Can you tell us a little about yourself?
“After studying Political Science and Philosophy at the Universiteit van Amsterdam, I taught at the Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies. I always thought it would be fun to teach, and there I could cover all sorts of subjects: from environmental economics to philosophy of science, plus all kinds of interesting honours modules on art and science. After a few years, I started to get itchy feet and I spontaneously responded to a vacancy at VU Amsterdam for a project about what we can learn from each other in times of polarisation. This brings together all kinds of things that I find interesting: political deliberation, epistemology, philosophy of science, education and sociology of law.”
What’s your research about?
“My PhD research focuses on argumentation and deliberation in polarised contexts. How can we still communicate with each other in a world where we seem increasingly different from one another, not only politically and ethically, but also in terms of what we believe in, what we think is true?
“We’re used to thinking that dialogue helps us understand each other better, but psychological research also shows that debates sometimes make us turn against those who disagree with us even more. I don't think it helps to justify your own position, but we should pay attention to the way we talk to each other. That can be done by changing the setting of discussions – for example, in how we arrange the physical spaces where we have conversations with each other. But there’s also much to be gained by paying attention to the personal experiences of the people we’re talking to and by listening to each other’s stories. That helps us to avoid an overly hostile way of speaking to each other and to gain more insight into what motivates the other person.”
How could you inspire other young female scientists with your story and your career so far?
“I think that, in any case, it’s good to recognise that women (but also others) in science still have to fight hard to be seen and heard. In recent years, philosophy has been working extensively with the concept of epistemic injustice. This is the idea that the knowledge and intellectual contributions of some people are still (unjustly) greatly undervalued due to characteristics such as gender and colour. That’s why it’s all the more important that we bring additional support and visibility to this knowledge and that, as academics, we help each other along. For example, by speaking out if we appreciate the work of a female colleague. In doing so, we jointly contribute to an academy in which we believe it’s normal that everyone, regardless of identity, can conduct valuable and inspiring research.”
What advice would you give to yourself if you were 18 years old?
“Trust yourself. It’s especially important for women and others who are still underrepresented in science, politics and social debate to trust that our insights are important and relevant. Self-censorship is still far too common. And that’s a shame, because a lot of knowledge gets lost this way. In short: trust the value of that knowledge, and speak out. Or, as the American philosopher and writer Audre Lorde wrote in her poem A Litany for Survival: “When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard nor welcomed, but when we are silent we are still afraid. So it is better to speak.”
