Decolonising or Demonising?
We can promote global perspectives in Philosophy without the usual divisiveness
“An ugly truth is that racially and ethnically minoritised children within a classroom will be subject to the bias and ignorance of their white peers and teachers. Ignorance born of the latter’s inability, or unwillingness, to confront whiteness”
The above is a direct excerpt from a new toolkit produced by SOAS University of London. It has been designed for schools and universities with the aim of fostering diversity within academic philosophy.” The initiative has been strongly criticised for it’s strong activist tone and for side-lining philosophers such as Aristotle and Socrates by dismissing them as “armchair theorists.”
On the surface, broadening philosophical curricula seems like a noble pursuit. There's undoubtedly wisdom to be found beyond the Western canon, and including a more comprehensive selection of thinkers from various cultures is commendable. However, the approach taken by this initiative comes off as unnecessarily hostile, combative and ideologically rigid.
For example, claiming that philosophers such as Descartes, Plato and Hume were involved in “armchair theorising” is not only disrespectful to the legacy of these foundational thinkers but also fails to do justice to the complexity of the history of ideas.
And when you look at all the political rhetoric that often accompanies the push to "decolonise" the curriculum, you have to wonder if this is really about expanding knowledge and diversifying the space or just about pushing a narrow ideological agenda.
As always, we see the usual antagonistic stance towards Western philosophical traditions. Decolonising the curriculum often comes with an implicit (and sometimes explicit) vilification of Western thought as inherently oppressive. Ironically this narrative often ignores the fact that many of the concepts used to critique Western philosophy - including ideas of individual rights, equality, and social justice - have their roots in the very tradition being denounced.
The resource pack places a heavy emphasis on "lived experiences" and identity-based knowledge, which threatens to fragment philosophy into a collection of subjective, non-communicable personal narratives. While personal experiences can inform philosophical inquiry, elevating them to the primary source of philosophical knowledge undermines the discipline's pursuit of universal truths and logical consistency. This toolkit risks reducing complex philosophical debates to simplistic identity politics, where the validity of an argument is judged not by its logical coherence or evidential support, but by the identity of its proponent.
When the focus shifts too heavily towards identity markers such as race and gender, there is a risk of promoting a simplistic and essentialist view that defines a thinker's ideas primarily by their background rather than the content and quality of their arguments.
“We must be alert to the labour, and exhaustion involved when a member from a less privileged category has to repeatedly call attention to problematic or unthinking statements that reflect privilege or reinforce it.”
The above is another excerpt from the revolutionary toolkit, and throughout the document, we see the usual linguistic suspects: “privilege, white normativity, safe space.” The binary oversimplification of privileged (whites) versus underprivileged (non-whites) reinforces the flawed assumption of homogeneity—that all members within these distinct groups share identical experiences or perspectives.
Moreover, this quote perfectly encapsulates how "decolonising discourse" often relies on the tired narrative of non-whites as infantilised victims, incapable of engaging in challenging conversations without being coddled by whites. This patronising idea consistently undermines the agency of individuals and also perpetuates the very power dynamics it purports to dismantle.
When you take an overly activist approach to changing the curriculum, you end up politicising the classroom, something that we should be moving away from. Students and teachers who disagree with the dominant ideology can feel alienated or pressured to conform. This often leads to a divisive and intellectually stifling atmosphere where dissenting voices feel pressured to conform or stay silent.
There's nothing wrong with bringing in more global perspectives and underrepresented voices. But it has to be done in a way that upholds the core values of open inquiry, pluralism, and scholarly rigour. The implication that Western traditions bear sole responsibility for past and present injustices is a one-sided view of history that ignores the complex interplay of cultures and ideas that has shaped our global intellectual heritage.
The constructive path forward is to enrich philosophical education without tearing down the Western tradition. Diversity and tradition need not be mutually exclusive. They can be complementary, giving students a fuller understanding of the vast range of human wisdom across time and place. But this requires an ethos of intellectual humility, rationality and genuine curiosity, not strident ideology.
Ada is the Head of Content at The Equiano Project. Subscribe to The Equiano Project YouTube channel HERE.
I studied and taught philosophy for MANY years at A level and at universities in the UK and US. The focus was never on the geographical origins, colour, or sexual preferences of the thinkers. It was focused entirely on what they actually SAID and how it could be defended LOGICALLY (Plato does not fare well on that score. Clever wordplay; bad reasoning, but it's something to work on). I appreciate that, today, emotions seem to trump logic, but I've no time for that and given the potential emotional content of some ethical discussions (abortion, capital punishment, etc) it's vital to leave any emotional baggage OUTSIDE the classroom. With logic you have a good chance of identifying potentially useful truths about the human experience separate from what we used to call 'anecdotal evidence' which provides nice examples, but is useless for the purposes of a shared analysis. This is because EVERYONE has a slightly different and unique experience of the world. We're looking for things that can be broadly applied to all humans, regardless of ethnicity, gender, personal experience or anything else, not one individual's unique take.
Further, calling Hume or Plato or Aristotle 'armchair theorists' while lauding anecdotal evidence ('lived experience') is to condemn the very thing they're pushing. If ever there was an example of 'armchair theorising', it's spouting unchallengeable personal anecdotes rooted in emotions. Working out a logically structured argument that is as emotionless and non-identifiable as possible; something that can be understood by all those studying regardless of where they come from or their life experience; something whose value stands or falls solely on the strength and structure of the process rather than whether or not you've been through it, is the ultimate in shared, universalisable, rational reasoning -- and mastering that is something anyone from any background has the chance of doing. Claiming non-whites are, effectively, too stupid to manage this is insulting in the extreme, patronising, and dismissive. I've taught some brilliant students over the years of all creeds and colours. Most were young, but some were mature with a wealth of personal experience under their belts, but on these topics, they were on the same level. What marked the difference between those who got top marks and those who did not do so well was a willingness to put the work in. That's something anyone can do. It's not reserved for white people alone. Personal experience, on the other hand, is reserved for each individual and cannot be fully shared (even if you hear the story, hearing someone else describing some terrible experience and going through it yourself are VERY different). Hard work, reading the texts (from which you cannot actually tell the origins of the author unless you've a linguist reading all in the original languages. You certainly cannot tell their skin colour or sexual preferences. More importantly, you don't care!) , discussing the ideas and finding ways to share that understanding that is not dependent on factors unique to each person, but rather on recognised external standards that can be shared, allows anyone from anywhere to dive in and discuss complex topics on a level playing field.
This is utter, self-contradictory nonsense from people who don't understand philosophy at all, but see an opportunity to push a divisive, neo-Marxist-based agenda into yet another area. Leave that racist, ideologically-biased rubbish at the door, please. We don't want it.
This is a shocking article. I’ve called myself the leading black British philosopher of my generation and founder of black Cartesianism. This is a deliberate provocation, I invite people to disagree or be curious about what I’m saying and why, this is what I believe philosophy is about. As individuals and as societies philosophical questions recur. We are thrown in to the world and try to make sense of it. If Socrates and Descartes did not exist we would have to invent them. Please have a look at my Substack where I recently wrote a post about the pros and cons of ‘lived experience’, it is a work in progress, philosophy always is.