On the duty of educating respect: a response to Robin Barrow

Haydon, Graham

doi:10.1080/03057240500495229

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…He concludes that 'something that is objectively offensive would have to be rationally defensible to all as reprehensible ' (2005, p. 268). Haydon (2006), however, is reluctant to define objectively offensive in this way. For Haydon, the notion of inherent offensiveness makes reference 'to sensibilities that have been appropriately educated or, at least, not thoroughly miseducated' (p. 23).…”

Section: Ethics Of Chanting 403mentioning

confidence: 91%

“…However, there are times when taking offence is the right thing to do. Haydon (2006) argues that if we think of taking offence in an Aristotelian sense, then the disposition to feel offended should manifest itself at the right time, for the right reason and to the right extent. If an act is inherently offensive, therefore, being offended is not only justified but praiseworthy.…”

Section: Appropriate Reactions To the Chantmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

‘I’d rather wear a turban than a rose’: a case study of the ethics of chanting

Jones

Fleming

2007

Race Ethnicity and Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we explore the moral status of a chant overheard during the Wales versus England (men's) rugby union international match in February, 2005. The specific chant, sung by Welsh supporters at their English counterparts, was: 'I'd rather wear a turban than a rose.' Specifically, we examine: whether the chant is offensive; whether the chant is racist; the extent to which the chanters can be labelled racists; and what, if any, might be the appropriate response(s) to the chant? We argue that from an ethical perspective there is a need to provide, howsoever difficult, an account of 'objectively' or 'inherently' offensive as opposed to 'subjectively' or 'contingently' offensive. We conclude that racism registers as 'inherently' offensive and that the chant itself is an example of racism. Our evaluation of the chant as racist involves a normative structure containing three main elements: carriers of national identity and pride; hierarchical re-ordering of racialized identities; and the 'playfulness' of parody. It is a form of discriminatory social practice that manifests itself in communication and is directed at ethnically different Others. It therefore carries manifestations of racism. However, to attach moral opprobrium equally to all of the chanters without recognizing the different possible dispositions of the chanters is inappropriate. There are different levels of moral blame-worthiness that ought properly to be attached to those who engage in racist actions/behaviours. Finally, we argue that there ought to be an appropriate set of responses that accommodates fully the character, cultural capital and political agency of individuals and institutions. We advocate a shared responsibility for cultivating respectful attitudes and an appropriate moral response to such chanting.

show abstract

Section: Ethics Of Chanting 403mentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Appropriate Reactions To the Chantmentioning

confidence: 98%