NDIAS Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 3, Spring 2014

Vol.2

No.3

quarterly

SPRING 2014

this issue q THE QUESTION OF COLLABORATION 4 q EXPLORING IS AND OUGHT 21 q SUMMER GRADUATE SEMINAR 26

transcending disciplinary boundaries

Inside...

q ENLIGHTENMENT & CATHOLICISM... 31

Slavica Jak elić Reexam ines Religious-Se cular Allian ces

Carl Gillett asks

ARE WE BRAINS? Meet the

2014-2015 Fellows valuates Justin Biddle E rty Rights & ope Intellectual Pr odified Seeds Genetically M

2

ndias Quarterly SpRING 2014

31 National Institutes of Health

contents

regular From Our Director 03 The Associate’s Angle 04 Call for Fellows 20 Quarterly Interview 22 Student Engagement 26 Alumni Fellow News 28 Publication Showcase 31

6

22

10 PHOTO creditS Matt Cashore Barbara Johnston William Koechling Nick Ochoa Grant Osborn Cecil W. Stoughton Special thanks to Don Stelluto, Carolyn Sherman, and Nick Ochoa for their assistance in proofing this issue.

12

featured 06 What Are You? 10 Religious Secular Alliances 12 Meet Our 2014-2015 Fellows 21 An Historian’s Perspective: Evaluating Is and Ought 24 Spring 2014 in Photos 26 Summer Graduate Seminar

NDIAS Quarterly Spring 2014

3

ndias quarterly

COLOPHON

from our director Brad S. Gregory

F

or me, the end of the 2013-14 academic year brings with it a sense of bittersweet gratitude. I am deeply grateful to the outstanding Templeton, Residential, and Graduate Student Fellows whose enthusiastic participation in our twiceweekly seminars made our shared intellectual life such a success from August to May. They have combined collegiality with scholarly tough-mindedness in exemplary fashion and made positive contributions during their time at Notre Dame through myriad contacts with faculty colleagues and students. In this issue of the Quarterly, Carl Gillett provides a taste of one Fellow’s book project, an exploration of human identity that reflects philosophically on rapidly expanding research in neuroscience.

I am grateful as well to the many Notre Dame colleagues who have contributed to our seminars as presenters sharing their own research and as discussants exercising their critical expertise. In addition, the other events sponsored this academic year by the NDIAS, including the Templeton Colloquia and visit by Thomas Pfau in the spring, have drawn in the welcome presence of other faculty colleagues, graduate students, and undergraduates from multiple departments. This not only enhanced those events but also increased the Institute’s visibility on campus.

Finally, I am more thankful than I can say to the members of the NDIAS staff for their dedicated hard work, unstinting support of the Fellows, proactive innovation, and attention to detail while maintaining constant good cheer. They help to make the Director’s role a pleasure.

Having to say goodbye to such a terrific group of Fellows unavoidably tinges gratitude for their presence with melancholy at their departures. At the same time, one of the great delights of the Institute is the annual cycle whereby we are privileged to welcome a new class of Fellows for the following academic year. Selected from among more than 1,200 applicants, the superb class of NDIAS Fellows for 2014-15 is featured in this issue of the Quarterly. The contributions they will make next year already prompts anticipatory gratitude, and occasions my appreciation for the role played by so many others—Don Stelluto as the NDIAS Associate Director, the many internal and external reviewers of applications, and the members of the fellowship selection committee—in making the difficult decisions that have yielded the class of 2014-15. Next year’s Fellows will arrive in August, but in the meantime the activity of the Institute will not cease. This June, Christian Smith, a member of Notre Dame’s Sociology Department and one of the world’s leading sociologists of religion, is offering the first-ever NDIAS Graduate Summer Seminar. It has attracted international graduate student participants to discuss questions of human personhood and their importance for academic scholarship— and it is yet one more thing for which to be grateful at the NDIAS.

Brad S. Gregory Professor of History and Dorothy G. Griffin Collegiate Chair Director, Notre Dame Institute for Advanced Study

Editor & DESIGNER Grant Osborn CONTRIBUTORS Mark Alfano Karl Ameriks Elise Berman Paolo L. Bernardini Justin Biddle Costica Bradatan Eric Bugyis Melissa Dinsman Carl Gillett Eugenia Gorogianni Brad S. Gregory Slavica Jakelić Ulrich Lehner Vincent Lloyd Adriana Méndez Rodenas Grant Osborn Gladden Pappin Kathryn Pitts Laura Porter Scott Shackelford Carolyn Sherman Donald L. Stelluto Alexis Torrance

NDIAS DIRECTOR Brad S. Gregory Associate DIRECTOR Donald Stelluto Programs Administrator Carolyn Sherman Operations CoordinaTOR Grant Osborn Undergraduate research CoordinaTOR Eric Bugyis Research ASSistant Nick Ochoa CONTACT Notre Dame Institute for Advanced Study 1124 Flanner Hall Notre Dame, IN USA 46556 Phone: (574) 631-1305 Facsimile: (574) 631-8997 Email: ndias@nd.edu Web: ndias.nd.edu Twitter: @NotreDameIAS

4

ndias Quarterly Spring 2014

the associate’s angle

the question of collaboration

by Donald Stelluto

C

ollaboration is one of those words that is used in academic settings with great frequency. Yet, like many words, it is understood differently within various contexts. Each year, when we issue our call for fellows in the late spring, as we did this past month, I am reminded of a well-intentioned applicant who contacted me several years ago in response to that year’s call for fellows. The individual was eager to apply for a fellowship, asking, if selected, could he be a Fellow remotely, and further “why all this fuss about collaboration?”

As we explain on our website, at the Institute we place a high value on collegial exchange and the benefits to be gained from shared contemplation and reflection within an engaging academic community.

This telephone call, which I received early in the life of the Institute, provided me with a memorable opportunity to explain why collaboration, as we do it at the NDIAS, was important and to communicate its benefits to this prospective applicant. As I reflected with this person on what I had gleaned from my then limited experience about the spirit and substance of collaboration at the Institute, I was reminded of how inspiring this process could be. ollaboration often begins with a shared goal. Common goals shared among incoming Fellows can enrich

C

their respective research projects via the incorporation of a broader range of perspectives and the advancement of their research questions and hypotheses to a more profound level. The twin foci at the Institute, that is: (1) the integration of the disciplines and (2) major questions that combine the descriptive and the normative, have brought together a range of scholars from various disciplines and fields in the arts, engineering, the humanities, law, and the natural and social sciences. It is this approach to scholarship rather than an annual theme or topic that attracts applicants and the reason why the Institute can easily welcome scientists and engineers as well as humanists, artists, and social scientists. Once here, Fellows frequently are surprised to learn that scholars outside of their disciplines and fields can pose questions more probative of and more enriching to their research projects than colleagues from within their disciplines and fields. Whether research projects have focused on French interwar literature, quantum dots, philosophy of language, organ regeneration in animals, or patristics, the questions posed by Fellows about this wide range of research projects have often been described by the presenters at the Institute’s seminars as “innovative,” “tremendously valuable,” and as “better questions than my colleagues usually ask.”

NDIAS Quarterly Spring 2014

‘‘The regular engagement of our Fellows prompts serious examinations each week of the arguments raised rather than a focus solely on conclusions.’’

C

ollaboration is typically fostered by engagement and discussion. When we launched the Institute, we took quite a risk by creating an academic community that would welcome all disciplines. We quickly learned in our twice-weekly seminars that the academic assumptions that form the canon in many disciplines carried little weight when speaking to a diverse group of scholars. Often, discussions about fundamental concepts and definitions are the occasions for rethinking and reassessing conceptual frameworks.

Defining what an “ethical” approach to the relocation of ecosystems might be becomes more nuanced and enriched when the conversation includes philosophers and economists. Ideas like “progress” have to be explored and, in some cases, redefined to establish a common understanding that enables an engineer and a political scientist to discuss the merits of a particular research project. The regular engagement of our Fellows prompts serious examinations each week of the arguments raised rather than a focus solely on conclusions. These types of conversations, in turn, provide the stimulus for trailing conversations beyond the seminars, for further reflection, and for the exploration and occasional adoption of other Fellows’ methodologies.

‘‘I was reminded of how inspiring this process [of collaboration] could be .’’

Isaac Newton was reported to have said, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Collaboration among our Fellows is often the means by which research projects are advanced and improved.

It is also the means by which the scholarly approach and perspective of our Fellows has been enriched significantly, enabling them to stand on the shoulders of their colleagues.

To the individual who once asked me “why collaboration?” I might now forego the extolment, seeing firsthand these last few years its obvious benefits, and respond “why not?” However, that answer would probably not be considered very collaborative.

Donald L. Stelluto, Ph.D. Associate Director, NDIAS

5

6

contemporary NDIAS QUARTERLYmagazine Spring 2014 month 20XX

what are you? why the foundational question

about human nature is

by Carl Gillett scientific and open

P

hilosophers have long debated what I term the ‘Foundational Question’ about human nature. That is, what deeper kind of thing are we? Answers in philosophy have ranged from an immaterial soul to the presently dominant opposing views that we are either an animal or a psychological system. Recently, scientific and wider debates over human nature have also flared into life, whether about “nature” versus “nurture,” which primate species are our ancestors (Homo habilis etc.), and more.

However, these debates rarely engage philosophical discussions because they often implicitly assume that we have now scientifically answered the Foundational Question. Thus anthropologists, primatologists, evolutionary biologists, and many following them, all routinely assume that we are identical to Homo sapiens animals and that evolution established this “fact.”

Dissenting voices on this issue are now emerging in the sciences because some researchers are beginning to defend the view that we are identical to brains rather than animals. During my year at NDIAS, I have been working on reconstructing and assessing the arguments and positions of those who consequently think that the received scientific wisdom on the Foundational Question is wrong. At the outset, I should immediately note that the dissenters take it to be overwhelmingly plausible that we are evolved, since brains are evolved. But if not through a challenge to evolution, then where does the impetus for challenging the received wisdom that we are animals come from? Given the focus on brains, it should come as no surprise that the so-called “neuroscience revolution” is remaking the intellectual terrain. Though the resulting issues are complex, my goal here is to provide a sense of why it is becoming increasingly plausible that we have reopened the Foundational Question.

‘‘. . . it should come as no surprise that the so-called ‘neuroscience revolution’ is remaking the intellectual terrain.’’

As the massive media coverage makes us all aware, the neurosciences are making rapid advances at a number of neurobiological levels. The brain is made of billions of neurons with still greater numbers of connections between them. And vast amounts of resources are presently being directed to brain mapping projects focused on understanding these connections and hence the so-called “connectome.” But we have already made profound advances at higher neurobiological levels where we now have increasingly detailed accounts of what I term ‘rich psychological’ properties like remembering, fearing, hoping, etc.

For example, in cognitive neuroscience the work of researchers like Endel Tulving (2002) has provided us with sophisticated accounts of rich psychological properties like episodically remembering, i.e. remembering a particular episode. Whilst in affective neuroscience, writers like Jaak Panksepp (1997, 2012) have given us accounts of properties like fearing. As these researchers emphasize, such accounts are based on multiple lines of evidence, including testing on human subjects, cases of lesions or damage in humans, evidence from animal studies, some evidence from molecular and cellular levels and findings from imaging studies.

This work on our rich psychological properties has provided us with well confirmed hypotheses that illuminate what philosophers term the “roles” of such properties. Thus episodic memories are individuated by being produced by sensory organs, like eyes, producing other rich psychological properties, and producing muscle stimulations, usually in combination with other rich psychological properties. Given the nature of these characteristic productive roles, we can provide plausible arguments about which kind of individual, i.e. animal or brain, instantiates remembering, fearing, etc.

A wide range of individuals can be considered and a number of reasons offered, but let me stick to the most obvious of each. So let us assume the candidate individuals are an animal or a brain. And let us note that scientific notions of parthood plausibly imply

contemporary NDIAS Quarterly magazine month Spring 20XX 2014

that parts and wholes do not productively interact. But eyes and muscles are parts of animals; the animal does not productively interact with its own eyes or muscles and hence does not play the right productive role to instantiate rich psychological properties.

In contrast, the brain does productively interact with sensory organs and muscles, since our physiology is constructed to facilitate just such interactions. Thus our new neuroscientific accounts of rich psychology plausibly support such properties being instantiated in the brain.

In fact, this is just what working scientists, like Tulving, Panksepp, and many others increasingly assume. Thus researchers have moved from describing remembering as a “psychological” property to terming it a “neurocognitive” property. Wittgensteinian philosophers (Bennett and Hacker 2003; Pardo and Patterson 2013) increasingly attack such scientific practices as committing a “mereological fallacy” of ascribing properties of wholes to their parts. Such critics assume scientists have unwittingly violated our ordinary practices of ascribing rich psychology to animals rather than their parts, including any organ like the brain. However, the critics are missing the detailed theoretical arguments of the type I sketched above that justify the scientific practices. Neuroscientists are not falling into a fallacy, but are instead committed to a rich, explanatorily successful set of hypotheses supported by multiple lines of evidence. It is this theoretical framework that underwrites the scientific practice of ascribing rich psychological properties to brains rather than animals and which hence also challenges the everyday practices of ascribing rich psychology to animals that the Wittgensteinians prioritize without any similar theoretical defense.

I contend that these developments in the neurosciences necessitate our adopting a new account in the foundations of neuroscience that I term ‘Expansive’ materialism, since the view frames the point that the neurosciences have recently expanded our understanding of the properties of brains to include rich psychological properties like remembering, fearing, etc. Crucially, Expansive materialism takes the sciences to posit rich psychology but at the highest neurobiological level since this materialism accepts what we might

7

term “expansive” (or “thinking”) brains that instantiate rich psychology.

Expansive materialism thus contrasts with both of the opposing views that presently dominate the foundations of neuroscience and which were each thrown up in response to much earlier developments in the sciences.

On one side, inspired by the neuroscience of the 1970s and 1980s, focused on the molecular and cellular levels, we have the ‘Eliminative’ materialism of writers like Paul and Patricia Churchland (1981, 1986) that contends rich psychological properties will have no place in the sciences.

However, cognitive and affective neuroscience now routinely posit rich psychological properties at the highest neurobiological level, so we should favor Expansive materialism over Eliminativism. On the other side of the current debates, driven by the emergence of cognitive science, in the 1960s, ‘70s and ‘80s, we have what I term the ‘Separatist’ materialism attributed to Jerry Fodor (1968, 1974), and others, that contends the sciences should study rich psychological properties, but claims that rich psychological properties are instantiated in a level of individuals above the brain. In this case, Expansive materialism should be preferred over Separatism given our new evidence that rich psychology is plausibly instantiated in the brain.

The latter illustrates some of the deep changes in the intellectual landscape wrought by the neuroscience revolution. And these implications plausibly extend to our understanding of our deeper nature.

Neuroscientific evidence is all too often associated in the media with “nihilist” positions that claim that the neurosciences show that the self and ourselves are illusions (Metzinger 2009, Hood 2012). But our brief survey now allows us to appreciate why a novel positive position about our natures actually falls from the scientific development. For example, prominent neuroscientists like Panksepp, or Michael Gazzaniga (2005), are thus increasingly defending the view that we are identical to expansive brains as positions on the Foundational Question. And, once again, we can quickly appreciate the argument behind this contention.

We all routinely assume the truth of what I call the ‘Thinker Thesis’: that you are identical to the individual in your chair that instantiates the properties of remembering, fearing, thinking, etc. However, as we just outlined, and as these neuroscientists are well aware, the neuroscience HUMAN BRAIN (ABOVE) DERIVATIVE FROM GUTENBERG ENCYCLOPEDIA

(http://goo.gl/sfSf5n)

8

contemporary NDIAS QUARTERLYmagazine Spring 2014 month 20XX

we may thus conclude that proprioceptive experience is revolution supports the conclusion that the brain in your instantiated in the brain. Applying the Thinker Thesis we chair instantiates the properties of remembering, fearing, can thus use our bodily experience to show we are identical thinking, etc. So, applying the Thinker Thesis, the obvious to a brain and not an animal. It therefore appears that, conclusion is that you are identical to a certain brain. Since brains and animals are not identical, we can thus also however deeply they sway us, our intuitive judgments based conclude that you are not identical to an animal. We are upon our lived experiences are unreliable and should not be trusted. consequently led to a new answer to the Foundational What about the evidence from evolution? Basically, in Question—you are an expansive, or thinking, brain the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, something like embodied in a certain animal whose body it controls and this little argument was used to dispatch the previously experiences as itself. dominant view that we are identical to a kind of individual At this point, you are probably writing off my claims, and descended from individuals directly created by God: the view that we are brains, as just the kind of implausible (1) You are either not evolved and a kind of individual speculation that philosophers churn out when we have descended from individuals directly created by God, or you obvious, and overwhelming, evidence to the contrary. So are evolved and are identical to an animal. let us briefly examine the putative evidence that supports (2) You are evolved. the claim that we are identical to animals, for I suggest Therefore, from (1) and (2): it looks questionable. This evidence appears to take two (3) You are identical to an animal. main forms for most of us. First, though rarely discussed Against the background of this argument, offered in the by philosophers, there is the evidence of our own lived scientific context of earlier debates in the last century, one experience. And, second, as I noted above, there is the can see why so many putative “fact” scientists assume that evolution establishes establishes that ‘‘. . . the rise of the new sciences of the mind/brain, evolution we are animals. you are identical with their findings about rich psychology, should The problem is to a Homo sapiens that premise (1) is animal. have deep implications about how the Foundational now either known The first kind of Question should, and should not, be answered.’’ to be false or at the support is easy to least not known appreciate. Right to be true. Brains now you are having and other organs are evolved. And given the arguments an experience of your body or a “proprioceptive” experience. outlined above it is now plausibly a live option that we are And you directly experience certain fingers and arms, for the kind of brain illuminated by the neuroscience revolution. example, as yours, as owned, or simply just as you. But if Consequently, we can now only safely assume this premise: fingers, arms, etc. are you, then you are plausibly a body (1*) You are either not evolved and a kind of individual and hence a Homo sapiens animal. We can thus see why descended from individuals directly created by God, or you our lived experience drives a deeply compelling intuitive are evolved and identical to an animal, or you are evolved judgment that we are animals. and identical to a brain.

In response, however, we need to mark some of the Slotting (1*) into the argument, rather than (1), we can still recent findings that the neuroscience revolution has knock out the claim that you are a directly divinely created supplied about our proprioceptive experience. First, we kind of individual, but we can now only conclude that you now know that the ownership aspect of our experience are either identical to an animal or identical to a brain. can be turned off. For instance, there are people with brain lesions who experience their limbs but do not experience So, I suggest, there are good reasons to doubt that them as their own. Like all aspects of our experience, we evolution establishes you are an animal. And, if one can thus see that ownership is a constructed aspect of this takes rich psychology to be central to our natures, as our representation. Second, and more importantly, we have endorsement of the Thinker Thesis suggests we do, then scientific accounts of the characteristic role of the property one can wonder how evolutionary biology alone could of proprioceptively experiencing which, for example, is have resolved the Foundational Question prior to the produced by certain receptors in the limbs, produces various development of scientific accounts of rich psychology? One other rich psychological properties, and produces muscle might thus be unsurprised that the rise of the new sciences stimulations, in association with other rich psychological of the mind/brain, with their findings about rich psychology, properties. But, once again running the type of argument should have deep implications about how the Foundational about the productive roles of properties sketched above, Question should, and should not, be answered.

BACKGROUND Images: “anatomical drawing : écroché :head : Charcot’s cut” Bourgery & Jacob : Anatomie de l’Homme, Guérin Ed., Paris 1962 © Dr Michel Royon / Wikimedia Commons (http://goo.gl/Dd2SQr)

contemporary NDIAS Quarterly magazine month Spring 20XX 2014

In finishing, I should note that almost every stage of my argument is contentious. My claims about the foundations of neuroscience, my arguments about what we are, or about experience and evolution, and more, will all be disputed.

But my aim in such a short piece has not been to establish such claims. Instead, my detailed goals have been twofold. On the negative side, I hope I have provided a sense of why there are now scientific reasons to doubt that we are identical to animals—or at the very least to acknowledge that claiming we are animals requires a defense that is presently all too rarely supplied in the sciences and wider debates. Whilst on the positive side, I hope I have highlighted the increasingly good reasons we have to believe that we are identical to the kinds of expansive brains illuminated by the neuroscience revolution.

Overall, I hope to have given you a sense of why some scientists are beginning to argue we may not be what the sciences have thought we are for the last century. Buckleup for the jarring set of debates that will hit us over the coming years. For the Foundational Question about our deeper natures is scientific, open once again, and we are rapidly piling up findings suggesting an answer that is alien both to our ordinary ways of thinking of ourselves and to the received scientific wisdom as well.

9

References Bennett, M.R. and Hacker, P. M. S. 2003: Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. Oxford: Blackwell.

Churchland, P. M. 1981: “Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes.” Journal of Philosophy 78: 67-90.

Churchland, P. S. 1986: Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind/Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fodor, J. 1968: Psychological Explanation. New York: Random House.

---. 1975: The Language of Thought. New York: Crowell.

Gazzaniga, M. 2005: The Ethical Brain. New York: Dana Press.

Hood, B. 2012: The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity. New York: Oxford University Press.

Metzinger, T. 2009: The Ego Tunnel. New York: Basic Books.

Panksepp, J. 1997: Affective Neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.

Panksepp, J. and Biven, L. 2012: The Archaeology of Mind.

New York: Norton.

Carl Gillett 2013-2014 NDIAS Fellow

Pardo, M. and Patterson, D. 2013: Minds, Brains, and Law: The Conceptual Foundations of Law and Neuroscience.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Professor of Philosophy, Northern Illinois University

Tulving, E. 2002: “Episodic Memory: From Mind to Brain.”

Annual Review of Psychology 53: 1-25.

“Brain of the Sistine Chapel” By Tom Blackwell (MODIFIED) (http://goo.gl/DLkRlq)

10

NDIAS Quarterly Spring 2014

the religious-secular alliances: on the veil of silence and the discourse of power

by Slavica Jakelić

I

t is impossible, we are often told, to understand the vision, organization, and successes of the Civil Rights Movement without acknowledging the role of black churches or the religious character of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s ideas and actions. While this approach is correct to highlight the Civil Rights Movement’s deep embeddedness in religion, it is also problematic as it does not attend to the pluralistic character of the civil rights struggle against racism and segregation. Just as that was the case with other 20th century social movements—the American labor movement in the early part of the century, the South African anti-apartheid movement in the mid to late century, and the Polish anti-communist Solidarity movement in the 1980s—the religious civil rights activists did not march alone but shoulder to shoulder with atheists, secular humanists, and non-theists.

Although these religious-secular alliances transformed the political and social landscapes of the contemporary world, they are still mostly shrouded in a veil of silence. What are the reasons for that silence? Why don’t we talk more and know more about the collaboration between socialist and Catholic labor union leaders, between King and Asa Philip Randolph, between Father Józef Tischner and Adam Michnik in Poland, between Bishop Desmond Tutu and Chris Hani in South Africa?

One of the important reasons for the lack of discussions about such collaborations is the focus on conflict that has long defined our thinking about religions and secularisms. The emphasis on conflict, it is important to underline, is not without foundation. Historically, it highlights the real events in which religions and secularisms confronted each other—from various religious rejections of the secularizing aspects of modernity (liberalism and revolutions, religious freedom, and even democracy) to the anti-religious policies of the Soviet communist states (ranging from direct religious persecutions to more sophisticated modes of religious oppression and control). Sociologically, the view of religious-secular relations as defined by confrontation mirrors growing doubts about the secular states’ ability to address the challenges of pluralism. This view also stems from the persisting suspicions that some secularists and some believers have toward religious organizations and communities that demand a place and voice in public life.

‘‘Although these religious-secular alliances transformed the political and social landscapes of the contemporary world, they are still mostly shrouded in a veil of silence.’’

In other words, it is impossible to disregard the past and present cases of distrust and clashes between secular and religious institutions, secular and religious individuals, or to ignore the seriousness of the contemporary religious-secular disputes over the foundations and boundaries of individual and collective freedoms. At the same time, even a brief look at the 20th century social movements suggests that the argument about the inevitable religious-secular conflict is too neat and too cogent to adequately express the complexity of religious-secular encounters.

The argument about conflict requires theoretical attention as well because it is most often grounded in the discourse of power. The capacity to understand the multiple dimensions of power, including the powers of the secular, is pertinent to any study of religions and secularisms. Take, for example, the ways in which discourse of power shapes the analysis of nation states.

This perspective reveals that, whenever secularism is the ideology of nation states, the states are not neutral actors but instead privilege some worldviews over others, sometimes attempting to posit secularism as constitutive of pluralism and a framework for mitigating that pluralism. Furthermore, the discourse of power helps explain why the social scientific study of religion is not an objective analytic endeavor but rather stems from a secularist and secularizing view of what religion is and what it should be.

Notwithstanding such important insights, it is also necessary to ask: does the discourse of power constrain our capacity to fully appreciate the democratic potential of religious-secular encounters?

NDIAS Quarterly Spring 2014

The discourse of power, for instance, can recognize the religious-secular alliances in the 20th century social movements, but how does it interpret such alliances? Is it open enough to understand the religious-secular collaborations in any other way except in terms of strategic resistance to the common foe, a joint opposition to oppression, and a pragmatic march toward the position of power?

There is, of course, no doubt that the labor movements and Civil Rights Movement in the United States and the anti-apartheid and Solidarity movements abroad are stories about pragmatic alliances and political strategies. But the movements in question are also contexts in which, to paraphrase James Jasper, individuals and communities probed their moral intuitions and attempted to articulate those intuitions as political principles. Put simply, the mentioned movements were not just a push against the oppressive states, they were also a battle for the world as it could be—for the shared moral ideals of racial justice, economic equality, and political freedom. For King and Randolph, Tischner and Michnik, Tutu and Hani, then, their struggle was not just about power and empowerment, it was also about sacrifice.

Some scholars—Talal Asad, Elizabeth Shakman Hurd, and Markus Dressler among them—have written in powerful ways about these religious-secular conflicts while also asking us to rethink, destabilize, or even abolish the very categories of the religious and the secular. The same scholars who affirm the problematic reality of the religious-secular binary, in other words, also problematize that binary. They historicize and politicize it, inviting us to see the fluidity of its contents.

The propositions of these scholars ought to be taken seriously: they question the totalizing, reductive contents of the secular and the religious, according to which the secular is identified with rationality, reason, and modernity, against passion, revelation, and tradition ascribed to religion.

But while unmasking these categories, the critiques (and rejections) of the religioussecular binary do not provide a way out of the reductive thinking about either religion or

11

secularism, or about their encounters in the context of social movements.

These critiques, just like the critiques of the religious-secular conflict, emerge from the same sources—the discourse of power and, most specifically, the view that the history and content of the religious-secular binary is a product of the powers of the secular.

Yet, is this the only way to understand the religious-secular binary? It is important to see that, once we move beyond the discourse of power, the religious-secular binary emerges as a way to retrieve the religioussecular encounters not as reducible to the powers of the secular but as a productive tension between religions and secularisms. The productive aspect of this tension stems from the full engagement between religious and secular actors, in which they recognize the irreducible differences of their religious and secular worldviews but also see the moral concerns they have common.

Conceptualized this way, the analysis of labor and Civil Rights Movements as well as anti-apartheid and Solidarity movements can attend to the difficulties in the collaborations between socialists and Catholics, King and Randolph, Father Tischner and Michnik, Bishop Tutu and Hani. Not being focused exclusively on the dynamics of power— the mechanisms of resistance and opposition—the analysis can also show how these activists and leaders recognized the shared ideals of racial, economic, and social justice, and how they created religioussecular alliances without which the successes of the 20th century social movements would have hardly been possible.

Put simply, once outside of the discourse of power, the analysis of social movements can lift the veil of silence from the religious-secular collaborations without reducing them to the matters of strategy and power relations. It can show what is possible when, in Pope Francis’s words, believers and non-believers meet while doing good.1

Slavica Jakelić Fall 2011 NDIAS Fellow Assistant Professor of Humanities and Social Thought, Valparaiso University Associate Fellow of Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture, University of Virginia 1Hendrik Hertzberg, “‘Father, the atheists? ’Even the atheists.‘“ http://goo.gl/Ylc8y8.

President John f. Kennedy MEETS WITH LEADERS OF MARCH ON WASHINGtoN 28 August 1963, Including Martin Luther King, Jr. & Asa Philip Randolph PhotoGraph by Cecil W. Stoughton, public Domain (http://goo.gl/8LGY7K)

12

ndias Quarterly Spring 2014

meet our 2014-2015 class of fellows Edited by Carolyn Sherman

Margaret Abruzzo, University of Alabama Residential Fellow at the NDIAS (Spring 2015) “Good People and Bad Behavior: Changing Views of Sin, Evil, and Moral Responsibility in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries” Margaret Abruzzo is Associate Professor of History at the University of Alabama. She specializes in American intellectual, cultural, and religious history, with a focus on the history of morality. Her current research project historicizes sin by tracing shifts in how Protestant and Catholic theologians, ministers, philosophers, reformers, novelists, and ordinary people answered enduring questions: Given that nobody is perfect, what does it mean to be a good (or bad) person? Why do “good” people do bad things?

She is the author of Polemical Pain: Slavery, Cruelty, and the Rise of Humanitarianism (2011). She has also written several articles on slavery, humanitarianism, and religious liberty.

Professor Abruzzo is the recipient of a year-long fellowship from the National Endowment for the Humanities (2014-2015). Her current research on changing conceptions of wrongdoing and moral responsibility has also been supported by a summer stipend from the National Endowment for the Humanities (2013) and research grants from the Beinecke Library at Yale University, the American Antiquarian Society, the Southern Historical Collection at the University of North Carolina, the Library Company of Philadelphia and Historical Society of Pennsylvania, and the Cushwa Center for the Study of American Catholicism at the University of Notre Dame.

Clifford Ando, University of Chicago Residential Fellow at the NDIAS (Spring 2015) “Roman Social Imaginaries” Clifford Ando is David B. and Clara E. Stern Professor at the University of Chicago, where he is also Professor of Classics, History, and Law as well as co-director of the Center for the Study of Ancient Religions.

He is also a Research Fellow in the Department of Classics and World Languages at the University of South Africa. He specializes in the history of government, law, and religion in the Roman empire.

NDIAS Quarterly Spring 2014

13

He is the author of five monographs: Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire (2000; corrected paperback 2013); The Matter of the Gods (2008); Law, Language and Empire in the Roman Tradition (2011; a French translation, under the title L’Empire et le Droit. Invention juridique et réalités politiques à Rome, appeared in 2013); Imperial Rome AD 193 to 284. The Critical Century (2012); and Religion et gouvernement dans l’Empire romain (2014). He has also published more than 100 articles, chapters and reviews.

Professor Ando’s first monograph won the American Philological Association’s Charles J. Goodwin Award of Merit. He is also the recipient of a Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel Research Prize from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. He has been a Junior Fellow and a Frederick Burkhardt Fellow of the American Council of Learned Societies; a Fellow of the Huntington Library; a New Directions Fellow of the Mellon Foundation; a Fellow of the Max Weber Kolleg of the University of Erfurt; and a Canterbury Fellow at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. He has held visiting positions in the Faculty of Classics, University of Oxford; the Collège de France; the École Pratique des Hautes Études; the Université Panthéon-Assas; the University of Münster; the American Academy in Rome; and the University of British Columbia.

Professor Ando is editor of the series Empire and After, associate editor of Bryn Mawr Classical Review, and serves on the editorial boards of Classical Philology, Critical Analysis of Law, and the Oxford Series in the History and Theory of International Law.

Lewis Ayres, Durham University, United Kingdom Residential Fellow at the NDIAS (2014-2015) “Resting in the Word: The Origins and Future of the Catholic Scriptural Imagination” Lewis Ayres is Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United Kingdom. He specializes in the study of early Christian theology, especially the history of Trinitarian theology and early Christian exegesis. He is also deeply interested in the relationship between the shape of early Christian modes of discourse and reflection and the manner in which renewals of Catholic theology during the last hundred years have attempted to engage forms of modern historical consciousness and sought to negotiate the shape of appropriate scriptural interpretation in modernity, even as they remain faithful to the practices of classical Catholic discourse and contemplation.

His publications include Augustine and the Trinity (2010) and Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Trinitarian Theology (2004). He is co-editor of the Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature (2004) and of the Oxford Handbook of Catholic Theology (forthcoming). Professor Ayres has co-edited the Blackwell Challenges in Contemporary Theology series (since 1997), the Ashgate Studies in Philosophy and Theology in Late Antiquity series (since 2007), and has just co-founded with Fortress Press the Renewal: Conversations in Catholic Theology series. He serves on the editorial boards of Modern Theology, the Journal of Early Christian Studies, and Augustinian Studies. He has also served on the board of the North American Patristics Society.

Professor Ayres is the recipient of grants from the Association of Theological Schools, a Henry Luce IIIrd Fellowship (2006-2007), and the Christopherson/Knott Fellowship at Durham University’s own Institute for Advanced Study (2012).

14

ndias Quarterly Spring 2014

2014-2015 fellows continued...

Hilary Davidson, University of Notre Dame Graduate Student Fellow at the NDIAS (2014-2015) “Searching for the Good Life: How Cultural Narratives Anchor the Aspirations of Emerging Adults” Hilary Davidson is a Ph.D. candidate in Sociology at the University of Notre Dame. Her dissertation explores aspirations during times of transition and uncertainty. Specifically, she draws on longitudinal and nationally representative in-depth interview and survey data to examine how cultural narratives and material opportunities shape what Americans coming of age aim to achieve with their lives in the midst of precarious economic conditions. Her research interests include cultural sociology, emerging adulthood, generosity and altruism, religion, gender, social movements, and social class.

Ms. Davidson’s work appears in the Journal for the American Academy of Religion and Sociology of Religion.

She is also the co-author of two books, Lost in Transition (2011) and The Paradox of Generosity (2014). She regularly presents her work at academic conferences and shares her work with the broader public.

As an aspiring teacher-scholar Ms. Davidson has benefitted greatly from the Gender Studies Predoctoral Teaching Fellowship as well as the opportunities to teach Introduction to Gender Studies and Introduction to Social Problems at the University of Notre Dame.

Ms. Davidson is the recipient of an Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts American Dream grant and the William V. D’Antonino award for graduate student excellence in the sociology of religion.

Thadious M. Davis, University of Pennsylvania Director’s Fellow at the NDIAS (2014-2015) “Imagination and the Space of Freedom” Thadious M. Davis is Geraldine R. Segal Professor of American Social Thought and Professor of English at the University of Pennsylvania.

Her scholarship focuses primarily on issues of race, gender, and region with attention to geography, history, and law, as well as to literary modernism, visual culture, and contemporary theory. Her special areas include the Harlem Renaissance and William Faulkner.

She is the author of Games of Property: Law, Race, Gender, and Faulkner’s Go Down, Moses (2002); Faulkner’s “Negro”: Art and the Southern Context (1982); and Nella Larsen, Novelist of the Harlem Renaissance (1994; 1996). Her most recent work is Southscapes: Geographies of Race, Region, and Literature (2011). She has written over sixty scholarly articles and edited or co-edited nine reference texts.

NDIAS Quarterly Spring 2014

15

Professor Davis’s research has been supported by major fellowships and grants from the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Research Council, and the American Council of Learned Societies. She has been a fellow at the Newberry Library in Chicago, the DuBois Institute at Harvard University, the Program in African American Studies at Princeton University, the Cullman Center for Scholars and Writers at the New York Public Library, and the Huntington Library as the R. Stanton Avery Distinguished Fellow. Her critical biography of Nella Larsen received the College Language Association Award for Creative Scholarship and the Anna Julia Cooper Award for Feminist Scholarship from Spelman College. Co-editor of the University of North Carolina Press series Gender and American Culture, she has served on a number of editorial boards, including American Quarterly, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, The Southern Literary Journal, Black American Literature Forum (now African American Review), American Literary History, Southern Cultures, Callaloo, The Canadian Review of American Studies, Women’s Studies, and Palimpsest: A Journal of Women, Gender, and the Black International. One of the founders of the Modern Language Association’s Division of Black Literature and Culture, she has served elected terms on the National Council of the American Studies Association, the Advisory Council of the American Literature Section of MLA, and the Executive Committee of the MLA Division of Twentieth-Century American Literature. She has been honored with a year-long Fulbright Distinguished Chair, the Walt Whitman Chair in American Civilization at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands.

Sabine Doering, University of Oldenburg, Germany Residential Fellow at the NDIAS (2014-2015) “Concepts of Blessing in Hölderlin’s Poetic Work” Sabine Doering is full professor (chair) for modern German literature at the University of Oldenburg and specializes in the history of German classicism and romanticism, and contemporary literature as well.

Since completing her Ph.D. thesis, much of her research is dedicated to the work and life of Friedrich Hölderlin (1770–1843).

Her monographs include Aber was ist diß? Formen und Funktionen der Frage in Hölderlins dichterischem Werk (1992); Die Schwestern des Doktor Faust. Eine Geschichte der weiblichen Faustgestalten (2001); Klassik. Geschichte und Begriff (with G. Schulz, 2003); and Heinrich von Kleist. Literaturwissen für Schule und Studium (new edition 2009). She has more than 80 articles and scholarly writings, 30 critical reviews, and more than 150 literary reviews in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. She is co-editor of the HölderlinJahrbuch and has served as a co-editor of the Kleist-Jahrbuch for more than ten years. She co-edited several books, among them Hölderlin and Leopardi (2011), Orpheus und Sappho auf Lesbos (2011), and Aus der Klinik ins Haus am Neckar. Der ‘Fall’ Hölderlin (2013).

Professor Doering serves as the president of the international Hölderlin Society (since 2010). She is a member of the executive board of the ‘Forschungszentrum Klassik’ (Weimar) and a member of several juries for literary awards. In spring 2013, she served as Max Kade Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of Notre Dame.

16

ndias Quarterly Spring 2014

2014-2015 fellows continued...

Naomi Fisher, University of Notre Dame Graduate Student Fellow at the NDIAS (2014-2015) “Natural Reason: Rationality as Emerging out of Animal Nature” Naomi Fisher is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. Her research explores connections between the philosophy of science, philosophy of perception, and the history of philosophy. In particular, she focuses on how conceptions of the relationship between rationality and nature evolved in postKantian philosophy. Her dissertation examines themes of cognition, experience, and action in Kant and Schelling, particularly with respect to how these philosophers accommodate animal cognition and behaviors into their systems. She then applies the lessons learned from this period to contemporary philosophy.

Ms. Fisher has presented her research at several conferences in the areas of the history of philosophy and the philosophy of science, and has received funding for and coordinated an ongoing interdisciplinary workshop series at Notre Dame, focusing on the relationship between philosophy and history. In addition, she has served as an editorial assistant for the Internationales Jahrbuch des deutschen Idealismus.

Ms. Fisher has received several grants, including a Nanovic Institute Travel and Research Grant for research in Germany, an Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts-Mellon Grant for interdisciplinary workshops, and several other research and language training grants.

Alyssa Dinega Gillespie, University of Notre Dame Residential Fellow at the NDIAS (Fall 2014) “Dangerous Verses: Alexander Pushkin and the Ethics of Inspiration” Alyssa Dinega Gillespie is Associate Professor of Russian Language and Literature at the University of Notre Dame. She specializes in Russian poetry of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, with a particular focus on understanding the workings of poets’ creative psyches: why and how they come to write what they do, how they experience poetic inspiration and poetic responsibility, and how that experience is encoded, mythologized, or otherwise inscribed in the literary texts they produce.

She is the author of A Russian Psyche: The Poetic Mind of Marina Tsvetaeva (2001), which was named an Outstanding Academic Title

by Choice magazine. It is forthcoming in a Russian-language edition in 2014. She is the editor of Russian Literature in the Age of Realism (2003) and Taboo Pushkin: Topics, Texts, Interpretations (2012). In addition, she has authored more than 30 articles and scholarly writings that have appeared in numerous journals, including Slavic Review, Slavic and East European Journal, Russian Literature,

NDIAS Quarterly Spring 2014

17

Russian Review, Canadian-American Slavic Studies, and Pushkin Review. She has also published her translations of more than 35 Russian poems. She is the founding editor of the series Myths and Taboos in Russian Culture for Academic Studies Press and has served on the editorial boards of From the Other Shore: Russian Writers Abroad Past and Present, Canadian-American Slavic Studies, and The Unknown Nineteenth Century.

A faculty fellow in Notre Dame’s Nanovic Institute for European Studies and co-director of Notre Dame’s Program in Russian and East European Studies since 2008, Professor Gillespie was the recipient of a fellowship from the National Endowment for the Humanities in 2005-2006. She has received recognition in several international competitions for her translations of Russian poetry into English, including first prize in the 2012 Compass Awards, second prize in the 2011 Compass Awards, and joint third prize in the 2011 Joseph Brodsky/Stephen Spender translation competition.

Catherine Kavanagh, Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick, Ireland Residential Fellow at the NDIAS (Fall 2014) “Eriugena’s Trinity: A Framework for Intercultural and Interreligious Dialogue” Catherine Kavanagh is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at Mary Immaculate College. Her interests include Medieval philosophy, Medieval theology and patristics, especially the systematic areas of Christology and Trinitarian theology, and the relation of these to contemporary developments in philosophy and theology.

Much of Dr. Kavanagh’s published work has focused on Johannes Scottus Eriugena, especially in his capacity as a figure who links Eastern and Western philosophical and theological traditions. Her most recent publications include The Role of the Linguistic “Artes” in the Theological Method of Johannes Scottus Eriugena (forthcoming); “Maximus Embellished? The Poetry of Johannes Scottus Eriugena” in The Beauty of the Presence of God in the Fathers of the Church. The Eighth International Maynooth Patristic Conference (2012) (eds. V. Twomey and J. Rutherford; 2014); “Maximus the Confessor and the Western Tradition: Johannes Scottus Eriugena” in The Oxford Handbook to Maximus the Confessor (ed. B. Neil and P. Allen; 2014); and “Eriugena the Exegete: Hermeneutics in a Biblical Context in the Thought of Johannes Scottus Eriugena” in Brill Companion to Eriugena (ed. A Guiu and S. Lahey; 2014). She has served as associate editor (2006-2011) and as general editor (2011- ) of The Yearbook of the Irish Philosophical Society.

She has held the Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences Fellowship in Early Medieval Thought in the School of Classics and worked at the Società Internazionale per lo Studio del Medioevo Latino, Florence, funded by the Italian Ministero degli Affari Esteri. She was elected President of the Irish Philosophical Society in 2011, having previously served on the Committee for several years. She has also served on the Royal Irish Academy’s Committee on Philosophy and Ethics on behalf of the Irish Philosophical Society and on behalf of the Department of Philosophy, Mary Immaculate College, and she is External Examiner in Philosophy for All Hallows College, Dublin.

18

ndias Quarterly Spring 2014

2014-2015 fellows continued...

Susannah Monta, University of Notre Dame Residential Fellow at the NDIAS (2014-2015) “Sacred Echoes: Repetitive Prayer and Reformation-Era Poetics” Susannah Monta is John Cardinal O’Hara, C.S.C., and Glynn Family Honors Associate Professor of English at the University of Notre Dame and the editor of Religion and Literature. Monta specializes in Renaissance and Reformation literature.

Her research focuses on the relationships between Reformationera religious changes and literary culture. Her first book, Martyrdom and Literature in Early Modern England (2005, hardback, and 2009, paperback), which won the Book of the Year award from the MLAaffiliated Conference on Christianity and Literature, focuses on the impact of competing Protestant and Catholic martyrologies on major (Shakespeare, Donne) and traditionally non-canonical (Southwell, Copley) authors. Her current research project examines the devotional and aesthetic uses of repetition in early modern prayer, poetry, and rhetoric, arguing that contestations over repetitive devotions illuminate early modern understandings of the nature of authentic prayer, the boundaries and character of Catholicism, the recuperation or rejection of the religious past, and literary creativity itself.

Professor Monta has published over twenty articles on topics such as history plays, early modern women writers and patronesses, martyrology, hagiography, devotional poetry and prose, and providential narratives. She is the co-editor of Teaching Early Modern English Prose (with Margaret W. Ferguson; 2010), and edited Anthony Copley’s A Fig for Fortune (1596), the first published response to Edmund Spenser’s Faerie Queene, for Manchester University Press’s series on Spenser. She is currently completing (with Earle Havens and Elizabeth Patton) an edition of the manuscript lives of St. Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel, and Anne Howard, Countess of Arundel, two of Elizabethan England’s most prominent lay Catholics. She edited a special issue of Religion and Literature (summer 2009) comprising essays from thirty-three international contributors reflecting on the state of scholarship in the field and has served as editor of the journal for seven years.

Mark A. Noll, University of Notre Dame Residential Fellow at the NDIAS (Spring 2015) “The Bible and American Public Life, 1789-1876” Mark Noll is Francis A. McAnaney Professor of History at the University of Notre Dame. His books and most of his courses treat subjects related to the history of Christianity in the United States, Canada, and the modern world.

NDIAS Quarterly Spring 2014

19

He is the author of America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln (2002); The Civil War as a Theological Crisis (2006); God and Race in American Politics: A Short History (2008); The New Shape of World Christianity: How American Experience Reflects Global Faith (2009); Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind (2011); Protestantism: A Very Short Introduction (2011); and co-author of Clouds of Witnesses: Christian Voices from Africa and Asia (2011).

Professor Noll is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and serves as advisory editor for Books and Culture: A Christian Review. From 2004 to 2005 he served as the Maguire Fellow in American History and Ethics at the Library of Congress. In November 2006 he received the National Humanities Medal, and he has been the recipient of three year-long fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Daniel John Sportiello, University of Notre Dame Graduate Student Fellow at the NDIAS (2014-2015) “The Primacy of the Practical in Alasdair MacIntyre” Daniel John Sportiello is a Ph.D. candidate in Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. His research explores the relationship between theoretical and practical reason—and the relationship of both to the culture in which they are taught and exercised, especially insofar as that culture has changed through time. His dissertation, “The Primacy of the Practical in Alasdair MacIntyre,” stresses that theories are always the products of theorization, a practice—and so every theory must presuppose some way for theorization to lead to truth or else give up the very idea of truth. Just so, one can judge among contradictory and incommensurable theories by judging which theories least contradict themselves when put into practice. He is also interested in the philosophy of science, especially the philosophy of biology.

Mr. Sportiello has participated in international conferences and has delivered invited talks at Notre Dame—one before the Philosophy and History Workshop and another before the Department of Philosophy. With Jessica Hellmann—professor of biology at Notre Dame and former NDIAS Fellow—he is author of “Branches of the Same Tree: Toward a Scientific Reflection upon Value,” forthcoming in the revised edition of the NDIAS anthology, The Idea of a Catholic Institute for Advanced Study. With the Notre Dame Evolution Working Group, he has published reviews of Brian Boyd’s On the Origin of Stories and Elliott Sober’s Did Darwin Write the Origin Backwards? He has another review—one of Stanley Cavell’s This New Yet Unapproachable America—forthcoming in American Political Thought.

Mr. Sportiello has received both the Outstanding Graduate Instructor Award from Notre Dame’s Graduate Student Union and the Outstanding Graduate Student Teacher Award from Notre Dame’s Kaneb Center for Teaching and Learning. He has received a Notebaert Professional Development Award from Notre Dame’s Graduate School and a Graduate Student Professional Development Award from Notre Dame’s Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts. He is a member of the International Society for MacIntyrean Enquiry.

20

ndias Quarterly Spring 2014

2014-2015 fellows continued...

Kimba Allie Tichenor, University of Chicago Residential Fellow at the NDIAS (2014-2015) “Trouble with Women: The Catholic Church and Gender Politics in Northern Europe, 1959-2000” Allie Tichenor is an historian at the University of Chicago. She specializes in twentieth-century German history, gender and sexuality, and twentieth-century Catholicism. She is currently under contract for the German to English translation for the third volume of the Cambridge History of the Second World War. Her article “Defending Unborn Life in the Secular Age: The Catholic Church and the West German Abortion, 1969-1989” will appear in the Journal of European History. She has written numerous scholarly reviews for H-German Net, as well as completed German to English translations for several edited volumes.

Dr. Tichenor’s research has been supported by grants from the Mellon Foundation, the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), and the Institute for European History in Mainz, Germany (IEG). She has previously organized panels and presented papers at the annual conferences of the German Studies Association (GSA), the Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association (PCA/ACA), and the Nineteenth Century Studies Association, as well as given an invited presentation at the Ruhr-Universität Bochum.

call for fellows The Notre Dame Institute for Advanced Study offers three types of fellowships for which individuals with projects of promise may apply: • Templeton Fellowships for distinguished senior scholars with extensive records of academic accomplishment. Applicants must answer one of four questions that integrate religion, science, and the academic disciplines.

• Residential Fellowships for faculty and scholars in all disciplines—including the arts, engineering, the humanities, and the social, life, and physical sciences—with projects that are creative, innovative, or align with the intellectual orientation of the Notre Dame Institute for Advanced Study.

• Graduate Student Fellowships for a full academic year (fall and spring semesters). As with Residential Fellowships, the Institute encourages graduate student fellows to address ultimate questions and questions of value.

2015-2016 online Fellowship applications are now available on the NDIAS website. For more information, visit ndias.nd.edu/fellowships.

NDIAS Quarterly Spring 2014

21

an historian’s perspective: evaluating what is & what ought to be

by Paolo L. Bernardini Spring 2011 NDIAS Fellow

Professor of Early Modern European History Insubria University, Italy For an historian, the question of the relationship between what is and what ought to be is, apparently, a false question. Since historiography is not immediately a normative science, and since it deals exclusively with the past, the question, here, is void of significance. “What ought to be”, however, can always be rephrased, in the world of historians, as “what ought to have been?” But once again, if we exclude the normative dimensions of inquiry, the best rephrasing would be “what might have been,” or “what might have happened,” “if.…” By way of this rephrasing, we enter the lively realm of counter-factual historiography. Douglass North and Robert Vogel shared, in 1993, the Nobel Prize in Economics, a rare achievement for historians, although they work on economic history and base most of their research on counter-factual historiography as it relates to cliometrics. This is not, however, by any means the end of the story. If there is normative space left for historiography, this includes the moral judgment on individuals and their actions in the past.

For a Catholic, i.e., anti-relativist historian, for someone who deems that “truth is there and matters!” moral judgment is fundamental. Historiography is not, or ought not simply to be made by competing “narratives,” void of any moral statement, by a sort of post-modern retelling of dead men and dead action.

The Hayden White paradigm is since long dead. So, the question of “what ought to be” within the univocal and universal system of morality, is a question that the historian should apply to her/his own subjects first, considering that only humans are active subjects in morals, or, told otherwise, “things do not commit sins….” There is therefore a great value in exploring the “roads not taken” by historical figures, for one road was always taken, leaving, at that time, a wide range of roads-not-taken, a high, indefinite, number of unexplored possibilities. The question is therefore central to human agency in historical perspective.

As Nietzsche put it, “the bitterest sorrow for the human will is its inability to change the past.” But the reflection on the possibilities offered and excluded in the course of the millennial past of mankind can turn history into a normative science, in a new way, different from the classical “historia magistra vitae.” Vico’s assumption, “verum ipsum factum,” “only the actual fact is true,” should be taken cautiously: “verum” is only a fact that actually happened according to universal morality. So, a fact that indeed happened can be “true” ontologically, but morally “false.” This is a possible tension between what is and what ought to be in historiography. It ultimately demonstrates that historiography can turn once again into a moral science.

Dr. Bernardini’s research has focused on modern and early modern European history, Euro-Jewish history, and the history of political thought. Prior to his current post at Insubria University, he directed the Boston University Center for Italian and European Studies located in Padova, Italy. He is the author or editor of more than 35 books in Italian and English and more than 100 scholarly articles.

22

NDIAS Quarterly Spring 2014

interview with justin biddle

by Grant Osborn

Justin Biddle was a fellow at the NDIAS this spring 2014, researching “Intellectual Property Rights and the Social Control of Information: The Case of Genetically Modified Seeds.” He is currently an assistant professor in the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology, where he specializes in philosophy of science, bioethics, and philosophy of food.

GO: Justin, your research at the NDIAS this past semester focused on the intellectual property rights of genetically modified seeds. Can you explain your research project and its basic hypotheses?

JB: Genetically modified (GM) crops—or crops that are genetically modified via recombinant DNA technologies— have been the subject of intense controversy worldwide.

Some critics argue that GM crops are “unnatural” and thus should not be produced; others argue that they pose significant environmental and/or health risks. Proponents respond that GM crops are no less natural than crops that have been genetically modified using classical breeding techniques, and they accuse critics of exaggerating environmental and health risks. Additionally, they argue that the technology has the potential to benefit humanity in numerous ways. The controversy has led many countries to ban the production of GM crops. In the United States, there is a growing movement to require that foods containing GM ingredients be labeled as such.

My project focuses on a different and less discussed aspect of GM crops—it examines the effects of patenting and licensing on the ability of independent scientists to study the effects of the crops. Because of the ways in which GM seeds are engineered, they are considered to be inventions and hence patentable. In order for third parties to obtain access to them, they must sign license agreements that stipulate the ways in which they may and may not use the seeds. The element of these license agreements that has elicited the most discussion is the prohibition on seed saving: farmers who plant GM crops may not save the seeds and replant them the next growing season. My project focuses on a standard component of license agreements that has received much less attention— namely the prohibition on research. Third parties—including university scientists—that purchase GM seeds are in most cases contractually prohibited from doing research on those seeds.

Not surprisingly, there are serious worries that license agreements unduly limit our knowledge of the effects of GM crops. This was brought to light in 2009, when a number of

leading agricultural researchers working at public research universities in the United States wrote a letter to a federal scientific advisory panel, stating that license agreements (or “technology/stewardship agreements”) were inhibiting their ability to fulfill their duties as researchers: “Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology….”

Personally, I believe that GM crops have great potential— in a world that is facing the threats of global climate change and overpopulation, we need to draw upon whatever resources we can to ensure a sufficient, stable, and sustainable food supply. At the same time, we need to ensure that any technologies introduced to the environment (including, but not limited to, GM crops) are accessible to scientists, so that their effects can be properly examined.

In my project, I argue that this is currently not the case with GM seeds and I posit solutions in the legal and policy realms to address this problem.

GO: What influence has the NDIAS, with its emphasis on questions of value, meaning, and purpose, and on bridging the gap between the descriptive and the normative, had on the types of questions you now ask as a researcher?

JB: Questions of value, meaning, and purpose are essential. While this is generally recognized in the humanities, there are some in the sciences and engineering

NDIAS Quarterly Spring 2014

who are reluctant to engage these issues. In these areas, the development of new methods and technologies are often evaluated solely on technical grounds, or perhaps on economic grounds as well. This attitude suggests that if we can do something, and if there is a market for that something, then we should do it. But this attitude neglects a range of considerations—including ethical, social, cultural, and religious—that deserve attention and, given the increasing importance of science and technology in our lives, it is imperative that we highlight such considerations and examine their implications.

The case of GM crops provides an illustration of the importance of value considerations. In the debate over GM crops, many proponents evaluate the technology solely in technical terms; they argue, for example, that GM crops do not pose risks to human health and that their risks to the environment are minimal and manageable. In my view, these arguments are largely persuasive—but they neglect other issues that deserve attention. Why should we pursue genetic modification in the first place (if indeed we should)?

Is the purpose of these crops merely to increase the profits of seed companies, or is it also to benefit humanity? If the latter, then how should the technology be controlled?

Should seed companies have the ability to prohibit independent scientists from studying the technology, in the way that they currently do? If not, what can be done to ensure broader access? These are important questions, and answering them requires that we expand our focus beyond the narrowly technical and economic, to broader considerations of value, meaning, and purpose.

Given the increasing specialization within academia, there are too few spaces that encourage bridging the gap between the descriptive and the normative and, in the case of science and technology, facilitate explicit consideration of value dimensions. NDIAS is noteworthy for doing just this.

These presentations required me to rethink my work so as to make it accessible to scholars with different backgrounds and perspectives. I found these undertakings particularly challenging because in today’s academic landscape most are trained to work in silos and to speak and write primarily to others within one’s field. However, the seminars proved incredibly rewarding for me and the other fellows because they led us to consider questions, criteria, perspectives, and solutions that might not otherwise have been apparent.

This is a valuable thing for specialist academics to do, and the weekly NDIAS seminars are a great vehicle for encouraging this.

GO: As a former History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) graduate student at the University of Notre Dame, did you ever imagine you would return to the University in a professional capacity? How do you think your time as an NDIAS fellow was shaped by your previous familiarity and experiences as a student? How has your perception of the University been changed by your time as an NDIAS fellow?

JB: I had a great experience as a graduate student in HPS at Notre Dame, so I certainly hoped that I would have the opportunity to return to Notre Dame in a professional capacity (not just for football games!). When I was a graduate student, however, NDIAS did not yet exist. My experience as a graduate student made it easy for me to connect with faculty around campus, but the staff at NDIAS made a point of encouraging me to make contacts with faculty in other departments whom I did not already know.

Doing this was extremely beneficial for me. In particular, I established relationships with faculty from the Notre Dame Law School, including the Patent Law Program, and the Department of Biological Sciences that have been very helpful for me in my research. My collaborations with these faculty are ongoing, and hopefully more will follow.

From my time as a graduate student at Notre Dame, I already had a high opinion of the University. My time as an NDIAS fellow has further confirmed this. In particular, it has confirmed my view that Notre Dame is one of the few places in the country that encourages interdisciplinary research that involves explicit and serious considerations of the value dimensions of inquiry. I have no doubt that the NDIAS will continue to thrive as a high-level research institution, bettering the University and all who have the privilege of serving there as fellows.

‘‘I have no doubt that the NDIAS will

continue to thrive as a high-level research institution, bettering the University and all who have the privilege of serving there as fellows.’’

GO: How critical to your NDIAS experience (and your ongoing research) was the opportunity to present your research to an interdisciplinary group of scholars at our weekly seminars?

JB: It was a great pleasure to present my research to an interdisciplinary group at NDIAS. Presenting my research to a such a wide-ranging group of scholars—including researchers on the cultural aspects of evolution, the foundations of neuroscience, the Dead Sea scrolls, severe global poverty, early modern English literature, and the nature of sacrifice—was both challenging and rewarding.

23

***

24

ndias Quarterly SPRING 2014

spring 2014 in photos

Top Left: Templeton Fellow Jon Marks with undergraduate assistants Iona Hughan and Sean Gaudio; Top Right: Director Brad Gregory introduces the Fellows at the spring welcome reception; Center Left: Fellow Carl Gillett presents at a weekly seminar; Center Right: Commissioned portrait of Socrates painted by Maxim Kantor; Bottom Left: Anita Pampusch (L), an NDIAS benefactor, and Fr. Emmanuel Katongole (R) in seminar; Bottom Right: Fellows Cleo Kearns (presenting) & Margaret Garvey.

NDIAS Quarterly SPRING 2014

25

Top Left: Fellow Justin Biddle (fore) taking notes at a Templeton Colloquium; Top Right: NDIAS staff and undergraduates meet to discuss Templeton Undergraduate Research Assistantships and opportunities for engagement; Center: Thomas Pfau addresses his book Minding the Modern with graduate students; Bottom Left: Templeton Fellow Douglas Hedley (R) with undergraduate assistant Sarah Lovejoy (L); Bottom Right: John Womack (L) after his NDIAS lecture at the Jordan Hall of Science.

26

NDIAS Quarterly Spring 2014

summer graduate student seminar with christian smith

O

n campus the second week of June, the Notre Dame Institute for Advanced Study is hosting a Graduate Student Summer Seminar, titled “What is a Person?—Implications for Academic Scholarship,” led by Christian Smith, the William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of Sociology and Director of the Notre Dame Center for Social Research. Christian Smith also serves on the NDIAS Steering Committee.

Over the course of this week-long seminar, Christian Smith and sixteen graduate students, hailing from six different countries (i.e., Australia, Finland, Poland, Ukraine, UK, and US) and with educational backgrounds in a myriad of disciplines (including Anthropology, Biology, Business, Economics, Education, Ethics, History, Human-Computer Interaction, Law, Philosophy, Psychology, Religious Studies, Sociology, and Theology), will examine and discuss numerous questions on personhood and scholarship, including among others: • What do different disciplines presuppose or argue about human beings, agents, actors?

• What counts for being a “person” and what implications flow from that?

• What difference does it make in the nature of scholarship that is conducted and the findings that are produced?

• What, if anything, is distinctive about human persons?

This seminar will thoroughly explore assumptions about the nature of human beings that inform academic scholarship in various fields. While Christian Smith approaches these questions from the perspective of the theory of critical realist personalism as it relates to social science, the students in the seminar will have the opportunity to engage questions of human personhood more broadly, bringing their own expertise, perspectives, and methodologies to bear.

The selection process for this graduate student seminar was highly competitive, with those selected of a very high caliber and great promise. The sixteen students participating are: Tyler Atkinson, Assistant Professor of Religion at Bethany College, Lindsborg, Kansas. Tyler’s research and teaching interests include Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, theological and philosophical ethics, and historical and doctrinal theology. Having previously earned an M.Div. at Duke Divinity School, he graduated with a Ph.D. from the University of Aberdeen in November, 2013.

Josh Chen, Ph.D. student in Sociology, University of Virginia. Josh’s research and teaching interests include cultural sociology, moral economy, stratification, race and ethnicity, poverty, and social justice. He is interested in the dialectical relationship between the moral basis of social relations and the social basis of moral relations.

Travis Warren Cooper, Associate Instructor in Religious Studies and Ph.D. student in Anthropology and Religious Studies, Indiana University. Cooper’s research and teaching interests include method and theory in the study of religion, anthropology and ethnography of American religion, social theory, religious experience, and religion and the body.

Jessica Driesenga, Ph.D. student in Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary. Her primary research interests are in 19th century Dutch neoCalvinist ethics, particularly the ethics of Herman Bavinck. She has degrees in Religion and Biology from Calvin College, along with an M.Div. from Calvin Theological Seminary.

NDIAS Quarterly Spring 2014

Samantha Jaroszewski, Ph.D. student in Sociology at Princeton University. Her research interests include the study of religion, gender, and well-being. She is an associate fellow at Princeton’s Center for the Study of Religion and participant in its Religious and Public Life seminar.

Ximena Leroux, first year doctoral student of Sociology at Emory University. She is interested in religion, health, and their intersections. Ms. Leroux holds a B.S. from MIT and an M.B.A. from INSEAD. She worked in management consulting with McKinsey & Co. in Deloitte, completing projects in Mexico City, Panama City, Atlanta, and Madrid.

Jonathan Lett, Ph.D. candidate in Systematic Theology at the University of St. Andrews and a recipient of a 600th Anniversary Ph.D. Scholarship.

He is currently a visiting scholar at Duke Divinity School, where he previously earned his M.Div. His research focuses on the intersection of theological anthropology, the doctrine of creation, and human identity.

Viktor Poletko, M.Phil. student in the Institute of Philosophy at the KU Leuven (Belgium). In 2012 he graduated from the Ukrainian Catholic University with an M.A. in Theology. He also studied Economics at the Lviv National Polytech University. This combination of applied sciences and humanities serves as a drive for his research.

Tricia Ross, Ph.D. candidate in History at Duke University. Her research and teaching interests include the history and philosophy of religion and science.

In her dissertation, she explores the significance of theological and medical discourses about the relationship of body and soul in the theory and practice of early modern European medicine and devotion.

Timothy Rutzou, an Australian doctoral student at the Institute of Education in the University of London. His research interests include critical realism, post-structuralism, Marxism, and the sociology of religion in relation to world building and the problem of emancipation.

Andrew Lynn, Ph.D. student in Sociology at the University of Virginia. His sociological interests include sociology of morality, religion, and social change.

He is currently in the early stages of his dissertation on how actors negotiate institutions and settings that conflict with their moral ambitions, looking specifically at the cultural and moral dimensions of the workplace.

Jon Kara Shields, first year of doctoral study in Moral Theology at the University of Notre Dame where she is a recipient of the University Presidential Fellowship. She recently completed her M.Div. at Yale Divinity School. Her research interests include philosophical theology, ethics, moral communities and formation, ecclesiology, and philosophy of religion.

Chris Martin, Ph.D. candidate in Sociology at Emory University. He holds a Master’s degree in Psychology from the College of William and Mary, and a Master’s degree in Human-Computer Interaction from the Georgia Institute of Technology. In his dissertation, he will likely examine how gene expression varies based on subjective assessments of social and political well-being.

David Torrance, born in New Zealand but grew up in Scotland. He studied for a Masters at the University of Edinburgh, then Cambridge for a Ph.D. He is writing his thesis on the topic of kinship in Christian theological perspective. He has recently been accepted as a candidate for ordination in the Church of England.

Päivi Johanna Neuvonen, a Finnish postdoctoral research fellow at the Policy Research Centre on Equality Policies at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium. Her research interests include European human rights law, anti-discrimination law, and legal philosophy. She has a D.Phil. in Law from Oxford.

27

Karol Wilczyński, Ph.D. candidate in Philosophy at Jagiellonian University (Kraków, Poland). His research and teaching interests include ancient and medieval philosophy, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of education.

For more information, visit: ndias.nd.edu/student-engagement/summer-seminars/.

28

NDIAS QUARTERLY Spring 2014

alumni fellow news Mark Alfano *mark Alfano, 2011-2012 NDIAS Fellow, has founded an interdisciplinary research group on “The Scientific Study of Values” at the University of Oregon. *Additionally, he has joined the editorial board of the Journal of Value Inquiry. *Mark was recently bestowed with the University of Oregon Faculty Research Award. *In addition, Mark Alfano is pleased to announce the following publications: +Monograph: • Nietzsche’s Socio-Moral Psychology, Cambridge (under contract). +Peer-reviewed articles: • “An enchanting abundance of types: Nietzsche’s modest unity of virtue thesis.” Journal of Value Inquiry (forthcoming).

• “Reversing the side-effect effect: The power of salient norms.” (Co-authored with Paul Stey (ND) and Brian Robinson (GVSU).) Philosophical Studies (forthcoming). +Chapters in edited volumes: • “Friendship and the Structure of Trust.” In Webber & Masala, The Architecture of Personality and Ethical Virtue, Oxford (forthcoming).

• “The extended character hypothesis.” (Co-authored with August Skorburg.) In Kilverstein, Philosophy of the Social Mind, Routledge (forthcoming).

• “Mapping human values.” (Co-authored with Andrew Higgins and Jacob Levernier). In Kahle, Social and Cultural Values in a Global and Digital Age (forthcoming).

Karl Ameriks *During the 2013-2014 academic year, KARL AMERIKS, 2010-2011 NDIAS Fellow, was selected as the 20142015 winner of the Walter de Gruyter Stiftung Kant Lecture Prize. Upon receiving the prize he will present a lecture at the Eastern Division American Philosophical Association meetings, December 2014. *In the fall term, he presented a talk at Denver for the German Studies Association, and at Notre Dame for the Workshop on History and Philosophy (“History, Idealism, and Schelling”), and at Brown University (“On the Many Senses of ‘Self-Determination’”). In the spring term he participated in sessions of the Reinhold Edition board

(Basel), the Pacific meeting of the American Society for Aesthetics (“On a Steadfast Response to Disagreement about Beauty,” Pacific Grove) and the American Philosophical Association (San Diego). * In addition to editing The Impact of Idealism. The Legacy of Post-Kantian German Thought, vol. 1: Philosophy and Natural Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), vi + 431pp., he published: • “Introduction: Idealism in the Natural Sciences and Philosophy,” in The Impact of Idealism, 62-70.

• “Kant’s Ambivalent Cosmopolitanism,” in Kant und die Philosophie in weltbürgerlicher Absicht. Akten des XI. International Kant-Kongresses 2010, vol. 1., ed. Bacin, S., Ferrarin, A., La Rocca, C., Ruffing, M. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 55-72.

• “On ‘Kritik und Moral’,” in Übergänge - diskursiv oder intuitiv?: Essays zu Eckart Försters “Die 25 Jahre der Philosophie,” ed. J. Haag and M. Wild (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 2013), 59-80.

• “History, Succession, and German Romanticism,” in German Romantic Philosophy: The Relevance of Early Romanticism, ed. D. Nassar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 47-67.

• “Kant, Miracles, and Religion, Parts One and Two,” in Kant’s ‘Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason’: A Critical Guide, ed. G. Michalson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 137-55.

Elise Berman *Elise Berman, Spring 2013 NDIAS Fellow, has two new publications coming out in the fall: • “Holding On: Adoption, Kinship Tensions, and Pregnancy in the Marshall Islands.”

American Anthropologist (forthcoming).

• “Negotiating Age: Direct Speech and the Sociolinguistic Construction of Childhood in the Marshall Islands.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology (forthcoming).

Eric Bugyis *Beginning this fall, Eric Bugyis, Fall 2010 NDIAS Graduate Student Fellow & 2013-2014 NDIAS Undergraduate Research Coordinator, will serve as Lecturer in Religious Studies in the Division of Politics, Philosophy, and Public Affairs of the School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences at the University of Washington Tacoma.

NDIAS Quarterly Spring 2014

Costica Bradatan *This summer, Costica Bradatan, Fall 2012 NDIAS Fellow, will be a visiting research fellow at the Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture in Nagoya, Japan, where he will start working on a new book, In Praise of Failure. *In addition, Costica is pleased to announce the publication of two edited volumes: • Philosophy as a Literary Art. Making Things Up (London: Routledge, 2014), 128 pp.

• (with Camil Ungureanu), Religion in Contemporary European Cinema. The Postsecular Constellation (London: Routledge, 2014), 222 pp.

Melissa Dinsman *Melissa Dinsman, 2012-2013 NDIAS Graduate Student Fellow, has been appointed Project Manager of Academic Digital Initiatives with the newly formed Office of Digital Learning, which is connected to the Provost’s Office at Notre Dame. *Additional congratulations are in order as Melissa and her husband Josh welcomed a second baby boy, Luke, to their family in December. *Melissa Dinsman is also pleased to announce that her book Modernism at the Microphone: Radio, Propaganda, Literary Aesthetics during World War II is now under contract. *Her article, “Militarizing the Messiah: Britain’s Wartime Re-Branding in The Man Born to Be King,” is forthcoming in January 2015 in The Space Between. *Additionally, Melissa is currently working on and presenting research from her second book project, tentatively titled America’s Blitz.

Eugenia Gorogianni *Eugenia Gorogianni, Spring 2012 NDIAS Fellow, has been awarded the 2014 Archaeological Institute of America Outreach Grant for the Akron/Kent Archaeological Institute of America Chapter Outreach event “A Taste of Ancient Greece and Rome.” *Eugenia (with P. Pavúk, and L. Girella) is in the process of editing Beyond Thalassocracies. Understanding Processes of Minoanisation and Mycenaeanisation in the Aegean. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

29

*Eugenia Gorogianni is also pleased to announce the following publications: • (with N. Abell) Forthcoming. “Insularity and Cosmopolitanism in Ayia Irini, Kea,” In Island, Mainland, Coastland & Hinterland Ceramic Perspectives on Connectivity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Conference at the University of Amsterdam, February 1-3, 2013, edited by Kotsonas, A. and J. Hilditch. (Submitted, September 2013, 6118 words plus bibliography) • Forthcoming. “Social Complexity in MBA and LBA Cyclades: A View from Ayia Irini,” In Explaining Change in Aegean Prehistory. Conference at the University of Groningen, Netherlands, 17-18 October 2013. (Submitted, April 2014, 7857 words plus bibliography) • 2013. “Site in Transition: John L. Caskey, Ayia Irini and Archaeological Practice in Greek Archaeology,” Aegean Archaeology 10 (2009-2010), 105-120.

• 2013. Review of Brogan, T.M. & Hallager, E. (eds.), 2011. LM IB Pottery: Relative Chronology and Regional Differences. Acts of a Workshop Held at the Danish Institute at Athens in Collaboration with the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete, 27-29 June 2007, (2 vols), Athens: The Danish Institute at Athens (http://goo.gl/vaDrPs).

Ulrich Lehner *Ulrich Lehner, Fall 2010 NDIAS Fellow, won a distinguished Humboldt Fellowship for experienced researchers. This fellowship will sponsor Dr. Lehner’s research in Germany from 2015 to 2018. * Moreover, he published the book Catholicism and Enlightenment. A Transnational History (University of Notre Dame Press, 2014)—a collection of 22 essays on the Catholic Enlightenment. (http://goo.gl/IhqDNq) *Ulrich Lehner also recently published three articles: • “Apocalypse, Enlightenment and the Beginning of Salvation History. The Ecumenical Friendship between Johann Jakob Hess and Aloysius Sandbichler.” Pro Ecclesia 13 (2014): 219–237.

• “Apocalypse 2014? Alphonsus Frey’s Futurist Commentary on Revelation (1762),” Journal of Baroque Studies 2 (2014).

• “Die Verketzerungssucht der Obskurantisten. Die Feinde der katholischen Aufklärung aus der Sicht ihrer Opfer,” Reimund Haas (Hg.), Fiat Voluntas Tua. Festschrift Harm Klueting (Munster: Aschendorff, 2014), 415–429.

30

NDIAS QUARTERLY Spring 2014

alumni fellow news continued . . .

Vincent Lloyd *Vincent Lloyd, 2012-2013 NDIAS Fellow, recently published “Thick or Thin? Liberal Protestant Public Theology,” Journal of Religious Ethics 42:2 (June 2014), 335-356.

Adriana Méndez *Adriana Méndez Rodenas, Spring 2012 NDIAS Fellow, has been selected to participate in an NEH summer institute, an interdisciplinary seminar on “Mapping Nature Across the Americas,” which will take place July 14-Aug 15 at the Newberry Library in Chicago. There she will work on “From Paradise to Diaspora: Natural History in the Americas,” her NDIAS research project. Adriana will have a sabbatical from University of Iowa next fall, time which she will dedicate to this book. *Adriana Méndez Rodenas is also excited to announce the recent publication of her book, Transatlantic Travels in Nineteenth-Century Latin America: European Women Pilgrims (in the Bucknell Studies in Latin American Literature and Theory series, with Anibal González serving as the General Editor) (http://www.bucknell. edu/script/upress/book.asp?id=2481).

Gladden Pappin *Gladden Pappin, Fall 2013 NDIAS Fellow, will pursue research and teaching at the University of Notre Dame in the 2014-2015 academic year. *In addition, he recently published: • “Liberal Imperialism and Liberal Anxiety.” Review of The Making of Modern Liberalism, by Alan Ryan.

Modern Age 56, no. 2 (Spring 2014): 59-62.

• Laura Porter

*Laura Rominger Porter, 20112012 NDIAS Graduate Student Fellow, received but declined an offer for the Lilly Postdoctoral Fellowship at Valparaiso University. Instead, she accepted a teaching position with the Religion and History Departments at the University of Florida.

Scott Shackelford *On May 20, 2014, Emily and Scott Shackelford, Fall 2013 NDIAS Fellow, welcomed their second daughter, Samantha Marie, into the world. Congratulations to the growing family!

Alexis Torrance *Alexis Torrance, Fall 2010 NDIAS Fellow, accepted a position as Assistant Professor of Byzantine Theology in the Department of Theology, University of Notre Dame. *Alexis also published a co-edited volume (with J. Zachhuber) entitled Individuality in Late Antiquity (Ashgate, 2014). (http://goo.gl/wBA46z) ***

Special Thanks to Don Kommers *Donald P. Kommers, Joseph and Elizabeth Robbie Professor of Political Science and Concurrent Professor Emeritus of Law, donated over two hundred books from his personal collection to the NDIAS library. We are incredibly grateful for his generous gift.

publication showcase

NDIAS Quarterly Spring 2014

31

For more information on this book, please visit http://undpress.nd.edu/book/P03110 or contact Kathryn Pitts at pitts.5@nd.edu.

NDIASbooks

U

lrich L. Lehner, Fall 2010 NDIAS Fellow and associate professor of theology at Marquette University, and Jeffrey D. Burson, assistant professor of history at Georgia Southern University, have edited a new book titled Enlightenment and Catholicism in Europe: A Transnational History. In this volume, the contributors, primarily European scholars, provide intellectual biographies of twenty Catholic Enlightenment figures across eighteenth-century Europe, many of them little known in English-language scholarship on the Enlightenment and pre-revolutionary eras. These figures represent not only familiar French intellectuals of the Catholic Enlightenment but also Iberian, Italian, English, Polish, and German thinkers. The essays focus on the intellectual and cultural factors influencing the lives and works of their subjects, revealing the often global networks of intellectual sociability and reading that united them both to the Catholic Enlightenment and to eighteenth-century policies and projects. The volume, whose purpose is to advance the understanding of a transnational “Catholic Enlightenment,” will be a reliable reference for historians, theologians, and scholars working in religious studies.

Contributors: Carolina Armenteros, Jeffrey D. Burson, Caroline Chopelin-Blanc, Gabriel Glickman, Mark Goldie, Niccolò Guasti, Ulrich L. Lehner, Jerzy Lukowski, Anna Lysiak-Latkowska, Massimo Mazzotti, Thomas O’Connor, Ritchie Robertson, Mario Rosa, Francisco Sánchez-Blanco, Andrea J. Smidt, Dries Vanysacker, Paola Vismara, Thomas Wallnig, and Jonathan A. Wright “An undoubted landmark in Enlightenment studies, this is certainly the best volume that we have in English on the ‘Catholic Enlightenment.’” — Jonathan I. Israel, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton “The nature of the interaction between established religion and Europe’s Enlightenment remains deeply problematical.

This notably well-planned collection of studies of well-known and less familiar figures brings the Catholic Enlightenment squarely into focus. Nuanced, informative, and wide-ranging, it provides the best introduction currently available to a central topic in eighteenth-century European history.” — Hamish Scott, University of Glasgow “This is a compelling collection on an important subject. Its transnational and biographical approach helps one to see eighteenth-century Catholicism and the Enlightenment itself in fresh and interesting ways.” — Darrin M. McMahon, Florida State University

Enlightenment and Catholicism in Europe: A Transnational History is available as a softback and e-book from the University of Notre Dame Press. To purchase the book or read more: undpress.nd.edu/book/P03110.

Nonprofit Org. US Postage Paid Notre Dame, IN 46556 Permit No. 10 Notre Dame Institute for Advanced Study 1124 Flanner Hall University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556 ndias.nd.edu