Category: 06. March 18

In her talk Toward an Environmental Theory of Early Sexuality, Dr. Greta LaFleur explored the connection between race, environment and sexuality studies of humans. She discussed how early scientists used taxonomic “varieties” to differentiate between humans. Through this, human sexuality was considered in taxonomy science. Similarly, she explored the environmental factors (e.g. distance from the equator, climate etc.) and their effects on human sexuality and more broadly human sexuality. Interestingly, she incorporated a few contemporary examples. One example highlighted “cuffing season” which is the idea that people pair off into relationships during the colder months. Dr. LaFleur’s talk reminded me of Dr. Projit Bihari Mukharji’s talk collecting bodies. Dr. Mukharji’s talk similarly, discussed how science could be manipulated to further a racist agenda- although he research focused more directly on India.

During the Q & A session, someone asked what is meant by the term “climate” as used by race/sexuality scientists. Dr. LaFleur responded by saying that defining and searching for a coherent answer in the field is virtually impossible. There is a range of answers depending on who you ask. This struck me because it highlights the relative vs absolute nature of science. Oftentimes, we view science as the end all be all to questions but, I really appreciated Dr. LaFleur’s perspective that science/scientists can have their own biases. It also highlights how science can be manipulated to meet racial agendas- as Dr. LaFleur highlighted in her talk.

Both Dr. LaFleur ( and the Q & A) and Dr. Mukharji’s lectures reflect the human tendency to find evidence that matches our own belief systems. In both professor’s research, they noted different fields of study (e.g. environmental and sexuality studies) incorporating science as a way to further the agendas of the academics and their respective fields. I think this begs the question of how do we hold academics and entire fields accountable for the introduced bias?

In an attempt to answer my own question, I will consider two solutions that to varying extents exist in the status quo. Firstly, I think that it’s imperative that peer review remains a crucial part of all academia. I further question how we can make peer review more holistic and interdisciplinary. Given, the often very academic and insular nature of high-level research in each field how do make conclusions of academic findings reviewable by a wide range of professionals? Can there be more interdisciplinary journals? Similarly, related to my first point, I see a possible solution being increased collaboration between academic fields and departments. Most, issues (like race that LaFleur and Mukharji) discuss cross multiple fields. Thus, it is imperative that we increase collaboration and communication between fields. I think one way to do this is by creating more summaries that are accessible to the public/lay reader. Things at the level of a NYT article will raise awareness and spark conversations between different academic fields could ultimately increase collaboration and hold academics more accountable.

Two weeks ago, Professor Peterson of Colby College gave an interesting talk that was centered around the relationship between German philosophy and how we view environmental changes that are slowly happening around us. Although some of the recent talks on climate change have taken a different less direct approach to help us understand what we might to do further the understanding of climate change and strategies to combat it, Peterson was direct in his analysis of the problem.

Peterson drew on the works of Kant and used the notion of priori, a feeling held before one as an experience, to describe the main problem with understanding climate change and lack of progress in addressing it. This he claims is one of the main reasons why our human nature has prevented us from taking the appropriate action against climate change. I truly enjoyed Petersons analysis of the human brain and found it to be particularly true and easily understood. He discussed the inherent qualities of the human brain and that our understanding of risk is not enough to change our behaviors. I believe this is an accurate statement about most humans and we are all inherently positioned to reject change unless completely necessary.

I find this true in my own life especially as graduation is grows closer. I know that I am not the only one who would like to stay in the college bubble for a little bit longer. The idea of having a job and being largely independent is one that many people struggle to grasp, and it is this great change that causes anxiety and stress for many. We also see this trend of change aversion from generation to generation as certain ideas and values differ and we often think of older generations as being less accepting than younger ones. However, this is likely due to the fact that a change in value or norms for an older generation is likely caused by the younger ones so there would be a disconnect in the processing. In this case, we must understand how we as humans view change in order to address the problems that we have with it.

This is no different in the case of climate change. If we understand that our brains are programmed against change, and the action that is needed against climate change requires a societal initiative greater than we are prepared to accept; we must push past the reluctance for change. The only way to move past the way that our brains are wired is to understand that they will push against the change needed in the action against climate change. The second part of the issue is that it is not an individual effort, and many people need to come to this realization in order to properly address climate change. I thoroughly enjoyed Professor Peterson’s direct, and in my opinion, accurate analysis of what is preventing us from acting against climate change. Our resistance to change is something that we all need to be aware of, not only in this case, but throughout our lives.

In his lecture, professor Peterson explored Kantian ethics, focusing more specifically on the idea of a priori- things prior to experience that we use to categorize and process information, life, and more broadly the world. He tied a priori to how we reconcile the climate crisis. He asked big questions like, “Is the human brain wired to deal with climate change?”. He ultimately suggested the need to adopt a new paradigm to transition to an ecological culture. I’d like to address two things in my response: the insular nature of academia and how we implement change in the real world.

During the Q & A session, professor Peterson nodded to the fact that philosophy and academia are very insular. Something I’ve really struggled with in this lecture series and in this lecture, in particular, is the lack of accessibility to the topics discussed. What’s the point of all this research if the lay person can’t understand it or must work very hard to do so? If the ultimate goal of work like professor Peterson’s is to enact change locally, regionally, and globally don’t we have to make it more approachable? I appreciated professor Peterson acknowledgment of the importance of mediums like film and social media to reach people. I think that many of the ideas (e.g. we all have a set of categories that we use to view the world) that professor Peterson presented were interesting and if they were more broadly accepted by the general public could help shift the narrative around things like climate change. I think it would be interesting to see research like this study on a priori be more integrated into popular culture through things like web series, TV shows, and podcasts.

Similar to my first point, I’d like to address how we implement change in the real world. In his talk, professor Peterson indicated that under this philosophical framework, for people to care about the climate crisis they must have some kind of personal experience with climate change. Whether that be growing up in a smog filled city or experiencing what it’s like to live in a food desert there must be some kind of connection. This made me consider how we connect seemingly abstract concepts like a priori to our lived experiences. Perhaps, storytelling is a good way to start these conversations? Through hearing the stories of other people’s climate crisis experiences I think we are able to more easily connect our own experiences to the climate crisis. Groups like Planned Parenthood and political campaigns/nonprofits often use storytelling to connect with their base. I think that climate/environmental groups can and should use storytelling more frequently as another way to connect with voters as we try to implement change. Perhaps, that’s an alternative way to begin to shift the paradigm with the philosophical framework that people like professor Peterson study.

In conclusion, professor’s research about a priori is interesting but, I found it to be somewhat inaccessible to the average listener. I’m intrigued by his mention of things like popular culture and film to connect his philosophical viewpoint with the general public- especially when considering the severity of climate change in the status quo.

The speaker in this talk emphasized how a priori knowledge, or the lack thereof has led to major problems in society, particularly in the realm of environmental activism.  A priori knowledge is the knowledge gained from previous experiences, and is something that has been able to drive various efforts of change across the world. Having a personal connection with something, or having a personal experience with a particular issue does make it easier for someone to be affected enough to take action. But is a priori knowledge such a powerful force that without this knowledge in a certain issue, people are left to lethargy? While the power of a priori remains to be completely seen in the environmentalist movement, we can look throughout history and see that this is not entirely the case with all issues.

In many cases, people in positions of power (as a result of this power, positions of privilege) have made actions towards social progress that belie their lack of a priori knowledge on the subject. An example of this playing out in history is during the time of slavery, as well as the harmful aftermath that many African Americans experienced. In this example, the people with a priori knowledge about the damaging effects of racism were slaves. Slaves obviously had no way to generate any kind of influence, yet slavery was eventually abolished, against some strong opposition from southern states. White men, in positions of power, were the people who passed legislation to free slaves, and a war was fought, in part because of the persistence of the practice of slavery. Thousands of lives who had never experienced the effects that racism had on African American people were lost during this war, which wound up achieving vast social progress.

Some issues do exemplify the influence that having a priori knowledge has on meaningful change. For example, the water crisis in Flint, Michigan is an example where a priori knowledge or experience could potentially be having an impact on the rate of assistance being provided to the people of Flint. A priori knowledge coincides with privilege in this example, as people who are well off do not know the health effects of water that is not drinkable. However, this does not delegitimize a priori knowledge as an influence here, especially since poor water quality is such a foreign concept to many people who live in the United States, or any other first world country. However, to conclude that a priori knowledge is needed to produce widespread social change is too much of a general statement. Factors such as the specific issue being dealt with, as well as the people in positions of power are things that need to be taken into account when discussing social change.

Professor Keith Peterson’s lecture, “The Past that has never been Present: The Changing Role of the a Priori in Philosophical Anthropology was very educational for me. I have never taken a philosophy class before, so the term a Priori was new to me. In the lecture, Professor Keith Peterson explained the term as ‘prior to experience”. Throughout the lecture, he gives examples of common a priori experiences. The first he gives is one found in what we call prejudice. The term prejudice is a pre-judgment, but it has no cognitive status and it is lacking in “objective validity”. But then he shifted and explained how we can use a priori to better understand environmentalism and the environmental debate.

I connected Professor Keith’s lecture to two previous lecture we had that related climate change with literature and the humanities. In this lecture, Professor Peterson referenced William Rees’s work which explored topics like genetic determinism. Peterson explained that that is when knowledge of increased risk or even imminent crisis is rarely sufficient to induce either individual behavioral change or societal transformation. This recurring idea of literature being able to fill some gaps in the conversation or provide parallels to current beliefs about environmentalism has been explored by Wai Chee Dimock and Nathan K. Hensley. Both believe that the answer to climate change awareness requires the collaboration of both the sciences and the humanities.

However, in Professor Keith Peterson’s lecture he believes that instead of answering questions about environmentalism, philosophical literature can provide insight into people’s resistance to accepting scientific evidence on climate change. Going back to this idea of the a priori, Peterson explained that many people are so apathetic to climate change ideas because this a priori cognition is very difficult to overcome. A priori is the knowledge that comes from prior experience and because many have not had first-hand experience with the negative effects of climate change, it makes it hard for them to rise up and do something about it.

During the question and answers part of the lecture, someone in the audience asked, “Who is at the table changing the mind of climate change conversations?” Professor Keith Peterson’s response was that everyone must be there and that if we want the thing to change, we have to envision a world that moves behind the status quo and challenges our current ideals. I was really intrigued by his response because as it stands now many are very ambivalent to the urgency or climate change. The following question was that, “Do we need a personal encounter with climate change to fully understand and want to work against it because we don’t include to cognitively think of climate change in the macro level? His response to this question was that Education has to do with transmitting some amount of information but that may not be the best way for us to learn things. Since we live in manufactured habitats, we need to get out and experience nature. I really liked this answer because I found myself wondering what a first-hand encounter with climate change would really look like because its effects don’t really present themselves at the micro level. But in order for real change to be made, we as a society need to push behind what is comfortable and strive to explore beyond what we currently know. By doing this we will be better positioned to make progress in addressing climate change.

Keith Paterson’s lecture about the preconscious explores a priori, and its role in shaping our societal and cultural assumptions. a priori, or “from the former”, comes from Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and describes determinants of behavior based on information that is related to past events that never really happened. a priori is a tool that is used to build our conscious and subconscious assumptions. That as humans we naturally look for cause-and-effect relationships. Consequently, a priori dictates our societal rules and categorizations. We look for our differences and try and justify how they came to be. Kant regards a priori as the basis of cognition and argues that human knowledge and perspective is shared and shaped by a priori. 

In the lecture, Paterson focused on this effect on the environmentalist movement. He spoke about how lethargy prevents us from taking action. How we, as humans, are not able to comprehend such widespread change. How our inertia and acceptance of the status quo hinders our ability to induce change. Our inability to change is based on our clinging onto a prioriand past experiences.

My initial reaction to hearing about a priori, was thinking about how this is so related to all the stereotyping and prejudice that exists today. We justify the racism, sexism, homophobia, other types of discrimination based on a priori, or illegitimate “reasons” based on information that is related to past events that never really happened. It’s based on a prioriwhere we gain “insights” about groups of people with identities that differ from our own. Here, one group bases laws or societal and cultural ideas around a priori, or fictional events or information. This leads me to believe that the basis of Jim Crowe Laws, slavery, Nazism, and colonialism are all based on a priori. In addition, the reason that there are so many vestiges of these ideologies is the inability to let go of a priori.

a priori, therefore, is a dangerous phenomenon. It is a perfect example of the presence of the past, and how it truly dictates the present and future. a priorican be credited for a lack of change among the environmentalist movement, as well as the lasting presence of discrimination. This inaction is due in part to where control lies. Currently, most decision-makers in our society are older, and holding on tightly to the ways of the past. With a louder, younger generation, we can only hope that we are able to shake ourselves of a priori and the stasis that comes with it.

This Monday, Professor Peterson (Associate Professor in the Colby College Department of Philosophy) gave an insightful lecture discussing the relationship between classical German philosophy and environmentalism. Specifically, he used the deliberations of Kant to critique some of the a priori that are inhibiting us from dealing with climate change and global warming. A priori, as Peterson defined, is an intuition held prior to an experience. These, he claims, are paramount to understanding why there has been a certain lack of progress in the forethought and action needed to confront climate change in an appropriate way.

Peterson set forward an interesting idea early in his talk, stating that “Our brains are simply not wired to deal with climate change,” and then questioning this statement by asking openly if humanity can really be held accountable for this inaction or not? While other lectures have been more visceral with their discussions about ways in which change could be brought about to reverse (or aid in the slowing of) climate change, Peterson was to the point.

He noted that “Knowledge of risk is rarely sufficient to induce behavioral change in our societal transformation,” going on to explain that the reason behind this is likely due to human natures tendency to use supplies until they run out (as we have seen for thousands of years of world history). This was all in support of his notion that we must acknowledge the lack of desire for change and also accept that we are hard-wired against change in order to move forward and create distinct change. Personally, I found this one of the best messages we have received in this lecture series so far.

While there were limited suggestions on actual (hard science) ways to reverse the effects of climate change, this itself was seemingly not Peterson’s point and there seemed to be considerable respect for this being the case. I left the lecture in a positive light, feeling that while I did not know where I could add to the discussion on changing our approaches to climate change, there was certainly a way to enter this conversation if one leaves behind some of their “a priori”.

To conclude the discussion of this lecture, I think it is important to address the importance of philosophy in our modern day lives. This semester I have had the opportunity to take my first class in the philosophy department (unfortunately not with Professor Peterson), and I have to say that it has been incredibly fulfilling. In our fast-paced lives, we rarely step back to process our thoughts, let alone how we go about forming them. This process of reflection and deep thinking on the workings of life has certainly been transformative for many academics and the like before us, and I seem to think we might distance ourselves from it a bit too much in this modern age. Professor Peterson served as a great reminder to the audience that while philosophy may not seem the most applicable when talking about the hard sciences, it is important to take into consideration when thinking about how to build  a more responsible humanity.