Charles Taylor

[Glasperlenspieler]

So, I'm coming to terms with the fact that I've probably probably been shut out this round.  I do have two waitlists, but I don't want to get my hopes up, and it looks like the professor who is my main reason for applying to one of those schools is not teaching courses in the fall, and thus is probably not even on campus, so I may not even accept that offer were it to come through.

 

In the meantime, I've been reassessing my options, and I've also begun to purse a goal I've had for a few years now, which is to read Charles Taylor's A Secular Age from cover to cover (I've read sections before).  This is not my first exposure to him, but this time around I'm realizing more and more just how brilliant  and well-read he is, but also how significantly his methodology, approach, and the types of questions he asks differ from the philosophical mainstream (or at least the philosophical mainstream as I perceive it from a heavily analytic department).

 

So my question is this, what type of a graduate program should someone go to, who is interested in studying the work of Taylor and his interlocutors and/or to pursue the sort of research that he does.  He come from a philosophy background, but is a philosophy department today really the best place for that sort of work?  Would a history department be better?  A religious studies department? A comparative lit department?  Some sort of interdisciplinary program or even a sociology department?  Or is it a mistake for a young student to pursue such broad and interdisciplinary pursuits this early in his/her career?  Should he/she instead specialize in a more sepcialized/traditional track, and begin to pursue other more adventurous pursuits once established in a field?  This seems to be what people like Nussbaum or Cavell have done, beginning in ancient philosophy and phil language respectively, but branching out significantly from there later in their careers.  However, Taylor and Habermas seems to have been fairly broad from the get-go.

 

Thoughts?

[AcademicX]

I am only familiar with Taylor's essay on recognition and multiculturalism, but if you are interested in the work of Anthony Appiah (who was one of his interlocutors in the debate on multiculturalism) you can look into NYU that just recently hired him. Additionally, I just visited Columbia this weekend and I had was very impressed by Akeel Bilgrami's depth of knowledge in questions of religion in the public sphere, orientalism, colonialism, radical enlightenment, and political and moral philosophy more generally. Columbia also has Honneth, who has published extensively on Habermas and shares some of his ideas. I may be biased because I am going to Columbia, but I think it's a great place to study these kind of issues. Again, I am not as familiar as I should be with Taylor's work, but I would say that Columbia is a great place to study social and political philosophy (add Neuhouser and Moody-Adams to the list). If you tell me more about your particular interests, I can honestly tell you if I think they fit with what's being done at Columbia. I'm sorry if my answer just seems like a spiel in favor of the program I decided to attend. 

[dgswaim]

I remember trying to read Honneth once. And... well... it wasn't terribly productive. Goodness he writes long sentences.

 

 

Also, it seems to me (though I could be wrong) that McGill might still be the place to go, even though he's retired. I would think that he's had enough of an impact on the department that it might still be the place to go if one were interested in his work. I could be wrong.

Edited April 7, 2014 by dgswaim

[Glasperlenspieler]

Thanks for the response Johnannes,

 

I ended up not applying to Columbia this time around, but as I look back I recognize I probably should have.  Maybe I will next time around if I don't get off the waitlists.  I'm not familiar with Bilgrami's work, but from a quick glance he does look very intriguing.

 

I think what I'm most interested in about Taylor's work is not so much the subject matter itself (although that is quite intriquing for me) but his methodology and approach.  He has a tendency to work on the border of intellectual history and philosophy proper in a very intriguing way.  Similarly I'm very interested in people who border between philosophy and literary criticism (Nussbaum and Cavell are interesting to me here.)  Generally I'm very interested in the role of historicism in philosophy and appreciate work that sees contemporary thought as being heavily rooted in its varying intellectual traditions. 

 

Personally, my primary interests are German Philosophy, and its intersections with ethics, aesthetics, and religion.  Although, I often conceive of German philosophy as beyond the traditional canon to include sociologists (Weber), theologians (Schleiermacher, Rahner), and literary artists (Hoelderlin, Kafka, Goethe), etc.  While these tend to be somewhat "continental" figures (although I don't really like that term) I also have great interests in analytic philosophy and hope to use its methodologies and goals.

 

Although, even given these broad interdisciplinary interests, I wonder if it might by more pragmatic to pursue a more specialized field in grad school (say 19th C German philosophy) and span from there after established, since I know it can be hard to get a tenure track position with such wide ranging interests (heck, it's hard to get one no matter what).

[Glasperlenspieler]

Good point on McGill, I will look into that.  I don't know too much about what that department's like right now.

[dgswaim]

Based on what you just described, I might recommend looking into places like Georgetown and Boston College as well. Georgetown, for instance, is a pretty diverse philosophical environment that includes people doing largely continental work, largely analytic work, as well as people doing work that is more difficult to classify in this way. Terry Pinkard, in particular, comes to mind. He does work on Hegel that reads like analytic philosophy in terms of the style of prose, but he's always reading Hegel through the lens of historicism and the like. BC seems compositionally similar to Georgetown, in my opinion.

[marXian]

Personally, my primary interests are German Philosophy, and its intersections with ethics, aesthetics, and religion.  Although, I often conceive of German philosophy as beyond the traditional canon to include sociologists (Weber), theologians (Schleiermacher, Rahner), and literary artists (Hoelderlin, Kafka, Goethe), etc.  While these tend to be somewhat "continental" figures (although I don't really like that term) I also have great interests in analytic philosophy and hope to use its methodologies and goals.

 

Although, even given these broad interdisciplinary interests, I wonder if it might by more pragmatic to pursue a more specialized field in grad school (say 19th C German philosophy) and span from there after established, since I know it can be hard to get a tenure track position with such wide ranging interests (heck, it's hard to get one no matter what).

 

I'm currently a Northwestern student (in religious studies) and I'd definitely suggest taking a look at the philosophy, RS, German departments and the comp lit program at NU. Peter Fenves (German), Sam Weber (German), Mark Alznauer (philosophy), Rachel Zuckert (philosophy), Christine Helmer (religious studies) might all be people of interest for you. I do work on Weber and the theologian Ernst Troeltsch. The thing to remember is that you can (and will) still study philosophy without being in a philosophy department, especially with what you're interested in. The hardcore analytics on this board might absolutely hate that, but people in the German department do work on Hölderlin and philosophy (e.g. Schelling or Nietzsche, etc.), or Kafka and philosophy, etc. Schleiermacher obviously requires a very strong background in Kant and responses to Kant as well as Spinoza and Leibniz. A couple of my colleagues in religious studies study Schleiermacher, and have done a lot of work with faculty in the philosophy and German departments. As for myself, I've been doing a lot of work recently in neo-Kantian philosophy of history. I'm doing a directed reading this quarter on Dilthey, Windelband, and Rickert--all really important background for Weber and Troeltsch. I'm also going to present a paper in November at the national AAR (American Academy of Religion) conference on Weber and the Frankfurt School. I don't consider myself a philosopher, but philosophy is indispensable for my work. Even though my focus is on Weber and Troeltsch, I can connect those interests to other things I'm interested in even if they don't become a part of my dissertation in the end.

 

Still, what you suggest in your last paragraph isn't just more pragmatic--it really is what you have to do. That is, you have to have areas of competence, and they really can't be all that broad. And for your dissertation, you have to "officially" focus on not just a period, not just one person (maybe two) in that period, but a very narrow idea/concept/contention/etc. But, as I've said, you can still have interdisciplinary interests. Those interests can become areas of competence (i.e. you can take an exam in one of those areas.) You just need to find schools that really value interdisciplinary work. Northwestern, for example, has a program called "The Interdisciplinary Cluster Initiative" in which Ph.D students have the option to join a "cluster" with students from other departments that are centered around an interdisciplinary subject (critical theory, gender studies, Jewish studies, medieval studies, African American studies, etc.) Most clusters have a certificate option in which you take certain courses to earn a certificate in the subject which then goes on your transcript. I'm part of the critical theory cluster. My department and adviser love that I'm involved in the cluster and that I work very closely with faculty from the philosophy and German departments. Finding a school and program that value interdisciplinary work will allow you to go in the directions you're thinking about now.

Edited April 8, 2014 by marXian

[AcademicX]

Thanks for the response Johnannes,

 

I ended up not applying to Columbia this time around, but as I look back I recognize I probably should have.  Maybe I will next time around if I don't get off the waitlists.  I'm not familiar with Bilgrami's work, but from a quick glance he does look very intriguing.

 

I think what I'm most interested in about Taylor's work is not so much the subject matter itself (although that is quite intriquing for me) but his methodology and approach.  He has a tendency to work on the border of intellectual history and philosophy proper in a very intriguing way.  Similarly I'm very interested in people who border between philosophy and literary criticism (Nussbaum and Cavell are interesting to me here.)  Generally I'm very interested in the role of historicism in philosophy and appreciate work that sees contemporary thought as being heavily rooted in its varying intellectual traditions. 

 

Personally, my primary interests are German Philosophy, and its intersections with ethics, aesthetics, and religion.  Although, I often conceive of German philosophy as beyond the traditional canon to include sociologists (Weber), theologians (Schleiermacher, Rahner), and literary artists (Hoelderlin, Kafka, Goethe), etc.  While these tend to be somewhat "continental" figures (although I don't really like that term) I also have great interests in analytic philosophy and hope to use its methodologies and goals.

 

Although, even given these broad interdisciplinary interests, I wonder if it might by more pragmatic to pursue a more specialized field in grad school (say 19th C German philosophy) and span from there after established, since I know it can be hard to get a tenure track position with such wide ranging interests (heck, it's hard to get one no matter what).

First of all, I think that your interests are really cool. I was interested in intellectual history myself (back when I was a history major in college) but then I realized that the history of ideas is not even that well-regarded in history departments. I think that philosophy departments would be supportive of those interests to some extent, but probably only those with historical and/or continental leanings. If you are primarily interested in the philosophy, I would advise you to apply to philosophy departments and try to take advantage of interdisciplinary opportunities in the university (like the ones suggested by Marxian in Northwestern). The sad true is that some philosophy departments will be more open to interdisciplinary work than others. I think you should talk to grad students who are already in the programs you are looking at to make sure they are the right place for you.

 

Regarding Columbia, I can tell you that it is a very pluralistic department (more than I expected) and they are open to letting students take classes outside the department (which would be useful for you). Based on your interests, I think Lydia Goehr (aesthetics, politics, and Frankfurt School) and Wolfgang Mann (German idealism and romanticism) could be of interest to you. Also, Bilgrami seems to be very influenced by the work of Jonahtan Israel on the Radical Enlightenment.     

[Glasperlenspieler]

Thanks for your insightful response MarXian.  I've definitely started looking into Northwestern lately (partly due to your posts on other boards actually).  I am certainly aware that I need to focus down my interests for AOCs and AOSs and my dissertation in particular (I also probably need to focus them more specifically in my SOP, I think that may have hurt me this time around).  I guess what I meant be that comment was a little different.  If someone were to write a dissertation on Hölderlin and philosophy (just an example and one that is in itself too broad) or something of that nature, my worry is about placement down the line.  I could certainly imagine philosophy departments seeing such a potential candidate as to literary or historical for their tastes, while the lit department might find her too to have too much emphasis on the philosophy and not enough on literary criticism, and so on.  Language departments seem like an exception to this, although my German skills are probably not quite good enough to be seriously considering that option.  RS departments seem to be another instance of not being as concerned with disciplinary boundaries.  So I guess what I was getting at, is that it may make more pragmatic sense to pick AOSs and a dissertation that are clearly within disciplinary lines.  It's concerns like this, that make me wonder how wise it would be for me to apply to places like Chicago's Committee on Social Thought or JHU's Humanities Center, even though I'm really interested in such programs.

 

Good points Johannes.  Intellectual history does seem to be somewhat on the margins of history these day (social history is more and more on the rise).  I'm definitely going to be needing to look closely at the climate of philosophy department for this sort of thing.  Glad to know that Columbia is strong in this respect.

Edited April 8, 2014 by DerPhilosoph

[maxhgns]

 

Also, it seems to me (though I could be wrong) that McGill might still be the place to go, even though he's retired. I would think that he's had enough of an impact on the department that it might still be the place to go if one were interested in his work. I could be wrong.

 

 

McGill is currently relatively weak in political philosophy (their polisci and poli-theory departments are pretty strong), although they did just steal Daniel Weinstock away from UdeM (he's got half an appointment in philosophy, half in law), and Jacob T. Levy and Arash Abizedeh are likewise half-based in the department of philosophy. Weinstock has been one of Taylor's main interlocutors this decade.

 

The other obvious interlocutor would be Will Kymlicka, at Queen's (the department there is mega-strong in political philosophy and applied ethics, less strong elsewhere). Taylor and Kymlicka are the two titans of multiculturalism and Canadian political philosophy.

[marXian]

Thanks for your insightful response MarXian.  I've definitely started looking into Northwestern lately (partly due to your posts on other boards actually).  I am certainly aware that I need to focus down my interests for AOCs and AOSs and my dissertation in particular (I also probably need to focus them more specifically in my SOP, I think that may have hurt me this time around).  I guess what I meant be that comment was a little different.  If someone were to write a dissertation on Hölderlin and philosophy (just an example and one that is in itself too broad) or something of that nature, my worry is about placement down the line.  I could certainly imagine philosophy departments seeing such a potential candidate as to literary or historical for their tastes, while the lit department might find her too to have too much emphasis on the philosophy and not enough on literary criticism, and so on.  Language departments seem like an exception to this, although my German skills are probably not quite good enough to be seriously considering that option.  RS departments seem to be another instance of not being as concerned with disciplinary boundaries.  So I guess what I was getting at, is that it may make more pragmatic sense to pick AOSs and a dissertation that are clearly within disciplinary lines.  It's concerns like this, that make me wonder how wise it would be for me to apply to places like Chicago's Committee on Social Thought or JHU's Humanities Center, even though I'm really interested in such programs.

 

Ah I see what you're saying. I think that you're right in thinking it wise to pursue a Ph.D in a "traditional" discipline (e.g. philosophy, comp lit, RS, etc.) rather than a Ph.D in social thought or whatever highly specialized titles schools come up with.

 

With regard to Hölderlin, the reality is that a person wanting to study Hölderlin primarily is probably only going to be able to do that in a comp lit or German department just because that's where the majority of people who do work on him teach. And people pursuing that kind of work at the Ph.D level expect to find a job in either a comp lit or German department.

 

I could imagine someone in a philosophy department incorporating some study of literature, but that probably wouldn't be your primary focus. Figuring out what you want your primary focus to be and in what kind of department you'd be interested in teaching is obviously important. Also, I could be wrong, but it seems as though philosophy is a discipline whose departments will probably only hire people with a Ph.D in philosophy (when those people are trying to get a job right out of their program.) That is, although I'm doing a lot of work in philosophy, will take an exam in philosophy of history or social thought, my Ph.D will be in religious studies, and I won't be applying for philosophy jobs.

 

Religious studies is not like that at all though; they make hires from other disciplines. There are plenty of faculty with Ph.Ds in history, philosophy, theology, southeast Asian literature and culture, etc. who get their first jobs in religious studies departments if they do work on religion. Some people actually have Ph.Ds in religious studies, but unlike many of the other humanities disciplines, religious studies is open to hiring people who have Ph.Ds in something else right out of their programs. So maybe a Ph.D in philosophy might actually be the best option for you after all.