Eric Hoffman, Editor
Proceedings and Addresses of the APA
American Philosophical
Association
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
Dear Editor:
I am writing because I am disturbed by the apparent policy of many mainstream philosophy journals toward Chinese and comparative philosophy. The assumption seems to be that such work should be confined to the handful of specialist journals. I believe that this is an antiquated and counter-productive policy. Philosophers have recognized for a long time that any well-educated ethicist needs to know something about Aristotle, Kant, and the secondary work published on them. Because of changes in our society and in the world as a whole, the time has come for us to recognize that an ethicist should also know something about Mo Tzu, Hsün Tzu and Chu Hsi.
Too often, philosophers and editors brush off this fact with objections that can be easily rebutted. For example, to the objection, "Why can't they just publish in their own journals?" one can respond by pointing out that segregation is bad editorial policy for the same reason it is bad social policy: separate is not equal. Specifically, while I do not wish to overgeneralize, journals on Chinese philosophy seem less receptive to analytic treatments of Chinese and comparative philosophy than to other approaches. Opening up mainstream journals to this work would be a boon for both mainstream and non-Western philosophy. "We don't have anyone who can evaluate manuscripts or books for review in these fields." There are now a number of senior scholars in the philosophy departments of respected institutions (including Stanford and Berkeley) who can supply expert guidance. "Work on comparative philosophy is not always up to the level of quality of work in mainstream philosophy." If an article isn't up to rigorous standards, don't publish it; if a book is not up to snuff, don't review it. This is why journals need responsible referees and editors who are knowledgeable about Chinese and comparative philosophy. "We don't publish or review historical works." Fine, but let us be consistent. Journals that do publish historical articles and reviews of Western philosophy should also publish responsible work on Chinese philosophy. "Chinese philosophy is so different from Western philosophy." Plato is vastly different (in his claims, methodology, cultural context and style) from Hume, who is equally different from Nietzsche. Yet work on all of them would be published or reviewed in mainstream journals. "Few of our readers know Chinese." A specialist on Descartes must know Latin, but that does not mean that only people who read Latin want to read articles on and book reviews of Cartesian scholarship.
Consider the following list of outstanding recent works on Chinese and comparative philosophy, all of which have been completely ignored by the leading review journals in mainstream philosophy. The late A.C. Graham's classic Two Chinese Philosophers, which was recently republished by Open Court Press, gives an exceptionally clear presentation of "medieval" Neo-Confucian metaphysics and ethics. Philip J. Ivanhoe's Confucian Moral Self Cultivation (Peter Lang) is a brief, informative overview of views on human nature and self-cultivation over more than two millennia of the Confucian tradition. Ivanhoe's Ethics in the Confucian Tradition (Scholars Press) presents a clear and accessible discussion of the metaphysical and ethical differences between the early Confucian Mencius and his Neo-Confucian interpreter, Wang Yang- ming. Culture and Modernity: East-West Philosophic Perspectives, edited by Eliot Deutsch (University of Hawaii Press) is a fascinating collection of essays on many aspects of both the Western and non-Western philosophical traditions. Finally, Lee H. Yearley's Mencius and Aquinas: Theories of Virtue and Conceptions of Courage (SUNY Press) received only a book note in Ethics, although it is well worth the attention of anyone seriously interested in virtue ethics.
There are several books that have been published or are forthcoming this year that promise to be first-rate studies of Chinese or comparative philosophy, including Mencius and Early Chinese Thought (Stanford University Press), by Kwong-loi Shun, Essays on Skepticism, Relativism, and Ethics in the Zhuangzi (SUNY Press), edited by Paul Kjellberg and Philip J. Ivanhoe, and two volumes (both from Open Court) on the work of David S. Nivison (a past president of the Pacific APA). I edited The Ways of Confucianism: Investigations in Chinese Philosophy, which is a collection of Nivison's essays, and Ivanhoe edited Chinese Language, Thought, and Culture: Nivison and His Critics, which is a collection of critical essays on Nivison's work. I hope the time has come when mainstream journals will review informative and responsible works like these, and publish articles on similar topics.
In closing, I would like to make a more general observation about the political and cultural climate in which we live. Although I would certainly not endorse everything that has ever been done in the name of "multiculturalism," there are increasing (and justified) demands for greater intercultural awareness and study in academic circles. Philosophers can begin to include non-Western materials in their courses and research now, and do so on their own terms, or they can wait until their departments are eventually forced to hire non-Western specialists (perhaps at the cost of existing tenure-track lines) by administrators under intense political pressure. Philosophers would do well to heed the Stoic adage: The fates drag those who do not come willingly.
Sincerely,