Issue 12 | Fall 2021
Department update: New faces, new administration
Introducing visiting Humphrey scholar, Andrea Pitts
Alum profile spotlight on Jim Jordan
Department update: New faces, new administration
This fall has brought about many changes to the philosophy department. Mathieu Doucet has taken over as acting chair while Patricia Marino takes a well-deserved sabbatical. She will be returning to her chair duties July 2022.
We welcome Chris Lowry as the new Associate Chair, Graduate Studies and Katy Fulfer as the new Associate Chair, Undergraduate Studies for the next three years. Thank you to Carla Fehr and Doreen Fraser for doing such a wonderful job in these roles over the past three years.
Monika Kitor is the new Administrative Manager and Graduate Coordinator of the department as Angela Christelis has joined the Quality Assurance team overseeing academic program reviews for the university. Monika comes from the Physics and Astronomy department where she worked in administration. She is a recent graduate of Waterloo with a joint honours degree in Life Physics and Philosophy.
Introducing visiting Humphrey scholar, Andrea Pitts
This fall, we've been lucky enough to have Andrea Pitts in the department as the Humphrey scholar. Andrea is an Associ
Their research interests include Latin American and U.S. Latinx philosophy, critical philosophy of race, feminist philosophy, and critical prison studies, and they have taught graduate and undergraduate courses on topics such as Latina/x feminist philosophy, queer migration studies, prison abolitionism, critical transgender politics, and feminist epistemology.
Andrea is author of Nos/Otras: Gloria E. Anzaldúa, Multiplicitous Agency, and Resistance (SUNY Press 2021), and co-editor of Beyond Bergson: Examining Race and Colonialism through the Writings of Henri Bergson with Mark Westmoreland (SUNY Press 2019) and Theories of the Flesh: Latinx and Latin American Feminisms, Transformation, and Resistance with Mariana Ortega and José M. Medina (Oxford University Press 2020). Andrea also co-organizes, along with Perry Zurn, the Trans Philosophy Project, a professional and research initiative dedicated to supporting trans, nonbinary, and gender variant philosophers.
Q1] What does your research focus on?
My
current
research
traverses
three
interconnected
areas
of
study:
Latina/x
feminist
philosophy,
disability
studies,
and
critical
prison
studies.
Some
projects
within
these
areas
of
research
include
my
recent
book,
Nos/Otras:
Gloria
E.
Anzaldúa,
Multiplicitous
Agency,
and
Resistance,
which
came
out
earlier
this
year.
In
that
project,
I
analyzed
the
writings
of
queer
Chicana
feminist
Gloria
E.
Anzaldúa
(1942-2004)
to
develop
an
account
of
human
agency
that
addressed
dimensions
of
embodied
motility
and
political
solidarity.
I
have
also
been
publishing
on
healthcare
and
disability
critique
in
the
contexts
of
prison
and
jails
for
the
past
6+
years.
That
work
developed
largely
from
my
graduate
school
experiences
with
a
group
called
REACH
Coalition.
In
REACH,
I
worked
in
a
reading
group/organizing
collective
of
incarcerated
and
nonincarcerated
members
on
issues
of
medical
neglect
and
medical
access
at
Riverbend
Maximum
Security
Institution,
a
state
prison
located
on
the
outskirts
of
Nashville,
TN.
In
my
related
published
work
in
this
area,
I’ve
been
examining
issues
of
trust/mistrust
and
experiences
of
illness
and
disability
within
carceral
contexts.
This
work
also
explores
the
broader
implications
of
a
focus
on
prison
healthcare
for
spaces
outside
of
prisons,
including
public
health
efforts,
medical
education
and
training,
and
environmental
regulations.
Q2] What was the message of your most recent talk?
My most recent talk at UWaterloo was combining some of the areas of study mentioned above, which is, in fact, a quite new venture for me. The talk was titled “Active Subjectivity and Abolitionist Imaginings: Examining Chicana/x and Latina/x Critiques of Carcerality,” and I focused on Latina/x and Chicana/x feminist contributions to critical prison studies. In particular, in the presentation I was examining several archival sources that demonstrate Chicana feminist involvement in prisoners' rights organizing during the 1970s and 1980s. Also, in the second half of the presentation, I turned to the early 2000s writings of transnational Argentine feminist María Lugones, and specifically her conceptions of “active subjectivity” and “streetwalker theorizing,” to develop a novel Latina/x feminist framing of agency that supports prison abolitionist efforts today.
Q3] What led you down this research path?
My interests in Latina/x and Chicana/x feminist philosophy go back to my undergraduate studies. I’m Latinx (Panamanian American), and of racially, culturally, and class mixed parentage as well. In college, I was eager to find writing and theorizing that resonated with what I was experiencing in my day-to-day life, and I took a history class, I believe it was, in which we read from Gloria Anzaldúa and Cherríe Moraga’s groundbreaking edited collection This Bridge Called My Back. It was Moraga’s poem, “For the Color of My Mother" that really left me spinning at the time. Also, while I didn’t quite have a grip on the contours of professional philosophy at the time I first read this poem, I knew I liked feminist philosophy and I knew that I wanted to read more feminist philosophers who were discussing gender and race together. I applied to graduate school, in part, because I thought it was “the next grade” after undergrad and I found out that I could get paid to read books and talk about them, which sounded like a fantastic job (and much more fulfilling than the work I was doing as a bartender at the time!). It was in my MA studies, then, that I was given the opportunity to read Anzaldúa again, but this time in a philosophy class. I then ended up studying with some of the most prolific Latin American and Latina feminist philosophers in our profession (for example, Ofelia Schutte, Mariana Ortega, and Linda Martín Alcoff were all close mentors to me during in my graduate education). Eventually, for my dissertation, under the guidance of feminist social epistemologist, José Medina, I ended up exploring questions of linguistic agency, including a chapter on Anzaldúa’s analysis of the practice of self-writing. These topics would become the focus of my first book, and have continued to form some of the major theoretical underpinnings of my thinking and praxis as a feminist philosopher.
With respect to critical prison studies and disability critique, as I alluded to above, I started doing work with incarcerated artists, organizers, and philosophers around 2012 when I was in graduate school. And while I had a healthy distrust of police growing up and was a “court-involved” young person myself, members of the REACH Coalition--including Lisa Guenther, one of the non-incarcerated facilitators of the group and a faculty member on my dissertation committee--were the ones who really helped me develop a political language to understand carceral systems. While working in the group, we were reading Black feminist authors like Angela Davis, Toni Morrison, and Joy James, all of whom were giving shape to a careful dialogue on the systemic racism and sexism of the prison industrial complex. Years later, I’m still reading and learning from Black feminist philosophy and from the insights and conversations I was fortunate to have been a part of with REACH Coalition. I feel very much indebted to the care and honesty that members of REACH offered me during my brief few years with the group, and I hope to continue to fight for the shared values we held to uphold and respect the lives of incarcerated and criminalized peoples.
Q4] What do you think of the importance of a targeted chair like the Humphrey Chair?
The Humphrey Chair has been a real honor for me. After learning more about Anne Minas’s feminist legacy at UWaterloo and after getting to know some of the feminist philosophers here at the university, I am humbled by the department’s invitation to join them in scholarly and pedagogical collaboration for the semester. It’s also been clear to me from the students in my seminar this fall that the emphasis and energy dedicated to feminist philosophy is really strong at UWaterloo. Moreover, the Humphrey Chair has offered me a really exciting opportunity to explore some transnational dimensions of critical prison studies. Because so much U.S.-based analysis of the prison industrial complex focuses solely on the United States (and U.S. exceptionalism creates its own challenges), it’s been especially formative for me to work with students and scholars based in Canada, and to learn about the specificities of Canadian healthcare and prison systems, for example. This kind of research and teaching experience is invaluable, and my students and colleagues this term have pushed my thinking and scope on issues of carcerality and colonialism. In this way, I think the Humphrey Chair enables some of the core features of doing feminist work: critical self-reflection, honest engagements with difference, and building collaborative resources within and across those differences.
Q5] Any thoughts/impressions of your time so far at Waterloo?
As I mentioned in my previous response, I’ve had a fantastic time at UWaterloo. Alongside my teaching and talks with the department, I’ve also been really lucky to be introduced to some of the feminist faculty in philosophy and they have given my partner and I a very warm welcome. From a tasty meal on a lovely outdoor deck, a beautiful walk following the Grand River on the Walter Bean Trail, a pizza party meet-and-greet with bright and engaged graduate students, and a cozy dinner with dogs quietly playing nearby, I have felt very grateful to the feminist community at UWaterloo for all they have offered me. They made the transition to a new university (and a new country) feel manageable and fun, and I get the sense that, even in the midst of a pandemic, they are actively supporting a space of community thriving and feminist solidarity. This is no easy feat, and I am immensely grateful for the UWaterloo Philosophy Department’s generosity and collaborative spirit.
Q6] What is your future research direction?
After my time as the Humphrey Chair at UWaterloo, I will be continuing to work on a book project related to the talk I mentioned above on Latina/x abolitionist feminisms. In particular, in the new year, I plan to visit a couple archives in California that hold copies of magazines from the 1970s published by incarcerated Chicanas, and I’d like to return to the Anzaldúa archive at the University of Texas, Austin, and check out the new María Lugones archive that is soon to be housed there as well. I’m also working on a couple standalone papers on disability justice and migration studies, and a piece on the political relevance of the queer feminist friendship between Anzaldúa and Beth Brant (Bay of Quinte First Nation), the Two-spirit Mohawk poet and essayist. Otherwise, I have a fairly big editorial project that I’ve been working on for the last year or so with Talia Mae Bettcher, PJ DiPietro, and Perry Zurn. We’re bringing together an edited volume highlighting work within trans philosophy, and we’ve got some really amazing contributors lined up for the collection. In any case, these projects should certainly keep me busy in the next year, and I’ll be looking forward to returning to Ontario again in the months/years to come (my partner is from Ontario and her family is largely based in Ottawa and in a small farming township near Orangeville called Grand Valley). I also hope to stay connected to the fantastic students and colleagues that I’ve met here, and to continue to support the wonderful feminist community fostered at the University of Waterloo.
Alum profile spotlight on Jim Jordan
Dr. Jim Jordan recently defended his doctoral dissertation on the ethics and law of cyberwarfare. He was awarded his Ph.D. on October 18th. We caught up with him to have a chat about his highly topical subject.
Q1] Congratulations, Jim, on your successful doctoral defence! Before I get into the content of your research, share how the moment felt, and what the achievement of the Ph.D. means to you.
The defence was intense but I felt like I was among people who saw the importance of the project and wanted to know more about the choices I made in putting the dissertation together. The emotion of the moment was muted because of the logistics of the pandemic, and I have difficulty grasping when I’ve finished something significant. It took a while for it to sink in that I have finished something big, and that I can be satisfied with it. (It helped that I didn’t have to make revisions.) This was followed by a bit of emptiness and fatigue. I didn’t realize how much effort it took to get to this point over the years. There’s also a feeling of urgency to find some work to pay the bills. Given there’s not much room in the academy for a new philosophy Ph.D., I’m looking for opportunities in the technology, network security, and educational support fields, as well as teaching.
For me, it’s the culmination of a long and redemptive educational journey. I’m a first-generation scholar. My first degree is an Honours B.Math. in computer science, and I finished it with a grade average just above the minimum standard. I have always wanted to go on to graduate school of some sort and to teach at a university level, and my wife Shelly recognized this. She invited me to take a philosophy of mathematics class while she was doing her MA in philosophy at Calgary, and that got me hooked. After a few more undergrad courses to pull up the average, Tim Kenyon and Dave DeVidi took a chance and offered me a spot in the MA program in philosophy at Waterloo; completing the MA showed me that I could do the kind of work needed for an advanced degree. The Ph.D. feels a bit like winning a battle (though not against my colleagues!) or climbing a difficult peak. Not many people see it other than those who helped you get there, but I can say “It took a while, but I did this, and I did well.” And maybe someone will find the work useful.
Q2] It seems like about every week, there’s pressing news about some novel kind of cyber-attack: my iPhone needing an urgent update, lest it be hacked and ruined; a ransomware attack against businesses or hospitals; or larger cyber-sabotage of vital infrastructure like the Colonial Pipeline episode in America in May. Are we in the cyber equivalent of a Hobbesian “war of all against all”?
It certainly feels like it. The foundational protocols of our network technology were meant to facilitate communication and collaboration among defence and research communities. Commercializing the Internet opened the way to profit-driven services, and where there’s money to be made, there’s exploitation by those who don’t want to abide by whatever norms of behaviour there were. The principle of trust went out the window early on, and the opportunities for surveillance and data-gathering were recognized quickly. This kind of power can corrupt a sovereign authority charged with maintaining order with minimal heavy-handedness in a hurry.
A
cyber
"war
of
all
against
all"?
(Image
credit:
kai
Stachowiack,
public
domain)
One of the challenges this poses for most users of network technology is understanding the extent of the digital footprints we leave behind for these disruptive users to follow. While there’s something cool about being shown an ad for something we actually are interested in buying in the near future, it’s frightening to know that governments, businesses, and criminal organizations are sharing or selling information about our activity in order to understand our behaviours and cultivate desires we didn’t know we had. In an atmosphere of trust and a reliable authority, the social contract would find a way to punish or isolate wrongdoers, but the Internet has neither. It’s not strictly “all against all” in terms of aggression, but all who use the Internet are vulnerable to having their interests interfered with. Even so, there are some rules and laws that are written to govern the Internet; it’s attribution and enforcement that is difficult.
Q3] Tell us about the core thesis of your dissertation, which I understand has both theoretical and practical dimensions?
The research started with a deep dive into the first edition of the Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare. When the second edition, covering cyberoperations more generally, came out in 2017, it spoke of the need to consider human rights more carefully and in contexts outside of armed conflict. The international laws of armed conflict (which are usually interpreted broadly by victims and less so by aggressors, and which seem to be taken seriously by most military personnel but not so much by political strongmen) are meant to protect civilians from the most serious effects of armed conflict. This includes protecting objects of cultural significance, such as archaic artefacts (tools, idols, inscriptions, and so on), works of art and literature, things that mark the history of human cultures. Some of these artefacts give us information about the day-to-day life and rituals of ancient cultures.
We, too, have our records that capture our day-to-day interactions with others, including our governments. Some of these records may be the only documentary support for exercising our human rights. If no acceptable record of a person’s birth can be found, that person—even though their existence is obvious—has no claim to a nationality, which is one of the rights granted under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Without this, there is no citizenship, no freedom of movement, perhaps no right to employment, education, housing, or health care. We’ve seen this in the border regions of Texas, where people who once had American passports cannot renew them because their birth certificates are suspected of falsely stating these persons were born in the USA rather than Mexico, rendering them, for all practical purposes, without the rights of citizenship anywhere. These people have done nothing wrong, but they are suffering for a lack of acceptable documentation.
This reveals a huge gap between what international law is intended to protect, and what states are taking some care to not damage. We treat ancient civil records as historical artefacts that merit protection from harm during armed conflict, but contemporary civil records, which are needed to exercise some of our civil and human rights, appear to have been overlooked. The digitization of records makes these records even more vulnerable. Paper records can be stored in a designated archive, which is protected as a civilian building, and doing wilful damage to it can be punished as a war crime. It is not widely recognized that digital records also ought to have this kind of protection—meaning data centres serving only civilian purposes cannot be lawful targets during armed conflict. But this also means taking steps in peacetime to ensure these records can be accessed after the conflict is over, so rights can be asserted again in a post-conflict society. During the Kosovo conflict of the late 1990s, many citizens of Albanian origin had their identity documents seized and destroyed as they fled the area, leaving them without the means to show they had rights to employment and housing in a post-conflict Kosovo. Without these documents, there is no record of these persons’ existence, so it would be difficult to prove that the aggressors killed them as part of a genocide. Records contain facts, so they can provide evidence that harm has occurred if persons disappear suddenly. State protection of some limited personal data is required to serve the cause of human rights around the world. Moreover, while protecting civil records won’t end genocide, it makes it easier to document when a genocide has occurred.
Q4] What’s the future for cyber-conflict, at least in the near-term? What would you most like to see happen in this regard?
With respect to international law and cyberspace, states are going to continue pushing to see what they can get away with in the international realm. They are currently trying to negotiate acceptable levels of interference in each others’ cyber operations, much as they have done with espionage, but no agreement has yet been found. The Tallinn 3.0 process is aiming to go beyond recognized treaty law to incorporate states’ practices with respect to interpreting these laws, but Russia, China, and the USA have three different—incompatible—agendas for new laws governing state use of cyberspace, and information spaces more generally. Some promote the free exercise of human rights, as set out in the various international treaties and covenants more than others. But most states don’t want to interfere with other states to such an extent that a “hot” conflict erupts. I’d like to see states become more serious about taking steps to defend the rights of persons both within and outside of their borders. This means opening up the flow of some information rather than restricting it. This idea is anathema to people who are hoping to see states exercise more control over society, but that’s another conversation.
The
future
of
conflict?
(Image
credit:
Sergey
Nivens,
public
domain)
My bigger concern with respect to violation of whatever pro-social norms of behaviour remain in cyberspace comes from non-state actors, regardless of whether they act on their own or in support of patriotic causes. But until they cause some kind of grievous harm to a state’s interest (that is, they cause more than an inconvenience) such as destroying physical equipment, buildings, or infrastructure or causing physical harm to persons, these actions don’t meet the threshold of being considered an attack against a state in the sense of international armed conflict. Nonetheless, these are cyberharms and are aggressive actions, sometimes against state interests, and sometimes against private interests that serve the public, such as the Colonial Pipeline. We’re going to see more and more of these kinds of attacks—some strictly for information-gathering, and others for ransom. But sufficient evidence for conviction is hard to get in a timely fashion, and as we’ve seen with the Meng Wanzhou case, extradition to face charges where the effects of a crime are felt in another country can only occur if the offence is a crime in the country where the suspect is arrested. (Assigning responsibility is a difficult enough problem; responsibility for consequences far away from the triggering action is even harder.) So, there’s a lot of work to be done on the international criminal law front, not just the human rights and armed conflict fronts, with respect to malice in cyberspace.
Q5] And what about your own future? What are the next plans for this research and these ideas, as well as for your own professional development?
I’d like to do more of this kind of work once I’ve decompressed a little, particularly on the role of data in safeguarding human rights. Before I started the dissertation, I sketched a large concept map around the idea of “digital dignity.” The dissertation has helped me identify defending human rights as the central feature of that larger project. I’ve also found that I love the teaching aspect of the academy, so while I look for full-time employment, I’m working with Dr. Greg Andres on a paper advocating the use of formal philosophical methods to help students discover underlying values in different moral decision-making scenarios. I’m currently facilitating a remote section of PHIL 226—Biomedical Ethics.
For now I’m joining D2L in Kitchener as a software test developer for one of their new products. I’d like to share with the readers how valuable my education was in landing this job, even though I didn’t do any software work while I was doing my PhD. One sentence in my cover letter caught the hiring manager’s attention: “Philosophical training strengthens the critical analytical skills relevant to testing in that it helps identify unquestioned assumptions, fine details, and unexpected implications of particular strategies and methods.” Replace “testing” with any kind of work that requires these kinds of skills, such as “policy development” or “market research,” and you’ll see just how useful philosophy is in the contemporary workplace. I hope this provides some encouragement to students (and parents) wondering just what good studying philosophy can do.