What is this project?
It's a project that wants to understand what matters to those pursuing political change from a virtue ethics perspective. We want to know what is considered brave, wise and just in particular communities, and how these virtues are reflected in the stories that activists tell about their past, their heroes and their fellow travellers.
You can read more about the project here.
You can read more about the project here.
Who are you?
We're lecturers at the University of St Andrews in the Handa Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence. Sarah has a background in Philosophy and Psychology, and Gilbert comes from a background that spans Ancient History, Middle East Security Studies and International Relations. We are both interested in what we can learn if we take seriously what those who want political change consider morally excellent.
You work at a Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence. Why are you writing about people who aren’t violent? Aren’t you implying that they are terrorists too?
No. We're concerned with the particular practices and commitments that those involved in political contention develop and how these relate to virtue. The tools by which political opponents pursue their goals differ across a number of measures, including whether they are violent or peaceful. Rather than looking at how wider structures define particular actions, we're interested in how the choice of tools is informed by notions of virtue in specific oppositional communities.
You’re going to be interviewing people. How can we trust you?
Before we do any interviews, all our research has to be passed by the University of St Andrews' Ethics Committee. To get this approval, we have to explain what we're doing and consider the ethical questions the research raises. If you take part in the research, any information you give will be treated completely anonymously and confidentially. That means that your words will not be in any way attributable to you, unless you choose to waive this right, and any recordings or transcripts of the interviews will be held securely at the University.
What do you mean when you use words like ‘radical’? or ‘transgressive’?
As we use it, we mean people who are willing to break the law in the pursuit of political change. We’re not judging whether this is right or wrong, whether the laws are good or bad. The point is, that it takes a certain kind of commitment to break the law anywhere. We’re interested in that commitment.
Are you suggesting that terrorists are good people?
Well, that’s kind of the point. We’re not really concerned with objectively saying whether they are good or bad. We’re interested in how far the situation of being involved in transgressive contention leads people to morally evaluate each other on their own terms.
Are you sitting in moral judgement of those involved in political contention?
Quite the opposite. We're interested in what moral judgements activists believe to have value. Rather than interpreting what those who are politically active do through the eyes of the law, or other social norms, we want to know, from their perspective, what matters.
Doesn’t ‘virtue’ sound awfully self-important? Aren’t most people with a political cause just interested in making the world better?
Different political settings have different views about what a better world is and how to achieve it. In exploring the practices and commitments that develop in trying to promote a particular future, we're concerned with answers to questions like: when does courage become foolhardiness, when does charity become extravagance, and when does confidence become self-importance. In a sense, we want to know what those involved in political contention think self-importance 'looks like' and how it is understood in particular communities.
We'll keep updating the FAQs in response to questions that come up. Get in touch and tell us what you want to know.