America the Philosophical [Hardcover]

Writing with zest and a fine eye for telling anecdotes, Carlin Romano argues that philosophy is not only alive in America, but doing quite well. After the Second World War, American academic philosophy boomed and in the last thirty years, thanks to Richard Rorty and others, its reign has continued. But what interests Romano is how philosophy plays itself out in the public sphere; he disdains philosophical discourse when it is narrowly gauged, uber-professional. Romano identifies himself most fully with the open-ended experimentalism of American pragmatism.

Romano is a genial and smart tour guide for the American philosophical landscape. Readers will find discussions of thinkers as diverse as Cornel West, Bill Moyers, Richard Posner, Alain Locke, Martha Nussbaum, John Rawls, Jaron Lanier, and many others. The obvious protest is that Romano has built a mansion too capacious, housing many thinkers that would not normally be joined together under the rubric of philosopher. The delights of wandering around this house, however, offset any zoning violations. The spirit, breadth, and narrative excitement, not to mention jauntiness, make this book an engaging read. Scholars may find much that is familiar although they should appreciate the quick sketches of public intellectuals at work. Philosophical neophytes will be enthused by the rapid-fire commentaries and introductions on various philosophers and will probably push them towards reading more on the subject. Quite an accomplishment.

So, ditch your highfaluting language and narrow concerns and enjoy Romano's ride into the world of American public philosophy.

As a professional philosopher I immediately balked when I saw Romano had balkanized his subjects according to race, creed, and gender. The opening chapter confines the discussion to "white male" philosophers of the previous century - Pierce, James, and so forth. Further chapters consider women, blacks, gays, and so forth, each compartmentalized into their own little areas of concern. That anyone would seriously consider writing a history of philosophy according to these criteria is, of course, entirely inconsistent with the view that philosophy is the adventure of thinking. As far as I can tell the quality or interest of my thinking does not depend on my genital parts or whether I have breasts or the color of my skin. Romano disagrees. The very idea that a jackass like Cornell West is considered as having anything remotely of interest to say to serious philosophers is in my opinion quite laughable, but it shows the degree of desperation Romano had to go to fill his little Balkan coffers with someone or other. You start dicing things up like he does you might as well have chapters devoted to philosophers with brown hair, blonde hair, and so on. The entire enterprise is a bore from the start and a waste of time. It's title is misleading. This book has nothing to do with America and little to do with philosophy. (Scan the index before you buy - you will find virtually zero references to contemporary philosophers. Kripke, Lewis, all such figures considered luminous in contemporary American philosophy are either not considered or given a sentence or two.) Avoid. F-. Read Elizabeth Flower's book on the history of philosophy in America instead. Or better yet, read philosophy.

In this book Carlin Romano makes the claim that America is as philosophically inclined as any other country, particularly in comparison to European countries, especially France and Germany. In these latter two, and in other places in Europe, philosophers are held in high regard, sometimes becoming heads of state. In contrast, in the US philosophers are considered navel gazers with little to offer the real world. That is true, Romano claims, if you restrict the definition of who is a philosopher only to people who have PhD's after their name. If you expand the definition then, not only does America become a highly philosophical nation, it actually leads the pack. The problem with this approach is that by expanding the qualifications for membership into the philosophical club, a lot of questionable characters are let in, like Hugh Hefner, for example. Romano sees him as qualifying because he changed the rule for what was acceptable sexual behavior, first through Playboy magazine and then through his Playboy Club empire. He certainly has opinions and perspectives on sexuality, but is his thinking in these areas really deep in any way? Extending the philosophical club membership also means that Romano will inevitably omit some worthwhile candidates from his new Pantheon. What about Virginia Postrel or perhaps even Ronald Reagan?

The other major claim that Romano makes is that the proper founding father of America the Philosophical is not Socrates, the father of all Western philosophy, but rather Isocrates. The latter merits this title, claims Romano, because his philosophy was of the Pragmatist type, the only philosophy native to the US, whose originators were Charles Peirce and William James in the late 19th century. Pragmatism, claims Romano, is the philosophy that best fits the American psyche and ethos. If you accept Romano's expansion on who is a philosopher, then perhaps yes, he may be right. However, what is the point of making that claim? Should philosophy curricula and departments reorganize around Isocrates and the Pragmatists now that we have rediscovered our roots?

His final claim, and perhaps the most dubious one, is that, given our pragmatist heritage, President Obama qualifies as the country's Philosopher-in-Chief. He makes these claims based on strategic speeches made in foreign countries as well as his memoirs. Two problems here: Presidential speeches are written by Presidential speech writers, not Presidents. True, what they say reflect what the President would mean, but they cannot be seen as original works: the turns of phrase, powerful metaphors and subtle distinctions are more likely works of underlings, even if approved by the Commander-in-Chief. And Obama's books? They were both partially ghostwritten and filled with inaccuracies. These cannot be used to make the larger claim.

These claims aside, the book is a great survey of philosophical thinking in general, including both traditional philosophers and other social commentators whose discussions contribute to the philosophical conversation. Among these are people like Francis Fukuyama, Edward Said and Robert Coles. The chapters on ethnic and gender based philosophy are also very interesting and includes introductions to major African American philosophers as well as women. In sum, even if you don't buy Romano's arguments about philosophy, Isocrates and President Obama, this book is still a major resource for learning about the philosophical tradition in the United States. Each chapter is a terrific starting point for further study of either the specific personality or the philosophy/issue that is introduced.