This series questions and complicates what ‘reporting from abroad’ can mean in a globalized world that faces interconnected and local crises alongside forces grappling with how to liberate our beings from oppressive structures rooted in past and present (neo)colonialism and imperialism. We can take this as a chance to collectively and constructively consider both broader and different conceptions of philosophy than those more widely studied within USA institutions and culture—and the conditions that shape such studies around the globe by APA-related thinkers. We can learn how local institutions and global contexts shape the possibilities of research, speech, and our visions of philosophy.
Dr. Rafal Banka received his MA and Ph.D. in Chinese Philosophy from the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland. He worked as Associate Professor in the Centre for Comparative Studies of Civilisations, Jagiellonian University, and then as Research Fellow in the Faculty of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Oxford. He has taught philosophy in Poland, China, and England to a considerably diverse body of students. Recently, he relocated to the United States, where he is part-time faculty at Trinity University.
How would you introduce your areas of specialization and interests?
I work across the western and Chinese philosophical traditions. I am mostly interested in questions that are located in metaphysics and aesthetics (although, especially in the Chinese tradition, these categories do not form clear-cut sub-disciplines of philosophy, they are useful indicators of thematic dominants). Regarding metaphysics, I particularly focus on Daoism—one of the most important and influential schools of classical Chinese philosophy. My recent research in this area consists of reconstructing the Daoist metaphysical system in mereological terms. I believe that beyond this compatibility, this conceptualization is important for two reasons. First, conceptualizing Daoist metaphysical characteristics in terms of parthood relationships provides a comprehensive and consistent account of Daoism that can be further investigated with analytic tools. This in turn can lead to new problematizations and what follows, opening up new debates in Daoist and, more generally, in Chinese metaphysics.
Second, the analytical mereological approach makes it possible for Daoist metaphysics to interact with contemporary western philosophy research. I hope that work of this type can contribute to global philosophizing which goes beyond comparing philosophical traditions to one another by offering new philosophical constructions. I worked on this through a project called MereoDao with funding from the European Research Council (ERC) at University of Oxford’s Philosophy Department. More about this project can be found here.
I also work in aesthetics understood as a theory of sensuous apprehension, as opposed to value theory or philosophy of art. Within this paradigm, Chinese aesthetics can offer a comprehensive insight into how the aesthetic matters in forging our cognitive faculties, from both ontogenetic and phylogenetic perspectives—as individuals as well as the human species. Evidence for these aesthetic components of cognition can be found in Confucianism, but also in more recent works by Li Zehou (1930–2021). In 2022, I published a monograph Cognition and Practice: Li Zehou’s Philosophical Aesthetics, where I show how Li’s cognitively oriented aesthetic interrelates with human practice. (I recently discussed the book in a Recently Published Book Spotlight.) I also demonstrate that this relationship is firmly present in Confucianism and Marxism, along with Kantian philosophy, which inspired Li’s philosophical work. The connection between human practice and the emergence of cognitive structures with aesthetic components invites a naturalized approach, considering recent research in cognitive and affective sciences, which quite often penetrates into philosophical questions connected with cognition In the book, I argue that Li’s, and also more generally Chinese, conception of aesthetics can be accommodated by autopoietic enactivism—roughly speaking, a conceptualization of cognition as enactments that adapt a living system to the environment.
How did you come to be doing research on Chinese philosophy, both originally and where you are now—whether happenstance, long-term goal, or a quick vital decision, for example?
Nothing is born in a vacuum and a lot depends on apparently insignificant circumstances. I happened to study philosophy at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland, when three non-western courses in Indian, Buddhist, and Chinese philosophy were offered there. Usually, Chinese and other non-western philosophies are taught in Asian Studies programs. However, Jagiellonian University was (and still is) one of few European places of learning where non-western philosophy courses were taught by philosophers to philosophy students. This makes an important difference in course design—their objective is to produce systematic accounts of philosophical systems rather than to provide historical insight into an intellectual tradition. In addition to offering courses in Asian thought, Jagiellonian’s Philosophy department also accepted MA and Ph.D. theses devoted to these traditions. Hence, location distinguished by research infrastructure mattered a lot in my case.
Apart from following the philosophy curriculum, I also attended a Chinese language course that was open to all university students (at that time, Jagiellonian University did not have Sinology Department). At some point in my studies, I combined my interests in philosophy and Chinese language and culture. I was intrigued to look into Daoist metaphysics in a more fine-grained way, and decided to write my MA and Ph.D. theses on this. Aesthetics was another discipline that interested me, and after some years, I earned a research grant on Li Zehou, as already mentioned.
I would not say that my choosing to specialize in Chinese philosophy was entirely determined by these circumstances, but the fact that I was given the opportunity to become acquainted with Chinese philosophy during my studies certainly formed an important incentive tied to institutional support.
Did you consider various locations for undertaking this research and what were the deciding factors that brought you to where you are now?
I believe that the mobility of scholars is mainly motivated by searching for an optimal location for conducting research. There is no clear answer to what makes an optimal location in the sense of infrastructure for Chinese philosophy research. Lateral movements in my case are largely determined by two factors: methodology and institutional support.
I think that location is somehow a deceptive term as it can immediately bring associations with a geographical situation. From this, one can smoothly jump to the conclusion that the best place to do, say, Chinese philosophy is its “natural habitat”—the Chinese-speaking world. However, this would be a hasty conclusion.
I have studied five semesters at three universities in Mainland China altogether and also taught philosophy there during a summer school. In Mainland China, the status of Chinese philosophy is situated differently than elsewhere: Chinese thought does not have to struggle to be labeled “philosophy”—it has always been a legitimate (if not a dominant) part of the philosophical landscape. In this sense, the Chinese-speaking world is a conducive environment to Chinese philosophy research. However, Chinese philosophy research there is dominated by methodologies that are quite different from those in academia elsewhere. Roughly speaking, Chinese philosophy research in China, as well as parts of East Asia that have been influenced by Chinese culture, has two essential characteristics that are encapsulated in the term “intellectual history” (sixiangshi 思想史). The first one is a historical perspective. Accordingly, this approach gravitates more toward a diachronic study of how certain ideas are preserved or developed rather than of accounts of the philosophical systems themselves, which in my opinion forms the core of philosophical business. The second characteristic determines the object of study, or more exactly, its range, which there includes ideas and intellectual trends that are not necessarily confined to strictly philosophical ones. Hence, philosophical content is often blended with political or art theory, as well as biographical studies. In this sense, the overlap of the Chinese geographical location with a philosophically conducive environment can be questioned, at least by philosophers who prefer more systematic methodological habits. Although I learned a lot while in China, I found my methodological match elsewhere—at Jagiellonian and the University of Oxford.
Another important factor is institutional support, which I would roughly characterize by three points. The first: hiring policy—whether a given department is willing to hire a Chinese, or any other non-western philosopher. Notwithstanding the current promotion of diversity, job openings for non-western positions are still scarce. The second: willingness to integrate a non-western tradition into the curriculum. In most places, non-western philosophy courses are usually optional and do not intersect with the core curriculum constituted by Western institutions. The third and final: funding for research in non-western projects. This threefold institutional support plays an important role in making a location conducive to research across different traditions.
How do you see this research contributing to larger philosophical discussions and/or your own future—or current other areas of—research?
The fact that philosophical research in western academia needs to be complemented by other traditions is evident. Compared to other disciplines, such as art history or literature, this complementarity is not only essential for achieving a more complete inventory of human cultural production (which itself is a very important academic objective); philosophical pluralism is also essential for the comprehensive development of philosophy itself. The business of philosophy consists in proposing new philosophical constructions, which can benefit from the interaction of different philosophical traditions.
Philosophical pluralism can be practiced in three main ways. The first one is literal and fundamental—to aim at being acquainted with multiple philosophical traditions, studied within their own contexts. The second one is mainly represented by comparative philosophy, as focused on determining possible congruities and incongruities between different philosophical traditions. Finally, philosophical pluralism can be done in a global way. This approach does not merely broaden a philosophical inventory or refer philosophical traditions to one another. In the global approach, multiple traditions are involved in an interaction that leads to the emergence of new philosophical constructions.
This third variety of philosophical pluralism can considerably change some existing philosophical discussions or debates, and even open new ones. For instance, based on my mereological reconstruction of Daoism, I believe that the Chinese metaphysical intuition that ultimate reality is non-discrete can significantly inform the conceptualization of parts, which are usually identified with particles—as discrete entities with determinable spatial location.
What are the expectations and the role of philosophy in academic institutions, the culture, and/or the broader public where you have studied? What responsibilities and expectations come along with your research in this country?
I believe that one can distinguish between multiple philosophical cultures, which supervene on long-standing academic practices and the involvement of philosophy in everyday intellectual life.
Let me confine this question to Poland, where I have worked for almost ten years, and with whose philosophical culture I am most familiar. At Polish universities, philosophy is considered part of general university education, and its courses are taught in almost all programs. This status is underpinned by a belief that philosophy consists of the most fundamental reflections upon the world, and therefore undergirds any discipline, from science to humanities, with philosophical questions.
Philosophy courses (usually two semesters) are taught to students of almost all specializations. The most standard version is a one-year history of philosophy course, with courses focused on other disciplines (especially for science programs, for instance Philosophy of Physics) also being common. Philosophy is also included in final exams for Ph.D. students of any specialization.
Roughly speaking, a university graduate knows many important philosophical figures and is acquainted with general philosophical questions. Common acquaintance with philosophy is integrated into intellectual life. Therefore, philosophy is not confined to a strictly academic activity. Philosophers are quite often invited to participate in discussions and debates on art, culture, religion, as well as current social and political issues.
In parallel, philosophical culture in Poland can be understood more narrowly—as certain research patterns within philosophy. Polish philosophy is mainly known by foreign scholars for its logical character. This perception can be attributed to the international impact of the so-called “Lvov-Warsaw School of Logic” whose representatives include Alfred Tarski and Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz. Of course, this is a generalized perception, as Polish philosophers represent a considerable variety of methodological approaches. Yet logic is an undeniably important part of philosophy programs at Polish universities, especially compared to other places, including the United States.
Has researching abroad changed the way you think about philosophy? Please elaborate.
Despite major trends that characterize academic regions, every location remains idiosyncratic. This idiosyncrasy supervenes on researchers whose work is reflected by a distribution of emphases on different philosophical issues and resorting to different methodological patterns. Every location in which I studied or worked was unique in this sense.
My conceptualization of philosophy as a discipline was naturally informed by my studies. The Philosophy department at Jagiellonian University was not monolithic in terms of research interests. The department was comprised of a group of scholars working in analytic philosophy, who were balanced by colleagues who philosophized in a phenomenological tradition initiated there by Roman Ingarden. These two approaches can be perceived as two main trajectories within Western philosophy. I believe that being exposed to the coexistence, and also interaction, of these two approaches made me aware that the strength of philosophy as a discipline lies in a deeply embedded diversity of narrations. This understanding of philosophy as non-monolithic was additionally bolstered by pragmatism (mainly in aesthetics) and an interdisciplinary approach represented by a group of philosophers involved in cognitive science and obviously the non-Western philosophy already mentioned.
My understanding of philosophy has also been shaped by how philosophy is done in East Asian academia. As I have already mentioned, Chinese philosophy there is quite often not separated from other intellectual activities. This approach is believed to present philosophy in a more comprehensive way. It presents philosophy as an activity that cannot be detached from the practice of human life. Confucianism and Daoism illustrate this in being regarded as practices of human self-cultivation and fulfillment, rather than purely theoretical reflections upon reality. This pragmatist objective provides a unique insight into how philosophy can be done.
What support or resources have enabled you to perform research there? How did you find and pursue these opportunities? Did you receive any training or support for this? What impact will they have on your work?
As I have already mentioned, I believe that institutional support matters a lot in research. I tend to be pretty task-oriented in my work. Probably for this reason, my research has mainly been done as projects, under the auspices of two research funding institutions: the National Science Centre of Poland (NCN) and the European Research Council (ERC). Especially thanks to the latter, which funded my mereological reconstruction project “MereoDao,” I was able to completely commit to the research tasks that I planned to carry out. This considerably accelerated my work and international dissemination of my project results. During the project’s three-year duration, I was not only able to look into different mereological aspects of Daoism like parthood status, part ontology, and composition but I was also able to go into no less important metaphysical issues, such as causation and persistence through time. Also, thanks to the ERC funding, the international dissemination of my project results was easier—I was able to present at many major conferences (mainly APA Annual Meetings) and receive insightful feedback on my work there. Finally, I believe that the intensity and dissemination have naturally led to the expansion of my project within and outside my field. Since the metaphysical intuitions on which Daoism is built can be considered foundational for a large part of Chinese philosophy, I am going to examine more philosophical models, represented by, for instance, Zhu Xi and Xiong Shili. I am also looking forward to an interdisciplinary collaboration on how parthood relationships from Daoism can be applied beyond philosophy, especially in information science.
Rafal Banka
Rafal Banka is part-time faculty at Trinity University and affiliated faculty at Oxford University. His areas of research include Chinese and Western comparative (metaphysics, aesthetics, methodology) philosophies. He has run two Chinese philosophy projects funded by the National Science Centre in Poland and the European Research Council. He has published among others in Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy, Journal of Chinese Philosophy, and Philosophy East and West.
alicehank winham studied BA Philosophy and Theology at Blackfriars Hall, University of Oxford, where ze is now pursuing an MPhil Buddhist Studies at Lady Margaret Hall through the Faculty of Oriental Studies soon to be renamed the ‘Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies.’ Ze focuses on philosophy of logic and language and social epistemology across traditions, including classical Buddhist philosophy and its modern interpreters, feminist philosophy, and the Black Radical Tradition. alicehank is also dedicated to critical pedagogy, philosophies of transformation and liberation, and social and environmental activism, such as through mentoring programmes, publishing journals, and direct action. In philosophy, ze works on expanding our disciplinary and interpretative horizons for a more caring and considered world through oxfordpublicphilosophy.com and Philiminality Oxford. Ze also works to reflect and act upon zer values through Biblionasium, environmental activism, and Lift Economy’s Next Economy MBA.
