Philosophy is a great conversation. In a philosophy course, students are invited to join in that conversation, to sit around the great table of discourse with some of the greatest minds of the past and present and to attempt to answer the most challenging questions ever yet conceived. I believe that the issue of inclusion and diversity in the philosophy classroom can usefully be understood in terms of this table metaphor. I would like to pose the issue in the form of two questions: Who owns the table, and who is allowed to sit at the table?
One of the most fascinating facts about philosophy—and part of what makes it so difficult—is that these important questions are philosophical questions. In other words, only philosophy can answer questions about itself. We have to build the table before we can sit around it, but we cannot build the table until we agree upon how to do so, and we cannot make agreements on how to build it until we have managed to sit around the table to discuss and decide. That is to say that the questions of what philosophy is and how it works are themselves philosophical questions. We cannot answer those questions without doing some philosophy. This puts us in an awkward position: we cannot help but to take some things for granted in the very process of philosophical discourse, but of course, we do not all take the same things for granted. We all bring different values, beliefs, desires, emotions, etc. to the table. For example, perhaps we might agree that the goal of philosophy is truth, but that does not necessarily mean the same thing to everyone. What one person sees as the sturdy oak table of truth; another sees as the rickety card table of mere speculation. What philosophy is and how it works is as much a matter of debate as anything else within philosophy. This means that taking a stand on any philosophical issue necessarily involves taking a stand on what philosophy is and how it should be done.
Therefore, when we come to the table of philosophy, we must be mindful that we are not only sitting around it, but we are constantly in the process of building it, repairing it, and maintaining it at the same time. We do not start with a firm foundation of shared values and principles. We must negotiate these values and principles while we are in the process of negotiating how to harness these very values and principles to arrive at plausible answers to philosophical questions. We must define the debate while we are having it.
With these things in mind, let’s consider the questions of diversity and inclusion again.
Who owns the table? Philosophical discourse is better and stronger when everyone in the conversation takes ownership, communally, of the conversation itself. When it belongs to only a few of those who participate in it, the conversation, like a table, will be unbalanced and likely to topple. So, if students and teachers are going to sit at the table together, they must be willing to take responsibility for their share of ownership of the conversation.
Who is allowed to sit at the table? Philosophical discourse is better and stronger when it includes everyone who is serious about contributing to the conversation while also building and maintaining a healthy discussion space. So, if students and teachers are going to sit at the table together, they must also be willing to take responsibility for fostering a healthy discussion space that is welcoming to all who would willingly share ownership of it.
Philosophy is best when it includes a diversity of viewpoints from eager and curious people who are willing to add their voices to the conversation and are willing to listen to the voices of others. If we have any hope of arriving at plausible answers to difficult philosophical questions, then we must filter those questions through as many different minds with as many different viewpoints, backgrounds, and perspectives as we possibly can. But we also must remain mindful that philosophy itself is not beyond criticism. We must make adjustments as we go. We must strive for a better discussion today than the one we had yesterday and for a better discussion tomorrow than the one we will have today.
One of the most fascinating facts about philosophy—and part of what makes it so difficult—is that these important questions are philosophical questions. In other words, only philosophy can answer questions about itself. We have to build the table before we can sit around it, but we cannot build the table until we agree upon how to do so, and we cannot make agreements on how to build it until we have managed to sit around the table to discuss and decide. That is to say that the questions of what philosophy is and how it works are themselves philosophical questions. We cannot answer those questions without doing some philosophy. This puts us in an awkward position: we cannot help but to take some things for granted in the very process of philosophical discourse, but of course, we do not all take the same things for granted. We all bring different values, beliefs, desires, emotions, etc. to the table. For example, perhaps we might agree that the goal of philosophy is truth, but that does not necessarily mean the same thing to everyone. What one person sees as the sturdy oak table of truth; another sees as the rickety card table of mere speculation. What philosophy is and how it works is as much a matter of debate as anything else within philosophy. This means that taking a stand on any philosophical issue necessarily involves taking a stand on what philosophy is and how it should be done.
Therefore, when we come to the table of philosophy, we must be mindful that we are not only sitting around it, but we are constantly in the process of building it, repairing it, and maintaining it at the same time. We do not start with a firm foundation of shared values and principles. We must negotiate these values and principles while we are in the process of negotiating how to harness these very values and principles to arrive at plausible answers to philosophical questions. We must define the debate while we are having it.
With these things in mind, let’s consider the questions of diversity and inclusion again.
Who owns the table? Philosophical discourse is better and stronger when everyone in the conversation takes ownership, communally, of the conversation itself. When it belongs to only a few of those who participate in it, the conversation, like a table, will be unbalanced and likely to topple. So, if students and teachers are going to sit at the table together, they must be willing to take responsibility for their share of ownership of the conversation.
Who is allowed to sit at the table? Philosophical discourse is better and stronger when it includes everyone who is serious about contributing to the conversation while also building and maintaining a healthy discussion space. So, if students and teachers are going to sit at the table together, they must also be willing to take responsibility for fostering a healthy discussion space that is welcoming to all who would willingly share ownership of it.
Philosophy is best when it includes a diversity of viewpoints from eager and curious people who are willing to add their voices to the conversation and are willing to listen to the voices of others. If we have any hope of arriving at plausible answers to difficult philosophical questions, then we must filter those questions through as many different minds with as many different viewpoints, backgrounds, and perspectives as we possibly can. But we also must remain mindful that philosophy itself is not beyond criticism. We must make adjustments as we go. We must strive for a better discussion today than the one we had yesterday and for a better discussion tomorrow than the one we will have today.