Can “they”—the “cultural other”—speak?

In recent years, Chinese academia has increasingly centered its debates around the concept of “family,” with some arguing that Western philosophy lacks an intellectual history of family. However, this trend is neither unique to Chinese academia nor new. Non-Western scholars often reflect on Western phenomena, such as individualism or capitalism, to critique aspects of Western philosophies and highlight the legitimacy of their own traditions. These efforts, rooted in distinct cultural identities, are often seen as complementary rather than oppositional. For instance, the defense of Confucian family values by Chinese and Korean scholars exemplifies this dynamic.

However, there are questions that go beyond the limitations of scope, selective materials, or simplified portrayals of Western traditions. Significant aspects of Western thought, such as Stoic teachings on family, religious studies of family values, and feminist ethics of care, are often overlooked. This omission reflects broader challenges in comparative studies, where cultural differences are sometimes examined without addressing historical transformations within those cultures.

For instance, China’s encounter with modernity and contemporaneity has profoundly changed its identity. Is modern China still Confucian? Are Chinese societies truly centered on family values, given declining birth rates and shifting attitudes toward marriage? These complexities suggest that “speaking as the cultural other” often involves otherizing the West, which can reflect an intellectual identity crisis. This is not a failure but a result of negotiating the challenge of articulating something new in a globalized world that increasingly includes non-Western voices.

Ultimately, my question is this:
Can “they”—the marginalized and otherized at the outset—claim the legitimacy to speak? I hope this inspires discussions of historical complexities and philosophical studies, encouraging dialogue across diverse perspectives.