Charles Mills is a faculty member of the philosophy department of the University of Illinois-Chicago. His article, “Non-Cartesian Sums: Philosophy and the African-American Experience,” argues that much of Western philosophy is faulty because it makes the mistake of deriving universal statements of personhood and human existence from the perspective of only one race, whites (more specifically privileged white men). He proposes that one should take “the historical reality of a partitioned social ontology as one’s starting-point rather than the ideal abstraction of universal equality...” (P. 229.)
Ontology is the study of existence itself, distinguishing itself between real existence (noumena) and appearance (phenomena). It also investigates categorization of an entity and how that category, as well as the individual, can be proven to exist. So Mills is proposing that the common ontological category of human as it is commonly used (free, rational being with rights equal to other human beings) does not reflect the real existence of African-Americans. For most of the country’s history, they have not been considered equal, free (in real sense), or rational.
Much of modern Western philosophy is based on Descartes’ claim that the one thing that one can not question is that one thinks. For Descartes, not just that an individual exists, but that he/she is a human. Descartes’ question, “What can I know?” developed from his historical experience. The basic economic, cultural, intellectual and governmental structure of his world was changing. This caused him to be skeptical about what he could rely on as true. The one thing that had not changed was that he was a thinking being. So, even if it turns out that science undermines his basic religious beliefs and capitalism undermines the class system based on birth, there is one thing he can count on that he has never questioned and cannot ever imagine questioning, that he thinks. This focuses on the individual’s own mind-set and ability to control at least that. For Descartes, the existence of anything else (other than himself) is suspect. Sartre carried this to its logical extreme by claiming that we create the world based on our own individual perspectives of it. Western philosophy is a study of individuality, the individual’s ability to control his/her existence and influence the world around him/her.
Mills will argue that Descartes could play with the idea of nonexistence and think in terms of an individual existing regardless of social changes going on around him because his real existence was one of privilege where his categorization as human was never in question. In other words, it is easy to intellectually detach oneself and one’s consciousness from the rest of the world when the world is not an obstacle to one’s existence or self development. However, when one is oppressed, it is virtually impossible to deny the existence of one’s oppressors. This is especially true when one’s physical and mental existence is controlled by others. To lose track of this is to invite one’s own demise. For example, one can forget about the weather on a clear day, but it is foremost in your awareness when you are caught outside in a major storm. When in the midst of a blizzard or hurricane, it makes little survival sense to question whether the storm truly exists. Furthermore, the storm may cause you to question your own importance in the grand scheme of things and your own power over your existence.
Using Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man, Mills argues that the philosophical problem for African-Americans is enmeshed in the social reality of oppression. African-Americans are non-cartesian sums because 1 they are in no position to doubt the existence of the outside world, 2 they must convince others that they are thinking, rational human beings who deserve to be treated equally, and 3 their social situation causes them to doubt whether they really are thinking, rational human beings who deserve to be treated equally, with respect. Descartes could not conceive of doubting that he thought, and that his level of thought was deserving of the rank “person.” However, African-Americans’ experience is one of constantly having to prove, to an unbelieving majority, that they do deserve the rank of person. While Descartes could demonstrate the proof of his existence without referring to anything other than himself and his own experience, African-Americans have to address their historical relations to the outside world. By definition, the category of sub-person refers to the category of person. Thus, there is already a reference to other in the identification as a sub-person. To consider the problem of personhood in theory, abstracted from the social particulars which deny one’s actual existence qua person, appears to be trivial. “So we are persons in theory, a lot of good it does us!”
Mills quotes Ellison:
You often doubt if you really exist...You ache with the need to convince yourself that you do exist in the real world, that you-re part of all the sound and anguish, and you strike out with your fists, you curse and you swear to make them recognize you. (P. 231.)
Mills argues:
White (male) philosophy’s confrontation of Man and Universe, or even Person and Universe, is really predicated on taking personhood for granted, and thus excludes the differential experience of those who have ceaselessly had to fight to have their personhood recognized in the first place.
Mills demonstrates the self-ambiguity with a quote from W.E.B. Dubois:
It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others...One ever feels his twoness,---an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body. (P. 232.)
Mills later admits that this situation is further complicated for black women who experience at least a “triple-consciousness,” due to their experience of sexism as well as racism. (P. 235.)
Mills argues that “personhood” is inevitably social. It is only the privileged group that can afford to consider it to be an abstract concept. So, Mills argues that his approach to this course is not merely a side issue. He thinks that this approach to philosophy should become part of the basic introductory course, not simply applied in specialized courses on African-American philosophy.