Access in Theory and Practice: American Indians in Philosophy History

The American Indian Philosophical Association (AIPA) was created in May of 1998 by a group of American Indian philosophers; it grew out of the American Philosophical Association's (APA) Committee to Advance the Status of American Indians in Philosophy. It is associated with the apa but remains an autonomous organization dedicated to the advancement of American Indian philosophy and the participation of American Indians within the academic field of philosophy. The AIPA's overriding concern is to "engage in the praxis necessary to maintain an American indigenous voice of philosophy,"¹ and the working assumption is that a community problem must be solved as a community.

Given our small numbers among those who hold PhDs in philosophy, these goals imply a number of different roles for such an organization, including the creation of a network of support to aid in job searches and publication and efforts to bring more American Indian students into the profession. Further, the AIPA is charged with fighting discriminatory practices and providing a positive forum for an American Indian voice that previously has found little place in academic institutions and associations. Cultural practices, oral traditions, the importance of community leaders and public policy—all these are upheld in the drafting documents of the AIPA as critical components for American Indian philosophy.

This article directly addresses the structural environment in which American Indian philosophers (bona fide and hopefuls) must function in order to gain any recognition in the field of philosophy. It arose out of our experience of being Native graduate students (the only ones in our program), facing all the normal trials of earning a doctorate along with the added challenges of cultural isolation and the constant need to justify Indigenous approaches and bodies of thought that have been consistently marginalized within our discipline.

Coming from this context, the contrasting experience of our first meeting with the AIPA in Albuquerque (in April 1999) had quite an impact on us, and this article is in part a response to discussions that took place there, along with ways we have been working at our university to claim more of a space for Native students.

Teaching Native American Philosophy, Doing Native American Philosophy

One of the recurring issues at the Albuquerque gathering concerned the tension between teaching Native American philosophy and "doing" Native American philosophy. In efforts to diversify course content, many philosophers (Native and non-Native) wish to include works by Native theorists in their classes. Several sessions at the conference allowed us to share our syllabi and discuss the ways we bring Native works into conversation with the conventional canon. Some teachers arrange works around a theme; for example, a unit on humans in relation to the nonhuman world might use Native perspectives to contrast with the writings of philosophers such as Descartes, Locke, and Camus. Other teachers used Native pieces as part of an historical survey, examining the influence the "New World" has had upon European and Euroamerican works.

We agreed that teaching Native American philosophy takes time. Generally, we have no professional training in Native American philosophy—our graduate programs have not introduced us to this material. We need time to review texts and develop courses. We need time to integrate Native American works into our syllabi in respectful, meaningful ways rather than simply adding on a unit that offers a non-Western perspective.

Similarly, doing Native American philosophy takes time. We may require time and resources to pursue activities that are not typically considered requisite for academic work. Community participation, consultation with elders, immersion periods to learn a Native language or live in a reservation community—all of these might be integral to our work as Native philosophers. Of course, for Native and non-Native philosophers alike, time and resources are scarce.

Inevitably, perhaps because of the nature of this group, these discussions culminated in questions...