Abstract

This two-part paper reconstructs the analytic turn in American philosophy through a comparative, longitudinal study of philosophy departments at three major universities: Princeton, Yale, and Columbia. I trace their hiring policies, tenure decisions, and curriculum designs and the external pressures that forced them to continuously adapt their strategies, and I use those analyses to distill some of the factors that contributed to the rapid growth of analytic philosophy between 1940 and 1970. In this first part, I show that philosophers at Princeton, Yale, and Columbia actively tried to promote a “humanistic” conception of philosophy until the early 1950s. I argue that logical positivism and related “scientific” approaches were seen as a fundamental threat to the discipline and that this opposition influenced decision-making at all three institutions. Although many students and recent graduates saw philosophy as a scientific discipline, senior members of the community deplored the decline of the humanities and appointed mostly humanistic philosophers. I show that this generational conflict was reinforced by demographic, political, and economic developments and argue that these discriminatory practices helped forge a coalition between logical empiricists, scientific pragmatists, and ordinary language philosophers, who all began to identify as “analytic” philosophers after the war.