) are the only major

> universities where they give PhDs in Indian Philosophy in

> Philosophy Departments.

 

I fear you are being overly selective in choosing your

evidence. Indian and Buddhist Studies find their place in a wide

variety of different departments in the States. And it can be

persuasively argued that they don't necessarily belong only in

departments of philosophy. It would also seem that in your

analysis you have failed to take account of the real nature of

what is traditionally referred to as a `classical education.' You

also seem somewhat unclear about the internal dynamics of many

Western universities, the traditions, the collective

understanding, the bureaucracy, the politics et ceatera.

 

As I mentioned before, I suggest you do some more background

reading.

 

For a summary of the historical development of the classical

education, an old but useful text is:

 

Bolgar, R. R., `The classical heritage and its beneficiaries'

(Cambridge: CUP, 1954)

 

For a summary of the dynamics of European Universities in

general:

 

@Book{bordieu:homo,

author = "P. Bordieu",

title = "Homo Academicus",

publisher = "Polity Press in association with Basil Blackwell",

year = "1988",

key = "bordieu:1988",

address = "Cambridge",

note = "tr. by P. Collier",

}

 

And lastly, for the nature of Buddhist Studies in the States in

particular:

 

@Article{gomez:unspoken,

author = "L. G\'{o}mez",

title = "Unspoken Paradigms\,: Meanderings through the

metaphors of a field",

journal = "Journal of the International Association of Buddhist

Studies",

stitle = "Unspoken Paradigms",

year = "1995",

key = "gomez:1995",

volume = "18",

number = "2",

pages = "183 -- 268",

}

 

@Article{cabezon:buddhist,

author = "J. I. Cabez\'{o}n",

title = "Buddhist studies as a discipline and the role of

theory",

journal = "Journal of the International Association of Buddhist

Studies",

stitle = "Buddhist studies",

year = "1995",

key = "cabezon:1995",

volume = "18",

number = "2",

pages = "231 -- 268",

}

 

Hopefully, these studies will be of assistance.

 

 

Many regards,

 

Richard Mahoney

 

 

--

------------------------ Richard Mahoney -------------------------

78 Jeffreys Rd +64-3-351-5831

Christchurch New Zealand

--------------- rbm49 ----------------

[Guest guest]

To Richard Mahoney: I have more than just read curricula and attended

courses at these philosophy departments. I have discussed this issue with

the faculty. They DO NOT hesitate to admit their lack of interest in Indian

philosophy, so it's not a disputed item in the minds of most philosophy

departments. They take the position rather openly and without any apologies

that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INDIAN PHILOSOPHY. Some go about it by

asking, 'Can you describe to me what you would consider as Indian

philosophy?' Then the approach is to claim that whatever you cite would not

qualify as philosophy as per their definition. Rarely do they know any

Sanskrit or have more than popular knowledge of Indic ideas. The problem is

worse with Anglo-American Philosophy departments than the Continental

Philosophy departments. (At least through phenomenology and now

postmodernism, Continental Philosophers can see some linkage.)

 

Scholars in numerous Religious Studies depts. have told me of their efforts

to get closer to their own philosophy departments without success. In fact,

at one major Philosophy Department (Rutgers University), the Chair and the

Dean got interested to start Indian Philosophy, and we went through

experimental steps for a couple of years, such as organizing seminars, etc.

But in the end there was 'disinterest' from the faculty. This ploy of

ignoring, or simply using linguistic categories to define something as not

belonging, is an old one indeed. The evidence for disinterest is numerical

hard data: count the faculty positions, number of PhDs, panels at

conferences, etc and the answer does not require sophisticated

interpretation. The conclusion is: as per western philosophers, there is no

such thing as Indian Philosophy. Now maybe that's a justifiable conclusion.

Then we can discuss that.

 

Your view that IP belongs in 'ethnic' contexts is problematic, as few

students go for S. Asian specializations. By your logic, you would also

agree than non-western music rightfully belongs under 'ethnomusicology'

whereas Mozart, Beethoven, etc could never be classified as 'ethnic'. Is

this attitude of others' cultures and ideas being 'ethnic' any different

than a view from Europe? Quite a few Indian Philosophers have spoken of the

importance to mainstream IP and to get out of the ghetto of ethnicity,

including Karl Potter, Arindam Chakrabarty, Ram-Prasad Chakravarti, Stephen

Phillips, J. Mohanty, Eliot Deutsch, ...

 

Rajiv Malhotra

The Infinity Foundation

53 White Oak Drive

Princeton, NJ 08540

www.infinityfoundation.com

[Guest guest]

Rajiv Malhotra writes:The conclusion is:as per western philosophers, there

is no

>such thing as Indian Philosophy

 

Rajiv Malhotra writes: The conclusion is as per western philosophy, there is

no such thing as >Indian Philosophy.

 

Can this not be explained as modern philosophy ejecting both science and

religion as well as the Philosophers who did make the distinction such as

Nietzsche.

 

regards

Bob Peck

 

 

 

 

>To Richard Mahoney: I have more than just read curricula and attended

>courses at these philosophy departments. I have discussed this issue with

>the faculty. They DO NOT hesitate to admit their lack of interest in Indian

>philosophy, so it's not a disputed item in the minds of most philosophy

>departments. They take the position rather openly and without any apologies

>that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INDIAN PHILOSOPHY. Some go about it by

>asking, 'Can you describe to me what you would consider as Indian

>philosophy?' Then the approach is to claim that whatever you cite would not

>qualify as philosophy as per their definition. Rarely do they know any

>Sanskrit or have more than popular knowledge of Indic ideas. The problem is

>worse with Anglo-American Philosophy departments than the Continental

>Philosophy departments. (At least through phenomenology and now

>postmodernism, Continental Philosophers can see some linkage.)

>

>Scholars in numerous Religious Studies depts. have told me of their efforts

>to get closer to their own philosophy departments without success. In fact,

>at one major Philosophy Department (Rutgers University), the Chair and the

>Dean got interested to start Indian Philosophy, and we went through

>experimental steps for a couple of years, such as organizing seminars, etc.

>But in the end there was 'disinterest' from the faculty. This ploy of

>ignoring, or simply using linguistic categories to define something as not

>belonging, is an old one indeed. The evidence for disinterest is numerical

>hard data: count the faculty positions, number of PhDs, panels at

>conferences, etc and the answer does not require sophisticated

>interpretation. The conclusion is: as per western philosophers, there is no

>such thing as Indian Philosophy. Now maybe that's a justifiable conclusion.

>Then we can discuss that.

>

>Your view that IP belongs in 'ethnic' contexts is problematic, as few

>students go for S. Asian specializations. By your logic, you would also

>agree than non-western music rightfully belongs under 'ethnomusicology'

>whereas Mozart, Beethoven, etc could never be classified as 'ethnic'. Is

>this attitude of others' cultures and ideas being 'ethnic' any different

>than a view from Europe? Quite a few Indian Philosophers have spoken of the

>importance to mainstream IP and to get out of the ghetto of ethnicity,

>including Karl Potter, Arindam Chakrabarty, Ram-Prasad Chakravarti, Stephen

>Phillips, J. Mohanty, Eliot Deutsch, ...

>

>Rajiv Malhotra

>The Infinity Foundation

>53 White Oak Drive

>Princeton, NJ 08540

>www.infinityfoundation.com

>

>

>

>

>

>indology

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>