A self-declared “manifesto,” Bryan W. Van Norden's Taking Back Philosophy is purposely controversial and provocative. The goal of this book is to convince philosophy professors and departments, who are the book's primary target audience, that they must engage with non-Western philosophy.
The book opens with Jay Garfield's foreword and description of the unfortunate state of academic philosophy in the United States today. A very tiny minority of PhD degree-granting universities in the country offer programs that can train graduate students in non-Western philosophy. Typical reasons from philosophy professors include: they are not familiar with non-Western philosophies or languages, and therefore cannot teach them; there is not enough room for teaching Western philosophy as it is, so letting in other cultures is impossible; and other cultures do not produce philosophy. Such views have been expressed in recent years, as well as over the course of the past several centuries, in racist rejections of those outside the Anglo-American philosophical tradition. Revealingly, those same people who dismiss non-Western philosophy never bother to give the texts of other cultures a fair reading.
Chapter 1 is an expansion of Garfield and Van Norden's 2016 New York Times opinion piece, “If Philosophy Won't Diversify, Let's Call It What It Really Is.” The entirety of Taking Back Philosophy is built off of the argument and controversy sparked by this article, whose original popularity culminated in the closing of its online comment section, a slew of response blog posts and articles published elsewhere, and a barrage of e-mails to the authors both in support and criticism of their claims. In this chapter, Van Norden argues that many philosophy departments are engaging in “Philosophical Ethnocentrism” and “Intellectual Imperialism” when they do not hire specialists in “Less Commonly Taught Philosophies.”
Chapter 2 argues that the philosophical subfields of metaphysics, political philosophy, and ethics can all benefit from a multicultural dialogue between Western and non-Western philosophers. As illustrations, Van Norden effectively brings Descartes into dialogue with Buddhist philosopher Nagasena and Hobbes with Mengzi, and last but not least, he shows how a wide swath of Western ethics philosophers do not adequately answer questions that the neo-Confucians Zhu Xi and Wang Yangming do. The point of this chapter is to show the utility of reading other philosophers and incorporating them in one's research and teaching.
Philosophers who will not engage with non-Western philosophy are essentially building artificial walls, which serves to reinforce ethnocentric political discourse, according to chapter 3. An important aspect of Van Norden's multiculturalism is that “philosophy” never meant only one thing. It has always meant different things to different philosophers at different times. Persuasively, he shows that the typical assertion that Western philosophy comes from Greek philosophy is incorrect. It was not until the nineteenth century that the claim arose that philosophy is only logical discussion in the tradition of the ancient Greeks. This argument, by no coincidence, emerged at exactly the same time that Western countries sought to engage in colonial conquest of the non-Western world, practicing the cultural othering necessary to separate a superior West from a backwards other.
Chapter 4 counters the conservative argument that philosophy is impractical and cannot contribute productively to society. Van Norden draws on many examples to show that philosophers have always contributed positively to civilization, and that philosophy is essential to democracy. He also points out that the most pivotal scientists in history were interested in philosophy and even considered themselves philosophers. “Practical” majors alone are not enough for a civilization to thrive. Unfortunately, many professors of the discipline today contribute to this stereotype.
Chapter 5 is devoted to the call that philosophy professors need to reclaim the original spirit of philosophy that inspired the likes of Socrates and Confucius. Van Norden defines philosophy as the discussion of that which cannot be conclusively decided upon at the moment. Drawing from statements made by famous philosophers around the world, Van Norden shows that they were not merely engaging in intellectual game play, but that they were always inspired by the quest to make the world a better place and to improve humanity. Also in this final chapter, Van Norden tells those of us outside philosophy that we should embrace the “hermeneutic of faith,” which is to say that our sources speak to the human condition and to what we ought to do.
Taking Back Philosophy is essential reading for those in the field of philosophy, but scholars and students across the humanities and social sciences in Asian studies will find much to enjoy and will benefit from this book. For readers unfamiliar with non-Western philosophy, Van Norden provides a good selection of useful introductory texts and edited volumes from each culture in the endnotes.
