What's Western in Russell's History of Western Philosophy (II)

The chart above tracks the rise of "western philosophy" in the google.books corpus. At the end of this post, below the fold, I have added another chart, comparing "the history of western philosophy" to "analytic philosophy" and "continental philosophy." I use these graphs to give a sense of trends and magnitude, but given the limitations of the corpus I make no claims to precision. I checked for the frequency of 'western philosophy' in different major scholarly languages and eyeballing the results suggests that variants of it are modestly more popular in German than in French (or Dutch) in the nineteenth century. But that the pattern is very similar to the results in English.

My reason for looking into this matter is to ask why the title of Russell's (1945) The History of Western Philosophy (hereafter History) includes "western" as a modification of "philosophy."  Before I get to to the History, a few more words about the data. What is clear from these charts is that the term "western philosophy" predates Russell's History. But that the term was not widely used before the mid 1930s. (More about that in a second.) And that it started to gain in popularity in the late 1930s. It's unclear why it increases in popularity in the early 1940s, but it is pretty clear it gets a huge boost from Russell's History.

In the chart below the fold I use the title of his book and it is significantly more prevalent than either "analytic philosophy" or "continental philosophy." I am not claiming that is solely the effect of Russell. But I do think they provide evidence for the thought that Russell's own book managed to help shape the "circumstances" that shaped philosophy since. So, by the standards of the History itself (recall yesterday) the book is a great success!

With the help of Jstor and scholar.google (and useful feedback from Michael Kremer and Trevor Pearce who inspired several points in this post), I learned that "western philosophy" is used from around WWI onward in the context of papers/scholarship in comparative philosophy, primarily focused on China and India. This fits with the analysis by Joel Katzav that there was thriving scholarly literature in comparative philosophy (recall here and here)  By contrast, in the first half of the twentieth century. Prior to 1914, the more negligible use of 'western philosophy' can be very idiosyncratic; it can also refer to intra-clerical disputes (between eastern and western churches). In particular, ideas from comparative philosophy are used in ordinary scholarship. 

So, for example, in 1923, the Oxford philosopher, F. C. S. Schiller, published a piece, "Analysis and Self-Analysis,"  in Journal of Philosophy. In it, a contrast between "oriental" and "western" philosophy is used in order to assert that Oriental philosophy has tackled "the problem of self-analysis" long before Descartes. I mention this articular, in particular, because it is explicitly a response to Russell. Russell mentions Schiller in the History (and treats him as one of the less important founders of pragmatism [e.g., p. 77; 792])

Okay, if we now turn to Russell's History, the book is primarily focused on Greek philosophy and its afterlife in the Macedonian and Roman empires; the scholastic period in Catholic and then Reformation Europe; and then modernity centered on England, France, Germany, Holland, and eventually the United States. Indian philosophy is discussed a bit in the context of Schopenhauer. There is a disappointing section on "Mohammedan Culture and Philosophy" (although values their "civilization"). Chinese  and Shinto thought are mentioned but not really discussed. Only Philo is mentioned as a distinctively Jewish philosopher, although Maimonides is discussed. His attitude is best expressed by this passage:

Learned Jews, who knew Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic, and were acquainted with the philosophy of Aristotle, transmitted their knowledge to less learned schoolmen. They transmitted also less desirable things, such as alchemy and astrology. After the Middle Ages, the Jews still contributed largely to civilization as individuals, but no longer as a race. (History, 323)

I return to the pattern of exclusion soon. Because my interest here is in Russell's use of 'western.' It is pretty clear that in this period, to use 'Western philosophy' was a clear contrast to the philosophies found in the great (Indian, Chinese) civilizations in the East. But embedded in this was an older historically grounded contrast between the eastern and western Roman Empire and the subsequent division in an Eastern (Byzantine/Orthodox) and Western (Catholic/Protestant) Christianity. And, in fact, throughout the text, Russell almost never uses "western philosophy," but he does frequently use "the West" in order to pick out the topic of interest. In these cases, 'western' and 'the west' refers to Western part of Roman Empire, the Catholic church, and the geographic region what during the subsequent (!) cold-war came known as the West.  

I could end there. But I have three more reflections: first, Russell treats the object of study, 'western philosophy,' as co-enduring, perhaps even co-constituting, (western) 'civilization'--a word used throughout the History. And, in fact, the whole book is structured by dichotomy between civilization and barbarism (a word used as frequently as 'civilization.') As the graph shows, the very idea of a western Civilization takes off around 1923. I think it's highly likely that's due to the publication of Schweitzer's The Decay and Restoration of Civilization and, especially, Civilization and Ethics. Russell corresponded with Schweitzer and reviewed the latter "Does Ethics Influence Life?" which is (recall yesterday) one of the themes of the History.

As aside, in the review, Russell answers the question repeatedly in the negative (for example, "neither it nor its academic predecessors seem to the present reviewer to have that importance in moulding events which the author attributes to them,") while in the History less so (perhaps because he treats 'philosophy' more expansively than 'ethics.'). In the review, he thinks, re-orienting one of Spinoza's strange inversion of reasoning, that our ethics reflect our actions.

More important, and to extend my first reflection. In his rather critical review, Russell notes that "the bulk of [Schweitzer's] book is concerned in discussing European philosophers from Socrates to Count Keyserling, and affirming their inferiority to the philosophers of India and China, whom he does not discuss." It is unclear what Russell thinks of Schweitzer's claim about the relative merits, but when he discusses these other philosophies at all in the History Russell tends to reverse the valence. (I'll explain why in a subsequent post.)

As noted, Russell is clear that the 'West' is not the only 'civilization,' and he also believes it was (partially and occasionally) lost in the region that goes by 'the West.' But, not unlike Mill and Hume, he thinks civilization is clearly morally superior to, or more worthy than barbarism. In particular, civilizations that are characterized by dynamic development can count on his approval. (He treats "Greek civilization" in the Eastern Roman empire, as "a desiccated form, survived, as in a museum, till the fall of Constantinople in 1453, but nothing of importance to the world came out of Constantinople except an artistic tradition and Justinian's Codes of Roman law." History, p. xvi)

Second, one may still wonder why the "West" (civilization and its philosophy) becomes so salient in the decade before Russell's History. My speculative thought is that this is the period in which Anglo intellectuals revive the Smithian and Kantian idea(s) of regional federation centered either on Europe or on the Atlantic (and, sometimes including, the colonies they may have owned). This involved many public intellectuals in the U.K. and (recall) philosophers at the University of Chicago. And, in this period, the very idea of a West and the urgent matter of its survival takes renewed shape. As I noted yesterday, the treatment of pragmatism, which is the climax of the book, closed on the need to have a philosophy which does not contribute to the "danger of vast social disaster"

This sense of the danger of the moment is the great master theme of the History. As Russell puts it in the introduction: 

In general, important civilizations start with a rigid and superstitious system, gradually relaxed, and leading, at a certain stage, to a period of brilliant genius, while the good of the old tradition remains and the evil inherent in its dissolution has not yet developed. But as the evil unfolds, it leads to anarchy, thence, inevitably, to a new tyranny, producing a new synthesis secured by a new system of dogma. (xxiii)

It is clear that Russell thinks this historical pattern has been open-ended. But, then he adds a thought, one which will shape my subsequent reflections on the book: 

The doctrine of liberalism is an attempt to escape from this endless oscillation. The essence of liberalism is an attempt to secure a social order not based on irrational dogma, and insuring stability without involving more restraints than are necessary for the preservation of the community. Whether this attempt can succeed only the future can determine.

We may say, then, that we live in the extended present of Russell's History. 

Comments

[David Duffy]

I wondered if it follows the use of "Western Science". Ngram seems to show this from the 1840s onwards eg
"the most most brilliant triumph of British rule and of western science and civilization"

[Eric Schliesser]

Nice suggestion! It did not occur to me because Russell (partially) contrasts philosophy and science (and theology).
But when I look at the Ngram, western science does, indeed have non-negligible (but still modest presence) through 1880. Then 'western civ' takes off, and 'western science' doesn't.

[Heath White]

I have two purely speculative hypotheses about "western civilization".

First, perhaps this is the era when imperialism becomes reflective about itself as a project. What are we doing in these foreign parts? Bringing "civilization." What kind of civilization, since there are several? What unites Christianity, capitalism, science, and democracy? Not "European" civilization exactly, since America is included. How about "Western" civilization?

Second, in the US at least, around WWI, there was a significant reform of schools going on. The war was over the role of classics (Greek and Roman studies) in the curriculum. These were eventually sidelined in favor of e.g. US history and science classes. But classics scholars got an institutional lifeline in the form of "Western Civ" courses.

In either case (or both), arguably philosophy in this era thought of itself as a kind of intellectual "greatest hits album" for this Greek-Roman-Christian-scientific-democratic project. Hence, eventually, "Western philosophy."