Dignity:

I began my project with a cursory exploration of resources to ensure there was enough scholarly research to successfully complete a podcast series. Dignity is a fairly widely researched topic in the fields of history, political science, and philosophy. From this preliminary work, I proposed five episode topics. Though I stayed pretty close to this proposal, I expanded on some projected topics and eliminated others. These decisions were dictated by both my research and the availability of willing interview participants. 

During my project, I interviewed fourteen experts in dignity. I estimate that one out of every six people I contacted agreed to an interview. I found most of my interviewees by sending emails to authors of articles I found useful to my research topic. A few were contacted due to recommendations from another interviewee or in response to an email I sent to one of their colleagues. All in all, I feel I interviewed people with a wide variety of specialties connected to dignity. I do think my interviewees largely leaned toward supporting dignity as an avenue to create equality and protect rights. These are the people who responded to my requests for an interview.

My interviews were conducted via Zoom and lasted approximately an hour. Zoom was a great resource for recording and producing a timed transcript of my conversations. I prepared carefully for interviews. I read at least some work written by each person I interviewed. I made sure I was well-versed in their specialty so I could ask intelligent questions honoring each person’s time and expertise. I wrote approximately fifteen questions for each interview and chose amongst them as I interviewed each person.

I found the writing process slow. When I dreamed of making a podcast, I did not realize how much writing was involved. Each script was approximately thirty five double-spaced pages. While writing, I was conscious of crafting a story both interesting and understandable to the average American. I wanted my podcasts to be educational. My interviewees and research revealed a wide variety of interesting material. It was difficult to determine what to include and not to. I hated cutting intriguing information, but it was a necessity over and over again. 

The podcasting process was frustrating at first. My project was too large for the online platforms recommended to me. I preferred these at first, because they offered transcription which I thought would be the easiest method of editing. I was nervous about editing strict audio files as I had no prior experience in this field. In the end, I used Audacity. If I was organized including the times of the audio clips I wanted from the transcript of each interview, the editing process was smooth. The pattern I developed was cutting all the audio I needed from the interviews. Then I recorded my portion, moving the cut audio clips into place as I went. 

One final element I did not expect was the process of receiving permission to use audio that is copyrighted. I really did not think about using such clips when I began my project. As I worked through my first couple of episodes, I learned the more the story can be told by the participants the more entertaining the podcast was for the audience. This happened naturally as I interviewed Jim Obergell and his attorney, Al Gerhardstein. In addition, I interviewed Evan Wolfson who spearheaded the Freedom to Marry campaign. For later episodes, I successfully got permission to use clips of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Justice William Brennan. I was able to obtain clips of some Supreme Court decisions from Oyez, a web page run by a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LII), Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law. 

This project was an immense undertaking, but also highly gratifying. The breadth of the project was overwhelming. In the end, though, the wide scope of my investigation of dignity enhanced my learning experience. During my last few interviews, I was able to discuss dignity on an equal footing with true experts. In their specialty, they knew much more than me. I could, however, relate the information they gave me to another context in which dignity is studied. I was able to add to their knowledge. 

The interview process was a special experience. It was an honor to have influential experts agree to give me an hour of their time. Michael Rosen and Remy Debes are two of the most cited writers about the history of dignity. Evan Wolfson, Al Gerhardstein, and Jim Obergefell are key figures in the battle for gay rights culminating with the Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Stephen Wermiel spent years with special access to Justice Brennan and his papers. I hate to not give all my guests individual mention, because each interview was special in its own way. 

One element of my studies that will change the way I think about dignity and rights forever is the dual focus on duties. I first read this concept while studying Kant and his categorical imperative. It was enriched when I discussed the work of Pufendorf and Diderot with Remy Debes. The Universal Declaration of Rights, crafted after World War II, echoed this idea. The document spoke not only to governments, but also to individuals around the globe. Governments alone are not responsible for ensuring dignity; each person shares that burden. Before researching, I did not view dignity as a social principle. It makes sense, however, that dignity requires people to behave in a way that protects and encourages the dignity of others.

I also learned how far behind America lags in its attention to dignity. I know this is a judgement on my part. Not all Americans would agree with me that our position on dignity is worse than the way other nations use dignity. Erin Daly spoke to me about what it means when a person’s constitution espouses inherent and equal dignity. It puts at the forefront the way citizens are expected to treat each other and their expectations for their government. Many other nations review the way other countries’ courts interpret and define dignity. American courts rarely look beyond its borders. 

America is also more reticent than other nations to guarantee citizens a minimum standard of living. Though these ideas weave their way through the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms, Americans maintain their tradition focus on personal independence. Furthermore the U.S. Constitution was drafted and ratified decades before dignity became a popular concept after World War II. While other nations have written new constitutions during that time, America retains its relatively old document.