Diversifying to Decolonise

This article will explore how universities in the UK can diversify the philosophy curriculum. I argue that one way that this can be done is through making women authors the focus of modules.

Implicit bias is one reason, among others, that contributes to the lack of diversity in university philosophy modules. Recent studies suggest that human beings associate the term ‘genius’ or ‘brilliance’ with maleness. It is common for human beings to imagine “Einstein, Darwin or, Da Vinci?”[1] when asked to imagine someone who exhibits academic excellence. With implicit bias in mind, I would like to look at the lack of diversity within philosophy curriculums in higher education. Unfortunately, philosophy curriculums “foster a culture of hero worship around certain figures, whose pronouncements come to be treated as important by default.”[2] When addressing the lack of diversity of authors in Simon May’s book Love: A History, Carrie Jenkins establishes a list of white male philosophers that she calls the “usual suspects.”[3] The list includes “Plato, Aristotle, Lucretius, Ovid, Spinoza, Rousseau, Scglegel, Novalis, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Frued, and Proust.”[4] Although women feature as a topic of discussion in May’s book, they do not set the agenda of discussion, the agenda is decided by white male philosophers. Analogously, the modules given at many Universities in the UK have white male philosophers at the centre of the module. It is rare that women philosophers guide the module and are constantly featured as essential readings. The exception to this, of course, is the one off feminst module.

Philosophy curriculums in higher education, for the most part, “treat the ideas of men as agenda setting and accord women’s work with a secondary place, or no place at all in it’s action.”[5] Often in philosophy modules, white male scholars are the focus teaching. From political philosophy to existentialism, their work comprises the essential readings of undergraduate courses. Although women thinkers do feature more frequently in modules now, they serve a secondary function. They rarely set the agenda for an entire module. There are often weeks in courses where women’s work are featured with a specific interest in analysing work through a feminist perspective, but rarely do these thinkers set the agenda for entire modules. It is rare that an undergraduate student takes an existentialist course where they do a close reading of Simone De Bouviour’s The Second Sex or work by Hannah Arendt. The long history of male eurocentric work in philosophy sets the precedent for current and future philosophy, however, we ought to make an active attempt to diversify what is taught in philosophy.

This tradition is limiting to our philosophical progression because it neglects the thoughts and knowledge of a wide range of thinkers. It is counterproductive to our philosophical progression because it limits what students can learn and write about. It leaves students learning how to write philosophy in one way and does not provide students with a diverse range of perspectives. The idea that philosophy is purely a “political and a rational pursuit”[6] is a pretense that reinforces that these works receive approbation and canonization based on “merit” rather than “status, class, gender, race, or anything else.”[7] Holding rationality above everything else stops us from talking about diversifying the curriculum because we do not find diversifying and decolonising the tradition of philosophy important.

Critics argue, however, that we are making an active effort to diversify the curriculum. There are entire feminist modules devoted to women thinkers and here women set the agenda for discussion. These modules, however, only formally make an effort to diversify the curriculum. Making women the soul focus of one module does very little to diversify philosophy curriculums in their entirety. They do not diversify the curriculum for two reasons. The first is that feminist modules are often not compulsory and, therefore, many students do not take these modules. The second, and more pressing, is that it does not tackle the broad problem of diversifying the cannon. One feminist module, in an undergraduate degree, does not tackle the structural problem of the lack of diversity in the cannon. It is likely that the work done in the feminist module will be left there and there will be no effort to diversify the curriculum outside of this module. Devoting one module to feminist thought and not encorporating women thinkers as central authors in other modules does very little to diversify and change the power structure of the university. In order to diversify the curriculum, we ought to diversify philosophy modules by teaching women authors more prominently. This would also begin to tackle implicit bias within philosophy.

Ultimately, the higher education system in the UK ought to diversify the content of philosophy modules so that women thinkers are primary in modules and set the agenda for discussion rather than being treated as secondary. This will make an attempt to decolonise the curriculum by increasing the diversity of authors taught in philosophy. It will challenge the structure of taught philosophy in a broad sense and this is more likely to lead to substantive change. Although feminist modules make an effort to diversify the curriculum, they, alone, are not enough to diversify and decolonise philosoph taught at universities. Diversifying the curriculum, in this broad way that I have suggested, is one way that universities can change implicit biases in individuals and recognise the importance of women’s work in philosophy.

Peter Tsoukkas

References [1] Carrie Jenkins, What Love Is: and What It Could Be, New York: Basic Books, 2017. 68. [2] Jenkins, What Love is, 66-67. [3] Jenkins, What Love is, 67. [4] Jenkins, What Love is, 67. [5] Jenkins, What Love is, 67. [6] Jenkins, What Love is, 67. [7] Jenkins, What Love is, 67.

Image credit: Lyubov Ivanova, Getty Images