APA Newsletters

Spring 2001
Volume 00, Number 2

Newsletter on American Indians in Philosophy

Native American Philosopher

Previous Article | Index | Next Article

Native American Philosopher

V.F. Cordova
Independent Scholar (Ph.D; University of New Mexico). Resident of Idaho.

Does a Native American, by virtue of being granted a degree in Philosophy, become something other than a philosopher? A Native American philosopher, for example? Does a Norwegian with a degree in Philosophy become a Norwegian philosopher?

The relevance of these questions is important. A call for "Native American" philosophers is quite different than a call for someone who "does" Native American philosophy. There is an underlying assumption implied in the term 'Native American philosopher' that is absent in labelling someone a 'Norwegian' philosopher. The Norwegian may be merely someone who happens to have studied philosophy (without a label) and may have scholarly interests in Kant, Spinoza, or "Native American" philosophy. He would not be expected to have an interest only in something called "Norwegian philosophy." Nor would his viewpoint be expected to be colored by the fact that he is of Norwegian ancestry.

The fact that something called 'Native American Philosophy' is being offered in classrooms across the country, without an attendant rise in the employment of Native American philosophers, would indicate that there is a confused expectation of what a Native American philosopher is.

Is he (or she) expected to have a bias that taints scholarly pursuits in the broad field of philosophy, per se? 'Taints' in a manner, for example, that would be unexpected in a Norwegian philosopher?

A question that commonly arises in the discussion of "Native American Philosophy" is whether one must be Native American to 'do' Native American Philosophy. Since the courses dealing with the philosophy of the Native American are increasing while there is no increase in the presence of Native Americans in Philosophy Departments, the answer to the common question would have to be-One need not be a Native American in order to do Native American Philosophy; just as one need not be Chinese to do Chinese Philosophy.

One apparently cannot, however, be Native American and teach a course on Spinoza, medical ethics, or any of the other possible topics open to non-Native American philosophers. Native American philosophers, according to the employment record throughout Academia, are expected to teach only courses relating to Native American topics.

The position of Native American philosophers suffers from the equivalent of "racial profiling" undertaken by policemen in numerous locations. African Americans know well the accusation of "DWB"-"Driving While Black". The practice of racial profiling in Academia is on the increase. I met a philosopher who happened to be of Mexican origin. His Mexican origin was somewhat dicey-he was third or fourth generation American born. He was also a student of Analytical Philosophy. Nevertheless, he was hired to teach "Latin American Philosophy." "What exactly," I asked, "is that?" "I don't know," he responded, "I make it up as I go along."

The problem here is not that he was "making it up" in order to broaden the appeal to Mexican American students for the field of philosophy. The problem is that in the process of becoming an expert in "Latin American Philosophy" the Mexican American was beginning a process of rejecting his own American background. What began as an exercise in "broadening the curriculum" in order to offer "diversity", instead, became an exercise in creating a broadening in cultural and intellectual divisiveness.

Philosophy, of all of the disciplines in the Humanities, is portrayed as the most open of disciplines. No questions are barred, no topic deemed too esoteric or out of bounds to be open to examination. Being a Native American in the discipline tells quite another story.

The Native American, unlike the Norwegian, may not share what Ortega y Gasset calls "the spiritual wealth" which he sees as "the common property of Europe." The questions he poses, as a philosopher, may not be the same questions posed by those who come from a background of shared "spiritual wealth." By virtue of asking the "wrong" questions, the Native American quickly discovers that there are boundaries surrounding the discipline of philosophy. He discovers that there are "standard" interpretations of what the great philosophers are said to have said. He learns, in the process of acquiring his advanced degrees, that the act of posing a question follows a distinct format: He may ask whether a God does or does not exist. He may not ask why that question is of any relevance.

In the meantime, during the course of education, the Native American student learns to pose his own questions and they are drawn from his own context of "spiritual wealth." His questions are usually, if he dares brings them into the open in a classroom, deemed "more worthy of an anthropologist." Anthropology being, of course, the discipline that assigns itself the task of exploring the esoteric and barely humanoid existence and thought patterns of non-Western peoples. The Native American in a Philosophy Department, by virtue of his own non-Western background, poses an anomaly in the Department.

What then is meant in the announcements of available jobs when the institution states that there is a search for "Native American Philosophers"? It is obvious, again by the absence of Native Americans as faculty in Philosophy Departments, that those who post such job notices have a specific notion of what it is to be a Native American philosopher. And this is not the same thing as being someone who proposes a course on "Native American Philosophy," since we have seen that one need not be Native American to teach such a course.

I happened to be in a meeting once where there was a discussion about the need for more Native Americans on the faculty. Someone pointed out that they especially needed a Native American in mathematics. Sitting in on the meeting was a Native American with a Ph.D. from one of the Ivy League schools in mathematics education. When it was pointed out that she was Native and in mathematics someone piped up, "Oh, but she's not a 'real' Indian!." A comment that is, unfortunately, all too commonly heard by Native Americans with Ph.Ds. Before one acquires the Ph.D a Native American is "just an Indian"-if she acquires the degree then she is "not a 'real' Indian." One is left only with the implication that 'real' Indians don't have Ph.Ds; or that by virtue of having successfully completed a course of studies, she no longer qualifies as a 'real' Indian. She is also, again unfortunately, not deemed a 'real' mathematician because she is "an Indian."

The Native American philosopher falls into the same category, or non-category as the case may be: No 'real' philosopher is a Native American. No 'real' Native American is a philosopher. The situation can be summed up by an observation made in 1810 by Samuel Stanhope Smith in regard to the education of "savages":

There are doubtless degrees of genius among savages as well as among civilized nations: but the comparison should be made of savages among themselves, and not of the genius of a savage, with that of a polished people. (From SAVAGISM AND CIVILIZATION by Roy Harvey Pearce.)

A suggestion might be helpful to those posting jobs "open" to Native Americans. Perhaps the institution making the posting could also state the qualifiications, along with those for the job opening, to be used for consideration of an applicant as a 'real' Native American.

Previous Article | Index | Next Article

APA Newsletters

Spring 2001 Volume 00, Number 2

Spring 2001
Volume 00, Number 2