What Is It Like to Be A Philosopher? An Interview With Joel Sati

The APA blog will be working with Cliff Sosis of What it is Like to Be a Philosopher? in publishing advance excerpts from Cliff’s long-form interviews with philosophers.

The following is an edited excerpt from the forthcoming interview with Joel Sati (@realesttheorist) which will be released in full later this week.

In this interview Joel Sati, PhD Student in Jurisprudence and Social Policy, UC Berkeley and JD Candidate, Yale Law School, discusses diving into philosophy, enrolling in community college, the Dream Act, taking classes at CCNY, how his view of the world was affected by the death of Michael Brown, writing an op-ed for Washington Post, the future of philosophy, Kate Manne, open borders and reparations, and his last meal…

Cliff Sosis: When did you get into politics? Obama implemented DACA, and Maryland implemented DREAM around then, yes? How exactly did these policies affect you?

Joel Sati: I got into politics in the Summer of 2012. One of my now closest friends, Yves Gomes, was doing work on the Maryland DREAM Act and immigration reform. I remember reaching out to him about how to get involved one day; the next day, he picked me up and we went to CASA de Maryland (later on, I would work with United We Dream). Around the same time as the Maryland DREAM Act, President Barack Obama announced DACA. The program allowed undocumented immigrants who arrived as children to receive a two-year functional reprieve from deportation. DACA recipients could also receive a work permit and a social security number (for work only). From that, recipients could then go to state DMVs (this varies) and get licenses and IDs. It provided a bit more normalcy to life, though not much. I’m currently working on my fourth renewal.

CF: Was community college what you expected?

JS: No, only because I had no expectations. Given that I only expected my family to afford one semester, I wanted to do well in the classes I took because I liked philosophy. And I enjoyed the classes a lot. My favorite classes at Montgomery College was probably my introduction to philosophy class and the intro to ethics class. In the phil 101 class, I had decided to come in hot with my philosophy knowledge in much the same way as a self-labeled expert who had only read one book on the topic. But the professor, an adjunct who also did social work in Baltimore as his day job, really facilitated my curiosity. I’d come to him with Carnap and he’d respond with “Have you read Quine?” I had no idea what I was reading, but that was not the point. Just the interaction fueled my curiosity.

Due to my performance in the first semester, I was able to secure scholarships to continue my education. Still, there were shortfalls. I remember being $700 or so short to cover my Fall 2012  tuition, and not having been able to come up with the money by the due date. On the due date,  I opened up to Yves that I probably would be forced to drop out. He then offered to cover the shortfall, on the condition that I pay it forward; I continue the project of paying it forward to this day.

CF: I’ve been there, man. How did you make the jump from community college to CUNY academically and financially?

JS: It was pretty exciting, but it was incredibly stressful. New York City is an incredibly expensive city, and CUNY policies were (and maybe still are) inhospitable to undocumented students. Given that, for example, I could not receive scholarship money over and above tuition for living expenses, I feel that much of the stress I went through in undergrad was completely avoidable. Though I loved my time as a student, as a young adult trying to keep my head afloat I hated how CUNY policies surrounding undocumented students worked tirelessly to get in the way of my education. I was homeless or otherwise housing & food insecure for my whole tenure at CCNY, and a lot of that was avoidable. I still resent the CCNY administration, and probably will for some time.

CF: You got a chance to teach as an undergrad, is that correct?

JS: In August 2014, the death of Michael Brown made it really apparent to me that no matter what I do in life, it all could end with an ill-fated encounter with police. I became more curious about my identity as both undocumented and black, with each aspect of my identity making me particularly vulnerable to ICE and police. The semester before I taught the class I did a research project reading as many texts about the Black experience in America as humanly possible and attended protests. All this gave me a more grounded sense of self. These experiences further contextualized the intersections of my being black and my being rendered illegal by the law. I came to the recognition that is law is to play an integral part of the anti-racist project, those committed to social change must expose and exorcise the specter of racism that has seeped into our legal institutions. This culminated in my crowning achievement at CCNY: co-designing and co-teaching the inaugural African American Political Thought course with Bernstein in 2016. This remedied the school’s decades-long lack of such a course. The class explored many books, from established classics as The Souls of Black Folk by W. E. B. Du Bois, Black Feminist Thought by Patricia Hill Collins, and The Racial Contract by Charles Mills, to contemporary tours-de-force Citizen by Claudia Rankine, Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates, and The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

CF: Could you explain why talking about philosophy with people who look like you is important, for somebody who might not understand?

JS: When I first got into philosophy, I thought I would fail at it. Though I was interested, I did not see myself succeeding since I did not see people who looked like me. And even when I read Black philosophers, their inclusion seemed tokenized and tacked-on. And even the demographics of philosophical discussion lack Black minds; there are many graduate courses I take where I am the only Black person. All that said, talking philosophy with other Black thinkers gave me the affirmation to answer the philosophical issues important to me regardless of whether said topics are orthogonal to what is considered “canon.” One of the most important pieces of advice was by one of my interlocutors in SSAP. He saw me completely mute during a discussion and he said to me “As a philosopher you must engage, even if only to ask the time.” Those words remain with me still.

CF: Could you describe your op-ed in the Washington Post?

JS: I wrote “How DACA pits ‘good immigrants’ against millions of others,” in response to the DACA rescission in September of 2017. The weekend before Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III made the official announcement, there were a lot of people sympathetic to DACA who were arguing for its retention. Much to my dismay, they brought out the tired tropes of “they came through no fault of their own,” “they pay taxes and contribute,” and other related drivel. In the op-ed, I argue that framing DACA along the dimensions of perfection and possible contribution separated these “good” immigrants from those without unaccented speech, high GPAs,  and outsized ambitions. I wanted to make it clear that we can make a case for the retention of DACA, not based on how special DACA recipients are, but as an indicator of why it is necessary to regularize the 11 million or so illegalized immigrants in this country.

CF: Favorite philosophy websites?

JS: The first is The Stone. George Yancy’s writings on race as a demographic, philosophical, and social problem within the discipline/through the lens of the discipline The second, which I lump into one “site,” are the sites for PISKI and the Rutgers Institute for Diversity in Philosophy; the work these two programs do for diversifying the discipline is incredibly critical (pun intended). Third is Scott Shapiro’s twitter account. I asked him how he’s so good at Twitter to which he replied that it allows him to be a jackass–his term not mine. One of the few things that gives me hope when most social media gives anything but. Also there’s this website called “What Is It Like to Be a Philosopher?” I think it’s cool.

CF: If you were President of the United States, or king of the world, what would you do about immigration?

JS: Open Borders. I never understand how someone can claim a moral high ground over someone else just based on being born on the right side of an arbitrary line. Moreover, I think we can achieve a better world when we understand that the well-being of others ought to be as important to us as our own. People like Carens and Ayelet Shachar are on the right track when they argue that citizenship is the contemporary iteration of a feudal privilege. Time to do away with citizenship as society currently conceives of it. Also, reparations for slavery and the ill-effects of white supremacy. And then I’d step down, move to a small town somewhere, and begin a goat farm/cider brewery, and let someone who’s a much better fit for the job than I would be take a crack at being Earth’s supreme leader.

CF: So, it seems like we forget that even though politicians can have a profound influence on public opinion, they are also tools, by which I mean, representatives. What do you think would be the most efficient way to change the minds of the people who elect politicians who push an anti-immigration agenda?

JS: Vote the politicians out. It’s not sufficient I must admit, but it is definitely important. As a cranky, erstwhile activist, I’m to some extent over the “hearts and minds” approach to changing views of those who take as assumed questioning my humanity. I say disruption is the most effective way to change minds; direct action gets the goods.

CF: What do you have in mind when you say, ‘direct action’?

JS: Something like Black Lives Matter activists in Seattle disrupting a Bernie rally, which resulted in a needed update re: his platform. Stopping traffic, voting out political dinosaurs, etc. Most important thinkers out there right now, in your mind?

The people who are working in social epistemology are doing what I believe to be consequential work. I think it is important to examine how social elements influence individual cognition as well as how we conceive of collectives coming to “know” things.

CF: Yeah, I dig that stuff. Any people in particular?

JS: As for specific names, I think Kate Manne is doing important work on misogyny that, for example, explains how overqualified women are still unable to secure important positions because of underqualified men. Also, epistemic injustice is important in a time when underrepresented groups make concerted efforts not only to be part of public discourse, but to be influencers within them. To wit, I look up to Miranda Fricker, Charles Mills, and José Medina.

Other thinkers who are doing the pressing, important work are: Gloria Origgi, Regina Rini, M.R.X. Dentith, and Axel Gelfert. Also, with regard to a (I think much-needed) resurrection of a Popper-Rorty debate, I respect the work of Justin Cruickshank and Raphael Sassower. I also want to give a shout out to Adam Riggio and the Social Epistemology Research and Reply Collective (SERRC), which I have the privilege of claiming membership in.

Lastly, I’m going to include my partner Bianca Waked (one might say I’m biased, but I don’t care). She’s doing work on the causal capacities of language, and their relevant implications for social and legal philosophy.

CF: Last meal?

JS: Ideally? The rich.

A close second is a ribeye steak that I prepared sous vide accompanied by some vegetables to be determined later (just not broccolini). To drink, a cider that I brewed.

CF: Thanks for your time, Joel! Can’t wait to see what you do.

*

This interview has been edited for length. The full interview will be available at What Is It Like to Be A Philosopher?  

You can get early access to the interview and help support the project here.