Can One Be Just in an Unjust Society? A Graduate Conference on Ethics and Politics

Thomas Charrayre: Going back – perhaps in a somewhat textbook-like way – to ancient philosophy, we see that the notions of ethics and politics have long been closely intertwined. For instance, Plato develops the idea of an organic unity between the good life and the just city: a well-organised society was seen as a necessary condition for a happy life, and, conversely, the virtue of citizens as essential to the establishment of justice.

In the modern world, this unity dissipates: we tend to draw a clear line between private and public life, between what we do as individuals and what we do as citizens. We assume that it is possible to act justly even within an unjust society. Our moral imagination is, in fact, full of heroic figures who manage to follow their own ethical code despite living in politically unjust contexts – think, for example, of the Righteous Among the Nations.

This separation between ethics and politics is also reflected in the academic world. We distinguish between ethical philosophy and political philosophy, political theory and political science, as though ethics were solely concerned with right and wrong, while politics dealt only with what is or isn’t possible. Indeed, when we ask for an ethical analysis of a situation, we expect a moral judgement; whereas a political analysis is supposed to describe power dynamics and potential outcomes.

The conference we are organising seeks to revisit these distinctions, which we often take for granted, without necessarily advocating a return to the Greek conception of the good. That is why it revolves around three key areas, all aimed at showing just how blurred the boundary between ethics and politics can be. The first area brings together presentations focused on the historical study of the relationship between ethics and politics, in order to illustrate how this relationship varies depending on context. The second explores the possible need to “moralise” politics – that is, to view it as a domain governed first and foremost by ethical norms. Lastly, the third area features contributions that offer a political critique of moral norms, analysing the political implications of our ethical beliefs.

Ciara Luxton: Having spent time in France and elsewhere in Europe as a visiting fellow, Nancy Fraser, our the guest of honour for this edition, has shown how much scholarship can benefit from engagement with ideas that are culturally embedded. Her work demonstrates a deep appreciation both for what is specific to national contexts and for the perspectives that intersect around questions of global justice. Inspired by Nancy Fraser's example, we have put together panels ranging from the intimate ethics of the body and sexuality to intrinsically collective issues such as planetary justice and climate transition. The international outlook of our conference therefore enriches these reflections on the connections and tensions between ethics and politics.

Intercultural exchange offers us a unique opportunity to challenge our intuitions – often shaped by national and cultural inheritances – and to rethink them in light of other traditions. We have the privilege and the pleasure of welcoming to Sciences Po – an institution that is resolutely international and multilingual – young researchers from far and wide, brought together by a shared language of political and moral theory. The bilingual nature of the event (French–English) facilitates direct and inclusive dialogue between participants, reflecting our shared commitment to advancing research together. Here, political theory takes on a truly global dimension: our conclusions, far from being confined to a single country, engage with the realities of diverse societies. In a connected world, our analyses are interdependent: an idea originating in Quebec can inspire reform in Italy, just as a moral insight from Ireland can cast new light on a political hypothesis from France.

In this way, we are creating a space for exchange among a new generation of scholars, who will continue this dialogue throughout their careers. Together, we will develop new ways of thinking about politics and ethics, experiment with more flexible and inclusive methodologies, and build conceptual tools suited to a globalised world.

Sibylle Léonard: Nancy Fraser is the guest of honour for this edition. She brings a fundamentally critical perspective to the theme of “Ethics and Politics.” Like many feminist theorists, she challenges the classical Enlightenment-era separation between the ethical and political spheres – a division that sees ethics as a matter of individual conscience, while politics is understood as an impersonal domain concerned with government systems, laws, public policy, and quantifiable data such as votes and taxes. I am thinking in particular of Iris Marion Young’s book Justice and the Politics of Difference, which addresses this issue.

In her approach to social justice, Nancy Fraser puts forward the ethical-political norm of parity of participation: everyone must be able to take part, on an equal footing, in social, economic, and political life. This is an ethical norm in that it defines what it means to treat individuals as equals; but it is also – and above all – political, insofar as it demands institutions that can guarantee the real-world conditions for such equality. This demand is expressed through her tripartite conception of justice – redistribution, recognition, and representation – which she sets out in her book Scales of Justice. According to Fraser, these three dimensions are co-constitutive; they cannot be ranked or addressed in isolation. It is their imbrication that enables a nuanced analysis of contemporary injustices.

Thus, against single-issue approaches that fragment social struggles, Nancy Fraser advocates for an integrative way of thinking, at the intersection of theory and practice, ethics and politics. She stands within a critical tradition that combines insights from Marxism, materialist feminism, anti-racist and anti-imperialist struggles, and democratic and ecological theory. The cross-cutting nature of her thought explains its deep resonance with the wide range of topics addressed during this graduate conference.

A highlight of the conference will be Nancy Fraser’s lecture on 19 May, titled “Politics and Ethics in Extremis: A View from Trump’s America.” It will echo her recent analyses of the rise of authoritarian right-wing movements, the impasses of liberal progressivism, and the need to build counter-hegemonic blocs capable of advancing a genuine emancipatory project – themes she explores in her 2019 book The Old Is Dying and the New Cannot Be Born.

Cloé Artaut: The Graduate Conference is part of a well-established tradition within Sciences Po’s doctoral programme in political theory. Organising its eleventh edition, in May 2025, has been both a unique and formative intellectual and collective experience for us. We now fully appreciate just how valuable it is to have the opportunity, early in our research careers, to organise an academic event of this scale. It is a real learning experience, and one that reflects an essential aspect of the work of a scholar.

From an organisational point of view, it allowed us to strengthen our skills in scientific coordination, learning how to balance intellectual rigour with logistical constraints and the expectations of participants. On the intellectual front, our aim was to create a space for international and interdisciplinary dialogue around a theme we saw as both classical and timely: the relationship between ethics and politics. Drawing on a line of thinking that dates back to ancient philosophy, as Thomas reminded us, but has undergone many developments in the contemporary era, we wanted to explore how these two concepts – and the links between them – continue to shape our political practices and analyses. This meant building a conference programme that reflected that ambition, giving equal space to both historical approaches and more modern reinterpretations.

While we feel we largely achieved that goal, it was both surprising – and very rewarding – to discover that some of the proposals we received were quite far from what we had initially imagined when drafting the call for papers, yet still highly relevant to our theme. The gap between what we anticipated and what actually emerged proved to be immensely fruitful, allowing us to construct a rich and diverse programme that we are ultimately very proud of!

Following the conference, we are considering coordinating a special journal issue dedicated to the conference theme. This project would allow us to extend the conversation we began, showcase the research presented, and continue fostering dialogue among the young scholars involved.