X-ers and others, I’m wondering what your thoughts are on this article in December 10th’s Inside Higher Ed. In some ways, it argues for a lot of what we’ve been talking about on this blog: the need to re-think the entrenched disciplinary boundaries of philosophy, the relationship between that project and the rest of the humanities/university, etc. But, it’s also absent a discussion of power, which is where I understand our analysis to begin (in fact, I’d argue that the one thing that we tend to agree on most, amongst us in the collective, is the analysis of power…where we each go from this analysis of power varies…).
I’m particularly interested in your thoughts on how the article constructs the categories of “experts” and “nonexperts” in philosophy? The authors do actually say “questions about who should count as a philosopher’s peers are timely today,” but they don’t really address these questions. IMHO the article takes this question somewhat for granted, when in fact it’s probably the site of most of the conflict/tension/disagreement/power. I’m thinking particularly of the ways some people in philosophy departments get diagnosed with “thinking problems”….
But that’s enough for now. I want this to be an open thread to discuss the IHE article. So have at it!