UC San Diego

A comparative case study of the philosophy departments and curricula from Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) and University of California, San Diego (UCSD) reveal the preferences in philosophical currents and research. The philosophical advancements of each department, whether political or technological, result in the denial and recognition of philosophical thought that disclose institutional priorities. The struggle between the legitimacy and illegitimacy of particular philosophical currents is problematic because dominant knowledge forms benefit from power structures in the academic institution and market; these tensions reveal how philosophy’s claim to knowledge is disadvantageous for philosophies unincorporated within the philosophy curricula that result in marginalized philosophies. I argue marginalized philosophies are at the expense of the hierarchy of knowledge and negatively affect philosophical study at large; therefore the creation of an inclusive philosophy curriculum and pluri-versal university is necessary. Throughout this thesis, a theoretical foundation situated among the Frankfurt School and Critical theory along with a Decolonial conceptual framework, and a historical, socio-political, and curricular comparison inform the knowledge productions each university is intent on producing. The comparative factors that guide this analysis are based on course syllabi, reading materials, as well as informal discussions with students, faculty, and staff from each university. The broader implications of this study are representative of other philosophies and marginalized forms of knowledge that are considered illegitimate by academia. This study brings attention to the existence of these issues between two universities and contributes to an ongoing critique of the field of philosophy and academic university.