Language-related Injustice and the Need for Inclusivity in the Philosophical Community
Academic philosophy has become a truly global institution, with philosophy departments in universities across the world and the widespread readership of philosophy journals. As a result, the need for a shared language of communication has led to the rise of English as the lingua franca of academic philosophy. While this development has its merits, it has also given rise to certain problems within the philosophical community. In this article, we explore the potential injustices that arise from the dominance of English in academic philosophy and propose solutions to foster inclusivity.
Language-related Injustice and Epistemic Distribution
The use of English as the global lingua franca of academic philosophy has led to the unjust distribution of epistemic goods within the community. Scholars who are not native English speakers often face challenges in meeting linguistic norms set by native English-speaking communities. This can result in their work being undervalued or dismissed, leading to a lack of credibility, unequal access to education, and diminished standing in the field.
The Case of Language-related Injustice
Consider the case of a non-native English-speaking philosopher whose paper is deemed “not idiomatic” by a referee, despite its clarity and coherence. To appease the referee, the philosopher seeks the assistance of a native English-speaking colleague to make their paper conform to linguistic norms. This case illustrates how non-native speakers are held to unnecessary standards, leading to the unjust distribution of epistemic goods.
Understanding Language-related Injustice
Drawing on the concept of epistemic injustice, specifically distributive epistemic injustice, we analyze the problems arising from the dominance of English in academic philosophy. We argue that the unequal distribution of epistemic goods, such as credibility, education, and the standing to speak, can be attributed to the rise of English as the lingua franca of the field.
Proposals for Addressing Language-related Injustice
To address the problems caused by the dominance of English in academic philosophy, we propose several measures:
1A: Increase assistance with English: Journals should provide English-language services, such as proofreading, at no cost to the author, to support non-native English speakers.
1B: Abandon “readability” standards: Journals should stop evaluating submissions based on “readability,” including idiomatic language and stylistic flair, to eliminate unnecessary linguistic norms.
2A: Diversify the canon: Philosophers and journals should engage with work from a wide range of philosophical traditions, expanding beyond the mainstream Western canon.
2B: Expand the SEP: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) should translate articles into other languages or commission original entries in non-English languages to make high-quality research more accessible.
3A: Increase non-native English speaker representation: Editorial boards of journals and admissions committees of graduate programs should include more non-native speaking philosophers to ensure diverse perspectives.
3B: Increase cross-linguistic representation: Journals should publish material that highlights non-English language philosophy, especially work produced in non-Anglophone countries.
Evaluating the Proposals
While we argue for the superiority of proposals 1B, 2B, and 3B, we acknowledge that the evaluation of these proposals requires a complex balance of empirical facts, personal experiences, and communal structures. We encourage further discussion and input from the philosophical community, particularly from non-native English speakers, to refine and expand upon these proposals.
Conclusion:
The rise of English as the global lingua franca of academic philosophy has brought both benefits and challenges to the philosophical community. While English facilitates communication and collaboration, it has also led to language-related injustices, including unequal distribution of epistemic goods. By implementing measures such as increased language assistance, abandoning unnecessary linguistic norms, diversifying the canon, and increasing cross-linguistic representation, we can foster a more inclusive and equitable academic philosophy community. The conversation surrounding these proposals is crucial for ensuring that all members of the global philosophical community have equal opportunities to contribute and thrive.
Leave a Reply