Sergia Hay is an associate professor of philosophy at Pacific Lutheran University. She’s the author of Ethical Silence: Kierkegaard on Communication, Education, and Humility (Lexington 2020) and is a founding member of a SOPHIA chapter in Tacoma, WA.
The author, Sergia Hay. 
The author and collaborators Mike Rings and Matthew Salzano presenting at the 2018 Public Philosophy Network Conference. 
Attendees at a SOPHIA discussion consider a slide that offers questions about how to talk across disagreements.
What type of public philosophy do you do?
Our Tacoma Philosophy Group, the South Puget Sound Chapter of the Society of Philosophers in American (SOPHIA), is organized through Pacific Lutheran University’s philosophy department. Since 2017, we’ve hosted gatherings for people in the Seattle/Tacoma area who have interest in philosophy. Some of our events have been panel sessions and lectures, but most of our events take the form of open-ended conversations on topics including deep fakes, harmful speech, and patriotism. We use Meetup to announce our events, provide event participants with a one-sheet discussion prompt following the SOPHIA chapter model, and we are approaching 200 members.
Give an example of a successful project.
A successful event for us is one that sparks energetic and provocative conversation, and moves the group as a whole to a new understanding by building on the contributions of the individual members. At the end of 2019, we held an event on the topic of environmental personhood, and raised the question of whether or not natural entities, like rivers or forests, should have legal rights. About 20 people were in attendance, and the group was almost equally composed of students and Meetup group members. To start the discussion, we distributed a sheet which provided brief information about New Zealand’s Whanganui River which has legal standing, and outlined a variety of positions based on views concerning rationality, sentience, and membership in a biotic community. Although this was a new subject for many people in attendance, the conversation was active and worked through different issues, like whether humans are able to speak on behalf of other species or entities and what strategies of environmental protection are most effective.
What motivates you to do this work?
We were initially motivated to start our group for three main reasons: 1) We recognize the political and social need for people to practice skills in conversation and constructive disagreement, and believe philosophy offers insights into how to develop these skills; 2) We recognize the need for our school to be connected in meaningful ways to our neighborhood and region; and 3) We recognize that our discipline has suffered from negative stereotypes and misunderstandings about its relevance because of its conventional seclusion in the academy and its methodologies that often rely on technical vocabulary and concepts. Now that we have had more experience with it, we could add that it also offers some surprising and rewarding avenues for research, teaching, building relationships, and having fun. One of the most surprising aspects has been the variety of ways in which our university students can be involved, from planning events to producing their own scholarly work on public philosophy.
In what ways does the work inform your teaching (or vice-versa)?
Our group encourages students to plan events with us. They may develop a topic, compose a discussion prompt sheet, and lead discussion. We’ve also had a student engage in student/ faculty research on our public philosophy; he co-wrote a conference paper and recorded a podcast with us. We’ve also held sessions that are connected to course content so that students can share what they are learning, consider philosophy’s contemporary relevance, and try out ideas in a non-graded setting. Additionally, students in writing courses have used our philosophy group as a writing topic; here is one example.
In what ways does the work inform your research (or vice-versa)?
Three of our department members have written papers and presented at conferences about our public philosophy group. One of these projects included a co-authored article in the Public Philosophy Journal.
How does your department or institution support your public philosophy? How would you like to see them support you?
Our public philosophy group traces its beginning to a Food Symposium at Pacific Lutheran University in 2012. The event brought together philosophers, farmers, restaurant owners, chefs, scientists, and students to discuss a variety of issues that intersect around the topic of food, and it was so successful in drawing interest that two other food symposia followed in 2014 and 2016. The university provided extensive support for these events, to include space, food, photography, advertising, and digital recording.
Our current programming for the Tacoma Philosophy Group, usually involving a two-hour gathering of 5-25 people, requires simple and modest preparation, so we do not have large needs at this time. Our department provides funds for our Meetup account and event refreshments. The value of cookies and coffee to extend the conversation and enable a sense of community can’t be overstated!
If someone wanted to take on a public philosophy project like yours, what steps or resources would you recommend?
Partnerships have been key for us. One of the main sponsors of our symposia was the Society of Philosophers in America (SOPHIA), and this connection inspired our department to think of other ways to engage our students and the broader community. We developed a SOPHIA chapter and soon after connected with the Seattle Analytic Philosophy Club, which was exceedingly helpful in providing informational resources for getting us started. The Seattle Analytic Philosophy Club has over 6,200 members and uses the Meetup platform, which we also use based on their recommendation.
What’s the philosophical grounding of your public philosophy?
The characters in Book I of Plato’s Republic exhibit a variety of argumentative styles, but anyone who has read it will recall Thrasymachus’s aggressive takeover of the conversation and desire to one-up Socrates. Socrates, on the other hand, keeps focused on the philosophical question rather than the scoreboard. These are two competing ideas of what philosophy is: a battle of the wits vs. a collaborative pursuit of truth. Some may enjoy the competitive contest involved in a battle of the wits, but this can also drain people’s interest and raise questions about philosophy’s relevance and closed culture. If philosophy is taken to be a collaborative pursuit of truth, as we believe, then it is an activity for all and is made better by the contributions of all. Public philosophy is one way of returning philosophy to the agora, where we can work out with others how we are to live well together.
What has been your biggest obstacle in doing public philosophy?
Since March 2020, the Covid pandemic has been our biggest obstacle. We’ve halted all events until we can be in person again. Prior to the pandemic, we noticed that one of our most significant challenges was to beat back the training and developed biases we have in doing philosophy. At first, we would prepare for our events as we would for class, but over time we’ve had to learn to resist the urge to lead the conversation in a particular direction, pepper our comments with jargon, and flex previous knowledge. Tapping into our purpose in doing public philosophy and remembering our roles in facilitating it helps to subdue these counter-productive habits. When participants feel that their comments are valued and that the organizers are sincerely devoted to cultivating an open forum, conversation will flow and people will want to come back for more.
EngagedPhilosophy readers: If you’d like to nominate yourself or someone else for an interview, email us at info@engagedphilosophy.com.
Do you want to find out when we post more interviews like this? Subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Facebook.
You must be logged in to post a comment.