{"id":117,"date":"2021-10-18T08:03:58","date_gmt":"2021-10-18T12:03:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/know-women-in-philosophy\/?p=117"},"modified":"2021-10-20T12:15:14","modified_gmt":"2021-10-20T16:15:14","slug":"sincerely-yours-alice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/know-women-in-philosophy\/sincerely-yours-alice\/","title":{"rendered":"Sincerely Yours, Alice"},"content":{"rendered":"

In this episode, we get a glimpse into the life and character of Alice Ambrose. From looking at two letters from 1988 and 1991, what can we learn about Alice? We dig into her correspondences, looking at why she reached out, the language that she uses, and her overall tone.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

References<\/h2>\n

Alice Ambrose Lazerowitz Papers, Smith College Archives, CA-MS-00101, Smith College Special Collections, Northampton, Massachusetts. https:\/\/findingaids.smith.edu\/repositories\/4\/archival_objects\/337981 Accessed October 13, 2021.<\/p>\n

Image from https:\/\/www.pdcnet.org\/apapa\/content\/apapa_2013_0352_0352_252<\/p>\n

Transcript<\/h2>\n

Posey: Hello and welcome to <\/span>kNOw Women in Philosophy, <\/span><\/i>the podcast which dispels the myth that there are no women in philosophy. I\u2019m Posey Lester-Niles.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nathalie: And I\u2019m Nathalie Trouba. This is our first season: <\/span>Alice Analysis<\/span><\/i>, where we explore Alice Ambrose Lazerowitz, a former professor of philosophy at Smith College.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Posey: In this episode, we\u2019re going to talk about\u2026 letters, specifically archival letters written by Alice herself. But who is Alice?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Nathalie:<\/span> She worked in the Philosophy Department with a focus on Logic. Her time at Smith was seemingly never-ending as after rising through the ranks of higher education Alice retired in 1972 only to return to lecturing, right here at Smith College. She mentions her position as an Emeritus Professor in the closing of each of her letters, clearly taking pride in her career.<\/span><\/p>\n

To put context to these letters, they came after her retirement from teaching at Smith College, where she was still living in Northampton. Her husband, Morris Lazerowitz, had passed away two years prior to our first letter. Many of these letters were written with a typewriter on the back of scrap paper and old flyers. These spanned from Smith philosophy club advertisements to a bankruptcy court notice of appointment.<\/span><\/p>\n

Posey: We found a connection to Alice in the letters from her archive written in the late eighties and early nineties to senators and activists regarding issues she felt important to voice her opinions on. We felt that her personality really shone through in her writing, and painted a picture of who Alice was in essence.<\/span><\/p>\n

And we also have to remember that these letters come after her long career in philosophy, where she was one of the most prominent women in the field at this time – that surely has an effect on how she phrases things and portrays herself in these letters.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the first letter we are going to look at, Alice is writing to Mr. Roger McManus, the president of the Center for Environmental Education in Washington, DC. The date on the letter is September 26th, 1988 and it was sent from her home on Vernon St. in Northampton.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Nathalie: I remember visiting this home, quaint and near the college – you can definitely imagine her writing all these letters there.<\/span><\/p>\n

Posey: She is writing to Mr. Mcmanus in response to a letter she received from the Center for Environmental Education about a lapsed donation. She starts by saying, \u201cI am writing to object to your letter.\u201d\u00a0 Then, \u201caccording to my records, my total contribution for 1988 is $50.\u201d She directly addresses the president of the organization, tells him exactly why she is writing, <\/span>and <\/span><\/i>gives proof of his mistake. We can see here that Alice is financially organized, from her reference to records, and she is willing to invest time into communication to higher-ups about problems. This shows motivation and responsibility.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

She continues by clearly stating her feedback for the organization. \u201cYou presumably have staff who are <\/span>paid<\/span> to keep accurate records of contributions; this should not be my responsibility.\u201d and that \u201cI hope you will take this criticism seriously.\u201d\u00a0 Alice lastly signs the letter with her name and position, \u201cEmeritus Professor of Philosophy\u201d. She takes pride in her former career and insights that educational status will give her letter even more umph<\/em>, beyond just the delicately chosen words.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In this letter, I see someone who is concise, evidence-based, well adjusted to her priorities, and passionate about her values. She offers constructive feedback to an organization rather than just letting her donation subscription lapse, proving the determined aspect of Alice.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Nathalie: The other letter, sent in January of 1991, is addressed to the Connecticut State Senator Joe Lieberman in regards to his lack of care towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict happening at the time. This is probably the most critical letter of the three, and also the shortest; she packs a lot in there. She uses LOTS of strong, assertive, and expressive language to get her point across:\u00a0 \u201cCount the casualties,\u201d she says, \u201cRemember the slaughter.\u201d It shows how Alice is unafraid to speak her mind on these types of issues.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now Alice is not a professor of government – maybe she doesn\u2019t fully understand military tactics or how to handle this problem herself – but she IS a professor of philosophy and we can see her playing directly on Senator Lieberman\u2019s morals to demand an explanation for what she sees as appalling. Because yes, while she\u2019s not a government professor, we already know that she is VERY well informed about the state of her country and the world.\u00a0 Calling into question his morals and using pathos to firmly demand he change his mind, she ends with \u201cNothing is being done to halt the escalation of hatred.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Posey: And how does she sign it?<\/span><\/p>\n

Nathalie: Sincerely Yours, <\/em><\/span>Alice A Lazerowitz, <\/span>Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, <\/span>Smith College.<\/span><\/em>\u00a0<\/em>So what can we gather from these letters? Well, they paint a pretty clear picture of Alice.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

.Posey: She\u2019s bold, she\u2019s willing to say what she believes and to argue with men even in positions of power, without folding and trying to pretend to be nice.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Nathalie: She\u2019s informed about the world, involved in the state of affairs, but also curious and willing to learn; she\u2019s reached out to all these senators and leaders to question their opinions and actions, not just criticizing them, but also taking into account their side of the story.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Posey: And she\u2019s not afraid to say what she believes.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Nathalie: Thank you for listening to <\/span>kNOw Women in Philosophy: Alice Analysis.\u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Posey: This episode, <\/span>Sincerely Yours, Alice<\/em>, was created by Posey Lester-Niles and Nathalie Trouba, produced by Madison Whitmore and Ryan Turner, with Smith College and the Podcasts and Archives Seminar.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In this episode, we get a glimpse into the life and character of Alice Ambrose. From looking at two letters from 1988 and 1991, what can we learn about Alice? We dig into her correspondences, looking at why she reached out, the language that she uses, and her overall tone.\u00a0     References Alice Ambrose […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5583,"featured_media":129,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-117","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-season-1"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/know-women-in-philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/know-women-in-philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/know-women-in-philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/know-women-in-philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/know-women-in-philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=117"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/know-women-in-philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":180,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/know-women-in-philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117\/revisions\/180"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/know-women-in-philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/129"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/know-women-in-philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=117"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/know-women-in-philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=117"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/know-women-in-philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=117"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}