Ekaterina (Katya) Lukianova grew up in St. Petersburg, Russia, fascinated by the science behind conversation.
“I was always fascinated by dialogue as the underlying force of social life and by language as the tool for dialogue,” said Lukianova. “Growing up in Russia in the 1990s, questioning the multiple meanings of democracy, negotiating compromised identities and facing historic trauma were an inevitable part of my experience. I was interested in learning about ways to do all these things with dignity, respect and compassion.”
A linguist by training, Lukianova joined the University of Chicago from the Kettering Foundation, a non-partisan research institute focusing on citizen-centered democracy, in September.
At UChicago, she’s tasked with helping to lead the Parrhesia (par-uh-ZEE-uh) Program for Public Discourse, which works with students on practicing free expression in a constructive and courageous way. Rooted in the University of Chicago Principles of Free Expression, the program offers innovative undergraduate curriculum, programming, and outreach in freedom of expression and the theory and practice of civil discourse.
Lukianova sat down with the College to discuss this new role, and the classes she’ll teach during Winter Quarter.
This conversation has been edited for brevity and clarity.
What drew you to UChicago?
The intellectual tradition, including philosophy of language and neo-Aristotelian rhetoric, which are related to my discipline. And, equally, the reputation for being a forum where people speak very directly and frankly, and wrestle with ideas.
The University’s stance on free inquiry and expression is very attractive to me, indeed. I am not a proponent of saying anything you want without caring about other people. My concern about free expression is based on the recognition that we're facing very big challenges and we ought to think deeply about them in an authentic way.
My perspective on the various issues in American democracy is, of course, comparative. And I often ask questions about the very premises of a conversation or offer ideas that challenge established social frames (sometimes usefully so, and sometimes not). And this is the place, from my understanding, for engaging in this kind of scholarly discussion.
What was appealing about the Parrhesia program?
It is Parrhesia’s aspiration to highlight the philosophical foundations of democratic public discourse, as well as relate them to practice very immediately. One of the key premises of the program, drawing from Foucault, is that free speech, in order to have civic value, must rely on authenticity and courage, as well as a clear recognition of who is involved in the speaking and listening “game.”
The program emphasizes that one needs to be able to deliver one’s message in an effective and ethical way, and then take a response. When you're speaking the truth, it's challenging. So the dialogic aspect of Parrhesia is of ultimate importance to me.
What do you want students to know about Parrhesia?
In short, it is about engaging in free and constructive public discourse.
It is not just about rhetoric directed at an audience, a knack to deliver effective messages (although this is important and handy). It is much more about the practice of seeing others as citizens in the broadest sense—for example, people who have a stake in their communities, and relating to them in this way.
Parrhesia here at UChicago involves questioning. People often think of free speech as saying things. But free speech also involves asking questions, not just delivering your opinion. In the academic context, it is crucial to ask courageous questions, which move the conversation to a different plane, and make people search for better answers than those they already have.
And, so, Parrhesia is not just for students who are considering a career in public politics. It is for anyone who wants to live a full civic and professional life.
You’re teaching in the Winter Quarter—what will your classes focus on?
The first, Freedom of Speech on Campus, will focus on the questions that many students—and faculty for that matter—are asking about free expressions and liberal education. Why are we even so concerned about free speech? Can speech hurt and how much? Do we need more or less free speech on campus? What kind of expectations should apply in different spaces on campus: classrooms, residence halls, common areas, bulletin boards?
Suppose we agree to disagree on some of these questions, what practices can help us navigate day-to-day interactions? I hope to help students learn how to lead discussions on controversial topics that are of concern to them. Yes, to express themselves. But also to be able to proactively create space connecting people with different views. I would like to explore with my students what it would mean to be masters of these difficult encounters.
The second class is called (In)sanity on Social Media. It was hoped at the dawn of the internet that it would become the perfect public forum to discuss political issues in a democratic fashion. These hopes, if not entirely dashed, have been scaled back. Profit-driven algorithms, polarization, the tools of authoritarian control are in ascendance. So, in this class we will ask whether it makes any sense to regard social media as a space for democratic life and politics. We’ll talk about the value (and drawbacks) of seeking out perspectives on social media, both personally and professionally.
We will also go on a kind of “treasure hunt” to gather social media threads on political topics and evaluate the balance of constructive and antagonistic interactions in these conversations. The students will have a go at collecting and analyzing data from social media. The course does not have any prerequisites, and all technical tasks will be broken into manageable chunks. In fact, this would be a good option for students with less technical skills and knowledge to acquire some and explore what is possible.