Paper short abstract:

Does an anthropology of ethics require moral relativism? How can and should one analyse values one considers unethical? Drawing on my research on Brexit I will discuss strategies on how to balance one’s own political agenda and values with an ethnographic depiction of others’ (un)ethical worldviews.

Paper long abstract:

Does an anthropology of the ethics require moral relativism? How can and should one analyse values one considers unethical? In my master’s thesis I researched white middle-class senior Brits’ motivations to vote for or against Brexit. For some, the decision involved a careful negotiation of the moral implications of their vote: Am I racist if I vote to leave the EU? I argue that applying the theoretical lens of an anthropology of ethics to political phenomena like Brexit allows us to make sense of and take seriously the values and concerns that influenced voters at the referendum. In my contribution to this panel, I will discuss dilemmas I encountered during my research: How do you respond if one of your interlocutors expresses racist opinions during an interview? How do you present xenophobic values in your analysis without lending them validity? Is it possible and even ethical to keep an analytical distance and remain descriptive when making sense of interlocutors’ (un)ethical values? I argue that it is, and it has to be. In the face of populism, dialogue is important. However, you cannot encourage dialogue if you do not make space for the existence of others’ (un)ethical views. An anthropology of ethics creates the space not necessarily for sympathising with people’s moral values, but for describing and understanding their evaluations and reflections of their actions. I therefore wish to discuss strategies on how to balance one’s own values with an ethnographic depiction of others’ (un)ethical worldviews.