salvaged from the cache

From the short-lived Cont-Phil UK weblog:

Organizing Continental Philosophy
In 1997 it was proposed that a society for European philosophy be founded to promote the interests and work of those engaged in continental philosophy in the UK. After much debate at the inaugural conference (on which see Radical Philosophy 86 (1997), 56) the title of ‘Society for European Philosophy’ was chosen over that of ‘(British) Society for Continental Philosophy’ for a variety of broadly sensible reasons. One of these was a desire to promote inclusivity; another was a desire to stress that original philosophy in this tradition was happening ‘over here’ as well as ‘over there’ on the other side of the channel. Name chosen, the society was conceived as an alternative to the Aristotelian Society and the Mind Association, with its own annual conference promised to rival the Joint Session itself. Rumours of a journal deal with a leading publisher also circulated.

While the resulting society has indeed held a series of annual conferences, it would be a little much to claim that they can rival the Joint Session in stature, although perhaps these are still too early days. Nor has the society made itself felt in the wider philosophical community. For instance, it has no website in which it can disseminate information or recruit members (membership simply equates with registering for the conference). A Google search for the ‘Society for European Philosophy’ throws up as top result – with painful irony – the ‘European Society for Analytic Philosophy’. Nor has it affiliated to the British Philosophical Association, the new national organization designed to promote the wider standing of philosophy in the UK (surely an ideal forum in which the Society should make itself felt).

While the annual conference may be a welcome addition to the autumn conference season, the Society has thus far not lived up to the grand ideas out of which it grew. There is little point in speculating about the reasons for this. Part of the problem, though, may have been its initial desire for a very inclusive agenda, exemplified by its choice of ‘European philosophy’ over ‘continental philosophy’ in its name. An inclusive agenda is one that highlights the arbitrary nature of the whole ‘analytic’-‘continental’ division, and encourages dialogue between philosophers of different traditions. While this is a noble aim in theory, it does not address the continuing marginalization of continental philosophy that takes place in practice. While some continental philosophers do not want to be seen to reject analytic philosophy, organizations such as the National Postgraduate Analytic Philosophy Association and others are happy to advertise conferences in which only papers ‘in a broadly analytic style’ are welcome. While some continental philosophers want to join hands with their analytic counterparts across the metaphorical barricades, some analytic philosophers seem happy to continue piling up the stones and rubble.

This is not to suggest that all – or even any – analytic philosophers are necessarily ‘anti’ continental philosophy (although some clearly are). It is simply to note that they are confident in the value of what they are doing, want to continue doing it, and enjoy meeting with other like-minded individuals who like to do work in a similar vein. So the question is this: why should continental philosophers not do the same? Why should there not be a society for continental philosophy that actively promotes work in continental philosophy? We all know what ‘continental philosophy’ means here, even if we would not like to be pushed for a formal definition. There are some who have perceptively noted that the category ‘continental philosophy’ – a label seemingly most popular with the corporations that run parts of academic publishing – is actually a category created by analytic philosophers, a category of the ‘other’ into which anything that does not fit neatly within analytic philosophy’s own various branches can be relegated. To affirm oneself as a ‘continental philosopher’, then, is simply to accept analytic philosophy’s unflattering appellation.

But like it or not, the labels seem here to stay. Both labels turn out to be meaningless when analysed closely, but pragmatically they delineate real divergences in texts read, issues addressed, and methods of working. While there may be an increasing number of people who engage in cross-over work drawing on material from both traditions, the differences between the two traditions remain as marked as ever. Moreover, it often seems that while an increasing number of people with a background in continental philosophy are willing to work across the division, significantly fewer analytic philosophers are prepared to venture over into the other side. If more and more continental philosophers repudiate the label and try to promote inclusive cross-over work, while at the same time analytic philosophers stay firmly in place doing what they do (any why not), then in effect continental philosophy will slowly disappear from the philosophical scene. No doubt some analytic philosophers would see such an event as a success, the triumph of common sense over fashionable and ephemeral nonsense.

Such an outcome would be a great shame though. It would also be at odds with the continuing high levels of student interest in continental philosophy and the lucrative publishing market in continental philosophy. Just as many analytic philosophers are happy to proclaim that they do ‘analytic philosophy of religion’ or ‘analytic Marxism’ for instance, so continental philosophers should be prepared to affirm the tradition within which they work. While being an analytic philosopher does not automatically imply that one thinks all continental philosophy is suspect, being a continental philosopher need not automatically imply that one is dismissive of analytic philosophy.

The UK philosophical scene is still in need of an organization that will positively promote the interests and aims of continental philosophy, not in any desire to reinforce a hostile division between analytic and continental philosophers, but simply as a means to encourage future work in the subject and bring together like-minded individuals who want to share their research. And it needs to be an organization that is prepared to play its part in the wider institutional politics of academia, such as the well-conceived British Philosophical Association (which is – I understand – now the official consulted body for the RAE panel selections). It needs to have a real web presence where interested third parties can gain useful information about, say, relevant graduate programs and journals. It needs to have a substantial theoretical agenda setting out the philosophical reasons why work in the distinctively continental tradition(s) is both rigorous and relevant. A society for ‘European philosophy’ will have difficulty with the last of these, for all of Western philosophy is effectively European (notwithstanding its emigration around the world).

Despite this last point, there is no reason in theory why the existing Society for European Philosophy could not fulfil many of these roles (the LSE’s Forum for European Philosophy is a different sort of entity, as I understand it, and it might not be appropriate for a research centre part-funded by a particular institution to engage in these sorts of activities). Perhaps some day it will. But at present continental philosophy remains seriously under-represented in the UK philosophical scene.
# posted by John @ Monday, March 21, 2005 9 comments