It’s not completely unfunny that James Williams has posted a comment on Leiter’s post about so-called ‘party line’ continental philosophers. Williams notes that he’s ‘slightly surprised and worried’ about having Dundee included on the list of PLC departments. This is basically my response about Duquesne’s inclusion, although I admit that I was not surprised…just worried.
Of course Williams would be one of those to respond to Leiter’s post. And of course he would respond with the response he’s given. The unfortunate part is that it doesn’t matter what his defense is. It has already been decided that the kind of work that he does, along with that of his colleagues, is of that not-really-what-we’re-looking-for in ‘scholarship’ type. Now, I think what needs to happen is that Leiter has to be more specific about methodology. General labels like ‘phenomenology’, ‘postmodernism’, ‘Derrida-approved’, are insufficient. Basically, what is it precisely that gets you on the PLC list?
Just as we need to discontinue the notion that ‘analytic philosophy’ still exists in its early twentieth-century form, or that ‘analytic philosophy’ is anything more than a convenient label (like ‘continental philosophy’), the philosophical community must be more mindful of the most recent developments in the continental world. It seems like happenings in the analytic world–especially new hires and faculty migrations–are more readily detected and tracked than they are in the continental world. Is there a Twitter account I can subscribe to to keep up with these trends? The current state of the historically continental programs should have the same degree of transparency.