������app

Student Spotlight: Andy Witteman

Interconnected in the Arctic

At the UAF College of Liberal Arts, we believe in the power of interdisciplinary study—and few students embody that better than Andy Witteman. A two-time Outstanding Student of the Year in Philosophy (2022–2023 and 2023–2024), Andy recently completed his BA in the program and is now finishing a senior thesis in Political Science, with plans to enter the Arctic and Northern Studies program this fall.

As we prepare to highlight this year’s cohort of Outstanding Students, we’re taking a moment to catch up with Andy—whose continued academic path reflects the curiosity, depth, and creative thinking that thrive in CLA.

His journey encourages us all to ask deeper questions—about the world, about the systems we live in, and about how our areas of study might intertwine in unexpected ways. Through Andy’s experience, we’re reminded that personalized, interdisciplinary paths can deepen both learning and purpose. For any students wondering, “Can I make my degree more me?”—Andy is living proof that yes, you absolutely can.

You’re blending Philosophy and Political Science and hoping to add Arctic & Northern Studies to the mix next year—how do you see these fields connecting, and how do they shape your perspective?

I actually came to UAF to study physics and math, so I sort of stumbled into the realization that philosophy is a part of everything! Philosophy is an incredibly unique discipline to study in that it encompasses foundational principles of science like argumentative logic and metaphysics (which literally translates into “before physics”). Philosophy teaches us to analyze not just the content of information but also the context; that’s to say, philosophy is largely a study focused on how arguments function and what makes arguments sound/valid. In the context of the natural sciences, that largely entails looking at interpretations of science and how scientific theory emerges from infinitely complex webs, which are formalized argumentative systems.

The human element of political science added a whole new layer of interest for me because I quickly learned that socially constructed things like language or governing systems and power dynamics are inherently contextually dependent. When we approach arguments in political science, it’s almost like we are trying to embrace the rigorous outline of the natural sciences but with the awareness that humans define what specific terms and ideas mean. Political science has many moving parts when using a philosophical approach; no two arguments are contextually the same, even if the argumentative frameworks are consistent. I think having a background in philosophy makes me appreciate political science in a unique and sometimes overwhelming way - I would also add that studying philosophy and political science (including how deeply fundamental social construction is to systematic issues in society and influential cultural norms are to interpretations of reality) has made me substantially more interested in the natural sciences. Natural sciences and science as a whole are created by humans; after all - it would be deeply unwise to ignore the human element in the sciences.

What’s an example of a time when studying multiple disciplines helped you approach a problem or question in a unique way?

Studying multiple disciplines plays a large part in every problem, question, and topic I approach at this point! One of my interests is in understanding sustainable development issues and climate change through the lens of philosophy and political science (along with the natural sciences!). The combination of philosophy and political science allows me to conceptually approach things in terms of their argumentative structures and the context in which scientific theories are applied. I love looking at issues like sustainable development in the Arctic and thinking of how different social constructs entail different interpretations of what sustainable is and how those different interpretations can be affirming or conflicting in the framework of Arctic identity.

One of my interests in climate change issues over the past two years has been understanding how science can unintentionally dehumanize important issues. One of the questions I love to wrestle with is the idea that science inherently seeks to remove as much human bias as possible in its pursuit of "objectivity" (a least-subjective answer). Conversely, political science seeks to use science in a humanized way. With climate change, it is often the case that we conceptually approach the issue in terms of emission goals and scientific criteria. The science itself is valid and sound, but it is quite easy to fall into the conceptual trap of perceiving climate change as an abstract or hypothetical issue of the future because of how abstract and dehumanizing science can be. I love that having a political science and philosophy background gives me the tools necessary to contextually approach these issues; humanizing science is essential for encouraging urgency in politics. That is a huge part of what I seek to do - I love analyzing arguments, structures, and frameworks of science and finding their entailments and applications to the political world.

What advice would you give to students who want to explore multiple disciplines but aren’t sure how to make them work together?

This sounds odd, but the more nonsensical two disciplines seem/further apart they appear to be, the more likely you are to find unique connections that may otherwise be unexplored or undervalued. I struggle to think of an example of disciplines that don’t work together; things like art would undoubtedly contribute to the creativity found in engineering, there are entire books written about connections between music and physics, and (thankfully for me) philosophy feels like a field that unavoidably connects to all others, given its tendency to question the most foundational building blocks to other disciplines. Whether you’re interested in human sciences (culture, language, politics, etc.) or natural/hard sciences (math, physics, chemistry, etc.), all disciplines connect and rely upon one another for stability and soundness. IDS and multi-disciplinary academic approaches are (in a large sense) a commitment to the study of those connections!

The best advice I could give to students (especially those who are newer) is to not hesitate to take courses that interest them. The university system is set up such that we need a wide range of GRs (General Requirements), so it’s almost inevitable that one of those GR classes will stand out. Having minors is a huge benefit along with any major. If you begin to really enjoy the classes within that minor, the jump to double majoring or doing an IDS degree isn’t as difficult as it may seem!

Have there been any professors, mentors, or classmates who’ve had a big impact on your academic journey? What did you learn from them?

First and foremost, Dr. Seth Jones and Dr. Edwardo Wilner opened the door to philosophy for me and undoubtedly changed my life. It is strange to look back and think about the exact moments when our lives changed, but my first philosophy class was one of them. It was a place where I made awesome friends that I’ve now had throughout my UAF and Fairbanks life, and found a discipline I felt a connection to and had passion in.

More recently, I stumbled into political science through both Dr. Boylan and Dr. Lovecraft. Going to school in ������appis a unique experience in itself; Dr. Boylan and Dr. Lovecraft do an excellent job of bringing the unique Arctic experience into the classroom. One of the things that drew me into political science was the contextual lens of political issues through an Arctic lens. Some of my favorite classes have revolved heavily around Arctic international relations, which is the type of class you’re not likely to find anywhere else in the United States. I think it is highly beneficial to have the opportunity to take classes that utilize the significance of where we are to better appreciate our part of the world!

What’s been the most surprising or mind-blowing thing you’ve learned in one of your classes?

It results from much more than one class, but I think the most eye-opening thing I have learned is the idea that "everyone is the hero of their own story." I think that lesson emerged primarily from the combination of International Relations, Eastern Philosophy, and Analytical Feminism a couple of years ago. I took those three classes in one semester, leading to a long and intense few months of reading historical political perspectives from dramatically different angles. Through those readings and classes, I realized that understanding why individual ideological stances, systems, states/nations, and schools of thought emerge is best approached through the lens of interpreting how individuals/cultures view themselves and what societal norms/values they hold.

There are very few instances where actors view themselves as being on the "wrong side" of history; furthermore, what constitutes right or wrong is largely based on social norms that are defined differently depending on the society (and what the course of history preserves/excludes). It is much easier to understand the process of social construction and actions taken by states/individuals from the perspective that they perceive themselves as the hero of their story. Likewise, this realization applies to ourselves; we view ourselves as the hero of our story, which begs the question of what makes our perspective any more morally or logically grounded than any other. Social construction has A LOT of moving parts - the lesson of approaching everyone as the hero of their story at least grants a charitable starting point to begin interpreting actions, thoughts, and social constructs that may otherwise be inconceivable and threatening to us.

The Arctic is becoming more important on the global stage—how do you see your studies preparing you to contribute to discussions about the North?

I see this type of question come up a lot in the field of International relations - we see individual actors, states, and international organizations/governing bodies like the United Nations all appealing to the increased importance of the Arctic. I think there is a sound argument for the idea of "increasing importance" depending on the context of the reference (climate change, for example), but there is a significantly more interesting question hidden in there. What is it that defines or grants importance to the Arctic?

I would never wish to "speak on behalf" of anyone - especially Arctic communities, but I do not think it would be a stretch to say that the Arctic is the most important thing possible to Arctic communities. How can we scale the importance for communities where the Arctic is absolutely everything? The global stage is interesting because it brings forth the question of how "importance" emerges.

"Importance" and defining importance can be an extremely dangerous thing - even if unintentional. Importance may be defined as climate importance and entail vulnerability protections from one entity, while importance may be defined as strategic/economic importance and entail exploitation by another. Blanket's appeals to the importance of the Arctic may have the unintentional consequence of shrouding intentions while undermining what makes the Arctic important to those who actually live and bear the consequences of actions taken in the Arctic. The Arctic communities should (ideally) maintain the right to define what "it" is that's important about the Arctic, without centralizing or essentializing perhaps more prominent voices. Systems of advantage, disadvantage, privilege, and marginalization are only reinforced through the idea that importance is granted through the loudest voice.

My studies have helped me realize how systems leading to vulnerability and neglect remain stable and propagate while also giving me a sensitivity toward essentializing language - that is to say, I am increasingly aware of how positions of power and influence have the highest degree of likelihood to socially construct accepted norms. Essentializing language in the Arctic includes centralizing interpretations of the Arctic from outside prominent entities, thus marginalizing Arctic voices. That is a core issue to my approach to any issue involving the Arctic, and I think it will be an increasingly important issue as the "importance of the Arctic" becomes a more common topic in the global community.

You were named Outstanding Student of the Year for Philosophy two years in a row—what’s your secret to academic success?

Academic success is strange because it has come in vastly different forms throughout my time at UAF. Initially, my success was the cliche but difficult uphill battle of studying a lot and basically "living from test to test," if that makes any sense - I am sure people have similar experiences and feel the weight of the "academic routine." Success transitions over time; that balance of "living from test to test" is not always sustainable or good for one's mental health or fortitude. To that end, I encourage students to utilize UAF's mental health resources because they have been amazingly good to me, and academic success looks different to everyone.

That is where things really transitioned for me - finding a work/life balance has been extremely difficult, and it is something I still struggle with. What brought about success in my later years here at UAF is having a genuine passion for and interest in things like the Arctic and international politics. I read and learn things outside of the classroom because they are interesting, and I like them. I often relate lessons in classes to topics I have a genuine interest in, and I have noticed that the papers I write feel more authentic and have more passion in them. I am now less interested in simply "being right" based on the course criteria and more interested in putting forth work into which I feel I have put my knowledge and thought into. At the end of the day, we pay tuition to go to school - students are meant to take something out of the courses they take. I think recognizing that relationship and realizing we have a lot of wonderful professors who are very excited to have students with genuine interests in their disciplines really helped me find a successful and maintainable path. People who bring in their interests and pursue them through the lens of a class can put forth more meaningful work and escape from the feeling of working from a test to test for a grade.

Socrates said that true wisdom is knowing how little you actually know. Has there been a moment in your studies where you realized just how much there is still to learn?

First and foremost, I genuinely believe the world would be infinitely better if we were all introduced to “The Apology” much sooner in life!

I would take it a step further than just saying I've had “moments of realization” - I fully embrace and believe that “not knowing” is not in of itself a weakness. “Not knowing” only becomes a weakness when one tries to hide “not knowing” or “claims to know” based on appeals to something not connected to the unknown topic. In other words, "The Apology" teaches us that recognizing our ignorance is wise, so we cannot be wise without recognizing our ignorance.

When I am working in any discipline/on any topic, I try my best to remain aware that I have my set of knowledge to contribute to that topic or discipline, while others have theirs. I have a lot of time spent on things like argumentative logic (philosophy) or international relations (political science), but those specific topics do not allow me to make claims about all of philosophy or political science (let alone other disciplines)! Going back to your question, I would say that familiarity with a topic directly entails that there is an endless feeling of “not knowing” or that there is more to learn. All disciplines are connected to one another in infinitely complex and intricate ways that no one person could ever even come close to understanding. But that’s the point - we try our best to learn as much as possible about a specific thing, then use each other’s expertise in specific fields/topics within those fields to obtain reliable knowledge that encompasses a collection of experience and expertise.

---

 

Andy’s story is a compelling reminder that knowledge doesn’t exist in silos. When we invite one field of study to converse with another, we can begin to ask—and answer—questions that truly matter. Whether you're studying philosophy, engineering, or art, there's a unique, personalized academic path waiting for you here at UAF. Stay tuned as we continue to spotlight our 2024–2025 Outstanding Students of the Year over the coming weeks, each with their own interdisciplinary story to tell.