The Rational Enquirer Issue #8

Patricia Marino's New Book

We caught up with our Department Chair, Patricia Marino, and chatted about her brand-new book, Philosophy of Sex and Love: An Opinionated Introduction, published in April by Routledge.

---

Q1] Why did you write this book, Patricia? What was your main motive?

Dr. Patricia Marino shows her new book as part of Routledge’s recent releases

A: I work on a range of different topics, and one reason I got interested in philosophy of sex and love was because I wanted to write something that would be of interest to people beyond philosophy. I've always been interested in sex and sexuality, so I thought that would be a great topic to engage a wider group of people. I probably wouldn't have thought much about love except that they are usually taught together, and for quite a few years now I've taught course at UW on “Philosophy of Sex and Love”. Once I got thinking about it, I realized there was a lot to say about philosophy of love, and especially about why philosophers have wanted to have a theory of what love is. I also wanted to write on this topic in a way that would be accessible for a non-specialist and for people coming to the topic from a range of backgrounds.

Q2] The sheer suggestiveness of this book, regarding the scope of fascinating issues, is incredible. How did you decide which things to leave in, and which out? What were some of your favourite things in connection with sex and love to write about?

A: I'm particularly interested in how sex and love are contextual, social topics. One of the themes of the book is that philosophy of sex and love can't be understood in isolation from culture, or in individualistic ways. And our context has been changing so rapidly over the last few decades. The social changes of the 1960s encouraged a wave of theorizing about sex and love: with respect to sex, some writings from the 1970s and 1980s centered on the contrast between more traditional norms and these new ones, and there was sustained attention on the question of "perverted" versus "normal" sex and on the ethics of homosexuality, masturbation, and casual sex. Partly reflecting trends in philosophy as a discipline, around this time a literature developed in philosophy of love addressing conceptual and metaphysical questions, such as the difference between eros, agape, and philia, whether love is an emotion or a way of valuing, and whether we have reasons to love.

But as I see it, the rise of feminism and queer culture, skepticism over categories like "normal," and shifting social and political attitudes have sparked major changes -- social changes prompting a shift in what topics are relevant and in how those topics ought to be framed and understood. For example, I think that the concept of "perversion" has largely lost its usefulness, and masturbation is not thought to raise deep ethical issues simply in virtue of being solitary sex for pleasure. The idea of analyzing love and family life from an impartial, objective and gender-neutral point of view now seems naive. So, it seemed to me that we have new questions -- like, if being desired is good, why is sexual objectification wrong? Are sexual orientations ever a matter of choice, and does it matter? What should we make of the increasing involvement of the pharmaceutical industry in our personal lives? Are racialized dating preferences racist? Does monogamy have value or is it just old-fashioned? How does love affect the gendered division of caring labor and the resulting wage gap?

Q3] Apart from a number of “usual suspects,” in terms of subject matter—objectification, pornography, sexual violence, hetero- versus other forms of sexual identity and attraction—you explore some quite unexpected subjects, including sex and disability, and sex and economics. Tell us about how you approach those traditionally under-developed concerns.

A: In some cases, there has been a lot of fascinating work that hasn't yet been reflected much in philosophy. For instance, sexologists have been talking about the medicalization of sexuality in interesting ways, disability scholars have been writing about sex, love, and intimacy, economists have been studying the dynamics of family relationships -- so one thing I wanted to do was to bring a philosophical lens to some of this rich and interesting material.

Q4] Would you say you have a kind of “ruling idea”, or unique approach which is pervasive throughout your treatment of these subjects? What would that be? What does it contribute to our understanding of sex and love?

A: There are a few themes that run through the book. One is that while it is common these days to think of sex and love through the lens of personal autonomy -- that people should do as they please as long as they are not hurting others -- this framing raises many complex questions. For example, mutuality and generosity are often thought to characterize an ideal or even an essential aspect of sexual interaction and pleasure, in the absence of which sex might seem sadly contractual or objectifying. This leads us to ask, what are the demands of sexual mutuality and generosity, and how do they arise? It's often assumed that somehow mutuality or reciprocity are important sexual values - that one-sidedness is not appropriate, that you should care about returning the sexual pleasure you get from others. But this means saying that sex is just somehow different from all the other things we do in which we think that as long as everyone is on board with an exchange and no one is being coerced, we can do whatever we want. But in discussions of objectification, of sexual racism, of the unequal access that people have to sexual pleasure, there is a persistent sense that sex is special, yet it's often unclear what makes it so, or why mutuality is seen as so important in this one domain.

Q5] My own view is that, very often these days, when people speak of “sex and love,” often the sex part dominates and love is kind of crowded-out. Sex is more colourful, obviously, but presumably love is richer and more complex and, in the end, more needed and satisfying. But is that an illusion on my part? Are those days over? How do you define love, and view its relationship with sex?

A: Another theme of the book has to do with the tensions between the individualism we associate with public life in modern capitalist societies and the norms of love. Love is thought to involve a kind of caring for the other person for their own sake that challenges individualism: if you’re in it for yourself, how is that love? I think it's often hoped that family life could be a kind of sanctuary from the competition and negotiation that characterize public interaction, a zone in which caring rather self-interested bargaining is the norm. In the book, I explore the idea that traditional views of sex and love -- those based on patriarchal heteronormativity -- provided a way of resolving tensions between the values of liberal capitalism and the values of sex and love. In Western history, marriage, for instance was thought to unify the wills of man and woman, but largely by subjugating the woman's will to that of the man.

I think one reason that people have sought to find specific theories of love is to show how these tensions can be addressed. What does it mean for love to create a special, non-selfish way of relating, one that works in gender equality and variable sex/gender partnerships? I think theories of love fail at this however: once we see intimate relationships among adults in terms of equal partnership, the idea of love and marriage creating unity or special caring becomes a problem: without individuality, we cannot articulate ideals of fairness and equality, and then the relationship of the individual and their autonomy to the partnership becomes obscure.

I agree there is often less discussion of love, and I think one reason for that is that love is so variable, so subjective, and so culturally specific -- even more than sex. So, it's an area where the philosophical method may be less illuminating or less easy to apply. 

Q6] I’d expect that this book has been, and will continue to be, very well-received, and note that you’ve been invited already to some podcast interviews about it. What do you most want people to take away from this book?

A: Thank you! I expect different readers will have different responses to the book, and I am happy about that. In my course, I would sometimes have some students who were already very knowledgeable about existing thinking on these topics, and then others who hadn't encountered the idea of sex and love as scholarly topics at all. They would find different things interesting. One good thing about the range of topics in the book is that hopefully everyone can find something that interests them.

---

Ty Branch on Science, Values, France, and Museum Exhibits

We caught up very recently with one of our most recent PhDs, the multi-talented Ty Branch.

---

Q1] Congratulations on being a newly-minted Philosophy PhD! How did you find the program, looking back? Tell us in some detail what you wrote your PhD thesis on

A: I was the first student in the Faculty of Arts at UW to do an internship as a Philosopher-in-Residence with an architecture firm through Mitacs (towards the end of my Masters). Then, during my PhD, I went to France investigating philosophical themes in a Data Analytics laboratory with a Mitacs Globalink Award.

Ty Branch in Rouen, France, as part of her Mitacs Award

I wrote my dissertation on values in science communication (under Heather Douglas with assistance from Doreen Fraser) and chose to write on values in science communication. I was very drawn to this because I absolutely adore science museums and science centres. I’ve always been curious about how and why these institutions collect and present information the way they do.

In my dissertation, I argue that the way we communicate science is largely based on how scientists describe science. Scientists have a history of describing science as free of values (non-epistemic ones in particular) and so science gets communicated that way. But, philosophers of science have routinely pointed out that this misrepresents science. I’ve shown how this misrepresentation of science appears in science communication and science education, hindering public understanding of science. I argue instead for a contextualized, value-conscious account of science to better represent science and improve engagement with science.

Thankfully I found the University of Waterloo’s PhD in Philosophy program flexible and open to interdisciplinary scholarship, which my research necessitates. Having that positive response from the faculty was a great help.

Indoors in Rouen, in front of a bank of a computers as part of a big data research field.”

Q2] And what are you doing now, professionally?

A: My dissertation focused on values in science communication and calls for information to be value-conscious as a means to more accurately represent science. This has led me to investigate the values underlying public- and government response to the Lubrizol crisis that occurred on September 26th in Normandy, France. In summary, a chemical lubricant warehouse exploded in the middle of the night creating a massive fire that burned for nearly 2 days. Though the fire did not spread and was contained onsite, the smoke clouds from the blaze wafted over the city of Rouen and other nearby towns leaving a gas-like stench behind for nearly two weeks.

The Lubrizol fire, as it happened in Rouen

Publics also experienced ‘black rain’ - a substance dark in colour that made surfaces like roofs and walkways oily to the touch. Publics have also criticized the government for not considering their experience of the crisis enough. Though the government has responded that there is no risk of ‘acute toxicity’, publics have demanded more clarity regarding the government’s evaluative methods and demand that independent tests be carried out. The public skepticism resulting from this incident bolsters my argument for value-conscious science communication as a means to build public trust in science and positive engagement with science.

Q3] You have a fascinating, impressive, and multi-faceted background, ranging from an undergrad degree in biochemistry to being a Philosopher-in-Residence at an architectural firm. I note with special interest all your expertise in museum- and exhibit curation design, ranging from Science North in Sudbury to the beloved ROM in Toronto. Talk to us a bit about some of your favourite experiences in this regard, and how you view such as augmenting your understanding of philosophy.

A: Science communication through exhibitry is among my favourite mediums and values in science. When done well, it combines the best of design and informative content - but this is tricky to do. I very thoroughly enjoyed my time at the ROM because they collect natural history and cultural artifacts which I believe breaks down the traditional divide between science and society that I find decontextualizing science.

I also really enjoy working with smaller collections that are building up to the point of being on permanent display. In cases like these, you can really develop the narrative and create opportunities for publics to engage with the collection — the University of Waterloo has “a history of computer science” collection (which I worked with for a few years) that I believe has enormous potential. A few years ago we put on an artefacts workshop and allowed members of the public to investigate how some of these older units worked - it was a lovely time.

Inspecting things at the UW Computer Museum Collection

My experience in these institutions is part of what has led me to engage with the University of Rouen’s artifact collection. As a piece of scientific patrimony, there have been increased efforts to collect, catalogue and curate instruments left behind by scholars in the region. They have a lovely pyrometer, a Minitel (the French telephone-line-based information precursor to the internet) and an atomic probe among other instruments.

An antique pyrometer, in Rouen

As a philosopher of science, experiencing these instruments does a lot to enhance my understanding of the progression of science as well as its limitations. What is more, I feel a responsibility to contribute to enhancing awareness of how these instruments were used and by whom. I believe it challenges the stereotype of the lone scientist in light of the builders making prototypes, engineers contracted to help, secretaries ordering parts, and librarians — a range of expertise. This cooperative description better represents science as the collective endeavour that it is and I believe it should be communicated as such.

Q4] Who are your favourite philosophers, and pieces of philosophy, and why?

A: I really admire the work of Tom Dietz. I think the importance he places on value-competence for good-decision making is crucial to having well-informed publics. Likewise, I think values in science have been overlooked when communicating science, so in many ways my work responds to his call to acknowledge values.

I also believe that Erik Fisher’s work developing STIR [i.e., socio-technical integration research] can really push philosophers to redefine the limits of philosophy in unexpected ways. Encouraging humanities scholars and social scientists to integrate into laboratory spaces in order to help scientists consider the social implications of their work is important given our techno-scientific world. In addition, I suspect that this sort of engaged philosophy might serve other types of philosophy that are dedicated to understanding our actual epistemic inklings as opposed to the normative ways we as philosophers believe people think.

---

New Faculty Member Jenny Saul

The Department is thrilled to welcome its newest faculty member, Dr. Jennifer Mather Saul. Amidst the hustle and bustle of her very first term at Waterloo, we caught up with her for some Q and A.

---

Q1] Congratulations on becoming the Waterloo Chair in Social and Political Philosophy of Language! What does such a position mean to you, both in terms of personal achievement as well as how you hope to use its profile to deliver research and advocate for some ideas and values?

Dr. Jennifer Mather Saul, the first UWaterloo Chair in Social and Political Philosophy of Language

A: I don’t know if this is the first-ever Chair in Social and Political Philosophy of Language, but there certainly haven’t been many.  This is an area that was totally ignored by analytic philosophers when I was learning philosophy back in the 80s and 90s, and it’s now become a really exciting growth area.  I’m thrilled to be a part of this.  I’m less thrilled that a key reason for this is the rise of right-wing propaganda, authoritarianism, and racist and sexist rhetoric. But it’s great, at a time like this, to have institutional recognition of the importance of this area of research.  And there’s obviously a lot to do!  I plan to continue to do public philosophy and outreach work in this area alongside the academic work.  Initially I’ll be focused on the places I know best—the UK and US.  But I’m looking forward to learning a lot more about Canada, and to finding a way to participate in Canadian discussions of these topics.

Q2] For those who may be wanting more, how do you understand the scope of what “social and political philosophy of language” means, plus its relevance to today’s world?

A: As I see it, this is philosophy of language that engages with matters of social and political importance in the world.  So, instead of thinking about things like the meaning of names like ‘Superman’ and ‘Clark Kent’ (the way I started out my career!), we think about politically important words like ‘woman’ or ‘marriage’.  Instead of just thinking about how we convey things beyond what is said (again, like I used to do) we look at how doing this can have dramatic effects on our social and political world—through subtle racist manipulation, for example.  I knew that doing this could be revealing about the socially and politically interesting topics.  But I’ve been fascinated to discover that doing this also changes the way that I think about the more standard ones.  It turns out that doing philosophy with an impoverished range of invented examples is a bit distorting!

Jenny Saul (at left) with Dr. Shannon Dea, sharing some language while here as the Rudrick Scholar.

Q3] I’d imagine there’s no shortage of gripping examples in this regard, ripped from the daily headlines… or tweets, as the case may be….

A: I’m particularly interested right now in the ways that people (especially politicians) get away with communicating things that are somewhat taboo.  Although we’re all aware that there is far too much racism, for example, until recently US politicians could not succeed if they expressed racist sentiments in an obvious way.  This fact is the reason that dog-whistles became an important means of political communication.  A dog-whistle, non-metaphorically, is a whistle that can only be heard by dogs (not people).  Metaphorically, a dog-whistle is a message that reaches its audience in a somewhat concealed way.  In the US, for example, it’s common to invoke “states’ rights”, which to many people sounds like just the constitutional principle that states have substantial legislative independence.  Its target audience, however, knows that “states’ rights” was the rallying cry of the slave states during the civil war and the southern states defending segregation in the 1950s and 60s.  This makes it a very effective racist dog-whistle.

I had planned to spend quite a lot of time studying dog-whistles, but I’ve been somewhat distracted by the way that much more overt racism has become socially acceptable in the Trump era.  In particular, I’ve become interested in a maneuver I call a fig-leaf, because it barely covers something you’re not supposed to show in public.   It’s an additional bit of words that provides some cover for what would otherwise be seen as racist.  Take, for example, Trump’s claim that Mexicans are rapists.  He followed this by saying that he assumed some of them were good people.  This served as a fig-leaf for the many people who (wrongly) think that to be racist one has to condemn all members of a group.  For these people (though not for others), this helped Trump get away with something nobody thought a speaker could get away with.  And once he gets away with that, the goalposts start to shift: if that’s the kind of thing a non-racist might say, then we’ve really started to change the way we think about racism.  I think this is very dangerous.

Q4] Transitions, especially cross-Atlantic ones, are difficult and stressful. How have you and your family handled the transition here to Waterloo? What are some of the things you’re most looking forward to, moving forward as you settle in?

A: In many ways, things have been smooth: My partner and I both have lovely jobs with great colleagues at the University of Waterloo (he’s at the Stratford School), and my 14-year old son really likes WCI.  (He’s especially excited about not having to wear a blazer and tie, and not having to take 26 GCSE exams.). However, our housing situation has been ridiculously stressful.  Our UK house sale fell through just before we left, then got tangled up in ridiculous legal disputes.  This meant over 2 months of living in other people’s spare rooms, while starting new jobs and new school.  But we made some great friends doing this, and are now finally in our house (though also still paying a mortgage in the UK).  Perhaps unwisely, we acquired three kittens within days of getting into the house.  We’re looking forward to our house sale in the UK going through so that we can afford to buy bookcases and finally unpack fully!

Moving to Waterloo, with helpers, at the Saul household.

Q6] And some plans for your next research projects?

A: I’m continuing to think a lot about dog-whistles and fig-leaves, and other methods of political manipulation.  I’d like to write a paper about (perhaps) unavoidable dog-whistles. Take, for example, the term ‘banker’.  This very often functions as an antisemitic dog-whistle.  But sometimes we need to discuss, and to criticise, bankers. So it’s an interesting and important question whether and how to do this without dog-whistling antisemitism.  I’m also working with my partner Ray, who works in Visual Studies, on a paper discussing visual dog-whistles.  Finally, I’m very interested in how our shifting and contested definitions of ‘racism’ can help speakers get way with utterances that stoke hatred and bigotry. I’m also interested in trying to think through the ways that prejudice against particular religions or immigrant groups relate to various definitions of ‘racism’.  There’s a huge amount to sort through, but it all feels incredibly urgent in the world we’re living in.

---

Greg Andres Conquers Canada!

We caught up with Dr. Greg Andres after his awesome cross-country cycling adventure, and asked him about it and his news more broadly.

Dr. Greg Andres, UW Philosophy Lecturer, at the point of the Arctic Watershed with all his cycling gear.

Q1: This interview involves a combination of brains and brawn! Let’s start with the brawn: your project to cycle across Canada during this past summer. What motivated such a feat of outstanding physical prowess for you?

A: Simply put, I needed a new life goal. As an academic, I spend the majority of my waking day in my head. I have found that engaging in physically demanding activities is a good way to balance things out. These activities have varied over the years, and it just so happened that long-distance cycle-touring fit with my current situation in life. As for why I chose to cycle across Canada? To borrow a turn of phrase: because it’s there.

Q2] Tell us about the progress of the journey: Start point? Finish point? Some favourite colourful moments for you along the way?

A: Conveniently for me, the University of British Columbia hosted this year’s Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences at the beginning of June. So I flew out to Vancouver with all of my gear and, after having presented a paper with one of my colleagues, I loaded up my bike and started pedalling east. I left Vancouver on June 5^th, and three weeks later I arrived at my mom’s place just north of Saskatoon. After Canada Day, and a lovely few days at my mom’s, I started heading east again. As I was midway through Manitoba, I started encountering intense weather: powerful headwinds, wild thunderstorms, and torrential rains. Like, lying down in a ditch to avoid lightening kind of thing. These storms plagued me for three weeks—until I reached Sault Ste. Marie.

Greg in June at Manning Provincial Park in B.C., about to conquer Canada via cycle.

I met so many incredible people along the way. On numerous occasions total strangers offered me a place to stay out of the intense and wild weather. One afternoon as I was standing on the side of a highway in Manitoba eating an apple, someone stopped and gave me a couple cans of Pepsi and a bag full of homemade cookies. On other occasions, people offered me rides when the weather was absolutely horrendous.

Man, or Cycle, versus Nature in Northern Ontario.

Although my original plan was to make it all the way to Halifax, I had to abandon that goal mid-trip. Sometimes the demands of life get in the way of the best-laid plans. I made it to Wiarton and declared that “close enough” to K-W. In all, I cycled just under 4200 kilometers

Q3] Tell us how you trained, and prepared yourself physically and mentally, for this trip.

A: I talked with a lot of touring veterans before I embarked on my trip, and I always asked that question: How do I train for my tour? Invariably the answer was, just get on your bike and start pedalling…your body will figure it out pretty quick. So that is what I did. And my body did figure it out pretty quick.

Greg at the Centre of Canada in Manitoba 

Q4] One is almost reminded of Robert Persig’s classic blend of travel and philosophy, Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Do you see such connections yourself? How has the biking informed your philosophy, and vice-versa?

A: I sold my car in early 2018, and now cycling is my main form of transportation around KW. Cycling has transformed my life. It keeps me fit, I’m less stressed, and I’m much happier. I bike-commute to work year-round, and more often than not my commute is a highlight of my day. A nice ride to campus leaves me invigorated and focused for the day, and a fast, hard ride home clears the mind of the day’s demands.

I see my environment differently when I’m on my bike. Cycling in traffic on city roads is a real-time object lesson in risk compensation and moral hazard. There is no room for error when sharing the road with motorists who may or may not be paying attention to what they are doing behind the wheel. If there is a vehicle-bike interaction, cyclists will always lose. Always. And so, when I am on my bike, I am hyper-attuned to what the vehicles around me are doing. This is an example of risk compensation.

>With Winnie the Pooh, plus full beard, at White River, Ontario

The idea behind moral hazard is that a person is more likely to engage in riskier behaviour if they believe they are shielded from the full consequences of their behaviour. Despite seeing it every day at every stoplight, I am still appalled at how many drivers are on their cellphone instead of paying attention to what is going on at the intersection. With air bags and crumple zones, the physical cost of a fender-bender is minimal…odds are, those inside the vehicles will walk away without a scratch. This feeling of safety inside the vehicle is what gives rise to moral hazard—drivers will adjust their behaviour as vehicles become safer for them and their passengers, but not in a way that is safer for cyclists or pedestrians.

I talk a lot about risk compensation and moral hazard when I teach business ethics and game theory, and cycling has provided me with many vivid stories that help make those concepts concrete for my students.

Q5] And then that marks a nice transition into the more brain-y, book-y aspect to this interview. For quite some time now, you’ve been helming not merely the Dept’s systematic business ethics teaching efforts, but moreover the drafting of a full-length manuscript on business ethics, forthcoming with Oxford University Press. Congratulations! Tell us about the project, and the people in the Department who’ve participated.

A: I am really excited about this project.

A substantial part of my job is to coordinate the numerous sections of business ethics on campus. This has given me the opportunity to work with a lot of amazing people in the department. We used the same text for many years, but over time we found that what we wanted to talk about in our lectures kept diverging from the text. It got to the point where we could no longer justify having students buy the text, and so we searched for a new one…but with no success. We then started batting around the idea of writing our own text. This went on for a few years before we finally committed to doing the hard work of writing a textbook that we want our students to read.

Ten of us from the department—both current and former—have been involved in making this textbook a reality. In addition to myself, here is a list of everyone involved in the project:

• Dr. Andrew Stumpf (An alumnus from the department and currently teaching at St. Jerome’s.)
• Jim Jordan (A Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Philosophy.)
• Vanessa Correia (A Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Philosophy.)
• Dr. Sara Weaver (An alumnus from the department and currently working in Yellowknife.)
• Chris Wass (A Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Philosophy.)
• Sandie Devries (A Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Philosophy.)
• Jamie Sewell (A Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Philosophy.)
• Dylon McChesney (A Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Philosophy.)
• Dr. William Abbott (A retired professor from the Department of Philosophy.)

We submitted our complete manuscript to OUP back in August, and have just received comments back from the reviewers. With a few more edits, the book will hit the market for the winter term of 2021