Below, you’ll find an interview with Process Studies editor Dr. Daniel A. Dombrowski on a special issue of the journal. Volume 54, Number 2, had a special section on “A century of Process Thought: Commemorating Whitehead’s Legacy at Harvard.” You can also listen to the podcast audio on your choice of streaming platforms.

University of Illinois Press (UIP): Welcome to the University of Illinois Press podcast, The UPside. I’m Michelle Woods, Journals Marketing and Communications Manager of the Press, and today I’m excited to present our podcast highlighting a special issue of Process Studies. Volume 54, Number 2, has a special focus section entitled, “A Century of Process Thought: Commemorating Whitehead’s Legacy at Harvard.”

I’m joined today by Process Studies editor Dr. Daniel A. Dombrowski.

Thanks for being here, Dan.

Daniel Dombrowski (DD): Great to be here. Thanks so much, Michelle.

UIP: In this interview, we’ll be discussing the special issue, the articles, its place within the academic discourse, and the journal more broadly. But first, I want to start by giving a bit of background on Process Studies.

Process Studies is a peer-reviewed and refereed academic journal from the Center for Process Studies. It is the leading international journal in its field, with issues published twice a year. Process Studies is dedicated to the study of the thought and wide-ranging implications of Alfred North Whitehead and his intellectual associates, most notably Charles E. Hartshorne, and others like William James, Charles Sanders Peirce, and Henri Bergson.

The mandate of Process Studies is to explore Whiteheadian-Hartshornean process thought at an advanced level and as it appears in related philosophies and theologies, applying the Whiteheadian-Hartshornean conceptuality to a wide range of other fields: aesthetics, biology, cosmology, economics, education theory, ethics, history of religions, literary criticism, mathematics, political thought, psychology, physics and other natural sciences, the social sciences, sociology, psychology, Christian theology, and Eastern religions.

To learn more, including how to submit or subscribe, visit us online at go.illinois.edu/ps.

With that context, Dan, would you please tell us a bit about your background and time as editor of Process Studies?

DD: Sure, well, the journal’s been around for 55 years now, and I’m the third editor of the journal, so we’ve had real stability in the editor’s chair, with only 3 editors in 55 years. And I’ve been editor of the journal for 16 years.

I come to the task with a special interest in Hartshorne, but also in Whitehead. You know, it’s ironic that process philosophers emphasize change, but they tend to live a long time and exhibit permanence. Hartshorne was born in 1897 and died in 2000, so he lived in 3 centuries. I was born in 1953, so the chances of my living in three centuries are pretty slim, I think.

UIP: Thank you for that introduction. Let’s start with the story behind this special issue. The issue draws from a conference held at Harvard in September 2024. Can you tell us more about the conference, why it was held, and why Process Studies drew on the proceedings for a publication?

DD: Well, Alfred North Whitehead was born in the 1860s, and then became a really famous, world-famous mathematician and logician and did work in philosophy of science as well, mostly at Cambridge University, and then also in London.

Then late in his career, when he was in his sixties, he was invited to come to Harvard in the philosophy department at Harvard. That was in 1924. The works that he’s most famous for now were written when most people were starting to retire, you know, in their sixties. So, this move of Whitehead going from England to Harvard in 1924 was the subject of this conference in 2024, 100 years later. That’s the background to the conference.

UIP: Were there any challenges specific to transforming these talks into a cohesive special focus section?

DD: Well, we agreed on four papers to be part of this special focus section. Two of them were written about Harvard’s department, and also Whitehead’s thought regarding a concept called prehension, which we may talk about in a little bit.

One of these was by Randy Auxier, who is an American, and the other was by Ronny Desmet, who’s from Belgium. The other two papers dealt with Whitehead’s influence on China, and they’re by two Chinese scholars. So, there was no special difficulty in editing these four papers, but in a way, they fell into two groups: the ones concerned with Harvard and European philosophy, and then the others with Whitehead’s influence on China.

UIP: Great, thank you. We’ll jump into those specific articles in just a moment. Several organizations co-sponsored the conference, including the Center for Process Studies, for which Process Studies is the official journal. But first, can you talk a bit about what this type of event and collaboration across other organizations say about the current state of process thought and its global reach?

DD: Yeah, process thought is a minority view in various fields—the fields you mentioned just a moment ago—but it’s a minority view that is defended by people all over the globe, so it is wide-ranging in its influence, not only in North America. There are many scholars in the United States and Canada, as well as throughout the English-speaking world in Australia and elsewhere who are interested in process thought. And also, recently, due to the influence of interpreters of Whitehead like Deleuze, there’s increasing influence of Whiteheadian thought in Europe, as well as China, which we’ll talk about in a little bit, and other parts of East Asia.

Whitehead himself thought that the reception of his process view might be more energetic in East Asia and other parts of Asia than it might be in Europe and North America. And that prophecy on Whitehead’s part seems to have come to fruition.

In the past several years, we’ve also had a couple articles from scholars in Africa who see similarities between process thought and various Indigenous types of thought in Africa, and this could be said about thinkers in Latin America and elsewhere throughout the world. So, it is a worldwide intellectual movement.

UIP: And growing, too, it sounds like, in some ways. Now, let’s talk briefly about the articles, starting with Randall Auxier’s article “Royce, Whitehead, and the Context of Philosophy at Harvard,” which discusses both written influences and those within the classroom and beyond. Can you tell us about how you see this piece contributing to the theme of Whitehead’s legacy?

DD: Well, you know, because the theme of this conference was built around the idea of Whitehead coming to Harvard in 1924, 100 years ago, now 101 years ago, it was Auxier’s intent to tell us a bit about what the philosophy department at Harvard was like, who were the figures in the department, what themes were the major ones taught and that scholars at Harvard did research in, and so on. He focuses on a thinker named Josiah Royce, who was gone at that point, but whose influence was still huge in the Harvard philosophy department. So, in a way, he provides nuance to our understanding of what the Harvard philosophy department was like at the time when Whitehead arrived.

UIP: Who one studies with, converses with, and reads from certainly goes a long way to influencing how we think. How have your mentors, colleagues, and your reading influenced your own thought?

DD: Well, I came to process thought through Hartshorne: I had a teacher named Leonard Eslick who introduced me. He was a student of Hartshorne’s who introduced me to Hartshorne’s thought and then through Hartshorne, I got interested in Whitehead.

I also have a background in metaphysics and philosophy of religion, such that I found process thought congenial because it tried to preserve the best in what is often called classical theism—the traditional concept of God found in the Abrahamic religions—but also has a trenchant critique of many of the things that go on in classical theism.

Hartshorne calls his alternative neoclassical theism, and there’s a tendency to scandalize people on both sides with this view: religious traditionalists are scandalized by the neo part of neoclassical theism, and then people who are religious skeptics tend to be scandalized by the classical part of neoclassical theism. But it’s meant to be a third alternative to a traditional concept of God on the one hand and then religious skepticism on the other. And both Hartshorne and Whitehead are instrumental in developing a revised concept of God that is more appropriate for the world in which we live, both scientifically on the one hand, but also politically on the other.

In my own case, I wrote my dissertation on Plato, so my background is the history of philosophy, so I tend to locate Hartshorne and Whitehead within the history of Western philosophy that goes all the way back to Plato, or before.

One other thing I’d say about my background is that both Hartshorne and Whitehead were political liberals, so I’ve been interested in trying to locate their thought within the history of liberalism, which has led me to spend a lot of time focusing on arguably the greatest political philosopher of the twentieth century, a politically liberal philosopher named John Rawls. So, given the tumultuous political world in which we live, I’m interested in trying to give a reasoned explanation for political liberalism, and I view Hartshorne and Whitehead as important figures in that effort.

UIP: Yeah, I think another example of just the multidisciplinary nature, too: the combination of philosophy, religion, politics, and other disciplines all in one. Next, Ronny Desmet covers a topic that’s been on everyone’s mind recently: AI. His article, “Whitehead’s Harvard Legacy: Its Possible Implications for Artificial Intelligence,” discusses Whitehead’s concept of “prehension” and “the claim that artificial intelligence will equal or surpass human intelligence.” What stood out to you from this article?

DD: Well, for one thing, I don’t know much about AI, but like everybody else, as you just mentioned, I need to know more about AI, and Ronny Desmet helped a lot in this regard. I take it that the claim that AI will equal or surpass human intelligence, which a lot of people kick around these days, is analyzed from Desmet’s point of view in light of Whitehead’s concept of prehension. In other words, Desmet, if I understand him correctly, he’s skeptical of the claim that knowledge is merely a manipulation of abstract symbols. And it’s the assumption that knowledge is merely a manipulation of abstract symbols that leads some people to be really enthusiastic about the possibility that AI will equal or surpass human intelligence.

As Desmet sees things, relying on Whitehead, human knowledge also involves feeling, or the technical term Whitehead uses is prehension. Not intellectual apprehension, but prehension—a sort of grasping, sort of inarticulate, unconscious grasping of all of the influences that act on us, moment to moment. So just as we’re talking here, me in Seattle and you in Illinois, there’s all sorts of principles in physics, and gravity, and the chair upon which we sit, and the air that we breathe, that are influencing us, and we inchoately grasp these influences. And we feel these influences on us from moment to moment to moment. These feelings, which lie in the background of what we may talk about in the forefront, in terms of intellectual concepts, are part of what it means to be a human being and part of human knowing. And Desmet is wondering whether or not AI is built on this sort of prehensive background that you find in Whitehead, and if not, then he is wondering out loud whether or not the defenders of AI will be able to deliver on the promise that AI intelligence will surpass that of human beings.

It’s not just that we feel influences on us—we in a way, value them. Like, if I felt intense heat right next to me, if a fire broke out, I would immediately move away from it. In other words, that would be an aesthetic disvalue, you know, to be burned up in a fire. So it’s not just that we feel the world and prehend causal influences all around us. We react to them evaluatively. Like, if you like the color red or dislike the color purple, you know, we’re always moving toward or moving away from these causal influences that affect us. And it’s that world of feeling that Desmet wants to emphasize, and he’s not so sure that you find that in AI.

UIP: Yeah, that makes sense. How do you see process philosophy intersecting with contemporary debates in AI?

DD: That, I’m going to have to take a rain check on. I don’t know enough myself about AI. I mean, this is one of the things…I always have a list of books that I want to read. Like, I’m reading Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species now, from cover to cover, which I’ve always wanted to do, so… but I want to read more about AI, and I sort of back off any sort of opinions myself on that topic, so…

UIP: Yeah, I’m sure we’ll see more about it in the future here, too, as more things continue to emerge. Moving on to Wang Kun’s article, “Whitehead’s Chinese Disciples at Harvard University and Whitehead’s Influence on the Development of Modern Chinese Philosophy,” the abstract says, “Many scholars have found that Whitehead’s philosophy is in line with Eastern thought and can be regarded as a pioneer in the integration of Eastern and Western thought.” What surprised you, or was a lesser-known connection, in this discussion on Whitehead and Chinese philosophy?

DD: I suppose that what surprised me the most was how many Chinese students studied with Whitehead at Harvard. I’d heard rumors that one or two did, but apparently there were several scholars who came over from China to study in the United States in the 1920s, heard about Whitehead, sort of had some sense that what he might be saying would help them to better understand what might be worthwhile in traditional Chinese philosophy, and then also to relate that to developments in contemporary physics and other things that were going on in the West.

So, I suppose the biggest surprise for me was how many students from China studied with Whitehead at Harvard, and then went back and did Whitehead scholarship in China for several decades until the political situation was such that they had to lay low for a while, and now Whitehead studies in China are, you know, having a renaissance and are exploding again. But I wasn’t aware of how extensive the influence of Whitehead was on people from China who studied with him.

UIP: How does the distinction between Eastern and Western thought guide our discussions around Whitehead today do you think?

DD: Well, you know, one thing that you often hear people say—I’m reading a book right now by Steve Odin, who’s a scholar who relates positively Whitehead’s thought with Japanese aesthetics. One distinction that you often see made is that intellectual pursuits in the West have been largely analytical in character, and the word analysis comes from the Greek words that refer to breaking something up into parts, and then thereby liberating them, because you break them up into parts. On the one hand, Western culture has sort of excelled at analytical intelligence, whereas you often hear it said that in East Asia, there’s much more of an emphasis traditionally on the aesthetic or intuitive modes of approach to the world. And Whitehead might be able to overcome that sort of divide.

Given what I said earlier about prehension, there’s a strong role in Whitehead for accounting for the feelings, inchoate graspings of the world that we have as human beings, and in some way or another, reconciling them with analytical intelligence. Remember, Whitehead did make his reputation as a mathematician. He was a world-class mathematician, and co-authored a book with Bertrand Russell called Principia Mathematica, which is a major book in the history of mathematics and the history of logic. Whitehead’s overall project could be seen as trying to overcome the bifurcation of nature. So, since the 17th century at least, through the influence of somebody named Descartes—René Descartes—there’s a tendency to think that there are two sorts of things in the world: material, extended things on the one hand, and then non-material, unextended things, like minds or souls, on the other. And these are sort of like the vast chasm between these two worlds. And that sort of bifurcation of nature that’s a result of Descartes is still very much with us. And Whitehead is interested in overcoming that bifurcation of nature, and that effort resonates deeply with the way scholars—many different scholars—in East Asian countries view things, and also some scholars in South Asia as well. I hope that makes some sense.

I’m always impressed by the residual effects of the bifurcation of nature. For example, in university life, if you want to get a proposal passed, you have to gather numbers together, you know, and quantify your results, even if the subject matter in question is not amenable to quantification. Somehow the assumption is that you’re smarter if you quantify than if you do not quantify. And Whitehead is skeptical of that sort of approach. And remember, he’s skeptical as a mathematician. One of the things he does in his writings is indicate what the strengths are of mathematical analysis, and what sorts of things mathematical analysis is not appropriate for. So that’s, I think, part of the story of why there is an attempt to bridge the East and the West through Whitehead’s philosophy.

UIP: Yeah, I think I’ve heard some of that before with the quantify versus qualify, and the merits of different methods.

DD: Yeah. This is a big issue in neuroscience. Neuroscientists, traditionally, in the last several decades, have had a very hard time dealing with quality judgments, okay? Again, the feel of red when I experience red, and the emotions that are elicited in me when I see the color red, as opposed to purple or green, or so on. I’m just picking one example out of the way in which we feel and evaluate color sensations. We all have had the experience of, you know, quality. How to treat it is a quite different matter.

UIP: Staying on the theme of Whitehead’s global impact, the last article of the special section is Yang Li and Wen Hongyu’s piece, “Whitehead’s Organic Education in China.” The article reviews how Whitehead’s theory of organic education has developed over the past hundred years, and then looks forward into how and why it could continue to influence Chinese education. How does this work contribute to our understanding of Whitehead’s wide-reaching, sustaining impact?

DD: So, one work that Whitehead published is called The Aims of Education, and it’s his view of philosophy of education. And it’s a series of essays that were published over several decades’ time. So, he was very much involved, not only as a mathematician and logician, but also involved in educational reform when he was in England. And it was very controversial work, so he was, at times, pelted with eggs and tomatoes because he was a defender of education of women. At that time, women could not attend Cambridge University, and so he was trying to get university education available for women. But it’s a version of education for the whole person, and involves a lot of technical things in Whitehead’s philosophy, but then also socio-political things.

Whitehead’s influence in China seems to be especially prevalent in the area of education. And so this work, The Aims of Education, is still alive and well in China and other parts of the world, but especially in China. One of the things that various interpreters of Whitehead and his view of education have emphasized is that Whitehead positions us well to talk about something called ecological civilization. He sort of has a wide-angle view of things, such that in this effort to overcome the bifurcation of nature, he wants to, in some way or another, help us understand how the use of human reason in mathematics and logic, in physics, and other abstract disciplines, is compatible with the works of artists and religious believers, and sociologists, and psychologists, and so on. So this wide-angle view of things occurs with respect to the natural world as well, because we are causally affected by, and then in turn, causally affect everything else that occurs in the natural world.

One of the hardest things that people in environmental ethics deal with is trying to get people to think in long-range temporal frames—you know, what we do now could have an effect on what occurs seven or more generations down the road. And Whitehead’s views of education attempt to find the appropriate place for analytical intelligence, but then also a place for a synoptic view of things, which traditionally has been the provenance of religion, but then is increasingly something that’s of import to scientists and other people as well.

UIP: Whitehead’s legacy is clearly still evolving. How do you see his ideas fitting into today’s philosophical and interdisciplinary conversations? Why do you think it continues to attract such diverse scholarly interest?

DD: I think it has to do with several different things. One is that people in various disciplines see the problem with the bifurcation of nature, okay? That what you might say in science might conflict with what you might say in another discipline, so trying to overcome that sort of bifurcation is, I think, one of the continuing appeals of Whitehead.

I think another is something that I mentioned before: the perceived need on the part of many people to have a synoptic vision of human history and human culture, overcoming any sort of gap between East and West, North and South. Whitehead provides a means of talking about these apparent divides in a more synoptic way. And it’s also a fallible way. Some people assume that systematic thinkers are those who have some sort of grand system that’s like a big geometrical theorem or something like that, such that if you accept certain premises, then through the power of deductive reasoning, you’re driven to certain conclusions in an ironclad way. That’s like the complete opposite of the sort of thinking that Whitehead is asking us to engage in.

He’s trying to deal with issues systematically, but it’s a fallible sort of reasoning, right? If we try to overcome say, the science-religion divide, or analytical-artistic divide. If we make mistakes in what we say, Whitehead is going to be the first one to suggest that we ought to revise our theories in light of the evidence. So, in a way, he’s an empirical thinker, okay? But it’s a radical sort of empiricism that is taking all of human experience as empirical evidence that we have to take into account, including our artistic longings and romantic longings and so on and so forth, and have some overall view of things that make sense. And that appeals to a lot of people. A minority, perhaps, in the academic world, but it’s once, as I said before, it’s a minority of people spread throughout the world who are interested in fallibilistic, systematic thinking in the effort to overcome the bifurcation of nature.

UIP: Yeah, and that’s another great thing about the journal, too, is bringing together that community around this topic area.

DD: Yeah, the submissions that we get from the journal—you know, the authors in the journal—they come from many, many different academic disciplines, not just from around the world, but many different academic disciplines as well.

UIP: Yeah, that’s excellent. This issue also honors John Cobb, whose recent death, as you say in your introduction, has been mourned by process thinkers around the world, including in China. Can you speak to his influence on the field and how this issue was an apt tribute remembering his contributions?

DD: Yeah, John Cobb just recently died. He was almost 100 years when he passed away, and he was one of the people, along with David Ray Griffin, who established the Center for Process Studies. The two logical places for the Center for Process Studies would have been the two Cambridges, either Cambridge University in England or Cambridge, Mass., where Harvard is. But both institutions were interested in other things for several decades, and sort of had turned their backs on Whitehead.

So, Cobb, sort of heroically, established the Center for Process Studies to keep the intellectual study of Whitehead’s work alive for several decades and was famous for putting together all sorts of conferences, including Nobel Prize–winning scientists speaking next to philosophers and theologians and mathematicians, in order to foster intellectual discussion and debate.

He’s also one of the major figures in establishing a journal and an academic discipline called Buddhist-Christian Studies, looking at similarities and differences between some of the major religions in the world. And toward the end of his life, John Cobb was a tireless defender of an idea called ecological civilization, that in some way or another suggests that the future flourishing of human beings well into the future—think not in terms of the next election cycle, but decades and centuries and thousands of years into the future—human flourishing in that sort of temporal frame of reference will require a different way of thinking than the one that we’re familiar with at present, and John did a lot of work to foster that sort of thinking.

UIP: Yeah, this issue’s a great way to remember his contributions in that way, then. So, as we wrap up our discussion of the special issue, what do you hope readers will take away from it?

DD: Well, that there’s still a lot of intellectual work to be done. On the one hand, this idea that various Chinese scholars studied with Whitehead, which comes as a surprise to a lot of people—even people who are familiar with Whitehead—is very, very hopeful. And then you notice on the ground that there’s a great deal of tension between the United States, on the one hand, and some other Western countries, and then China on the other. That there’s still a lot of work to be done to understand human culture, understand its relationship to mathematics and science.

It’s very, very easy to get a sort of smug assurance that we’re really bright and really understand a lot, but there’s really quite a lot of work to do to make the world a just place, and an intelligent place. There’s no lack of the sorts of things that we could discuss in order to try to fulfill Whitehead’s and Hartshorne’s vision for what a just society would be like.

UIP: And I’m sure this conversation will continue in future issues of Process Studies as well.

DD: That’s the hope.

UIP: Exactly. Outside of the special section, this issue also contains an article by Myron Moses Jackson, “Entertainment in the Twilight Zone? Whitehead’s Radically Empirical Theory of Propositions,” as well as four book reviews, two of which deal with Whitehead at Harvard.

Now, shifting to the journal more broadly, what future themes or directions do you hope to see in future issues? Are there any other upcoming special sections or conferences on the horizon?

DD: Well, I’m always reticent to talk about the future in any sort of detail and there’s intellectual reasons for that reticence. Process thinkers tend to view time as asymmetrical. And that’s a controversial claim, by the way, in physics. But time is asymmetrical. That is to say, my relationship now, in the present, to the past is radically different from my relationship now in the present to the future.

We can say with definiteness that I was born in Philadelphia. But nobody knows what city I will die in, okay? And I don’t want to be morbid about this, but it’s just—the future is the region of indeterminacy. It’s the region of contingencies, determinables that are not yet determined. So, if we’re ignorant of the past, it’s due to either lack of evidence or lack of historical industry on our part. But if we’re ignorant of the future, that’s because the future’s not here yet to be known.

This sort of temporal asymmetry, the difference between the past and the future, should make all of us somewhat skittish about making predictions about the future, or working on the assumption that the people who are really smart are those who can predict what’s going to happen in the future. Maybe what it means to be really smart is to notice that there are probabilities at most regarding what you can say about the future, but you can’t predict it in any detail. I hate to belabor this point, but it is sort of something that process thinkers think is a really important point to make about the future.

However, it’s probable that there are going to be a couple international conferences in process in the next couple years: one of them in China, and another one in about two years or so at Southern Illinois University, which has an archive there that is going to be housing a lot of the papers associated with process philosophy. I should also mention that there’s also a critical edition of Whitehead’s works that is in the works, published through Edinburgh University Press in Scotland. I think there’s going to be 17 volumes in his collected works, and 4 of them have already seen the light of day. I suspect that a lot of activity in the future will deal with these future volumes and the collected works and critical editions of Whitehead’s work.

And just as we’re doing here, talking via Zoom, there’s all kinds of Zoom conferences in the future. I’m going to be part of one in Poland next month, although I’m not going to leave my office here in my basement to go to Poland. And then also one in South Africa beginning of next year that I’ll be part of. So, I suspect that the internet, which has really been helpful to people—and outside of the North American, European centers of academic power—the internet has made it possible to have these really rich conferences all around the globe. There’s another one I expect will be in the works from Rio in the near future as well.

But beyond that, I don’t want to predict the future in any detail.

UIP: Yeah, I mean, we’ve been talking about global impact through this whole podcast, and I think that identifies it even further. You know, it’s bringing all the scholars and thinkers together to have these discussions in ways that wouldn’t have been possible before.

For listeners who want to dive deeper into process thought, where would you recommend that they start? Do you have any other recent or upcoming projects you want to tell us about?

DD: Well, it’s a good question. These are all good questions, but this idea of where people…what would they read if they were interested in process thought? I would say with respect to Whitehead, if you’re interested in finding out about Whitehead, the one book I would say is a good place to start is a book called Science and the Modern World.

There’s another book that’s more famous called Process and Reality, but that’s a very, very difficult book, and it’s not a good book to start with, I think. I would recommend reading Whitehead’s book Science and the Modern World. Some of the chapters, like the fifth chapter, “The Romantic Reaction Against Scientific Mechanism,” is a real gem. It’s really a readable book, at least the first 10 chapters at least, or first nine chapters are very readable and very instructive, and it’s a good place to start.

With respect to Hartshorne, I think the first book to read is a book called The Divine Relativity, through Yale University Press. The Divine Relativity is a great introduction to Hartshorne—very readable, not terribly big. And then if you like both of those books, there’s a lot of others you can read, but they’re the two best places to start.

You asked about my own work, too. I have a work coming out called The Way of Reason in Religion and Politics that will be coming out in another couple months through State University of New York Press. It deals with the thought of a process thinker who recently passed away called Franklin Gamwell, who was at University of Chicago. If you’re interested in the topics of process metaphysics and how it relates to political thinking, that may be of interest to people. But that work is not nearly on a par with Whitehead’s Science and the Modern World, and Hartshorne’s The Divine Relativity.

UIP: Well, thank you for that guidance on where to start and other things to look forward to.  Whether you’re new to process thought or a longtime scholar, this special issue certainly offers a great collection of new ideas to explore that continue to shape philosophical discourse in this area. Dan, thank you so much for all of your on-going work as editor of the journal and for this wonderful conversation today.

DD: Thank you, Michelle.

UIP: And, a final thank you to you, our listeners, for listening in to learn about some of the recent research published in Process Studies. I hope it inspires you to read more and perhaps consider submitting your own work for publication. To learn more about how to read online, subscribe to Process Studies, or submit your work for consideration in a future issue, visit go.illinois.edu/ps. We even have a library request form online you can fill out to recommend this journal to your institutional or local public library.

Process Studies is part of a robust lineup of philosophy-related scholarship at the University of Illinois Press. Other journals in this area include American Journal of Theology and Philosophy, American Philosophical Quarterly, History of Philosophy Quarterly, Journal of Aesthetic Education, Journal of Animal Ethics, The Pluralist, and Public Affairs Quarterly.

We also publish The Beauvoir Series, a multi-volume collaborative project involving an international team of scholars in philosophy and French language and literature. Simone de Beauvoir’s Diary of a Philosophy Student Volume 3, the latest installment in the series, came out last year. We also have a podcast interview with the translator and editor of the series, Barbara Klaw.

To learn about all of these and more, visit us online at press.uillinois.edu. Thank you.