Marissa Combs (Harvard University) reported a book session event for the second volume of the Handbook of the Sociology of Morality at the 2023 Social Science History Association conference in Washington D.C.

A lot has changed since the first volume of The Handbook of the Sociology of Morality was published in 2010. What was once considered a peripheral topic addressed in a few literatures has now evolved into a burgeoning and dynamic subfield. The diversity of perspectives on the topic has incited sprightly debate as scholars work to define key concepts, interrogate core assumptions, and shape a comprehensive research agenda. In their second volume, editors Steven Hitlin (University of Iowa), Shai M. Dromi (Harvard University), and Aliza Luft (UCLA) take stock in this resurgence, bringing together leading scholars in the field. Covering aspects ranging from cognition and decision-making to the role of institutions and applications to questions of inequality in civil society, this new volume offers clarity on the various viewpoints within the subfield and serves as a guidepost for scholars seeking deeper engagement in these issues. Anna Skarpelis (Social Science Berlin Center) chaired a book panel for the second volume of the Handbook of the Sociology of Morality at the 2023 Social Science History Association conference in Washington D.C. Opening the session, Shai M. Dromi shared insights from the editing process of the new volume, emphasizing the relevance of moral questions to some of the most critical sociological issues of our time. He then introduced the panelists, each of whom discussed their contributions to the handbook: Matthew Norton (University of Oregon), Candice Robinson (UNC Wilmington), Michael Rosino (Molloy University), Lynette Spillman (Notre Dame), Michael Lee Wood (Brigham Young University), and Dustin S. Stoltz (Lehigh University). In his chapter titled “Culture, Morality, and the Matter of Facts”, Matthew Norton calls on cultural sociologists of morality to study relationships between moral systems as they manifest in the social world. These “relational moral facts”, as he calls them, enable sociologists to reveal the causal mechanisms through which moral facts drive and are driven by structural and social dynamics. Applying this framework, Norton studies the contradictory moral positions of institutionalized slavery and the rule of law on questions of private violence in the ante-bellum United States. His chapter not only contributes insights to a crucial period of American history but, drawing on Abend (2008), also advocates for the analytical value of considering the “facticity” of these moral contradictions. Candice Robinson and Michael Rosino’s chapter, “Understanding Morality in a Racialized Society,” addresses a key gap in the literature on morality around race. How is morality racialized and how does racialization contain moral frameworks? They assert that previous works that neglect the consideration of race, racism, or racialization unwittingly contribute to “ahistorical and falsely race-neutral” approaches to the study of morality. Leveraging ethnographic research on racialized forms of morality in civic and political organizations, Robinson and Rosino propose a rich assemblage of frameworks that integrates racialized power dynamics and inequalities into understandings of moral orientations. Lynette Spillman’s chapter, “Morality, Inequality and the Power of Categories”, begins with a provocative claim: even if individuals consistently engaged in altruistic behavior, inequality and domination would persist. She argues that neither the properties of moral actors nor their actions are relevant to social inequality. Altruistic actions can have selfish and corrupt consequences. Instead, sociologists of morality can gain more analytic traction on these issues if they focus on cultural categorization, relational mechanisms, and the “moral background” of taken-for-granted beliefs about others and field of actions (Abend 2014). Adopting this perspective, she draws on recent studies exploring racial/ethnic stigma, economic justice, and human rights. How is morality related to cooperation? In their chapter, “Grounding Oughtness: Morality of Coordination, Immorality of Disruption,” Michael Lee Wood and Dustin S. Stoltz explore this question by drawing on insights from phenomenology, ethnomethodology, and cognitive science. They argue that morality emerges from embodied, situated, and coordinated activities. The foundation of morality lies in a “radically local” phenomenological experience of “oughtness,” developed through repeated practical experience. Consequently, immorality is characterized by a sense that the expected “oughtness” of a situation or practice has been violated, often leading to conscious moral deliberation. This model holds implications for researching moral variation and the socio-historical factors influencing moral deliberation and moral frameworks. Shai M. Dromi presented Hajar Yazdiha’s (USC) chapter, “Bridging the Sociologies of Morality and Migration: The Moral Underpinnings of Borders, Policies, and Immigrants.” Yazdiha sheds light on the moral foundations that not only influence analytical perspectives, but also contribute to political debates concerning borders, policies, and immigrants. She develops a comprehensive research agenda within an evolving landscape of global politics for the sociology of the morality of migration. Yazdiha identifies three areas of potential fruitful exchange between scholars of morality and migration: 1) exploring how structures, resources, and power impact migration processes; 2) analyzing the socio-historically patterned meanings of migration across cultures; and 3) understanding the moral judgment and discourse surrounding migrants and stakeholders.

The panel concluded with a lively discussion moderated by Anna Skarpelis. Panelists and audience members discussed shared questions and themes across the chapters including: Are there moral truths? Where does morality come from? At what scale should sociologists conceptualize and study moral phenomena––at the “radically local” or the macro-level? Should sociologists of morality engage in moral judgements?