Loading...

Follow The Society of Philosophers in America (SOPHIA) on Feedspot

Continue with Google
Continue with Facebook
or

Valid

One-Sheet for SOPHIA Conversations

Dr. Bertha Alvarez Manninen drafted this great SOPHIA One-Sheet document to talk about some important questions about America’s hottest topic: abortion, some of which arose in Episode 4 of Philosophy Bakes Bread, on “Shared Values in the Abortion Debate,” the subtitle of her book on the subject, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice. The Lexington SOPHIA Chapter is getting together on May 10th of 2019 to talk about abortion, a topic of increasing importance given recent changes to the make up of the U.S. Supreme Court and the many state laws that are likely to be tested in court.

SOPHIA is grateful to the Kentucky Humanities Council for a grant that supported the creation of this one-sheet document.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Philosophy Bakes Bread radio show & podcast

In episode 85 of Philosophy Bakes Bread, Eric Thomas Weber and Anthony Cashio interview Dr. William Irwin today about his most recent book, God Is a Question, Not an Answer published in December 2018 with Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Dr. Irwin is Herve A. LeBlanc Distinguished Service Professor and Chair of Philosophy at King’s College in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. He is also the author of The Free Market Existentialist (2015) and of Little Siddartha (2018). In addition, he is also the editor of numerous books on philosophy and popular culture, including: Seinfeld and Philosophy (1999), The Simpsons and Philosophy (2001), and The Matrix and Philosophy (2002). He was editor of these books and then General Editor of the Popular Culture and Philosophy Series through Open Court Publishing. In 2006, Irwin left Open Court to become the General Editor of The Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture Series, which includes Metallica and Philosophy (2007) and Black Sabbath and Philosophy (2012), among other volumes.

Listen for our “You Tell Me!” questions and for some jokes in one of our concluding segments, called “Philosophunnies.” Reach out to us on Facebook @PhilosophyBakesBread and on Twitter @PhilosophyBB; email us at philosophybakesbread@gmail.com; or call and record a voicemail that we play on the show, at 859.257.1849. Philosophy Bakes Bread is a production of the Society of Philosophers in America (SOPHIA). Check us out online at PhilosophyBakesBread.com and check out SOPHIA at PhilosophersInAmerica.com.


(1 hr)

Click here for a list of all the episodes of Philosophy Bakes Bread.

Subscribe to the podcast!

We’re on iTunes and Google Play, and we’ve got a regular RSS feed too!

Notes
  1. William Irwin’s God Is a Question, Not an Answer (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2019).
  2. Kamel Daoud, The Mersault Investigation (New York: Other Press, 2015).
  3. Albert Camus, The Stranger (New York: Knopf, 1993).
  4. William Irwin, Little Siddhartha: A Sequel (Brunswick, ME: Shanti Arts Publishing, 2018).
  5. Richard Rorty, “Human Rights, Rationality, and Sentimentality,” in Stephen Shute, ed. On Human Rights: Oxford Amnesty Lectures (New York: Basic Books, 1994), 111-134.
  6. Bill’s philosophunny reference: Saturday Night Live’s “NPR Delicious Dish: Schweddy Balls,” Season 24, 1998:
NPR's Delicious Dish: Schweddy Balls - SNL - YouTube
If you can’t see this video in your RSS reader or email, then click here.
You Tell Me!

For our future “You Tell Me!” segments, Bill asked the following question in this episode:

“What’s the last big issue that you could admit that you were wrong about?”

Let us know what you think! Via Twitter, Facebook, Email, or by commenting here below.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Civil American, Volume 4, Article 1 (April 16, 2019).

| By Darrius Hills and Seth Vannatta |

The Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in this American world,—a world which yields him not true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation, this double consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his twoness,—an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder. ~ W. E. B. Du Bois [1]

The lust—the libidinal desire—for the Black male’s body that serves as the motivation behind his condemnation and death is not altogether new. ~ Tommy J. Curry [2]

W. E. B. Du Bois

Black male bodies are bodies under siege. In the current historical moment, one polemical, ethical issue is the deadly interplay between the surveillance of black bodies and a burgeoning militarized police state. There are several sources of this extended surveillance and scrutiny of black male bodies in American race relations. Studies in higher education and the psychology of race have illustrated how black boys are mischaracterized as older in appearance and more aggressive in demeanor than their white counterparts.[3] There is also substantive research on the impact that implicit racial bias has on black men and boys in terms of health and well-being, imbalances in the criminal justice system, and overarching social stigma in everyday life.[4] This mode of surveillance and sanctioning, as we illustrate, also extends into the practices of sexual victimization of black boys and men, an understudied but prominent feature of the life experiences of black male bodies in past and contemporary American culture. Assaults against black male personhood and embodiment reveal the extent to which the American context has distinguished its racial hierarchy through the ostracizing of blackness-as-non-white. Such a social habitus featuring this racialized “twoness” reveals how black people and black bodies are problem people and problem bodies—imposing upon blacks America’s anxiety about “racial others.” To this end, we are concerned with a philosophical exploration of the experience and configuration of black bodies in Jordan Peele’s Get Out (2017) in light of the insights from W.E.B. Du Bois and in light of gender theories on the historical and contemporary constructions of black male sexuality and identity.

Du Bois’s theory of double consciousness provides one component of the theoretical lens we use to analyze Peele’s film. We investigate double consciousness, black male embodiment, and racial appropriation through an examination of the film’s symbolism relating to each as they influence the central character, Chris Washington. Du Bois outlined the former concept in The Souls of Black Folk (1903), while the themes of racial appropriation, exploitation, and surveillance of black male bodies were inaugurated in the slave trade and continue in contemporary cultural and economic practices.

Tommy Curry’s recent text, The Man-Not: Race, Class, Genre, and the Dilemmas of Black Manhood (2017) will assist our efforts to extend the film’s thematic focus on black male embodiment, sexual victimization, and racial appropriation. As Du Bois notes, African Americans are coerced to see themselves through the multiple and contradictory projections of whites. Black bodies are valued “only in terms of how white gazes value” them.[5] Black bodies, especially black male bodies, are denied complexity and humanity. Black men are, Curry remarks, “man-nots.” Black men are only bodies, problematic bodies to be tamed and controlled. Given the racializing, sexualizing, and criminalizing of black male bodies within the white racial imagination, Curry notes that black men exist only as negations—codified and mapped “in an anti-Black world” and “denied maleness in relation to white masculinity.” [6] [7] In Get Out, the black male as only body enables the continuation and safeguarding of white interests and futurity. Curry has framed this reality of black male life in terms of a practice of anti-black misandry—anti-black male sentiment—that is rooted paradoxically in both the fear and desire of black male flesh.

Curry captures the dual quality of fear of and desire for black male flesh in the notion of phallicism. Phallicism, notes Curry, invites, and further legitimizes societal suspicion and scorn, both in academic theory and in social institutions toward black men. Curry writes:

Phallicism refers to the condition by which males of a subordinated racialized or ethnicized group are simultaneously imagined to be a sexual threat and predatory, and libidinally constituted as sexually desirous by the fantasies or fetishes of the dominant racial group.[8]

Drawing upon the historical constructions of black manhood from slavery to Jim Crow and into the present, Curry presents phallicism as a frame for anti-black male sentiment and the resulting architecture of race and place imposed upon black male bodies. In a societal context in which all “male genitalia is conceptualized as a weapon wielded against women,” views of black men as problematic only bodies with a genetic and primordially-based proclivity for sexual violence are proffered as evidentiary support for the sanctioning, controlling, and killing of black men.[9] Here, black men are always already the rapists, the brutes, the savages, etc.; however, in this schema, black men also represent sexual desire. Because there is long historical precedent of black men (and women) being “hypersexualized as objects of desire, possession, and want,” another feature of black male experience that is under-examined involves the reality of sexual victimization of black men and boys.[10] In the great zeal to imagine black men as the always-already-hyper-rapist, the sexual vulnerability of black men as subordinate men trapped in a racial and sexual hierarchy that denies their personhood and agency goes unchecked.

Phallicism, then, as an accepted perspectival apprehension of and desire for black male embodiment, legitimates the use of coercion and control of the black male body as an only-body within the larger racial ecology of white male and female supremacy. Chris’s ordeal in Get Out creatively highlights that phallicism as a frame for misandry is a function of the collective white American psyche on black male bodies. Given the scope of Curry’s insights on this point, we argue, first, that Chris’s experience of double consciousness in the film discloses the white lust for the black male body concealed by the thin banalities of white liberal progressivism. Second, we show that Get Out illustrates Curry’s conclusion that Black men are treated as only problematic bodies in need of administrative control. Last, we demonstrate that Get Out highlights a yawning gap between the reality of white women as proxy patriarchs, culpable in advancing white supremacy, and the mythical view of them as both pure and passive non-participants.

“Through the Eyes of Others”[11]

Dr. Shannon Sullivan.

Chris’s early experiences vividly represent double consciousness. He sees himself as others see him, and his lack of true self-consciousness is a lack of true agency and autonomy. The premise features an uncomfortable Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner scenario depicting the black boyfriend’s meeting a white girlfriend’s family and friends. Rose Armitage, Chris’s girlfriend, has not disclosed Chris’s race to her parents, and she expresses the absurdity of ‘racing’ him, mockingly saying to Chris: “Mom and dad, my black boyfriend will be coming home this weekend.” Cursorily, Rose’s parents represent what Shannon Sullivan describes as “good white people.”[12] As Rose assures Chris before the visit, “they’re not racist.” They affect the veneer of stereotypical progressive white liberals who try to show superficial solidarity with Chris. Rose’s dad addresses Chris with a “Sup, my man?” and refers to Chris’s and Rose’s relationship as “this thang”—attempts to establish rapport through forced use of slang. The father considers this appropriation of what he imagines as a “code-switching,” urban speak as an authentic gesture of connection with his guest, to cement his credibility as a “good” white man, but his effort is sorely wanting. Even though the father presumably makes a “connection” based on some sense of shared understanding rooted in urbanized vernacular, he does not make an effort to know Chris beyond the cursory and surface level—rendering Chris still yet, a “problem.” The Armitages make no effort to know Chris beyond their restrictive epistemic glances—a fact that becomes more pronounced when we learn their actual intentions for Chris’s body.

Chris is a talented photographer who captures the white world through his filtered angle of vision, and this feature of his character further highlights the phenomenon of double consciousness. The camera extends his “second-sight,” enabling insight into “this American world.” Interestingly, one white person seeking Chris’s body wants to make use of this second sight. The blind art dealer, Jim, who is later to receive Chris’s body, openly clarifies his fascination with his sight. When Chris later asks about the rationale for the use of black bodies—“why black people?”—Hudson claims race is irrelevant: “What I want is deeper. I want your eye, man. I want those things you see through.” In this dynamic, the “second sight” of the black body is a source of fascination and admiration, but still collapses into the restrictive confines of desire for black male flesh.

Dr. Tommy J. Curry.

The art dealer’s racial erasure as a factor in his decision to appropriate Chris’s body warrants additional criticism, particularly in light of implications that shed light on the intersections of race and disability. The art dealer sees in Chris’s body a pragmatic utility that presumably eschews any concern with race. Historically considered, the bodies of black men, as we note with Curry, are often constructed as only bodies—bodies subject to the control and coercion of white political, economic, and social hierarchies. The art dealer’s disability, his blindness, provides him with a non-raced rationale for obtaining Chris’s body. Here, it is Chris’s black body, and not the white male body, that is in the immediate, “ideal type.” Curry observes that interplay between embodiment and coercion involving the bodies of black men and white men was most always driven by the inconceivability on the part of whites to read black male bodies as anything other than problem bodies—bodies that require sanctioning and control.[13] With the art dealer, however, the presumption that those raced as black have “been constructed as the degenerate/inferior/nonhuman opposite to the rational prototype human/superior/(Western) (abled) human” is strikingly absent, but the control of black male flesh remains prominent.[14] While the abnormality and disability of the white male body reverses the rigid..

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Philosophy Bakes Bread radio show & podcast

In episode 84 of Philosophy Bakes Bread, Eric Thomas Weber and Anthony Cashio interview Dr. Patricia Shields on “Feminism and Peace: Jane Addams’s Legacy.”

Dr. Shields is editor of editor of Jane Addams: Progressive Pioneer of Peace, Philosophy, Sociology, Social Work, and Public Administration, published in 2017. She is also Professor of Political Science at Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas, and Editor-in-Chief of the journal Armed Forces and Society, the leading peer-reviewed journal on civil-military relations. In addition, Pat has received many awards for excellence in teaching such as the National Association for Schools of Public Affairs and Administration, Leslie A. Whittington Excellence in Teaching Award (2002), The Texas State Presidential Award for Excellence in Teaching (2001), the Texas State Faculty Senate, Everette Swinney Teaching Award (2010) as well as the Professor of the Year Award from the Central Texas Chapter of the American Society for Public Administration (2006).

Listen for our “You Tell Me!” questions and for some jokes in one of our concluding segments, called “Philosophunnies.” Reach out to us on Facebook @PhilosophyBakesBread and on Twitter @PhilosophyBB; email us at philosophybakesbread@gmail.com; or call and record a voicemail that we play on the show, at 859.257.1849. Philosophy Bakes Bread is a production of the Society of Philosophers in America (SOPHIA). Check us out online at PhilosophyBakesBread.com and check out SOPHIA at PhilosophersInAmerica.com.

(1 hr, 4 mins)

Click here for a list of all the episodes of Philosophy Bakes Bread.

Subscribe to the podcast!

We’re on iTunes and Google Play, and we’ve got a regular RSS feed too!

Notes
  1. Patricia Shields’s book on Jane Addams.
  2. YouTube video sponsored by the Journal of Public Integrity on Jane Addams’s social ethics.
You Tell Me!

For our future “You Tell Me!” segments, Pat asked the following question in this episode:

“How do you suggest that we move to a world with less rigid belief structures so that we can resolve our differences?”

Let us know what you think! Via Twitter, Facebook, Email, or by commenting here below.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Philosophy Bakes Bread radio show & podcast

In episode 83 of Philosophy Bakes Bread, Eric Thomas Weber and Anthony Cashio interview Dr. Andrew Light on “Philosophy and Environmental Policy.”

Dr. Light is University Professor of Philosophy, Public Policy, and Atmospheric Sciences and Director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at George Mason University. He is also Distinguished Senior Fellow at the World Resources Institute in Washington, D.C. From 2013-2016 he served as Senior Adviser and India Counselor to the U.S. Special Envoy on Climate Change, and as a Staff Climate Adviser in the Secretary of State’s Office of Policy Planning in the U.S. Department of State. In this capacity he was Co-Chair of the U.S.-India Joint Working Group on Combating Climate Change, Chair of the Interagency Climate Working Group on the Sustainable Development Goals, and served on the senior strategy team for the UN climate negotiations.

Andrew works both as an academic, for the past 20 years concentrating on implications of environmental policy, and as a policy expert and advocate woking on international climate and science policy. In recognition of his work, Andrew was awarded the inaugural Public Philosophy Award from the International Society for Environmental Ethics — which henceforth will be designated the “Andrew Light Award for Public Philosophy” in June 2017,  as well as he inaugural “Alain Locke Award” for Public Philosophy from the Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy in 2016, and a Superior Honor Award from the U.S. Department of State in July 2016 for “contributions to the U.S. effort that made the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris, where the landmark Paris Agreement was concluded, a historic success.”

Listen for our “You Tell Me!” questions and for some jokes in one of our concluding segments, called “Philosophunnies.” Reach out to us on Facebook @PhilosophyBakesBread and on Twitter @PhilosophyBB; email us at philosophybakesbread@gmail.com; or call and record a voicemail that we play on the show, at 859.257.1849. Philosophy Bakes Bread is a production of the Society of Philosophers in America (SOPHIA). Check us out online at PhilosophyBakesBread.com and check out SOPHIA at PhilosophersInAmerica.com.


(1 hr, 16 mins)

Click here for a list of all the episodes of Philosophy Bakes Bread.

Subscribe to the podcast!

We’re on iTunes and Google Play, and we’ve got a regular RSS feed too!

Notes
  1. Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac (New York: Ballantine Books, 1986).
  2. The Paris Agreement, The United Nations Climate Change.
  3. Center for American Progress.
  4. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
  5. SOPHIA Trustee Emeritus Dr. John J. McDermott.
You Tell Me!

For our future “You Tell Me!” segments, Andrew asked the following question in this episode:

“What do you think is needed to get Americans closer together on an issue like climate change, regardless of their political traditions or inclinations? [One rule: You can’t start by denying there’s climate change – assume there’s climate change, then go…]”

Let us know what you think! Via Twitter, Facebook, Email, or by commenting here below.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Philosophy Bakes Bread radio show and podcast

In this 87th episode of Philosophy Bakes Bread Eric Thomas Weber and Anthony Cashio interview Dr. John Thelin, University Research Professor of Educational Policy Studies and Evaluation at the University of Kentucky and author of Going to College in the SixtiesNOTE: Dr. Thelin will be holding a book talk on Tuesday, March 5 @ 5pm at the Boone Center at the University of Kentucky – More info here.

Dr. John Thelin, today and in the sixties.

John is an historian and author of many books, including his widely read and studied A History of American Higher Education. He was honored in 2004 with a Great Teacher Award and in 2006, he received the University Provost’s Award for Teaching Excellence. In 2007, the American Educational Research Association conferred on him the Exemplary Research Award on Post-secondary and Higher Education Research. John’s further books have included Games Colleges PlayEssential Documents in the History of American Higher Education, as well as a textbook on American Higher Education.

Listen for our “You Tell Me!” questions and for some jokes in one of our concluding segments, called “Philosophunnies.” Reach out to us on Facebook @PhilosophyBakesBread and on Twitter @PhilosophyBB; email us at philosophybakesbread@gmail.com; or call and record a voicemail that we play on the show, at 859.257.1849. Philosophy Bakes Bread is a production of the Society of Philosophers in America (SOPHIA). Check us out online at PhilosophyBakesBread.com and check out SOPHIA at PhilosophersInAmerica.com.


(1 hr, 4 mins)

Click here for a list of all the episodes of Philosophy Bakes Bread.

Subscribe to the podcast!

We’re on iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Stitcher, and even now on YouTube, and we’ve got a regular RSS feed too!

Notes
  1. Biography of Clark Kerr.
  2. John Thelin, Going to College in the Sixties.
  3. Colloquium series event featuring Dr. John Thelin on Tuesday, March 5 at 5pm at the Boone Center at the University of Kentucky.
  4. Interview on the book with InsideHigherEd.com.
  5. YouTube video interview of Dr. Thelin on the release of his new book (2mins).
You Tell Me!

For our future “You Tell Me!” segments, John asked the following question in this episode:

“What is the relationship between higher education and jobs?”

Let us know what you think! Via TwitterFacebook, , or by commenting here below.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

One-Sheet for SOPHIA Conversations

For the February meeting of the Lexington SOPHIA Chapter, Lila Wakeman drafted this great SOPHIA One-Sheet document to talk about some important questions that Dr. Skye Cleary raised in Episode 60 of Philosophy Bakes Bread, on “Existentialism and Romantic Love,” the title of her book on the subject. The group is getting together on February 15th of 2019, the night after Valentine’s Day, to talk about love in real life, and the challenges that people face. Check out this one-sheet and consider using it for your next discussion.

SOPHIA is grateful to the Kentucky Humanities Council for a generous grant that supported the creation of this one-sheet document.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Philosophy Bakes Bread radio show and podcast

In this 82nd episode of Philosophy Bakes Bread and our 16th “breadcrumb” episode, Eric Thomas Weber and Anthony Cashio invite Dr. Marilyn Fischer back on the show to talk about the relationship between Jane Addams and John Dewey.

As a reminder, Marilyn is a Professor Emerita at the University of Dayton where she specializes in political philosophy and American Pragmatism. She focuses especially on Jane Addams’s philosophy. She has a strong passion for interdisciplinary work. She is the author of several books, including Ethical Decision Making in Fundraising (2000), On Addams (2003), and in 2008, she released a co-edited volume titled Jane Addams and the Practice of Democracy.

Reach out to us on Facebook @PhilosophyBakesBreadand on Twitter @PhilosophyBB; email us at philosophybakesbread@gmail.com; or call and record a voicemail that we play on the show, at 859.257.1849. Philosophy Bakes Bread is a production of the Society of Philosophers in America (SOPHIA). Check us out online at PhilosophyBakesBread.com and check out SOPHIA at PhilosophersInAmerica.com.

(17 mins)

Click here for a list of all the episodes of Philosophy Bakes Bread.

Subscribe to the podcast!

We’re on iTunes and Google Play, and we’ve got a regular RSS feed too!

Notes
  1. Hull House Museum.
  2. Jane Addams and the Labor Museum.
  3. The University of Chicago Laboratory Schools.
Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Philosophy Bakes Bread radio show and podcast

In this 81st episode of Philosophy Bakes Bread and our 15th “breadcrumb” episode, Eric Thomas Weber and Anthony Cashio invite Dr. Marilyn Fischer back on the show to talk about a great voicemail message that we received from Dr. Vance Ricks of Guilford College, who had called in about Marilyn’s first chat with us, in episode 67.

As a reminder, Marilyn is a Professor Emerita at the University of Dayton where she specializes in political philosophy and American Pragmatism. She focuses especially on Jane Addams’s philosophy. She has a strong passion for interdisciplinary work. She is the author of several books, including Ethical Decision Making in Fundraising (2000), On Addams (2003), and in 2008, she released a co-edited volume titled Jane Addams and the Practice of Democracy.

Reach out to us on Facebook @PhilosophyBakesBreadand on Twitter @PhilosophyBB; email us at philosophybakesbread@gmail.com; or call and record a voicemail that we play on the show, at 859.257.1849. Philosophy Bakes Bread is a production of the Society of Philosophers in America (SOPHIA). Check us out online at PhilosophyBakesBread.com and check out SOPHIA at PhilosophersInAmerica.com.


(25 mins)

Click here for a list of all the episodes of Philosophy Bakes Bread.

Subscribe to the podcast!

We’re on iTunes and Google Play, and we’ve got a regular RSS feed too!

Notes
  1. Alon Harish, “Mississippi Church Refuses to Marry Black Couple,” ABCnews.go.com, July 28, 2012.
  2. Erik Hayden, “Poll: 46 Percent of Mississippi GOP Want to Ban Interracial Marriage,” The Atlantic, April 7, 2011.
  3. White Women’s Clubs in Chicago.
  4. National Association of Colored Women’s Clubs.
  5. Chinese Exclusion Act.
  6. The Immigration Act of 1924.
Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Philosophy Bakes Bread radio show & podcast

In this 80th episode of Philosophy Bakes Bread and our 14th “breadcrumb” episode, Eric Thomas Weber and Anthony Cashio invite Dr. Erin Tarver back on the show to talk with us about a great listener voicemail that we received from Julia from New Hampshire. We call this breadcrumb episode “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Sports Fandom.”

Erin was our guest in episode 31 of the show, titled “Sports Fan I Am.” She is the author of The I in Team: Sports Fandom and the Reproduction of Identity. In that episode, she raised the following question for our listeners near the end of the episode: “Should colleges and universities even be in the business of organizing ‘minor league’ sports teams?” In her voicemail, Julia responded that although she is a sports fan and was an athlete in college, her feminism raises concerns for her about the adversarial quality of sports competitions, among other concerns. Erin offers us a rich response.

Listen for our “You Tell Me!” questions and for some jokes in one of our concluding segments, called “Philosophunnies.” Reach out to us on Facebook @PhilosophyBakesBread and on Twitter @PhilosophyBB; email us at philosophybakesbread@gmail.com; or call and record a voicemail that we play on the show, at 859.257.1849. Philosophy Bakes Bread is a production of the Society of Philosophers in America (SOPHIA). Check us out online at PhilosophyBakesBread.com and check out SOPHIA at PhilosophersInAmerica.com.

(29m)

Click here for a list of all the episodes of Philosophy Bakes Bread.

Subscribe to the podcast!

We’re on iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Stitcher, and even now on YouTube, and we’ve got a regular RSS feed too!

Notes
  1. On Hegel’s outlook on identity and its relevance to recognition, see Mattias Iser, “Recognition,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013. 
  2. Simone De Beauvoir, The Second Sex.
  3. Victoria Davion.
  4. Varda Burstyn, The Rites of Men: Manhood, Politics, and the Culture of Sport (University of Toronto Press, 1999).
Read Full Article

Read for later

Articles marked as Favorite are saved for later viewing.
close
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Separate tags by commas
To access this feature, please upgrade your account.
Start your free month
Free Preview