IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v102y2021i3p1074-1083.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Goes Wrong in Debates over Public Monuments

Author

Listed:
  • S. Brian Hood

Abstract

Objective This essay aims to explain the impasse in debates concerning Confederate monuments in public spaces by noting a difference in unstated philosophical assumptions. Method I examine two positions in this debate, offering an explanation for the inability for opposing sides to engage. The analytical framework has its basis in philosophical debates regarding objectivity in scientific theory selection. Results Arguably, the impasse in this debate concerns underlying ethical principles: one that assesses morality based on intentions that motivate actions (namely, the motivation for erecting a monument) and one that assesses morality based on consequences of actions (namely, the consequences of removing monuments). Conclusions The locus of discussion can shift to these philosophical principles, offering a novel avenue for discussion and, hence, reconciliation. I suggest a fate for Confederate monuments that is responsive to both sides’ concerns and is informed by another country's attempt to reconcile with its troubled past.

Suggested Citation

  • S. Brian Hood, 2021. "What Goes Wrong in Debates over Public Monuments," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(3), pages 1074-1083, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:3:p:1074-1083
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12967
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12967
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12967?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:3:p:1074-1083. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.