View the Barcelona Principles here
Filippo Contesi is Beatriu de Pinós Postdoctoral Fellow in the LOGOS Research Group in Analytic Philosophy, University of Barcelona. He has drafted the “Barcelona Principles for a Globally Inclusive Philosophy” (‘BP’) manifesto calling on all philosophers to address, in their work as scholars, editors, and members of departments, of hiring committees and scholarly societies, the structural disadvantages that non-native speakers have in academic philosophy. In this interview, Contesi discusses his inspiration for the petition, how his linguistic background has shaped his experience in the discipline, and what comes next in this project.
To add your name or institution to the list of signatories, email contesi[at]ub[dot]edu with your name and university affiliation, if applicable.
What is this petition?
The manifesto asks philosophers to address this structural inequality between native and non-native speakers in academic philosophy, by committing themselves to abiding by a set of five principles. Given its current role as a common vehicular language of much of contemporary philosophy, the main target of the manifesto is the English language. However, non-native speaker disadvantage and linguistic insularity are problems that affect many other languages besides English.
What inspired you to begin this petition?
The BP in my mind were another attempt at advocating for greater openness and sensitivity to linguistic diversity in analytic philosophy. It has been my view for some years that analytic philosophy is not taking full advantage of its current position as the mainstream philosophical tradition in the world. There are now plenty of scholars who work in the tradition across the world, often in English, but their work is not sufficiently encouraged or recognized.
A major causal factor here is the fact that, for historical and other reasons, the institutions with the greater and longer-standing prestige in the tradition continue to be largely based in majority Anglophone countries. Just consider for instance how the most influential ranking of graduate programmes in analytic philosophy (less than perspicuously called “A Ranking of Graduate Programs in Philosophy in the English-Speaking World”) ranks only programmes that are based in majority Anglophone countries, even when other programmes (e.g. those offered at the LOGOS Research Group in Barcelona or at Institut Nicod in Paris) are Anglophone for all intents and purposes. Similarly, the most prestigious journals are also overwhelmingly based in majority Anglophone countries, and mostly run by native Anglophone philosophers. In part due to the global reach of analytic philosophy, at the same time, pressures on these institutions are now so great that attention to linguistic appearances is too often taken as a shortcut reason (e.g. by skimming journal submissions before making editorial decisions on them) for paying less attention to, or altogether rejecting contributions by non-native Anglophone philosophers.
This makes analytic philosophy, or at least its most prestigious venues, closed off to the rejuvenation that they could receive from a richer linguistic, and consequently cultural diversity. After all, one can argue that analytic philosophy was born from a cultural encounter between native German-speaking and native English-speaking philosophers, with the mediation of a native Italophone logician who also worked on the construction of a lingua franca he called ‘Latino sine flexione’. Indeed, if analytic philosophy is to be a true heir to the Western philosophical tradition, then it should heed Socrates’ plea to Athenians in the first paragraph of his defense in Plato’s Apology, that he be heard “as if I were really a stranger, whom you would excuse if he spoke in his native tongue, and after the fashion of his country.”
How has your experience in philosophy been shaped by your linguistic background?
Language is a key component of culture, in the sense that (especially native) competence in different natural languages comes with familiarity with different cultures and viewpoints. So, I believe most experiences will be to some extent shaped by one’s linguistic background, often in ways that are difficult to pinpoint with precision. However, my having studied and worked in philosophy in different countries has certainly made me most aware of the importance that one’s linguistic background has in philosophy.
I moved from Italy to the UK to pursue postgraduate studies in philosophy, with an idea that Anglophone, analytic philosophy would in general work much more like the scientific ideal than what I instead judged was the provincial academic environment of historico-Continental Italian philosophy. My UK experience, mainly at Oxford, Leeds, and York, was extremely enriching, and I did notice there more of a reasons-based approach to philosophy than in general in Italy, as well as more internationalization. Nonetheless, I was struck by the sense that such differences between Italian historico-Continental and Anglophone analytic philosophy were more in degree than in kind. Among other things, there was a limited number of philosophers and themes most people knew about and discussed. Moreover, when it came to the contemporary philosophers cited, as well as looking around me at the faculty and graduate students, there was a surprising amount of native Anglophone speakers. This was in stark contrast to the image I had of the international scientific enterprise. In fact, looking at some preliminary numbers as well as at my own experience, scientific departments do have substantially higher numbers of non-native Anglophones in their faculties. Moreover, I have also experienced very low percentages of non-native speakers (of the local languages) in the philosophy departments of the non-Anglophone countries I have studied and worked in: Italy, France, and Spain.
In contrast to the current situation, I hope to see a world where many more philosophers study and work in different countries from their native one, sharing their peculiar cultural and linguistic perspectives with those of their new home countries.
How were the five principles included in the petition formulated?
I wrote the text of the BP, taking into account the lessons learnt in the last several years that I and others have spent reflecting and working on these issues. It is at this point impossible to fully acknowledge in brief the help I personally have had from so many people over the years. For more details, see the Introduction to the 2018 special issue of Philosophical Papers that Enrico Terrone and I co-edited on these issues. Before it was made public, however, the text itself of the BP was greatly improved by (among others) Gualtiero Piccinini, Edouard Machery, Paloma Atencia-Linares, Derek Matravers and Quassim Cassam.
What comes next in this project?
At the moment of writing, the BP manifesto has been signed by over 650 individual academics, based in over 35 countries and 6 continents. Given this broad individual support, what is needed now is for as many institutions, i.e. departments, journals, and scholarly societies, as possible to endorse and start implementing the BP. I invite all such institutions, from Anglophone and non-Anglophone countries, to get in touch to express their official commitment to the BP. A public webpage recognizing institutional commitments is in the works. I hope we can work together to rejuvenate analytic philosophy with new perspectives.
How does this petition fit in with your academic (or non-academic) work?
The bulk of my research so far has been in aesthetics and the philosophy of emotions. These are by no means neighbouring areas to my work and advocacy on linguistic diversity. This relative disconnection has delayed my engagement with the latter. However, underlying all my work is an interest in quicker human reactions (aesthetic, emotional, etc.). In this respect, I am interested in understanding as well as remedying the current emphasis, in analytic philosophy, on more superficial linguistic appearances over more thoughtful consideration of content. The BP also fit in with other academic service I engaged in past years in the hope of making philosophy more open and inclusive, such as my founding of the Minorities and Philosophy (MAP) UK network.
Filippo Contesi
Filippo Contesi is Beatriu de Pinós Postdoctoral Fellow in the LOGOS Research Group in Analytic Philosophy, University of Barcelona. He mainly works on issues in aesthetics, philosophical psychology and linguistic diversity. He has published on these topics for journals and publishers such as the European Journal of Philosophy, the British Journal of Aesthetics, Philosophical Papers, Palgrave, Bloomsbury and Oxford University Press.
Maryellen Stohlman-Vanderveen is the APA Blog's Diversity and Inclusion Editor and Research Editor. She graduated from the London School of Economics with an MSc in Philosophy and Public Policy in 2023 and currently works in strategic communications. Her philosophical interests include conceptual engineering, normative ethics, philosophy of technology, and how to live a good life.
