Alya Khan

This thesis argues for a radical understanding of personal autonomy as constitutively social-relational. Standard conceptualisations in liberalism construe autonomy broadly in line with Frankfurt and Dworkin’s accounts, which rely on the idea of an inner self as the authenticator of personal commitments. These conceptualisations suffer from serious theoretical limitations including problems of regress, manipulation and authority. I argue that attempts to address these problems from within the standard paradigm, for example by building in conditions of procedural independence to prevent commitments from being manipulated, help to an extent. However, they remain reliant on an insufficiently explained idea of an inner self as the source of an autonomous agent’s motives, so they do not go far enough to capture what we want from autonomy: that it explains how a person can have the power to shape her life. I explore two sets of criticisms of the standard paradigm, from communitarianism and feminism; both argue that standard autonomy is excessively individualistic and fails to pay enough attention to the role of social factors. I enter the debate about how far, if at all, autonomy might be either causally (weakly) or constitutively (strongly) social-relational. I show that the liberal can accommodate the idea that autonomy is enabled by social relations, but is severely challenged by more strongly relational, constitutive claims. I make the original point that standard views cannot explain how individuals can be sure which of their motives are authentic and which should be endorsed. This is a significant gap in autonomy theory. I propose a methodological shift from analysing autonomous actions to analysing autonomous agency. Drawing on dialogical accounts of critical reflection, Axel Honneth’s inter-subjectivity, and Bernard Williams’ notion of ‘trustful conversation’ I contribute a constitutively social-relational condition for autonomous agency. From this I argue for a constitutive condition for autonomous actions. (PhD, 2014. Supervisors: Miranda Fricker and Susan James.)

This article explores ideas of a student-centred curriculum through an oral history project undertaken with minoritised students on an undergraduate health ethics module at a UK HEI. It analyses oral history interviews about student expereinces, reflects on the co-creation of knowledge via collective praxis, and re-thinks what it is to 'centre' students in a socially just classroom, institution, and wider HE sector. Furthermore, it discusses conceptualisations of trustful and dialogic classroom conditions and considers issues of intersectionality, decolonising, resisting the 'mythical norm' and addressing epistemic injustice in HE.

The article examines recent debates surrounding public sociology in the context of a UK based Department of Applied Social Sciences. Three areas of work within the department form the focus of the article: violence against women and children; community-based oral history projects and health ethics teaching. The article draws on Micheal Burawoy’s typology comprising public, policy, professional and critical sociology, and argues that much of the work described in the case studies more often lies somewhere in between, in the interstices, rather than within one or other of the four types. The result is not without its tensions and dilemmas, some of which are identified and explored, notably those arising from attempts to appeal to diverse audiences and meet the sometimes conflicting expectations of each.

The article explores the landscape in higher education in which old binary divisions are officially denied yet have been reinvigorated through a mix of conservative and neo-liberal policies. Efforts to resist such pressures can happen at different levels, including, in this case, module design and classroom practice. The rationale for such resistance is considered in relationship to the authors’ political and moral standpoints. Debates within higher education policy circles are invariably reduced to a series of oppositions: theory and practice; training and education; research and teaching. The article seeks to break down such polarities through an exploration of classroom practice. In fact, we argue that such distinctions help to legitimize the existing inequalities in higher education and group-based harms, which characterize the sector. Instead, a case is made for a pedagogy that enables students, particularly those from diverse and disadvantaged backgrounds, to use their experiences, values, etc. to exchange and develop ideas in a group context, thereby providing an important means of collective empowerment (intellectual and practical, both at work and in their private lives). In this process students are encouraged to use ethical theories as tools to explain and underpin their understanding of work-based scenarios. The role of the academic is to facilitate such exchanges and foster new ethical approaches and a public awareness and engagement that goes beyond the classroom. The pedagogic approach, drawing on notions of relational autonomy and narrative methods as well as providing spaces for the co-production of new knowledge, confirms the indivisibility of research and teaching.