Civilization is doomed no matter what where Marxists just seem in wanting to speed up the process even faster.
Pupils asking to study more Eastern and African philosophy… alongside its already abundant Western counterpart on the curriculum there caused uproar and actually made the news? Anything can be sensationalised these days… something I have noticed happening to our late night news of late.
This is the actual SOAS student union document :
soasunion.org/education/educationalpriorities/
And this is the section which made the news:
Decolonising SOAS: Confronting the White Institution:
Decolonising SOAS is a campaign that aims to address the structural and epistemological legacy of colonialism within our university. We believe that SOAS should take a lead on such questions given its unique history within British colonialism. In light of the centenary and SOAS’ aims of curating a vision for itself for the next 100 years, this conversation is pivotal for its future direction.
Our aims are a continuation of the campaign last year:
To hold events that will engage in a wider discussion about expressions of racial and economic inequality at the university, focussing on SOAS. To address histories of erasure prevalent in the curriculum with a particular focus on SOAS’ colonial origins and present alternative ways of knowing. To interrogate SOAS’ self-image as progressive and diverse. To use the centenary year as a point of intervention to discuss how the university must move forward and demand that we, as students of colour, are involved in the curriculum review process. To review 10 first year courses, working with academics to discuss points of revamp, reform and in some cases overhaul. To make sure that the majority of the philosophers on our courses are from the Global South or it’s diaspora. SOAS’s focus is on Asia and Africa and therefore the foundations of its theories should be presented by Asian or African philosophers (or the diaspora). If white philosophers are required, then to teach their work from a critical standpoint. For example, acknowledging the colonial context in which so called “Enlightenment” philosophers wrote within.
Everyone can decide personally whether it has be “sensationalized” or not. And whether those are reasonable goals or not.
Wow… just, wow.
It is beyond belief that such things even exist.
theguardian.com/commentisfr … snowflakes
We all know what students are like nowadays, don’t we? Special snowflakes who can’t cope with the real world, who refuse to venture out of their safe spaces to learn anything, who are so achingly PC they won’t even let their institutions serve sushi in the cafeteria. When they’re not wasting their lives on social media or fighting for a fairer world for all, these mewling, overprivileged babies like to spend their time policing their academic superiors on their curriculum choices.The latest scandal? Step forward Soas, University of London students’ union, which has outraged basically every outlet in the rightwing press by calling, astonishingly enough, for such great philosophers as Kant, Plato and Descartes to be banned from the curriculum, just because they are white.
As part of a wider campaign to “decolonise” the curriculum, the union has proclaimed, “the majority of philosophers” taught at Soas should be from Africa or Asia, and – when the great names of European philosophy are taught, which is something that should only happen when absolutely necessary – it should be from a critical standpoint, accounting for (for instance) the colonial context in which Enlightenment thought arose.
Given the nature of SOAS as an institution, it makes sense for the students to study more African and Asian thought
Read the news articles on this story and you’d be convinced that some great act of intellectual barbarism was about to take place. But in truth, the notion that anything untoward is going on here is mostly nonsense.Allow me to explain. First, it must be noted that despite the headlines no one, at any point, has actually called for white philosophers to be dropped from the curriculum at Soas. Even at its most extreme, all the Soas students’ union demands (and note that their demand has no binding force whatsoever) is that European philosophers only be taught in preference to African and Asian ones when necessary. Adopting this principle, if it turns out that say, Kant, has expressed some insight that is vital for understanding some aspect of reality, then he should be allowed to remain in the curriculum.
This seems fair: there’s only so much thought one can study as an undergraduate, and students should have a right to not waste their time on any second-rate thinkers who happen to have snuck themselves into the western canon. If we’re going to teach philosophy at a university, then it seems more than worthwhile to critically reflect on which philosophers we’re focusing on, and why. Indeed, this is something that Kant himself, whose mature work is pitched against dogmatism in all its forms, would welcome.
Second, philosophers should also welcome the demand that European philosophy be studied in its appropriate social and historical context. This doesn’t just mean PC hand-wringing: it can be used to actively enrich our understanding of these texts. Consider an example such as Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes – one of the founding documents of western political thought. Hobbes argues that we need a state authority invested with absolute power – because otherwise society would collapse into what he calls “the state of nature”, where no one has any security and life is nasty, brutish and short. The state of nature is often called a fiction, but if you read Leviathan closely you’ll notice that Hobbes is actually getting it from early anthropological accounts of Native American civilisation, which he describes as being devoid of any understanding of law. This of course is deeply problematic – and it’s exactly the sort of point that, if we understand it in its proper context, can allow us to get a better, richer understanding of Hobbes (and obtain a better understanding of our social world in general).
Third, even if the Soas students had demanded that all white philosophers be banned from the curriculum, it’s still unclear to me how much would actually be lost. You wouldn’t know it from reading any of the other news articles on this topic, but Soas doesn’t actually have a philosophy department – and nor does it offer a BA degree in philosophy. Rather, Soas offers a BA in world philosophies, which is run by the department of religions and philosophies. Given the nature of this course and the nature of Soas as an institution, it makes complete sense for the students to want to study more African and Asian thought at the expense of European. Of course if nearby Birkbeck decided to purge its curriculum of European thought, that would be an entirely different issue. But these matters are context-sensitive, and diversity across curricula should be welcomed.
Finally, the stereotype of students as easily “triggered” special snowflakes who use political correctness to police their teachers is one I simply don’t recognise. Most of the students I’ve encountered as a university lecturer are bright, engaged and want to be challenged. And to be honest, that’s something I recognise in the statement issued by the Soas students as well. This oh-so-scandalising statement reads to me like it must have been produced by students who are deeply invested in their course and care passionately about what they study. As educators we have a duty to respond to and nurture this passion.
If you want to study European philosophy you can. If you want to study African or Asian philosophy you can. So what is so controversial about
a statement from the School Of Oriental And African Studies that favours the latter over the former? The clue is after all in the title is it not
Eh, what’s necessary anyway.
As long as you get the money everything is fine.
It’s not like education is a giant drain on society, expensive babysitting of increasingly unfit hordes of future leeches, demanding to level everything down to their level.
But then again what would a society do with their assets and produced surplus but sell them off to foreign countries and put the money into training self-entitled future liabilities. You gotta do what you were born to do.
If you want to study European philosophy you can. If you want to study African or Asian philosophy you can. So what is so controversial about
a statement from the School Of Oriental And African Studies that favours the latter over the former? The clue is after all in the title is it not
that’s a good point. as it is that particular collage saying, that is, unless it becomes a more universal directive - which is my concern here. especially as it made the news and what have you. in fact, that particular collage probably should have always had a slant towards the east and Africa.
Have to wonder what the Brits were thinking when they taught some European philosophy in the School of Oriental and African Studies.
They probably were racist.
But not only racist but they were probably also thinking that they want to study Africa and the Orient with the thinking tools of Europeans.
Now that it’s less Europeans in Europe and in that university the dichotomy of ooga and booga will do fine as well.
It will be non-Europeans studying the way of non-Europeans with the tools of non-European thinking in a school in Europe.
Will Karl Marx make it on the banned white list?