By Catherine Womack
August 1—5, 2018 marked the 7th biennial FEMMSS conference—Feminist Epistemologies, Methodologies, Metaphysics and Science Studies, held in Corvallis, Oregon. This year’s theme was Feminist Explorations of Disability, Climates, Ecosystems, and Technologies. If you look at the program, you will find the usual array of events, including individual talks, a keynote presentation, and panels. There were also–much to my delight as attendee–dinner workshops on pedagogy and activism, after-conference free yoga classes, and a hands-on bike repair clinic (full disclosure: I ran that event).
There has been a lot of talk and lately more action by philosophers doing interdisciplinary research and pedagogy (and also work combining the two). Their activities range widely, including initiatives like The Toolbox Project at Michigan State’s Philosophy Department, and the Peace Literacy Curriculum Project, co-coordinated by FEMMSS 7 conference chair Shari Clough at Oregon State University’s School of History, Philosophy and Religion. This year’s program showed how far and wide the interdisciplinary work has spread; feminist philosophers are making for themselves a place as contributors (not just commentators) on projects in areas like animal ecology, futurism, robotics, medical device design, dog training, sports organizations, and healthcare.
In keeping with the theme of this year’s conference, the keynote speaker, writer/activist/artist Walidah Imarisha, talked about visionary science fiction and possibilities for the future. She coined the term “visionary fiction”, described as follows (from her Wikipedia page):
Whenever we try to envision a world without war, without violence, without prisons, without capitalism, we are engaging in an exercise of speculative fiction. Organizers and activists struggle tirelessly to create and envision another world, or many other worlds, just as science fiction does.
Imarisha’s talk set the tone for the rest of the conference. Presenters critically examined worlds and proposed new possibilities for them. They argued for rejection of categories of exclusion and marginalization, and for uptake of new categories that better describe a world with more bio neuro- species and other sorts of diversity. Increased awareness of and respect for difference promotes the goals of multiple communities, including those that have been overlooked in the course of specialization and division in science.
Here are a few examples of my conference experiences with philosophers getting serious about interdisciplinarity.
Meg Perret, in her talk “Toxic and transgender: the sexual precarity of endangered amphibians”, presented the case of how the herbicide atrazine has been shown to transform male frogs into female transgender frogs. But, of course, the real story isn’t that simple. She was quick to note that the story about how the frog population has been harmed by introduction of endocrine disruptors has been morphed into a more prurient tale both by media and popular science. As feminist philosophers of science, she argues, we can see the ways that salacious headlines of “gay male frogs” reflect inaccurate views of sex and gender and perpetuate homophobia, transphobia and misogyny. In addition, they distract the public from the environmental damage done to the ecosystem and its biodiversity by these commercially produced endocrine disruptors. What we need, she said, was feminist interspecies storytelling to reveal the values at play in these cases.
Marion Boulicault, in her talk “The role of values in measurement: brain-computer interfaces and the illiteracy metric,” gave the audience a short primer on how brain-computer interfaces (called BCIs) work for persons with severe motor and speech impairments. BCIs can allow persons to use the interface to operate machines that produce speech, and also ones that can access and manipulate objects for the person (e.g. allowing them to drink liquid from a straw in a cup). Her talk took aim at the term “BCI illiteracy”—commonly used to refer to a situation in which a BCI doesn’t function optimally for a person. This term places the responsibility squarely on the user of the machine for the failure of the interface between them, labelling them as “illiterate.” Boulicault argued that, in addition to the misplaced moral blame on users, the term “BCI illiterate” distracts us from what the phenomenon should be calling us to do, namely more research into why and how some persons experience less optimal interfaces with the machines designed to help them. The metrics we use and the ways that we interpret them are crucial to how we see and treat medical conditions (among other things). While this may seem obvious to philosophers, it is not obvious to engineers and neuroscientists in these research groups. Here is another case where a scientifically informed philosopher can help direct research in ways that translate into real-life benefits for users of medical technology.
Jane Dryden, in her talk “Gut metaphors and the rhetorics of control,” explored different metaphors for conceptualizing the human gut microbiome (HGM), and the ways those metaphors impose personal responsibility and control over individuals’ gut functions. This presentation was an expansion from a previously published work on Hegel and the gut as ambiguous other,. She offered a number of ways that we can envision our relationship with the HGM that illustrate relational autonomy, which is both more in keeping with current science of the HGM and more reflective of the experiences of people with gut function disorders and diseases. Some of her metaphors included the following: HGM as garden for cultivation, HGM as second brain/organ, HGM as landscape, portrait, symbolic, portrait, or companion species (which, although symbiotic, is not always beneficial to us).
We can see from these excerpts that the stories that get formed and incorporated into the accepted ways of thinking about scientific, medical, or ecological phenomena have major effects on how we treat the major stakeholders and affected groups. This is not news to philosophers, especially those who work in more applied areas. However, applying this philosophical knowledge toward active shifts in research question formation, research design, scientific news reporting, and pedagogy is happening more, as these and other conference presenters showed.
In addition to the keynote, there was a plenary panel in honor of philosopher Lorraine Code titled “Thinking responsibly, thinking ecologically.” Her latest book, “Manufactured uncertainty and epistemic responsibility: implications for climate change skepticism” is due out soon with SUNY Press. Panelists discussed Code’s influence on a broad range of topics, including ecological thinking, epistemologies of ignorance, carceral medicine and ontological narrativity.
The conference schedule included optional dinnertime workshops on “Incorporating indigenous perspectives into your classroom and syllabus” (hosted by Claudia Murphy and Cate Hundleby), and “Peace literacy as social justice pedagogy” (hosted by Shari Clough). I attended the former workshop. We received materials with bibliographies and other resources and then discussed and worked through classroom problems and challenges as a group. Many of the attendees had used these articles in philosophy of science, introduction to philosophy, philosophy of race, etc., and offered suggestions and encouragement for their inclusion. My workshop was held at a local restaurant, so we happily combined socializing with pedagogical discussion.
FEMMSS 7 made accessibility for all a top priority. This conference was the first one I’ve been to where session chairs and attendees insisted that absolutely everyone use microphones and otherwise adhere to all of their specific guidelines for accessibility and disability needs. This included giving people notice before turning on PowerPoint, keeping to the scheduled times for sessions and breaks, refraining from using wearing strong scented products or bringing strong scented items into the conference areas. Creating and enforcing access to spaces for people of all dis/abilities is becoming more common at philosophy conferences, but it requires continued cooperation and trust among attendees and organizers. In my view, FEMMSS made some strides toward normalizing accessible conference conditions.
Another thing I enjoyed about this conference was the easy, no-stress, no-jockeying-for-position-with-the-famous-people atmosphere. The vibe was comfortable and casual, with time and space for lots of conversation. Approachability seemed the rule of the day.
As a person who has been in the field a long time, it was stimulating and fun to meet and hear from graduate students and junior (and senior—like Carla Fehr on the ethics of canine cognition research) scholars doing work that I had never conceived of as a part of philosophy 25 years ago.
The FEMMSS conference built time and structure into the schedule for impromptu and group activities and conversations. Heading to the local farmers’ market (an outing listed on the conference Saturday morning schedule), I ran into Lorraine Code, whose work I know but whom I have never met. We strolled around together and had a half-hour chat about being women in philosophy over the many years we’ve both been in the field (she received her PhD in 1978, and I got mine in 1993). Sharing stories and experiences– all of this was an unexpected boon, courtesy in part to built-in time and a friendly atmosphere, plus Lorraine Code’s graciousness!
I would be remiss if I didn’t add here that this conference offered late afternoon free yoga classes outside (free mats provided), a trip to a local marijuana dispensary, and karaoke after the Friday night banquet. For more visuals on these events, see the FEMMSS Facebook page.
FEMMSS offers feminist philosophers a place to talk about values and method, knowledge and bias, marginalization and community, teaching and research, all in unexpected combinations. It always provokes new thinking about my own work, and intrigues me with snippets of new (to me) ideas. Thanks to Host committee at Oregon State University, the Program committee, the Program sub-committee for Disability Studies at Oregon State University, and the FEMMSS steering committee for all their good work.
Photo credits for conference photographs goes to Sharyn Clough, local host of FEMMSS 2018.
Catherine Womack is professor of Philosophy at Bridgewater State University, south of Boston. She does research in public health ethics, focusing on body weight, health promotion and and gaps between research and both clinical practice and health messaging. Her favorite writing activity, though, is blogging every week for Fit is a Feminist Issue. Her favorite non-writing activities are riding her bikes and yoga, preferably with friends and family.
