Social Studies of Ethics, Morality and Values Network "Workshop" Session

This event aims to provide a “workshop” session for works-in-progress. Two wonderful academics, Dr Kathryn Telling and Dr Greg Wurm, have volunteered to spend 20 minutes discussing projects that they are currently working on, followed by 10 minutes of questions/feedback for each talk.

As well as listening to two fascinating talks (abstracts below), we invite you to give feedback and suggestions on research quandaries that Kathryn and Greg are thinking through with their respective projects.

Talk 1: How affirmative action is, and is not, like the judging of cat shows

Dr Kathryn Telling, Lecturer in Education, University of Manchester

Abstract

The outcome of Students for Fair Admissions vs Harvard (2023) has proven a watershed moment for affirmative action. The US Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious higher education admissions are unconstitutional, potentially affecting practice at thousands of institutions. Critical academic responses to the ruling have drawn attention to its political motivations (Bender, 2024), and to its likely consequences for institutions and individuals (Oh, Tilbrook and Shifrer, 2024; Rubin et al., 2024). In my current research, however, I take a different route. I seek to move beyond the idea of affirmative action as something peculiar to educational decision-making, and to ask how policies that share characteristics with affirmative action operate in very different sites: that is, the sites of ‘serious leisure’ (Stebbins, 1982, Stebbins & Sachsman, 2017).

The research investigates empirically how evaluative fairness is understood at three serious leisure sites: all-breed cat shows, crown green bowling tournaments, and brass band competitions. Each site has developed complex judging protocols to do the work that educational evaluations must also do: mitigate for irrelevant impediments to achievement whilst upholding the principle that some individuals are more deserving than others. Yet qualitative researchers (and ethnographers in particular) have long cautioned against blithe attempts to compare radically different sites, as encouraging a superficial quest for similarities or differences, leading to unwarranted generalisations about larger social processes (for discussion, see Hannerz, 2003). Thus, in this paper, I will explore what can be gained, and what can be missed, when we seek to compare moral reasoning across very different types of activity.

Talk 2: Putting People over Politics: Explaining the Possibility of Political Depolarization

Dr Greg Wurm, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Brigham Young University

Abstract

In response to increasing political polarization, many studies and initiatives have arisen to try and find ways to reduce it. Yet while we are becoming increasingly aware of the whats, hows, whens, wheres, and whos of political depolarization, less attention has been paid to understanding the whys, or of what makes depolarization possible. In this paper, I draw on the social theory of George H. Mead, moral philosophy of Martin Buber, and ethical phenomenology of Emmanuel Levinas to argue that political depolarization is only possible inasmuch as: 1) there is a dimension of human personhood that exists beyond ideology and identity, and 2) the experience of personhood makes distinct moral claims on us that challenge us to rethink where we stand on particular issues (ideological depolarization), who we feel most ethically responsible for (identity depolarization), and our way of being toward those who think or feel differently from us (affective depolarization). In the conclusion, I discuss what implications this understanding of personhood has for our understanding of democracy and social theory generally.