Issue 11 | Spring 2021
Department update: catching up with Department Chair, Patricia Marino
One of the world's most influential living philosophers, Jennifer Saul
Alum profile spotlight on Andria Bianchi
Congratulations to our award winners!
Department update: catching up with Department Chair, Patricia Marino
It’s been a remarkable year for everyone, and the Philosophy Department has faced considerable changes and challenges. We caught up with the Department Chair, Patricia Marino, and chatted with her about all these things and more.
Q1] Perhaps, if memory serves, you could recount your first set of reactions to the news of the Covid pandemic shutdown, back in March 2020, and what it might mean for the Philosophy Department.
One of my very first reactions, which seems very funny to me in retrospect, was a feeling of hope that the shutdown would be short enough that I wouldn't have to learn how to do virtual meetings and teaching. We all know how that turned out! I also worried about how we would all stay in touch, and how we would know how other people in our department community were doing.
Q2] Which of those initial reactions turned out to be true? Which realities turned out better than expected? Which were actually worse?
It's been a roller coaster the whole time. In the university, you're often planning months in advance for things that will happen in the future, but of course the situation keeps changing. So we make plans, then change everything around, then start over. Also, it's definitely difficult to communicate in the same way -- even if I talk to someone on a Tuesday, by Wednesday I already feel like I don't know what's on that person's mind or how they are doing. As Chair, I'm in Zoom-style meetings most of the day, which for me has turned out to be much more challenging than meeting people in person.
The best thing has been seeing everyone find creative and inspiring ways to do things differently, especially with respect to teaching. Talking with other department members about their teaching strategies, there are so many interesting and new ideas! And, like a lot of people, I find I'm better now at keeping in touch with people it's difficult to see in person, whether because of distance or anything else. I've had so many wonderful conversations with former students, former teachers, and fellow scholars.
Q3] For you personally as Chair, what have been some of the biggest challenges, and rewards, of having to lead the Department through this traumatic and on-going set of events?
The challenges are mostly to do with just adding a lot of unexpected problems and new tasks to a job that already has a wide-ranging list of to-do items. And, of course, struggling to answer questions about how the future planning will unfold, when so much is up in the air all the time. The rewards -- in addition to the inspiring pedagogy I already mentioned -- have included getting to know some of my colleagues and co-workers in more personal ways. And, of course, getting to see everyone's pets, especially their adorable felines.
Q4] So, there’s all these momentous shifts and changes which the past year has caused. Naturally, we now turn to the future. Though perhaps not a fair question, do you have thoughts about what may be the lingering consequences of the pandemic? What might be some changes you’d like to see coming out of this experience?
So many of us have learned how to do new things, and to do old things in new ways, and that opens up so many new possibilities. Personally, I'm looking forward to continuing connecting virtually with fellow scholars and philosophy friends I wouldn't normally see in person, and I'm excited to bring some new pedagogy ideas into the classroom. With my seminar meeting virtually, I asked students to prepare a bit extra for our meeting by submitting and sharing their discussion questions online in advance; then after our session we were able to continue our discussion in written form. It helped us make the most of our time together and allowed for a wider understanding of what can form excellent class participation. I'm definitely looking forward to doing that again, even when we're back on campus.
Q5] And now you’re about to embark on what is perhaps the best-deserved Sabbatical ever! You must so be looking forward. Apart from the breather, what are some philosophical questions and projects you’re going to turn your efforts to, during your break from being Chair?
I have a few projects I'm excited to get to. I have a major project planned on philosophy of economics, focusing partly on issues related to mathematization and philosophy of mathematics, an area I used to work in years ago. I also have two co-authored projects planned -- one on optimization strategies in ethical and social decision-making, and the other on equity and discrimination associated with the use of algorithms. I am really looking forward to some quiet research time, whether that happens at my dining room table, at the library, or wherever!
One of the world's most influential living philosophers, Jennifer Saul
Our own Dr. Jennifer Saul, Waterloo Chair in Social and Political Philosophy of Language, was recently named, in a high-profile survey, as one of the world’s most influential living philosophers. We caught up with her, during a well-deserved Sabbatical, for a conversation.
Q1] What was your first reaction upon hearing this happy news? And how do you feel about it now?
My first reaction was to think it was some sort of weird scam. I expected to see something telling me that if I wanted to know more about this, I could do so for a low low price of $500. Now that I know it’s not a scam, I’m really thrilled to see so many women and people of color, and people working on issues like race and gender, ranked so high in terms of influence. For a very long time, these areas have been strongly marginalized in philosophy, and many of us have struggled for decades to get them even to be recognized as legitimate areas of philosophy. This recognition of their influence, then, is extremely gratifying.
That said, I’m still puzzled by the methodology. Maybe it’s “imposter syndrome” but I keep thinking of lots of people who, I’m sure, are much more influential than me who don’t even appear on the list; and I also keep finding it frankly hilarious to imagine that I am slightly more influential than Noam Chomsky. I’m flattered, and I’m glad for the boost for philosophy of race and gender, but I still think the whole thing is a little strange.
Q2] What do you think it is about your work that attracts such attention and influence? If you could choose, which of your ideas—thus far—would you like to see having the most influence, and why?
The areas that I work on are directly connected to extremely important phenomena in the world, like racism, sexism, and the spread of misinformation. It’s no surprise that work on topics like these gets particularly strong uptake from non-philosophers. But I’ve also been interested to see how excited philosophers are about seeing ways that analytic philosophy can connect up with these phenomena. I think my work has been useful in this regard because I am, stylistically, a very traditional analytic philosopher, but the topics that I work on are not traditional ones for analytic philosophy. Some of the nicest praise I’ve had has been from older philosophers who told me that my work has helped them see ways of connecting their own work to what’s going on in the world. It’s also been wonderful to see so many younger philosophers who simply find it natural and obvious that analytic philosophy can engage with the world in this way.
As to which work I’d like to be influential, my main concern is to have a good influence rather than a bad one. I’m pretty pleased, for example, by the way that work I’ve done on women in philosophy has led to guidelines from the British Philosophical Association and the Society for Women in Philosophy UK, which have been adopted by dozens of philosophy departments, learned societies, and so on. I’ve also done a lot of work on reframing implicit bias training around structural and institutional reforms, and I’m hopeful for getting uptake on this.
I fervently hope that some of my current work on the spread of racism and falsehood, described below, may have a beneficial impact. But that remains to be seen. My fear, of course, is that I’ve got things wrong and I will have a negative impact! I guess such worries are the price of working on topics that affect peoples’ lives in these ways.
Left photo: Black Lives Matter protest, credit Thomas de Luze
Q3] The past year has surely been a remarkable one for anyone interested in the social and political philosophy of language: from Trump to Covid, to all the communication about the virus origins, threats, and government responses, BLM protests, and then on to Trump’s defeat, the Capitol Hill riots, the new Biden/Harris administration, and now moving into Pandemic Year 2. Can you talk about a few of your favourite “targets of analysis” in the past year?
Yes, it has been a busy year in my areas of philosophy! I’ll tell you about two of the projects I’ve been working on.
I’ve been very excited to be brought in as philosophical consultant on international work by statisticians concerned about the misuse of statistics in the global spread of misinformation. This work began when I was contacted out of the blue by the head of the UK’s Statistics Authority, who had read my book on lying and misleading and who wanted to have a chat about defining kinds of misleading. His organization has the very important job of monitoring government use of statistics, and trying to intervene when things go wrong, whether deliberately or by accident. I’ve now been working with him and his team for a couple of years on generating definitions of kinds of misleading and how to deal with them, in order to guide their work.
This year, my work in this area has expanded to include work with European statisticians and, most recently, speaking at a United Nations event on the misleading use of statistics, which was attended by hundreds of official statisticians worldwide. This work has been both immensely enjoyable and very gratifying, because it has the potential to have a real impact on incredibly important issues around the world.
I’m also quite excited about the book I’ve started writing on my research leave (even though its topic is more horrifying than exciting). My original plan had been to write about the rise of explicitly racist language in the Trump era, which I had expected to continue into 2021. Biden’s victory let me to do some re-thinking about how to frame the project, as did the pandemic. In autumn 2020, I was teaching two classes: one on the spread of misinformation, and one on the pandemic. Between these classes and events happening around us, I became increasingly drawn to the question of how stunningly impossible conspiracy theories were spreading. Could people really believe that masks made it dangerously difficult to breathe, knowing that surgeons wear them for very long periods of time engaging in high stress activities which require total alertness? How could it be that people had been elected to Congress who believed in the Q-Anon conspiracy, which holds that a cabal of Democrats and celebrities are kidnapping children to drain their adrenochrome in Satanic rituals in the basements of pizza parlors? As I reflected on these issues, I started noticing that some of the same linguistic manoeuvres were used in order to get away with both racist and conspiracist claims: “Lots of people are saying…”; “I am just putting it out there for people to discuss…”; “That?? I was joking!!” These parallels are now the topic of my research. I’m currently writing a book tentatively called Saying the Quiet Part Loud: The Rise of Explicit Racism and Falsehood in Political Discourse. I’m finding it fascinating and illuminating to look at these phenomena together.
Q4] Is social and political discourse more interesting or relevant for you in some countries than in others? Why would that be the case? And how does the medium influence the message: i.e., which media of communication do you focus on, and/or do you think will be increasingly relevant for the future of your field? Is there a “language” to such visual-heavy media as Instagram, TikTok, or Snapchat: or do you stick with language-laden media such as Twitter, news media, political speeches, and books?
I focus in my work on political discourse in the US and the UK. The reason is simple: I feel like I need very extensive knowledge of a country before I am able to discuss these sorts of things. I have this knowledge of the US and the UK, since I was raised in the US and then spent 24 years in the UK. I don’t yet have that sort of knowledge of any other country. But one of the things I find most interesting, both in teaching and then giving research talks, is talking to people about how what I have discussed applies in other countries. It always does, and it’s always fascinating, especially to see the ways that things work somewhat differently. For example, I’ve had really interesting discussions with Spaniards about the way that Catholicism references work in Spanish political discourse.
My own expertise is in language not images, so I have largely focused on linguistic utterances. However, the pandemic has seen me locked in the house pretty much all day every day for over a year with my partner, Ray Drainville, who is a Visual Studies scholar. The result of this has been a co-authored paper on visual and linguistic dog whistles, a kind of manipulative communication widely used in politics. One kind of dog whistle functions as a sort of code, meant to be fully understood by some of the audience and totally missed by the rest.
An interesting visual example of this, with lots of complexity, is the white supremacist use of the ‘OK’ symbol, signifying white power because the handshape vaguely resembles a ‘W’ and a ‘P’. Importantly, though, this is still often a totally innocent gesture. So, it’s easy to deny that one meant white power, and it can be hard to be sure what is going on when the symbol is seen. I think it’s incredibly important not to neglect the role of images in the spread of both racism and falsehood. Especially on the Internet, images are often doing a lot of the most important work, and it’s easy for a philosopher of language like me to fail to realize the significance of this.
Alum profile spotlight on Andria Bianchi
Dr. Andria Bianchi is a Ph.D. alum from the Department. Presently, she holds down two excellent positions: Bioethicist, plus Clinician-Scientist, at the University Health Network (UHN) in Toronto, as well as Assistant Professor at the Dalla Lama School of Public Health (DLSPH) at the University of Toronto. We were lucky to be able to chat with her recently about these roles, and other pressing health issues.
Q1] Congratulations, Andria, on your career being off to such a strong and successful start! I’d like to ask you about your roles at both of these institutions. First, at the UHN, you wear at least two hats: Bioethicist; and then Clinician-Scientist. We’re intrigued to hear about what you do, on a daily basis, within those roles.
Thank you for the congratulatory remarks! Yes, I wear two hats at the University Health Network (UHN). As a bioethicist, I provide clinical, organizational, and research ethics consultations.
From a clinical ethics lens, I provide consultation to patients, families, and/or staff who are grappling with a complex ethical dilemma(s) and unsure of the right thing to do. To give an example - perhaps a physician may consult with me because they have a patient who is clinically stable and ready to be discharged from the hospital, but who does not have a safe place to reside in the community. Suppose this patient has an acquired brain injury, is paraplegic, and lives in the shelter system. In this circumstance, what should we do? Should we discharge the patient to the shelter system, knowing that their condition may worsen? Should we allow this person to remain in-hospital until a more accessible residence becomes available, even if this prevents another person from getting a hospital bed? What other options exist? What is most ethically defensible? In these kinds of complex circumstances, I help to facilitate fair decision-making processes by encouraging all relevant stakeholders to be involved and to consider various ethics principles when exploring available options.
I also provide consultation to the organization when ethics dilemmas arise. For instance, how should the Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) legislation be operationalized? What does it mean for clinicians to be allowed to conscientiously object to participating in MAID? Should COVID vaccines be mandatory? What should our visitor policies look like? Although I am not the decision-maker when it comes to the outcomes of these discussions, I try to ensure that fair decision-making processes are followed.
I also sit on the Research Ethics Board, where I have the opportunity to learn about, and provide ethics recommendations related to, interesting research proposals.
My clinician-scientist role means that I am provided with protected time to do research in addition to ethics consultations. I am currently working on a qualitative study exploring ethics issues that arise in geriatric rehabilitation in relation to nourishment and feeding. I want to better understand how and why certain decisions are made about nourishment and feeding and learn about the distress that some people may experience as a consequence of certain decisions. For instance, I am sometimes consulted on cases where a person who has a high risk of choking wants to eat a high-risk item that the clinical team does not want to permit. I am hopeful that my research study can help me understand the kinds of ethical issues that arise (some of which I may not be consulted on) to a greater extent than through ethics consultations alone. I'll be interviewing patients, families, and clinicians as part of this project.
I am also involved in a few projects related to artificial intelligence. One of these funded projects is exploring AI and ageism related to older adults. This project is just getting underway and involves an international interdisciplinary team. As a first step, we plan to complete a scoping review to learn of how age-based biases may be part of or amplified in AI systems.
Q2] And terrific as well to have an academic job. Tell us about the kinds of courses which you teach, and your students, at the DLSPH.
My position at the University of Toronto is a status-only appointment. So, while I am not officially employed by UofT in a paid position, I am provided with the opportunity to teach bioethics, to supervise students at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health (DLSPH), and to take on practicum students who are completing their MHSc in Bioethics through the DLSPH. I am also grateful to have the opportunity to collaborate with wonderful faculty members, to publish, and to apply for grants as an affiliated faculty member of UofT.
Q3] How did the Covid outbreak affect your role in the hospital? How did you handle the remote pivot?
The COVID pandemic has significantly affected my role at UHN. I have been busier than ever with ethics consultations. Many of the consults have specifically focused on COVID-related questions (e.g., should exceptions to visitor policies/restrictions ever be permitted? If so, under what circumstances?). Other consults have not been focused on COVID specifically, but I do notice that many people consulting with me are distressed, presumably as a result of pressures related to COVID.
Additionally, while much of my hospital work can be successfully done remotely, it can be challenging to build trust with staff members, patients, and families when meeting them for the first time online. During my consults, I try to create safe spaces and demonstrate trustworthiness, particularly since people often consult with me about circumstances that are sensitive, emotional, and complex. It can be difficult to demonstrate trustworthiness when meeting with people in a remote setting where body language cannot be seen, video images may freeze, etc.
Q4] And, I must ask: care to comment generally on the biggest public health, and bioethical, challenges related to the Covid pandemic? As a society, do we thus far get passing or failing grades? What crucial lessons ought we to take away for a better future?
Based on my perspective alone, I unfortunately think that our society would get a failing grade in terms of our response to the COVID pandemic. Our initial response to the pandemic failed (and, in many ways, continue to fail) to adequately recognize and take into account how some of our most vulnerable populations would be influenced. For instance, ensuring that people do not gather in public spaces and in large groups during the pandemic makes sense. In order to prevent this from happening, typically publicly available spaces, such as libraries and malls, were shut down. But preventing people from accessing these spaces means that those who are insecurely housed may have no places available to get warm, use the washroom, etc.
Additionally, while remote health care and learning opportunities have offered many benefits for people during the pandemic, there are also many challenges to which we have not adequately responded. For instance, many individuals may be unable to afford computers, the internet, etc. Also, communicating complex and/or incredibly sad health information in a remote context, particularly if a person is not tech savvy, speaks a different language, has a cognitive impairment, etc., is not ideal and, at times, may be unfair.
Ultimately, I worry that some of the most vulnerable and marginalized communities have been entirely left to fall through some very large and preventable cracks during COVID. In the future, I am hopeful that our society may make decisions that specifically consider how these populations will be affected so that no one is left behind to such a great extent.
Image of Covid-19, by Waterloo’s Chemistry Department
Congratulations to our award winners!
Our annual award ceremony had to be cancelled, owing to COVID pandemic restrictions, yet the prizes were still bestowed, with happiness and pride. It may interest readers to know:
These awards are made possible by generous donors. We are deeply appreciative of their support. In particular, for years Bob Ewen, a valued Philosophy alumnus, has donated toward making the class prizes and essay prizes possible.
The Graduate Student Essay Prizes:
Gold: “Being Pluralistic About Expertise: Making Sense of the Knowledge Gained From Lived Experience” – Janet Jones
Silver: “Can a union theory of love help re-conceptualize addiction?” – Ashley Raspopovic
Bronze: “The need for normative transparency in the pursuit of algorithmic accountability” - Artur Lukaszczyk
The Undergraduate Student Essay Prizes:
Gold: “Resolving the contradiction in Pickard's "responsibility without blame" framework” – Clair Baleshta
Silver: “The Aesthetic Value of Process and Practice” – Rebecca Joy Dunk
Bronze: “Intricate Lies: Implications for the Philosophy of Deception in Alice Munro’s ‘Pictures of the Ice’” - Ezri Chernak
The Larry Haworth Prize:
The Lawrence Haworth Prize in philosophy of made possible through a generous donation from Philosophy alumnus Michael Mitias in honour of Distinguished Professor Emeritus Lawrence Haworth.
“Taking Action: Reading Hannah Arendt in Contemporary Times” – Lauren Pazzano & Gillian Belcher
The Angus Kerr-Lawson prize:
The Angus Kerr-Lawson prize is made possible through a generous donation from the friends and family of former faculty member Angus Kerr-Lawson for funding the Kerr-Lawson essay prize.
“Quantum Bayesianism –Embracing Subjectivity in Science” – Ariane Wilson
Finally, as always, feel free to follow us on Instagram for the latest Department of Philosophy information: @philosophy_uw.