Pfeiffer, a professor in the , and Tschepik began working on this project when Tschepik was an undergraduate student at Georgetown. Both said that their partnership over the years enriched the publication and their experiences at the university. 

An Early Partnership

While spending research time at Campion Hall at Oxford University in 2015,  Pfeiffer developed the broad outlines of a conference on the meanings of modern work to be held at Georgetown. Due to the collaborative nature of the project, Pfeiffer wanted to work with an undergraduate student through the Georgetown Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (GUROP) to create a more holistic and wide-ranging experience for faculty and students. 

Later that year, Tschepik enrolled in Pfeiffer’s summer course at the Georgetown-at-Trier program in Germany.  At the conclusion of the class, Pfeiffer asked Tschepik, then a rising sophomore, if he would like to help organize the conference to which Tschepik eagerly agreed.

“As a history major with a particular interest in German history, I was very excited for the opportunity,” says Tschepik. “One of the greatest things about this project is that it shows the importance of looking at things from a variety of disciplines and perspectives in both the past and present in order to plan for a better future.”

Building a Project 

The two began to organize a conference with the help of the German Department, the BMW Center for German and European Studies, the German Academic Exchange Service, the Max Kade Foundation, and the şŁ˝ÇÂŰĚł. They developed a call for papers, inviting scholars to propose contributions on the changing meanings of work. 

Pfeiffer and Tschepik selected keynote speakers from literary studies, philosophy, history, sociology and film studies and additional contributors based on proposals made in response to the call for papers. They all came together in April 2016 on the Hilltop to discuss the changing notions and meanings of work in times of disruptive change.

“I have been interested in economic themes and how they structure literary thought and representation in my research,” says Pfeiffer. “With advances in artificial intelligence and other manufacturing processes, the idea of work is bound for a radical restructuring. Nathan and I wanted to explore this idea from an interdisciplinary approach by bringing together scholars from several different areas of thought to campus.” 

The collaboration worked out so well that Pfeiffer decided to ask Tschepik if he was interested in co-editing the publication based on some of the talks.

After the conference, Pfeiffer and Tschepik asked a selected number of presenters to submit their contributions in article form in order to recreate the discussions held at the conference in a manuscript. However, due to the rich variety of content in the book, the final manuscript limited itself to literary studies, philosophy and film studies. 

Though they did not anticipate the project taking this direction, Pfeiffer said that this publication has a lot to offer in understanding the concept of work during the industrialization of the nineteenth century, now and in the future.

Since the concept of the modern worker was born in the industrial revolution, people have begun to define themselves by their careers. In the 18th century, few would have thought to characterize themselves in these terms, but today, what an individual does for work is a crucial part of their identity. 

“The humanities are such an important tool to answer questions about the future of work because economists do not necessarily see what the greater implications for humanity will be as the idea of work shifts again,” Pfeiffer says. “That is what this book attempts to address.” 

Pandemics and Partnerships

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, noticeable shifts in work culture and dynamics have occurred, which make this manuscript all the more pertinent. Tschepik says that the relevance of this manuscript was one of the many reasons he wanted to continue working on this project even after graduating from Georgetown.

“The conference and subsequent publication are by far the most interesting things I worked on during my time at Georgetown,” he says. “Beyond the many benefits of working on such a meaningful academic project so early in my studies, I learned a huge deal from the collaboration itself. When I first started, I was not very sure of my voice or value to the project, but under Peter’s mentorship, I was able to become more confident in my value as a scholar even after I graduated.”

Now in his third year of law school at the University of Chicago, Tschepik said that this collaboration has also helped with several aspects of his JD program. 

“Professionally, this opportunity has opened a lot of doors for me,” he explains. “In every interview employers ask about the book. It even helped me get the clerkship with the judge I am working for in Seattle.”

Pfeiffer says that even though the project is over, the two will remain in touch and he looks forward to future partnerships with Georgetown students. 

“This was a truly collaborative undertaking and the end product was better for it,” says Pfeiffer. “I learned so much throughout the process from Nathan being part of the project.”

The conference was founded in light of ongoing discussions of race, identity and colonization in cultural institutions inspired by the opening of the National Museum of African American History and Culture. As more German institutions have implemented exhibits that discuss their colonial history and their nation’s actions in diverse societies, the conference was organized to facilitate a discussion on how museums should proceed when addressing such history.

“My co-organizer, , and I hoped to create connections between efforts to decolonize distinct educational institutions — both museums and universities,” said , a professor of German at Georgetown and one of the organizers of the event. “Both were deeply implicated in the project of training white citizens to take up leadership roles in deeply unequal societies.”

Araujo moderated the roundtable, which brought together four historians, each of whom had played a different role in addressing their institution’s history with slavery.

“Each panelist had taken on a leadership role at their respective institutions in researching their university’s past involvement in the slave economy and carrying discussions about the obligations resulting from this involvement forward,” said Sieg. “This took different forms, from archeological excavations of sites where slaves gathered for spiritual practices, to curricular innovation, to creative projects.”

, an associate professor of history and African American studies, discussed her role working on Georgetown’s . While she noted that the University still has work to do, she commended the commitment it has exhibited in extending the conversation of its history with slavery into many different spaces.

“It does make a difference that our president talks about it at first-year convocation — I know a lot of parents were shocked by that,” said Chatelain to the audience at the roundtable. “When we come together as a community, we put racial injustice at the center of this nation. I believe those practices are where it makes a difference.”

, a professor of theater and performance studies in the Department of Performing Arts, and co-founding director of the , noted that Georgetown’s community has expanded how these discussions can be conducted to include creative and artistic responses.

“I think performance can facilitate memory and offer an opportunity to be a witness,” Goldman said. “Performance can be a research methodology.”

Since Georgetown’s Working Group publication, Goldman has been working on bringing an original play portraying a higher education institution who is grappling with its history of slavery.

Kirt Von Daacke, a dean and historian from the University of Virginia, called for a national consortium of schools to address this problem. His institution realized the necessity for such an organization after it was inspired by its students to address the university’s deep ties to slavery. The consortium would help schools like George Mason, where history professor Benedict Carton has been grappling with how to address their namesake participation in slavery.

Chatelain believes that while addressing racial injustice need not be a university’s main focus, the university can play a role in both important community research and the development of socially conscious citizens.

“Universities are unable to facilitate racial healing,” Chatelain said. “Universities need to focus on their original missions — to teach young people to be socially conscious and active in this discussion by encouraging participation in social and racial justice projects in places like Louisiana, where many of the slaves sold by Georgetown Jesuits ended up. Only through their students can universities begin to make up for their history.”

For Sieg, the roundtable served as a reminder that universities can make amends for their involvement in slavery in ways beyond memorials or scholarships for individual descendants. She hopes the audience left the roundtable with a new understanding of the challenges of racial history.

“I hope scholars and students from different universities learned from each other about strategies that help sustain the current commitment to racial justice among students, faculty, and the university administration,” said Sieg. “It was heartening to see that racial justice work is a lifelong commitment for participants in the roundtable, and for many of the colleagues and students in the room.”