Amia Srinivasan is the modern philosopher | The Exchange

Overview

Amia Srinivasan (Oxford philosopher, Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory at All Souls College) argues that philosophy is defined less by supplying final answers than by maintaining an ongoing, destabilizing habit of questioning—especially questions about:

• knowledge
• meaning
• the conditions that make other disciplines possible

She describes philosophy as a “residual” home for the hardest unresolved problems, while insisting it must remain responsive to history, sociology, anthropology, and even literature.

Cross-Cultural Biography and the Question of “Objective Truth”

Srinivasan connects her philosophical outlook to her personal biography. Born in Bahrain to Indian parents and raised across countries such as Singapore and Taiwan, she emphasizes how travel and cross-cultural exchange move both people and ideas.

This helps her explain why “Western philosophy” has always been shaped by intellectual connections beyond the West. She also suggests that the desire for “objective truth” persists because culture and perspective often feel contingent and local.

Becoming a Public Philosopher

Srinivasan addresses her emergence as a public-facing philosopher. Although she became known for engaging controversial issues—particularly sexuality, feminism, pornography, and race—she says she did not initially “set out” to be a public philosopher.

Instead, her shift toward these topics grew from:

• political interest beginning in childhood
• feminist study during graduate school
• teaching feminist theory
• eventual connection to her book The Right to Sex

She presents her work as continuing a broader tradition of philosophers writing for wider audiences (in the spirit of LRB-era public philosophy) rather than “trailblazing.”

Sex, Desire, and Power

A central argument of the interview is that sex and sexual desire are both personal and deeply political. Srinivasan explains that while desire may be experienced as private, the “sexual marketplace” is structured by social and political forces such as:

• racism
• ableism
• gender norms
• class prejudice

She uses examples like dating apps, where patterns of attention and perceived desirability can be predicted by traits such as race and disability status.

Moral Distinction: Understanding vs. Controlling Others

She draws a key moral distinction: she does not claim individuals have a right to control or “transfigure” other people’s desires. Instead, she argues that individuals may face moral pressure to interrogate and understand where their desires come from—especially whether they have been shaped by harmful social hierarchies.

Psychoanalysis as a Tool for Political Understanding

She then turns to psychoanalysis as a framework for understanding politics, linking Freud-informed ideas to debates about:

• feminism
• cultural contingency
• mass psychology

Srinivasan describes how early 20th-century psychoanalytic theorists and leftists (e.g., Reich and others) tried to connect unconscious drives with working-class political life, including efforts like free clinics.

For fascism and the far right, she offers psychoanalytic explanations centered on security-seeking and fear, including the emotional appeal of “homogeneity” and the redirection of anxiety toward scapegoated groups such as immigrants.

Importantly, she emphasizes that describing innate drives does not require treating political futures as fixed. Better self-understanding, she argues, could expand freedom.

Trauma, Genocide, and the Logic of Violence

On contemporary events, she argues that psychoanalysis helps interpret the escalation and internal logic of genocidal violence, including the idea that unprocessed historical trauma can be redirected onto others.

In the context of Gaza, she discusses how trauma associated with the Holocaust can be inverted into a justification for extreme violence. She also describes a structure in which the wrongdoer positions themselves as a “necessary” deliverer to prevent catastrophe “for themselves.”

At the same time, she warns against simplistic binaries of oppressor/victim. She stresses psychological complexity and the possibility of switching positions—without excusing wrongdoing.

Philosophers’ Responsibility Amid Atrocities

When asked about philosophers’ responsibility in situations like Gaza, Srinivasan rejects two ideas:

• that philosophy must become only activism
• that philosophy should always be immediately accessible and instrumental

She argues that philosophers—being human and influential—have moral reasons to advocate against injustice. Yet she also insists universities need space for hard, abstract scholarship and for ideas that may not directly “impact” politics. She frames her own work as both engaged and intentionally not reducible to activism.

Future Projects

She closes by mentioning future projects, including:

• an academic “genealogy” book (Nietzsche-inspired tracing of the origins of beliefs and values)
• a “wacky” possible argument extending radical equality beyond humans to all entities—including rocks and trees

Presenters / Contributors

• Tanjil Rashid (interviewer / host)
• Amia Srinivasan (guest)