The Relevance of Royce

Introduction

{  } In his own day, at Harvard University at the turn of the twentieth century, Josiah Royce was one of America’s premier philosophical exports, as well as a prominent interpreter of European and Asian thought to a domestic audience. Royce and his colleague William James were probably the two most prominent figures in American philosophy. Indeed, the arguments between Royce and James were played out for an international audience in numerous lectures, publications, and classrooms (the dialogue is evident, for example, in their respective Gifford Lectures, delivered between 1898 and 1902).1 But after Royce’s death, and after two world wars, the topics dear to him—loyalty, idealism, and systematic metaphysics among them—faded from mainstream philosophical discussion. Part of the reason for this eclipse is that Royce baptized no disciples, preferring instead to engage his students and readers in the provocations of dialectical exchange. Then, too, the vagaries of history and intellectual fashion intervened. Just as the “new realist” challenges to his core positions were gaining ascendancy Royce passed away, at age sixty-one, without having offered a proper published response.2 introduction The Continuing Relevance of Josiah Royce Kelly A. Parker and Jason Bell  kelly a. parker and jason bell  His closest philosophical colleagues, James and C. S. Peirce, had preceded him in death; John Dewey, whose inclinations were decidedly nonRoycean , became the public face of pragmatism and American philosophy in the first half of the twentieth century. And of course pragmatism itself was soon eclipsed by other approaches. The new schools of logic and linguistic analysis imported from Europe as “analytic philosophy” dominated American philosophy in later decades; phenomenology, existentialism, and their postmodern successors occupied generations of European scholars. Royce’s vigorous but sympathetic critiques of pragmatism; his efforts to develop pragmatist-inspired tools of logic and linguistic analysis; his soaring explorations of such themes as loyalty, sorrow, and the modern significance of Christian faith; and his forays into what would later be recognized as “applied ethics” all came to be regarded as obsolete. Thanks, however, to the work and dedication of a small number of scholars—among whom we must mention John E. Smith, John J. McDermott, Frank M. Oppenheim, John Clendenning, Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, Mary B. Mahowald, and Bruce Kuklick— Roycean themes never completely disappeared from the philosophical landscape. Now, a hundred years after Royce’s heyday, we witness an upwelling of articles, books, and conferences dedicated to exploring the meaning of his thought. The recent rediscovery of the most prominent American proponent of idealism may signal a rebirth of idealism in American philosophy . Perhaps it signals that contemporary American philosophy has reached a mass sufficient to support a more thorough exploration of its heritage. Or it may be part of a movement back to the future, what Robert Cummings Neville has called a search for “the highroad around modernism,”3 a return to philosophical sources that were abandoned by the analytic and continental philosophical traditions alike. Whatever the reason, it is clear that a reexamination of this complex philosopher is under way. The present volume is a collection of perspectives from contemporary philosophers engaged in exploring Royce’s work with a fresh eye. The reader will quickly see that while common themes emerge in the chapters of this volume, there is no unified “party line” of thought animating the current Roycean revival. Several contributors focus on Royce’s ethics as his chief contribution to philosophy. Others address his importance introduction  for race theory, highlighting the conflict that has arisen in interpreting the significance of his various writings and utterances regarding race. Some point to Royce’s overcoming of Absolute Idealism as his most important achievement, whereas others say the Absolute is the key to understanding Royce’s pragmatic metaphysics and ethics—but still others deny that Royce is much of a pragmatist at all. One identifies his previously unrecognized importance as an earlier practitioner and influential figure for phenomenology. Finally, two authors point to Royce’s logical innovations as the reason for his relevance. Of course we do not intend this volume as a study in mere disagreement ; it is also a study of the higher agreements that are possible when scholarly perspectives, questions, and disciplines peacefully meet in the spirit of honest inquiry. An important reason for Royce’s recent reemergence —his commitment to the potential of interdisciplinary work in academia—is...