Past events
Calendar archives
-
Second Session – CRÉ Graduate Fellows’ Seminar @ Room 309, CRE, hybrid
15 h 00 – 16 h 30
You are invited to the second session of the 2025–2026 edition of the CRÉ Graduate Fellows’ Seminar.
On this occasion, Alexandra Stankovich (UdeS) and Olivier Boucher (UdeM) will present their work. Each presentation will last approximately 20 minutes and will be immediately followed by a discussion of about 25 minutes.
The aim of the Seminar is to provide our graduate fellows with constructive feedback and critical discussion in order to help them strengthen their research projects. It also offers them the opportunity to practise delivering an academic presentation in a format comparable to that of scholarly conferences. We very much hope that many of you will join us for this activity, which we intend to be especially formative.
Both presentations will be in French, but questions may be asked either in French or English.
Program
1) 3:00–3:45 p.m. – Presentation by Olivier Boucher, master degree student in philosophie, working under the supervision of Denise Celentano (UdeM).
Limitarisme et limites planétaires
In my presentation, I would like to develop the central problem that will structure my thesis project, which will examine the relevance of limitarian theory in distributive justice for thinking about ecological issues—and, conversely, the relevance of ecological issues for limitarianism.
Limitarianism is a theory of distributive justice which holds that “in the world as it is, no one should have more than a certain amount of certain goods, such as income or wealth” (Robeyns, 2022; my translation). Two main arguments have been advanced in support of this view. The Democratic Argument (DA) claims that any wealth beyond a certain threshold constitutes a threat to political equality and to the stability of democratic regimes (Robeyns, 2022: 184). The Unmet Urgent Needs Argument (UUNA) maintains that any form of wealth beyond a certain threshold should be taxed in order to meet the urgent needs of a significant portion of humanity (Robeyns, 2022: 184).
Environmental concerns are already incorporated into limitarian arguments, but most often only in a secondary way. Yet it seems to me that the treatment of environmental issues within limitarian theory deserves closer examination, for at least three reasons.
First, recent research in environmental science argues that there are absolute “planetary boundaries” that should not be crossed in the exploitation of natural resources if humanity is to remain within a “safe operating space” (Steffen et al., 2023). Recent work has attempted to show the relevance of limitarian arguments for debates in environmental ethics concerning these planetary boundaries (Green, 2023; Bohnenberger, 2025). It thus seems that research on planetary boundaries could strengthen the UUNA, but also the DA, since the integrity of the biosphere is plausibly a condition of possibility not only for meeting human needs, but also for political equality and democracy (Steffen et al., 2023).
Second, it seems plausible that the establishment of limitarian thresholds is more strictly constrained by ecological considerations than by political or economic ones. Indeed, a limitarian threshold that failed to keep humanity within the biosphere’s “safe operating space” would likely also fail to achieve the aims of either the UUNA or the DA. For the ecosystemic conditions that make current economic and political institutions possible would be undermined (Steffen et al., 2023), thereby compromising the conditions under which urgent needs can be met and political equality preserved—both of which depend on the existence of these basic institutions. Moreover, this consideration could lead to a re-examination of what distinguishes limitarianism from other partial theories of justice, such as sufficientarianism, egalitarianism, and prioritarianism (Timmer, 2021). It may turn out that a limitarian threshold compatible with the ecological constraints of the biosphere would be so low that the distinction between these theories would collapse at the level of operationalization; alternatively, limitarianism might come to subsume the others logically (Hickey, 2019).
Third, and in light of the preceding points, limitarian theory might be reconsidered as a component of an ideal theory of justice, rather than as a component of a non-ideal theory of justice (Robeyns, 2022: 179). As Hickey (2019) suggests, it is plausible that there exists a “pre-institutional” limit to the appropriation of natural resources—that is, an absolute theoretical limit to the exploitation of natural resources that any theory of justice must respect. If so, the relevance of limitarian theses would not only be increased, but limitarian principles should be regarded as relevant not merely in “the world as it is and the closest possible worlds” (Robeyns, 2022: 199; my translation), but also in any world governed by the laws of thermodynamics—that is, in all physically possible worlds (Lee, 1989). Limitarian principles could therefore be integrated into an ideal theory of justice, for instance Rawls’s, as Christian Neuhäuser proposes (2018; 2023).
2) 3:45–4:30 p.m. – Presentation by Alexandra Stankovich, PhD candidate in practical philosophy at the Université de Sherbrooke,, under the supervision of Allison Marchildon (UdeS) and the co-supervision of Jessica Roda (Georgetown).
Expansion des frontières identitaires : dynamiser les orthodoxies juives par la voix de ceux·celles·celleux s’identifiant comme queer d’expérience hassidique
While the presuppositions connecting queerness and Jewish Orthodoxy are often conceived as antithetical, the panorama of embodiment of these identities is both vast and complex (Kabakov, 2010; Stankovich, 2025a). Without framing the discussion in binary terms — inside and outside orthodoxy —, but rather placing it on a spectrum, ranging from traditionally observant circles to the margins, the experience of queer and religious identities does not unfold in the same way in every context. While some use identity tactics to maintain their place in the Orthodox Jewish communities where they grew up, negotiating the terms of self-disclosure in order to fit into a halakhic framework, for others, living a double life becomes too emotionally, morally, and/or practically challenging; when this limit is reached, some make the more radical choice to distance themselves from it (Fader, 2020). However, those who leave these communities do not necessarily reject faith (or religion) but rather construct an alternative that explicitly unites their queerness and their Hasidic heritage (Stankovich, 2025a, 2025b).
Using a field philosophy framework (Briggle, 2015; Frodeman and Briggle, 2016; Vollaire 2016) – combining social science and practical philosophy approaches –, I will explore the intermarginality of queer public figures of Hasidic experience. They embody a specific position between two groups: the liberal, secular New York society and their Hasidic communities (Stankovich, 2025a, 2025b, 2020). I argue that, through their status, these public figures actualize their intermarginality by queering — to different degrees — the norms within the circles they inhabit, since they make them visible and question them (Ahmed, 2008).
More specifically, for this talk, I will focus on how exiters reclaim the term “Hassidic experience” informs us about the fluidity of Orthodox labels. This new form of self-definition contributes to the discursive process through which Jewish identities are experienced (Avishai, 2023) as well as constructed (Gaddi, 2023). By challenging boundaries, these marginal positionalities indicate a desire to reclaim Hasidic practices and beliefs beyond strict and hegemonic institutional definitions in order to (re)define their observance (Fader, 2020; Newfield, 2020a; Roda, 2024, 2022; Stankovich 2025a, 2025b, 2020).
Chair: Ryoa Chung (UdeM).
To attend via Zoom, click here (Meeting ID: 818 6254 4190; Passecode: 9Me2EW).
