Report
Teaser, summary, work performed and final results
Periodic Reporting for period 1 - AnCon (A Comparative Anthropology of Conscience, Ethics and Human Rights)
Teaser
This project is a comparative anthropology of conscience, ethics and human rights. Numerous international human rights documents formally declare their commitment to protect freedom of conscience. But, what is conscience and how do we know it when we see it? How do we...
Summary
This project is a comparative anthropology of conscience, ethics and human rights. Numerous international human rights documents formally declare their commitment to protect freedom of conscience. But, what is conscience and how do we know it when we see it? How do we distinguish it from self-interest or fanaticism? And what happens when the concept, often associated with a distinct Christian or liberal history, travels across cultural boundaries? The project will examine the cultural conditions under which claims to conscience are made possible, and the types of claims that are most persuasive when doing so. The project first addresses these issues through the comparative analysis of three country case studies: British pacifists, Sri Lankan activists, and Soviet dissidents. These case studies have been carefully chosen to provide globally significant, but contrasting examples of contests over the implications of claims to conscience. If claims of conscience are often associated with a specifically liberal and Christian tradition, mid-twentieth century Britain can be said to stand at the centre of that tradition. Sri Lanka represents a particularly fraught post-colonial South Asian counterpoint, wracked by nationalist violence, and influenced by ethical traditions associated with forms of Hinduism and Buddhism. Soviet Russia represents a further contrast, a totalitarian regime, where atheism was the dominant ethical language. Finally, the project will return specifically to international human rights institutions, examining the history of the category of conscience in the UN human rights system. This project will be ground breaking, employing novel methods and analytical insights, in order to producing the first comparative analysis of the cultural and political salience of claims of conscience. In doing so, the research aims to transform our understandings of the limits and potentials of attempts to protect freedom of conscience.
Work performed
Ancon began on August 1 2015. In addition to the PI the other active members of the team named in the proposal include:
o Professor Jonathan Spencer, (University of Edinburgh), Case Study 2 (.2FTE for 48 months from August 1 2015).
o Dr Sidharthan Maunaguri, (National University of Singapore), Case Study 2 (.2FTE for 48 months from August 1 2015).
o Dr Galina Oustinova Stjepanovic, Case Study 3 (1FTE for 48 months from August 1 2016).
o Dr Laura Major was employed as a Research Assistant for Case Study 1 (1 FTE from September 1 2015 to August 31 2016).
o There has been a delay in issuing a contract to the PT consultant on case study 4 (Harini Amarasuriya). This has not caused conservable issues, and lost time can be made up for on the remainder of the project.
The research team have held regular face to face meetings meetings for those in Edinburgh, and via email and skype for those based elsewhere, to ensure the integration of work priorities. To date this model has worked well and there have not been any difficulties in managing the collaboration in this way. We have also established shared Outlook Onedrive folder and Nvivo projects in order to effectively share and analyse data. We have also held an internal project workshop in Edinburgh to coordinate work in progress.
During the first eighteen months, the team has made considerable progress. Background literature has been analysed and gaps have been identified. We have also made progress in our empirical investigation, identifying key sources, carrying out scoping interviews and conducting archival research for all four case studies. Archives have been consulted in the UK, the US, Russia and Sri Lanka. The relevant archives for Case Study 1 have all been visited, and large amounts of data on British conscientious objectors has been collected. Documentary sources have been identified for case study 2 and initial consultation has progressed. Archives have been identified in Case Study 3 and initial consultation has progressed. It was initially thought that most of the relevant archives for this case study would be in Birobidzhan. However, initial research revealed that the majority of relevant holding are in Moscow, and it is here that the research has focused in the first phase. Scoping interviews have been carried out in Sri Lanka and France (case study 2), Russia (case study 3), the US and the UK (case study 4). Data analysis has commenced in accordance with the work plan. I am comfortable with the amount of progress we have made in each of our four case studies at this point.
Final results
We have been progressing in line with planned project outcomes. In the medium to long term we hope to make a contribution to public discussions about the meanings and implications of claims of conscience.