The Difficulty of Doing Non-Western Political Theory
I am currently designing an undergraduate course on ‘contemporary non-western political theory’, a task fraught with difficulties. Ever since I moved to Europe for my postgraduate studies, I have felt a certain discomfort with the ethnocentrism in analytical political theory departments here, that is at once apparent and not-so-apparent. Apparent, because 99% of the authors I read in a ‘global’ justice course or the scholars I meet at ‘international’ conferences turn out to be people who grew up and trained in the ‘west’. Not-so-apparent because the content of the research taught and produced by these scholars is often genuinely universal. Questions such as ‘what justifies democracy’ or ‘is equality inherently valuable’ or ‘what grounds human rights’ can and often do have answers that transcend cultural particularities. That is, in fact, what attracted me to analytical political theory in the first place – it’s concern with some basic, normative issues that presumably affect all human societies.
The dominance of the western intellectual in analytical political theory, combined with the discipline’s universalist aspirations leads to a dissonance – on the one hand, the lack of geographic/ethnic diversity does not seem to pose a problem for the progress of the discipline itself if these theorists show a genuine commitment and ability to think universally. Of course, the lack of diversity may be a problem on other grounds for e.g. it may reinforce the old stereotype that people outside the west are incapable of thinking abstractly and/or universally. However, it is theoretically possible that the lack of diversity does not affect the global validity of research insights coming out of these political theory circles. On the other hand, it seems hard not to take this lack of diversity as a sign of continuing western intellectual imperialism in some sense. We have good reasons to be distrustful of a western academia that claims to generate universal insights considering many of its canonical thinkers such as Kant, Rousseau and Hegel were known racists. Even if the contemporary western philosopher has no such sense of cultural superiority or racial biases, it is not inconceivable that they are being parochial, despite the best of efforts and intentions.
The western academy has responded to these concerns in various ways. Many political theory conferences and hiring committees today explicitly encourage members from underrepresented groups to apply. Of course, ‘under-represented’, ‘non-western’ or any such label raises difficult questions. Should a scholar raised in South Asia and trained in North America count as a member of an under-represented group? And what about a scholar raised in North America who has spent much of their research career living in South Asia? Moreover, what counts as ‘west’ is highly controversial, including North America, Europe and Australia in its most expansive versions. Depending on disciplinary norms, scholars tend to use ‘global north’, ‘developed’, ‘advanced’ and other terms as a substitute for the west, though each of those terms bring their own set of controversies. Even if we can set aside these conceptual difficulties, there is a more substantive worry – a more representative political theory department may not guarantee a diversification of ideas. A non-western scholar, aspiring to fit into the research community, may consciously and unconsciously adapt themselves such that there is nothing markedly different about their writings and teaching compared to their western counterparts.
Several university departments today focus intentionally on diversification of traditions of political thoughts. Courses are often offered in for e.g. the history of Middle Eastern political thought, African political thought, Chinese philosophy etc. Sometimes, entire programs are set-up in comparative political theory, whose aspiration is to look for similarities and differences in intellectual traditions. Here, the personal background of the theorist does not matter as much as their expertise dealing with these non-western philosophical traditions.
However, these traditions, even when taught as part of dedicated courses and programs, tend to remain in intellectual ghettos. We rarely see the thinkers covered in these courses as being referred to in normative debates within mainstream analytical political theory. At least a part of the reason for this is the historical approach most often taken in these courses; one studies African political thought to better understand intellectual developments in Africa, just as one studies history of (European) political thought to understand intellectual developments in Europe. The task of analytical political theory is somewhat different, it tends to be less historical and more normative. There is often a smooth continuum between history of (European) political thought and analytical political theory. Such a continuum is generally seen lacking between non-western intellectual traditions and analytical political theory, however. Even when Gandhi, Ambedkar, Said, Fanon or the Confucians are regarded as serious political thinkers, they are rarely invoked in discussions about contemporary political theory problems.
My aim in this undergraduate course is to teach non-western political theory not just as an interesting historical subject but as relevant to contemporary philosophical challenges. While several analytical philosophers today (Kevin Pham, Serena Khader, Rajeev Bhargava, to name a few) have taken up the task to expand mainstream political theory by including voices from the ‘non-west’ in ongoing philosophical debates, the task remains unfinished. The work of these theorists has already revealed problems and perspectives that demand philosophical attention but have thus far remained in the blind spot of the discipline. The task of creating a continuum between history of non-western political thought and analytical political theory is certainly a hard one. My course is a small attempt in that direction and if you have any advice on how I can navigate this challenge better, I would love to hear from you!
