Fellow Focus: Teelin Lucero
2024-25 Dissertation Completion Fellow Teelin Lucero recently received her PhD from Emory University in the Department of Philosophy.
In this conversation with Communications & Outreach Coordinator Karl-Mary Akre, Teelin discusses how her research examines agrarian landscapes' impact on colonial conquest and our ideas of American democracy.
KARL-MARY AKRE: Hi Teelin, thank you for taking the time! To start, could you share a brief introduction of what your dissertation research examines?
TEELIN LUCERO: I wrote a dissertation on 20th century German philosopher Martin Heidegger, settler colonialism, and land. In my work, I’m thinking about the relationships between the western philosophical canon and the landscapes it employs or imagines in order to make philosophical claims, as well as how those landscapes and the environmental imaginary emerge from colonial histories and then circulate between colonial contexts and academic disciplines.
And how would you say the Fox Center's 2024-25 theme "Democracy: Past, Present, Future" intersects with your dissertation research?
I’m particularly interested in thinking about how agrarian landscapes feed into both colonial conquest and ideas about American democracy. From quite early on, Thomas Jefferson for example, thought that the vastness of American land—land available for agricultural cultivation and settlement—made the American political experiment unique. The vastness of the American continent was seen as this counterpoint to the constriction of Europe and the constricted political destiny that Europe had ahead of it. And its inability to break free of archaic land relations, feudalism, and social inequalities, in contrast to America’s presumed availability of this vast, expansive continent that was empty and unclaimed.
In a way, this is what allows for American democracy to emerge as this world historical moment. That landscape of “free land” or open wilderness is something that I was also tracking through Heidegger's philosophy. Even though Heidegger's political vision is fundamentally different from American democracy, and there's a vast difference in how it gets deployed, there's a certain utility to the environmental imaginary or perception that inscribes the world with a certain availability. I’m interested in tracking how democracy, in this case, particularly American democracy, depends on presupposing that there is a world available for intrusion or relation or just waiting for us already.
What an interesting lens! My conversation with Michael Allen Patrick also comes to mind because of his examination of urban landscapes through a poetic lens. That said, how has the Fox Center's interdisciplinary environment and the connections you’ve made impacted you and your work?
It's been really helpful to just be able to discuss my work with people outside of my department, because all fields have their canons despite how closely they adhere to them. There is still a shared canon that informs conversations.
My work has already been kind of marginal to whatever we assume is the discipline of philosophy. Even though, of course, we can always argue about what is “in” or “out” of philosophy and how that's defended or defined. But given that my work has an outward orientation, it's been helpful to be able to talk with people like Michael. Even if we don't do the same things at all and we don't have any kind of shared reference, we're interested in many of the same questions and the same philosophical questions permeate our work.
It's also just nice to be able to talk to people about what excites us about our research. I can't tell you about Heidegger's text for X, Y, Z reasons. It's not relevant information to you. So, instead I have to tell you, okay, why do I do what I do?
Right, it feels like those conversations get to the core or essence of your research, the “what” of it. With that in mind, what's been your biggest takeaway from your year at the Fox Center?
How little we prioritize these kinds of conversations in the academy at large. Obviously, there's a big focus on “interdisciplinarity,” but there's not that many spaces like the Fox where you can engage with people who are not in your field or department and just enjoy each other's work. That's something that I noticed in our weekly seminars this year-- it's nice to remember that academics are fundamentally people who are interested in a wide array of topics. Usually, that fact gets siloed or professionalized in certain ways, but being able to be curious and excited about each other's work is so valuable.
If you had to describe the Fox Center in three words, what would they be?
“Curiosity” is huge to me. Everyone that I've met here is genuinely curious and very willing to engage in that level of interest. That's something that I respect more and more. The further I get into the academic world, the next word is “generous.” The Fox Center staff and fellows are all generous with their time and are so welcoming. And along with that, I would say “collegial.” As a graduate student, interacting with undergraduate fellows and faculty fellows from different departments just feels very collegial and non-hierarchical.
And what advice would you give to Emory graduate students who are thinking about applying for the Fox Center's dissertation completion fellowship?
Don't sell yourself short or disqualify yourself in terms of how your research engages the Fox Center theme or if your research is interdisciplinary enough. The useful and powerful aspect of [the fellowship] has been how different everyone is. I think a lot of us this year, like Hubert or Silvia, work very directly on democracy, but many of us do not. “Democracy” is not a keyword that would be high up in how I describe my research, and I think it has been such a pleasant combination of being able to do my work and engage with others. So, I would say approach the fellowship with openness. It's a great way to spend your last year.
This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.