The last BKPP talk before our Winter break is coming up soon! On Monday 11/24, Anna Gotlib (Brooklyn College) will join us to share her work on memory manipulation and the self. Here’s a bit more about Dr. Gotlib’s talk, in her own words:
Memory Holes: Unrestricted Self-Authorship, Memory Manipulation, and the Law
In his play, “The Intelligent Homosexual’s Guide to Capitalism and Socialism With a Key to the Scriptures,” Tony Kushner’s 72-year-old, generally asymptomatic protagonist Gus Marcantonio, thinking that he is suffering from Alzheimer’s, informs his family that he not only wants to sell the house, but that he intends to kill himself over the weekend. Somewhat similarly, in director Lee Chang-dong’s film “Poetry,” the nearly symptom-free, sixty-something heroine is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, and promptly jumps off a bridge (Gullette 2011).
These are no mere flights of artistic imagination, nor would these imagined acts be truly shocking to aging audiences who, according to a 2010 survey by the MetLife Foundation, dread an Alzheimer’s diagnosis more than any other. Perhaps one obvious way to understand these characters, as well as this survey, is to point to a fundamental fear of losing one’s autonomy, one’s ability to go about one’s life in a way that one can endorse and carry out. Another is this: we in the Global North are a culture obsessed with memory — keeping it, sorting it out, controlling it — and when we are faced with its loss, we fall into a profound darkness, sometimes irretrievably. It could be that what we take to be something uniquely and deeply ours — the various meaning-making stories of our lives — is being taken away, unfairly stolen, disintegrating and annihilating the self in the process. Or else, as witnesses to the horror, we fear being forgotten — we despair at the thought of involuntary erasure by the failing memories of those who most matter to us. And as we lose our memories of ourselves and of others, or as we are lost to them, we first rage, and then, inevitably, fall silent.
So, memory matters — this much seems clear. But this is not a paper about how and why we are trying to (merely) save it. In fact, in some ways, it is the opposite: This paper challenges our correlative desires to control and to mold the memories we wish to erase, or otherwise diminish. Specifically, I want to address two emerging practices— one that attempts to edit individual and collective memories through a radical reinterpretation of internet privacy law; and the other that is in the process of rapidly developing the means of biomedical memory modification, and even erasure. I want to challenge these practices as deeply troubling misreadings of what matters, or what ought to matter, both individually and collectively, to memory-dependent, narrative beings such as ourselves. My intent, then, is to examine these emerging memory-modifying practices, addressing the openings that they create for a nearly unlimited self-authorship, no longer encumbered by the burdens of history, the collective nature of remembering, or by the passage of time.
Tell your friends/students/strangers! As usual, we meet at 7:00 P.M. in the Info Commons Lab at the Grand Army Plaza Branch of the Brooklyn Public Library.
See you there, I hope!
At long last, Brooklyn Public Philosophers is back for 2015! Coming up on 2/23 at 7:00 P.M., Geoff Holtzman (NYU Polytechnic Institute) will share his work on why philosophy is so male-dominated, and why it’s important that that changes. Here’s a bit more about the talk, in Geoff’s own words:
Rejecting Beliefs, or Rejecting Believers?
The Troublesome Causes and Effects of Excluding Women in the Philosophy Classroom
Why do so few women major in philosophy, and why are there so few female philosophy professors? Some authors have suggested that the dearth of women in philosophy can be attributed to gender differences in philosophical belief. On this view, college-aged women persistently find their intuitions to be at odds with those of their male classmates and their mostly-male professors, and this leads women to feel out of place and to leave philosophy. I think this suggestion is both false and pernicious, and my first aim in this talk will be to debunk this suggestion with data I have been collecting for the past five years. While there may be gender differences in philosophical belief, the evidence of these differences does not explain the paucity of women in professional philosophy.
I will suggest that, in fact, the nature of philosophical debate enables pre-existing gender biases—similar to those that exist in other fields—to take foot in ways they cannot take foot in many other fields in which women have traditionally been underrepresented. This consideration will segue into the second part of the talk, which will concern the social nature of philosophy. Are philosophical claims only about the ways we see the world, or are they sometimes responses to the ways other people see the world and, as such, partly claims about the ways we see those other people?
As usual, we meet in the Info Commons Lab at the central branch of the Brooklyn Public Library (10 Grand Army Plaza). Events are all 100% free and open to the public, and aimed at a general audience.
See you there, I hope!
Upcoming events:
3/23 – Elvira Basevich, “W.E.B. Du Bois’s Racialism and Two Liberal Conceptions of Plurality” @ the Dweck Center // 7:00 P.M.
4/27 – Christia Mercer on women in the history of philosophy @ the Dweck Center // 7:00 P.M.
5/18 – Chris Lebron on the philosophy of Black Lives Matter @ the Dweck Center // 7:00 P.M.
5/18 – Chris Lebron on the philosophy of Black Lives Matter @ the Dweck Center // 7:00 P.M.
Organizers of the 2017 North American Basic Income Guarantee (NABIG) Congress invite all philosophers with relevant interests to submit proposals for 15-20 minute presentations to be delivered as part of a philosophy-oriented panel.
Proposals drawing from any branch of philosophy are welcome, provided that they have relevance to the contemporary discussion and debates surrounding basic income.
Held annually in the US or Canada, the NABIG Congress brings together a wide variety of academics, researchers, policy advocates, social activists, government officials and other individuals interested in the idea and implementation of a basic income guarantee.
Topics of other sessions at the 2017 Congress have not been fully settled at the time of this writing. They may include (but are not limited to) the following: past and present pilot studies, welfare rights, degrowth, technology and AI, labor perspectives on basic income, and race and gender issues as they relate to basic income.
Information regarding previous NABIG Congresses is available at usbig.net. Additional details about the 2017 Congress will be available soon at the same website.
Those interested in participating in the panel on philosophy should submit an abstract of no more than 500 words to Kate McFarland (mcfarland.309@osu.edu) by January 31, 2017.
Selections will be announced no later than February 15, 2017.
Keynote speakers:
The Speculative Ethics Forum is a one day workshop-style event in which we’ll consider the most challenging matters of ethics. Ethical approaches of all sorts are welcomed–analytic, continental, ancient, medieval, Asian, and so on. Most papers are invited. However, there are two slots open for submissions. Any paper in ethical theory will be considered for acceptance. Bold and speculative inquiries are preferred to papers that primarily defend ground already gained or papers that are primarily scholarly. Our aim, in short, is to have a single day concentrated on expanding the horizons of ethics.
Our Invited Speakers Are:
Katja Vogt (Columbia University)
James Dodd (New School for Social Research)
Leo Zaibert (Union College)
Justin Clarke-Doane (Columbia University)
Organisers:
Register
November 17, 2017, 11:45pm EST
speculative.ethics.forum [at the host] gmail.com
It’s the last Brooklyn Public Philosophers talk of the season! Tomorrow, Thursday May 10th, Kate Manne (Cornell) is coming to the Brooklyn Public Library to discuss her work on misogyny, sexism, the difference between the two, and the weird amount of sympathy that society grants to perpetrators of sexual violence. If you’re interested in #MeToo, excuses, and how to manage one another’s feelings about assaults on patriarchy, this is for you.
In her recent book, Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny (Oxford University Press: 2017), Kate Manne characterizes misogyny as the “law enforcement” branch of patriarchy, which serves to police, enforce, or restore patriarchal social order—often by visiting hostility on girls and women for perceived violations of gendered norms and expectations. As well as complementary ideologies (most notably, sexism), misogyny also has a flipside. And this flipside needs to be examined: the exonerating narratives and disproportionate sympathy of which comparatively privileged men tend to be the beneficiaries. Manne calls the latter ‘himpathy.’
In the May edition of Philosophy in the Library, Manne departs from the main example of himpathy which she discusses in her book—that of Brock Turner, the convicted sexual assailant and then student at Stanford University. Turner’s trial became notorious when he received disproportionate and inappropriate sympathy over his female victim from multiple sources, including the judge who found him guilty.
As Manne will discuss, this turns out to be only one variety of himpathy among many.
May 10 th / 7:30 P.M.
Brooklyn Public Library
10 Grand Army Plaza
100% free and open to the public
DATES:
October 4 and 5, 2018
LOCATION:
Feil Hall, Forchelli Conference Center, 22nd Floor, 205 State Street Brooklyn, New York
Sponsored by The Hastings Center and Brooklyn Law School’s Center for Health, Science and Public Policy; co-sponsored by Columbia University’s Department of Medical Humanities and Ethics and Harvard Medical School’s Center for Bioethics
Access the conference flyer here.
SPEAKERS:
Catherine Bliss (University of California, San Francisco) | Alondra Nelson (Columbia University) |
Catherine Clune-Taylor (Princeton University) | Carolyn Neuhaus (The Hastings Center) |
Eva Kittay (SUNY Stony Brook) | Jenny Reardon (UC Santa Cruz) |
Melinda Hall (Stetson University) | Sandra Soo-Jin Lee (Stanford University) |
Colin Koopman (University of Oregon) | Joe Stramondo (San Diego State University) |
Leslie Larkin (Northern Michigan University) | Jessica Kolopenuk (University of Alberta) |
CONFERENCE SCHEDULE:
Thursday, October 4, 8:15 am – 5:00 pm
REGISTRATION AND CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST: 8:15-9:00
- 9:00-9:10 Erik Parens, Welcome on Behalf of The Hastings Center
- 9:10-9:20 Karen Porter Welcome on Behalf of Brooklyn Law School
- 9:20-9:30 Joel Michael Reynolds Welcome and Introductory Remarks
- 9:30-10:20 Colin Koopman “Coding the Self: The Biopolitics & Infopolitics of Genetic Sciences”
SHORT BREAK: 10:20-10:40
- 10:40-11:40 Lesley Larkin “On Contemporary Literature and the ‘Good Bionarrative Citizen”
LUNCH: 11:40-1:00
- 1:00-1:50 Sandra Soo-Jin Lee “How Is Social Networking and Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing Shaping The Choices and Conundrums of the Biocitizen?”
- 1:50-2:40 Melinda Hall “On The Language of Risk and the Marginalization of Bodies”
BREAK: 2:40-3:10
- 3:10-4:00 Catherine Clune-Taylor “What Does The History of Medicine Teach about the Advent of Genomics as “Truth” Concerning Categories of Embodiment such as Sex and Sexuality?”
- 4:00-5:00 Joseph Stramondo “How Does Genomics Shape Categories of Disability and How Might the Virtuous Biocitizen Respond?”
Friday, October 5, 2018, 8:15 am – 5:00 pm
REGISTRATION AND CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST: 8:15-9:00
- 9:00-9:50 Jessica Kolopenuk “How Does Colonialism and Racism Inform Genomic Knowledge and How Might Such Legacies Be Undermined?”
- 9:50-10:40 Catherine Bliss “Given Genomics’ Potential for Reinscription of Erroneous Notions of Race, How Should One Think about Race Ethically in the Genomic Age?”
SHORT BREAK: 10:40-11:00
- 11:00-11:50 Eva Kittay “How Much of a Gift or Weight Is Genomics from the Perspective of Care?”
LUNCH 11:50-1:00
- 1:00-1:50 Carolyn Neuhaus “On the Rhetoric that Exaggerates the Weight and Elides the Gift”
- 1:50-2:40 Alondra Nelson “The Politics of Genomics in the USA: the OSTP and the PMI”
SHORT BREAK: 2:40-3:00
- 3:00-4:00 Jenny Reardon “How Should We Understand the Relationship between Genomics, Justice, and Democracy?”
- 4:00-5:00 Roundtable Discussion
This conference will have live on-screen captioning and will be livestreamed. Send inquiries about the conference and any accessibility-related requests to reynoldsj@thehastingscenter.org. Requests for a reasonable accommodation based on a disability to attend this event should also be made to Louise Cohen, the BLS Reasonable Accommodations Coordinator, at louise.cohen@brooklaw.edu or (718) 780-0377.
On Wednesday, November 7th at 7:30 PM, Sarah Clark Miller (Penn State) joins us to discuss “The Art of Refusal: Overcoming Epistemic Injustice in the #MeToo Era.” She’ll talk about how survivors of sexual assault and harassment can deal with the fact that many people don’t believe them. It’s a difficult topic, but I think it’s really, really important. If you’re interested in the epistemological questions surrounding #MeToo – what standards of evidence are appropriate for sexual misconduct claims made in different sorts of contexts, what are the moral and epistemic reasons to believe women, what new concepts might survivors need to understand their own experiences – this might be one to check out.
As usual, we meet at the Dweck Center at the central branch of the Brooklyn Public Library (10 Grand Army Plaza). You can find more details at the Facebook event. I’d appreciate it if you could help spread the word