Famke Veenstra recently won the prestigious Daniel Heinsius Prize for the best Master’s thesis in political science in the Netherlands. We interviewed her about her prize-winning thesis, her next steps, and the moment she heard the big news.
Congratulations, Famke – how very exciting. Can you tell us what your thesis is about?
I wrote my thesis on harm-constituting art from a critical republican perspective. Art plays a socio-political role, often needing to be offensive or "harmful" to challenge power structures. Harm isn’t inherently negative; it can expose unjust power dynamics or contribute to the common good. Only when harm is also an injustice does it need to be addressed.
Critical republicanism helped me demonstrate how art can create unjust harm where individuals are disadvantaged based on arbitrary characteristics like gender, race, or sex. This structural disadvantage is undeserved and therefore an injustice. Using speech act theories, I explored how speech can constitute subordination and oppression, showing that art, as a form of speech, can also constitute domination. Art that constitutes domination is therefore unjust and harmful.
However, artistic expression must remain as free as possible for a truly free and equal society. Art serves as "antipower" against domination, questioning accepted norms and giving a voice to the marginalised. It challenges dominant power structures and promotes alternative, ‘antipowering’ realities.
Antipower doesn’t mean limiting free speech for those who dominate, but expanding it for those who are oppressed. If art constitutes domination, it indicates a lack of freedom in the art world. Republicanism encourages open dialogue, where every voice is valued. Removing harmful artworks doesn’t expand discussion but restricts it, potentially creating new forms of domination. Critical republicanism calls for institutions and a culture of "critical civility" where all voices are recognised, heard, and respected.
That’s so interesting, and the jury absolutely loved it. How did you come up with this topic and your particular argument?
My Master’s thesis is both the continuation and the result of my previous theses. I wrote my Political Science Bachelor’s thesis on pornography from a feminist perspective. Feminism is very important to me, and I thought it would be fun to write about a controversial topic like pornography. Looking back on that piece, I would have done quite a few things differently, but luckily I had two more theses to write to ‘correct’ my mistakes. Through my thesis for my Philosophy Bachelor’s, I came into contact with republicanism and wrote from a feminist republican perspective again, about pornography. During this Bachelor’s, I also explored philosophy more broadly, beyond “just” ethics and political theory. This gave me the freedom to incorporate the philosophy of language (speech act theory) into the framework.
Then something just clicked for me. The combination of feminism, republicanism, and speech act theory gave me the words I needed to express what I intuitively felt to be true, if that makes sense. So, for my Master’s thesis, I wanted to write from the perspective of this framework again, and the current debate on the boundaries of free speech and art (thinking of the public debates on ‘cancel culture’) provided me with the topic of art on a silver platter. This meant it was not only something I was personally interested in but also quite relevant for today’s society. Besides, ‘art’ turned out to be a much more difficult concept to write about than pornography – which made it much more fun, too.
Will you follow up on this thesis – do you want to publish it or work more on it in some other way?
I’m not sure if I will follow up on this thesis. I’m not even sure if I will return to the academic world – perhaps a bit anticlimactic, I know. I thought about doing a PhD, but I also wanted to try something else for a while. Something that perhaps has a more direct effect on society than writing about a relatively niche part of political theory that probably only a few people really care about. I do think it is important, but I’m not sure it would make me happy right now. I do miss writing, though. So, who knows.
Tell me about the moment you received the news you’d won this prize. Did you get a phone call (like the Nobel prize winners)? Did you celebrate?
That’s actually a funny story – my thesis supervisor told me I was on the shortlist for this prize. That was really nice to hear, but I didn’t expect to actually win, so I kind of forgot about it completely.
Then, a few weeks later, I got a message from a friend congratulating me on winning the prize for my thesis. She saw a post on LinkedIn from Radboud University about it. I checked my emails to see if I had missed anything. To be truthful, I’m terrible at reading and responding to my personal email. I usually have a few hundred unread emails in my inbox (mostly ads). Turns out I could have known a week before my friend sent me the message.
I didn’t celebrate immediately because I was at work when I found out, but I texted my parents and sister and called my boyfriend. I think they were all even happier and prouder than I was, which was really nice.
Do you have any advice for future master students and their theses?
I think my advice would be to write about something you actually care about. Even though I really enjoyed writing my thesis, it can be hard and stressful. Writing about a topic you love makes it all worth it.
Wise words – thank you so much for your time, and congratulations again.