Another White Man's Burden: Josiah Royce's Quest for a Philosophy of White Racial Empire

A Study Of Royce's View Of Race

Professor Tommy J. Curry's book "Another White Man's Burden: Josiah Royce's Quest for a Philosophy of white Racial Empire" (2018) examines various writings of the American philosopher Josiah Royce (1855 -- 1916) and argues that Royce's thought suffers heavily from anti-black racism and from colonialism. Curry is an American philosopher who currently serves as Professor of Africana Philosophy and Black Male Studies at the University of Edinburgh.

A few background words about Royce may be appropriate. Royce was raised in California and came to serve as a Professor of Philosophy at Harvard during what is sometimes called the "Golden Age of American Philosophy". William james was a friend and colleague. Royce taught what is generally regarded as a form of Absolute Idealism, holding that reality was spiritual in character and part of an all-inclusive whole, the Absolute. This form of thought has gone distinctly out of fashion.

In recent years there has been a small revival of interest in Royce as philosophers explore what may be of value in his work separable to a degree from what have been viewed as his idealistic commitments. Attempts to revive interest in Royce have generally focused upon his teachings about community and loyalty and have downplayed his metaphysics or have found his early metaphysics superseded in his latter writings. A small scholarly organization, the Josiah Royce Society, encourages the study of Royce. Both Professor Curry and I have participated at different times in the activities of the Royce Society. In 2020, the Society awarded Professor Curry the "Josiah Royce Prize in American Idealist Thought", awarded not more than once every five years, for "Another white Man's Burden". In addition to scholarly attention, Royce has achieved some attention in broader media, including an article by Civil War historian Allen Guelzo and a "New York Times" article by David Brooks.

Philosophers studying Royce have engaged with his views of race and his view of the African American in the United States. Royce discussed these matters in basically three articles of public (as opposed to work intended for academics) philosophy written in the early 20th century. Opinions vary on these works, with some scholars seeing Royce as progressive at least for his time and others seeing Royce as infected by the prevalent racism of his day. Professor Curry is of the latter opinion.

In 2009, Fordham University Press published an expanded version of Royce's 1908 book "Race Questions, Provincialism, & Other American Problems" edited and introduced by two contemporary scholars, Scott Pratt and Shannon Sullivan. Readers of Professor Curry's study would do well to acquire this book, if possible, and to read for themselves at least three of the essays which are central to the discussion: "Some Characteristic Tendencies of American Civilization", "Race Questions and Prejudices", and "Provincialism". Professor Curry discusses other works of Royce as well, including his early history of California and his 1908 book "The Philosophy of Loyalty". These books and articles have all been digitalized in a "Critical Edition" and are accessible online.

Professor Curry's book consists of four chapters in which he examines Royce's texts in detail. He also provides historical context for Royce's texts by discussing the work of other late 19th and early 20th century scholars including African American scholars. He discusses the works of anthropologists, scientists and philosophers contemporary with Royce, including the works of those who commented upon or reviewed Royce's writings. He discusses the work of people mentioned and criticized by Royce, including the notorious Thomas Nelson Page ("Birth of a Nation") He concludes unequivocally that Royce was a racist, imperialistic thinker. In addition to offering his reading of the primary texts, Professor Curry analyzes and rejects the work of contemporary Royce scholars who have treated Royce's texts more favorably.

In addition to the four chapters analyzing Royce's writings, Professor Curry's book includes a lengthy Preface, Introduction, and Epilogue which broadens the scope of the book. Professor Curry objects to what he sees as the efforts of contemporary students of American philosophy to praise the work of their predecessors by taking it out of historical context. Not only Royce, but also John Dewey and Jane Addams had distinct racist threads in their thought, Curry argues. American philosophers try to sanitize the past of their profession, resulting in a "valorization" (13) of early 20th century white thought. Conversely, African American thinkers such as Du Bois are sometimes called "pragmatists", a term which masks the distinctiveness of their thought and their critique of white racism. Royce's thought and the thought of other white philosophers is compared unfavorably to the thought of Du Bois, William Ferris, and other African American thinkers of roughly the same time.

The tone of the book is harsh and polemical throughout. In the Preface, Professor Curry wanders off the subject of Royce and discusses at some length how many white women supporters of feminism and woman's suffrage piggy-backed their position on anti-black racism. This of course is not a new position, but Professor Curry presses it vigorously. Curry indicates that he has no love for the history of American philosophy due to its racism, a position echoed in a quotation from Du Bois (195 -- 96) at the end of the book.

Professor Curry makes some strong points in this book in the reading of Royce. In particular he points out the tendency of contemporary thinkers to extrapolate the sources of their own thinking onto favored historical sources. This tendency may cause some scholars to downplay some of the historical context of Royce's thought and to downplay its racial character. This condition and use of philosophy's past, however, is not limited to current white philosophers where race is involved but is part of the way thinking works and progresses, as philosophers try to understand and work with their predecessors. The term "racism" was not widely used in Royce's day, and it is possible that Professor Curry himself is engrafting a latter day concept onto his critique of Royce.

I learned a great deal from Professor Curry's study while also finding it troublesome. To simplify, there were two understandings of American society that gained currency late in the 19th century with the end of the Civil War and the rise of immigration. One was the assimilationist model,sometimes described by the term "melting pot" attributed to an immigrant, Israel Zangwill. The philosopher Horace Kallen rejected the "melting pot" metaphor in favor of a position more respectful of cultural pluralism. The two approaches seem to me reconciliable. Royce was not so much a racist, as I read him, as an assimilationist who recognized diversity but gave greater weight to unity. Professor Curry, as I read him, is a separatist, unwilling to give much if any weight to national unity and purpose. We need both. I think Josiah Royce and American philosophy are unduly diminished in Professor Curry's book.

Robin Friedman