Speciesism has become a central concept in moral\, social and political scholarship and movements concerning animals. Broadly understood\, speciesism refers to discrimination based on species-membership and is often compared to racism and sexism. Nonetheless\, unlike racism and sexism\, speciesism is still generally regarded as an acceptable bias by the public and\, also amongst philosophers\, opinions diverge.
\nNowadays\, most philosophers reject forms of speciesism which rely merely on membership in the human species. However\, anthropocentric approaches which are justified in more indirect terms are widespread. Indeed\, these have received renewed defences recently &ndash\; including accounts which rely on rationality or social categories\, among others.
\nThis raises pressing metaphysical\, normative and epistemic concerns about what it means to be a human\, whether anthropocentric approaches to moral and political theory can be successfully defended\, and a wider question about why philosophers might be compelled to defend them at all. At the same time\, there are a variety of related concerns that are more overtly political in character\, which theorists of race and gender attend to\, but which are under-addressed in the literature on animals. These include issues regarding systems of power\, structural injustice\, social hierarchy\, domination and oppression.
\nThis panel is therefore broadly concerned with the following question: if speciesism is similar to racism and sexism\, what lies behind the former&rsquo\;s largely unchecked dominance in our thinking\, conduct and social structures? And how might we better understand its continued socio-political power\, within and beyond analytic political and moral philosophy? The panel will consider a range of related sub-questions including\, but not limited to\, the following:
\nConfirmed speakers: Hannah Battersby (KU Leuven)\, Catia Faria (Complutense University of Madrid)\, Franç\;ois Jacquet (Université\; de Strasbourg)\, Matthew Wray Perry (University of Sheffield) and Valé\;rie G. Topf (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem).
\nFor remaining speaker slots\, \;we invite submissions of abstracts of 250&ndash\;300 \;words from scholars within philosophy\, political science\, law\, animal studies\, and related disciplines. Abstracts should be suitable for a presentation of roughly 20-30 minutes. Please email your anonymised abstract to valerie.topf@unipv.it by 11th May 2026. Responses to submitted abstracts will be provided by 22nd May 2026.
\nPlease note that registration\, travel and accommodation fees must be covered by speakers themselves. Information on current registration fees &ndash\; and bursaries for accepted abstracts &ndash\; will be available on the MANCEPT website. This year&rsquo\;s edition of the workshops will take place in-person only.
ORGANIZER;CN=Hannah Battersby;CN=Matthew W. Perry;CN="Valérie G. Topf": METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260515T122411Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260521T110000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260522T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT's Brave New World 2026 UID:20260517T222240Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Humanities Bridgeford Street\, Manchester\, United Kingdom\, M15 6AD DESCRIPTION:The 2026 Brave New World conference marks the 30th annual postgraduate meeting organised by the Manchester Centre for Political Theory (MANCEPT). It will be held on the \;21th and 22th of May 2026 in the Hanson Room in Humanities Bridgeford Street Building.
\nIf you would like to present a paper\, please send an abstract of approximately 300 words in PDF format to \;bnw@manchester.ac.uk \;no later than the 10th of April 2026. The document must not contain your name or institution\, as they are reviewed blind\, but please state your name and institutional affiliation in the email. Papers focusing on any area of political theory or political philosophy are welcome. Notices of acceptance will be sent by the 24th of April 2026.
\nWe are delighted to announce the following keynote speakers:
\nChiara Cordelli \;(University of Chicago)\, who researches contemporary political philosophy\, distributive and social justice\, and egalitarianism. Prof. Cordelli&rsquo\;s main research fields are social and political philosophy\, with a particular focus on questions at the intersection of political economy and democratic theory.
\nJonathan Floyd \;(University of Bristol)\, who researches nature\, methods\, and purposes of political philosophy\, particularly the way in which we justify political principles. Prof. Floyd&rsquo\;s work combined history\, political science\, and moral psychology\, leading to the twin theories of mentalism and normative behaviourism.
\nThe Brave New World conference series is a prominent international forum devoted to showcasing and discussing postgraduate research in political theory. The event offers participants the opportunity to present their work and engage in dialogue with leading academics\, including members of the University of Manchester&rsquo\;s faculty and guest speakers.
\nGuest speakers in previous years have included:
\nDavid Archard\, Richard Arneson\, Alice Baderin\, Carla Bagnoli\, Brian Barry\, Simon Caney\, Felipe Carreira de Silva\, Ian Carter\, G.A. Cohen\, Roger Crisp\, Cecile Fabre\, Jerry Gaus\, Bob Goodin\, Marit Hammond\, Jules Holroyd\, Duncan Ivison\, Katherine Jenkins\, Peter Jones\, Carl Knight\, Chandran Kukathas\, Cé\;cile Laborde\, Annabelle Lever\, Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen\, Jeff McMahan\, Matt Matravers\, Catriona McKinnon\, Emily McTernan\, Susan Mendus\, David Miller\, Martin O&rsquo\;Neill\, Onora O&rsquo\;Neill\, Serena Olsaretti\, Michael Otsuka\, Valeria Ottonelli\, Bhikhu Parekh\, Carole Pateman\, Carmen Pavel\, Anne Phillips\, Joseph Raz\, Andrea Sangiovanni\, Ben Saunders\, Samuel Scheffler\, David Schmidtz\, Quentin Skinner\, Hillel Steiner\, Adam Swift\, Jesse Tomalty\, Philippe Van Parijs\, Leif Wenar\, Andrew Williams\, Stuart White\, and Jonathan Wolff.
\nPlease note that we are asking all speakers and attendees to pay a registration fee of £\;20. The sole purpose of this fee is to ensure that we are able to provide a number of partial and full bursaries for speakers who would otherwise not be able to attend. As these bursaries will be allocated according to need\, please include a brief description of your funding situation when submitting your abstract if you wish to be considered for a bursary.
\nFor any questions\, feel free to contact Yonghao Huang\, Anthony McMullin or Jim Morrison at \;bnw@manchester.ac.uk.
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260515T122411Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260902T000000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260904T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT Workshop on Historical Injustice UID:20260517T222241Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:University of Manchester\, Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:This panel aims to bring together scholars working on philosophical questions that fall within the general scope of the topic of historical injustice. This includes substantive questions which concern certain kinds of past injustice\, such as racial injustice\, colonialism\, or territorial possession\, among others. Relevant also are theoretical questions about the ethics and politics of contemporary responsibilities for historical injustice. Among such theoretical questions are those that concern the grounds of responsibility for repairing past injustice\, what such repair must consist of when it is owed\, whether (and if so\, how) those grounds can be superseded over time\, and how facts about past injustice matter for contemporary political communities\, which includes questions about how (if at all) past injustice bears on normative features of contemporary political communities such as their justice\, legitimacy\, or authority. Projects falling within any of these subjects\, as well subjects broadly pertaining to historical injustice that were not mentioned here\, are welcome submissions to this panel.
If you are interested in participating in the workshop\, please submit an extended abstract (approx. 500-750 words) to aam5jm@virginia.edu by May 8th\, 2026. \;
The panel will take place in-person in Manchester\, UK between September 2nd and September 4th\, 2026. Further details about the MANCEPT workshops can be found here: https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/activities/mancept-workshops-2026/ \;
There is now a rich debate within and across diverse traditions of political and moral thought about the meaning\, use\, and desirability of the concepts of land and territory\, and their relation to justice.
\nFor example\, the past fifteen years have been marked by the dedicated theorizing about territorial rights in contemporary Anglo-American moral and political philosophy (see for example: Miller\, 2012\; Moore\, 2014\, 2015\, 2019\; Nine\, 2012\; Ochoa-Espejo\, 2020\; Simmons\, 2016\; Stilz\, 2019). While the first wave focused on core conceptual questions about the nature and scope of various territorial rights (including jurisdiction\, self-determination\, resource control\, and immigration)\, the kinds of agents who hold these rights\, and the normative justifications for them\, this literature has now self-reflexively entered a &ldquo\;second wave&rdquo\; characterised by a deeper concern for questions of global inequality\, decolonization\, overlapping projects of self-determination\, and the environmental crisis (Moore &\; Ugalde\, 2025). For example: What is the extent of morally mandatory restitution in cases of territorial wrongdoing\, including settler colonialism (Luoma\, 2023\; Luoma and Moore\, 2024\; Moore\, 2019\; Stilz\, 2024\; Riebold\, 2022\, 2023)? How may multiple peoples\, with distinct normative and ontological systems\, overlap in the same place without retrenching relationships of structural injustice and inter-group domination (Jourdeuil 2024\, 2025a\, 2025b\; Luoma\, 2022\, 2023\, 2024\, 2025)? What forms of governance are required in ecologically integrated regions spanning borders (Nine\, 2022)? How are territorial rights contingent on respect for biodiversity and ecological integrity (Moore\, 2023\; Kwan\, 2025)? How can the benefits and burdens of natural resources\, energy transition\, and climate change mitigation/adaptation be fairly distributed between groups (Armstrong\, 2017\; De Biaso 2024a\, 2024b\; Li\, 2022\; Moore\, 2019)?
\nConcurrently\, Indigenous scholars\, environmental philosophers\, and eco-phenomenologists interrogate the core normative\, ontological\, and epistemological assumptions of these discourses. Indigenous theorists challenge the hegemony of rights-based territorial frameworks\, contending that the natural world is not a stockpile of &ldquo\;resources&rdquo\; to be distributed and controlled according to a theory of justice\, but is better conceived of as a kinship network populated by beings deserving of intrinsic concern and respect with whom we must live harmoniously (e.g.\, Allard-Tremblay 2023\, 2025\; Burkhart\, 2019\; Mills 2017\, 2018\, 2019\; Simpson 2011\, 2017\; Temin 2023). Eco-phenomenologists challenge conceptions of land as a neutral background container against which we exercise our agency\, demonstrating how land and place structure our lived experience and subjectivity\, our ethical encounter with the alterity of the other-than-human\, and the possibilities for political agency (Casey\, 1993\, 2018\; Ingold\, 2010\; Malpas\, 1998\; Rose\, 2005\; Seamon\, 2018\; Smith\, 2001\, 2011\; Toadvine\, 2019).
\nBeyond political theory\, land and territory are at the heart of intensifying international political conflicts\, including attempted territorial annexations\, rising majority and minority nationalism\, struggles against (neo-)colonialism\, and the global climate crisis. Consequently\, this workshop welcomes submissions that investigate conceptual\, normative\, and applied questions at the intersection of land\, territory\, and justice\, from diverse methodological perspectives including\, but not limited to analytical moral and political philosophy\, environmental philosophy and eco-phenomenology\, Indigenous political thought\, critical theory\, and comparative dialogue.
ORGANIZER;CN=Kaitie Jourdeuil;CN=Michael Luoma: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260515T122411Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260902T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260904T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT Workshop on Ethics of Academia UID:20260517T222243Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:University of Manchester\, Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:We are inviting submissions for this workshop to be held as part of this year&rsquo\;s MANCEPT workshops. \;The Workshops will take place at the University of Manchester\, from 2nd to 4th September 2026.
\nRecent resurgence of interest in the ethics of academia has sparked debates about the ideals and ongoing practices within academic institutions. These debates often highlight the tension between the aspirational goals of academia &ndash\; such as promoting systemic equity\, inclusion\, and access &ndash\; and the constraints imposed by socio-political realities\, including discrimination\, bias and lack of diversity\, institutional backlash against specific disciplines\, and budgetary and financial pressures. Our panel contributes to these debates by focusing on challenges that academics face specifically in their role as academics. \;These include\, but are not limited to\, the following areas:
\nWe are interested in these or any other topic related to the ethics of academia. By engaging with these issues\, the panel aims to deepen ongoing discussions about what academia is\, what it ought to be\, and how we might reimagine academic life in more just and sustainable ways.
Submissions should \;be suitable for 30 minutes of presentation + 30 minutes of Q&\;A.
Please submit your anonymized abstract (300-500 words) by \;20th April 2026 \;using \;this form: \;https://forms.gle/UVP6ctu9uAVmko7W6
Participants must pay fees for registration and dinner\; further information about costs will be provided soon.
For any questions\, please contact Kritika Maheshwari (k.maheshwari@tudelft.nl)
MANCEPT Workshops 2026: Call for Convenors
\nConference Dates: \;2nd-4th September 2026
\nCall for Convenors Deadline: \;9th February 2026 \;
\nThe MANCEPTWorkshops \;is an annual conference in political theory\, organised under the auspices of the \;Manchester Centre for Political Theory. The conference offers academics an opportunity to come together in a series of workshops to develop specialised work and engage in lively philosophical discussion. Attracting scholars throughout the world\, the conference is now established as a leading international forum dedicated to the development of research in all subfields of political theory. \;
\nWe are now accepting applications for workshop convenors. Convenors coordinate and chair individual panels at the Workshops. The Workshops are distinctive in creating a space for both small group discussions focused on tightly defined topics\, while simultaneously providing opportunities for engaging with theorists working on the widest possible range of areas in Political and Moral Philosophy. \;
\nPlease note that the MANCEPT Workshops is \;fully in-person\, with no hybrid or online-only component. This decision has been made with a view to facilitating engaging and lively discussion\, with less time taken up with troubleshooting tech issues. Bursaries are available to speakers and will be awarded on the basis of need. Further details and instructions on how to apply for a bursary will be released in due course. \;
\nTo apply to convene a panel\, please submit a short abstract (maximum 500 words) through the \;Application Form \;
\n\nAccepted panels will then be advertised on our website. \; For more information about the MANCEPT Workshops\, please visit our new website (link below). \;
\nIf you have any questions\, please e-mail the Workshops organisers Maurits Bekkers\, Timothy Siew\, and Anthony McMullin at: \; mancept-workshops@manchester.ac.uk
ORGANIZER;CN=Maurits Bekkers;CN=Anthony McMullin;CN=Tim Siew: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260515T122411Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260902T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260904T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT Workshop - Epistemic Injustice and Backlash UID:20260517T222245Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:MANCEPT Workshop - Epistemic Injustice and Backlash: Call for Abstracts \; Recent years have been characterized by significant backlash to progressive social movements and social changes such as the #MeToo movement\, the Black Lives Matter movement\, and the increased visibility of trans people in public life. Dimensions to this backlash include the electoral &ndash\; i.e.\, the rise of far-right political parties\; the legal &ndash\; legislation\, executive orders and judicial decisions e.g. overturning rights to abortion and gender-affirming healthcare\, banning affirmative action and DEI initiatives\, and excluding trans people from participation in sport\; and the necropolitical &ndash\; e.g. the misogynistic murder of René\;e Good and the rising tide of anti-trans violence. A further important dimension to this backlash is the epistemic &ndash\; e.g. the widespread repudiation of the testimonies of Christine Blasey Ford and Amber Heard\, the ridiculing of slogans such as &lsquo\;defund the police&rsquo\;\, and the growing dissemination of myths and disinformation concerning trans people. This dimension to the backlash has recently begun to receive philosophical attention\, with aspects of it being theorized variously as 'hermeneutical backlash' (George &\; Goguen 2021)\, 'hermeneutical sabotage' (Edgoose 2024)\, and 'hermeneutical disarmament' (Morgan 2025) &ndash\; all phenomena thought either to constitute or to result in epistemic injustices. It has also been argued that previously proposed strategies for preventing epistemic injustices are frequently ineffective when confronted by backlash\, prompting a search for other strategies which might be pursued more effectively towards this end (Clanchy forthcoming). Much work on epistemic injustice and backlash remains to be done\, however &ndash\; especially in light of the epistemic injustice literature&rsquo\;s &lsquo\;methodological commitment to the primacy of the nonideal&rsquo\; (Medina 2013: 11). The aim of this workshop is to provide a space for the development of such work.
We invite submissions of abstracts of up to 500 words to a MANCEPT workshop on this topic. Abstracts should be submitted by \;May 1st \;and should be sent to \;han.edgoose@glasgow.ac.uk
Questions that papers may address include\, but are not limited to:
&bull\;How is the epistemic dimension related to other dimensions of backlash?
&bull\;To what kinds of epistemic injustice does backlash give rise? What strategies can be most effectively pursued to prevent epistemic injustices in times of backlash? What kinds of epistemic agency can be exercised by members of targeted groups (Pohlhaus 2020)?
&bull\;Does 'epistemic injustice' (Fricker 2007) in fact provide an adequate framework for thinking about these issues? What about these issues might this framework miss or distort but the frameworks provided by e.g. 'epistemic oppression' (Dotson 2014) or 'epistemologies of ignorance' (Mills 2007) capture?
&bull\;How should previous work on epistemic injustice and e.g. the #MeToo movement (e.g. Jackson 2018) or the Black Lives Matter movement (e.g. Anderson 2017) be developed or rethought in light of the current backlash?
&bull\;What practical lessons can be drawn for the present moment from a study of the epistemic dimension of previous backlashes (e.g. Faludi 1991)?
&bull\;Who bears responsibility\, in both backward- and forward-looking senses (Young 2011)\, for the epistemic dimension of backlash?
&bull\;How can thinking about epistemic injustice and backlash inform methodological debates concerning the relative merits of ideal and nonideal theory? \; The panel will take place in-person at the University of Manchester\, between September 2nd \;and September 4th \;2026. Further details about the MANCEPT workshops can be
found here: \;MANCEPT Workshops 2026 - Research Explorer The University of Manchester \; Han Edgoose and Nick Clanchy (organisers) \;
Liberal and democratic institutions are facing unprecedented challenges. The recent rise of radical right‑wing populist movements and their transnational networks and the access to government in several European countries of radical-right populist parties is testified by restrictive norms on migration\, equality rights\, and welfare.
Scholarly attention has focused on far-right stances concerning anti-migration and EU scepticism. The panel aims to explore and deepen the intersecting role that reproductive rights\, environmental and wider health policies play in shaping the political offer of the European and American far right.
Furthermore\, building on existing studies\, this panel examines the existence of common underlying ideologies of conservative\, libertarian\, and radical right‑wing populist actors enabling them to collaborate across borders to reshape policy agendas at national and EU‑level. It also investigates the transnational role of conservative think tanks in the broader dynamic of far-right discourses and their interplay in domestic policy outcomes.
We invite paper proposals on all aspects of rethinking the relationship between conservative and reactionary thinking\, politics and discursive struggles\, the development of social conservative policies that curb gender equality\, reproductive rights\, universal welfare model\, and environmental justice. Possible topics may be:
-Historical Reconstruction and Philosophical Analysis of Reactionary and Conservative Thoughts on Healthy Society\, Traditional Family\, Health and Social Welfare\, Environmentalism\;
-Discursive Strategies and Ideological Reframing: How do conservative and populist actors appropriate progressive language (e.g.\, &ldquo\;equal rights\,&rdquo\; &ldquo\;free speech\,&rdquo\; &ldquo\;protecting families&rdquo\;) to advance discriminatory or anti‑rights agendas? How do these movements collaborate or reinforce each other&rsquo\;s narratives and policy goals?
-Policy Content and Ideological Convergence: How do stances on public health\, sexual and reproductive rights\, climate policy\, environmental regulation\, and gender equality interlink or align across conservative and libertarian actors? Is there a common ideology or political agenda that unites various far-right parties in Europe and the United States?
-Can we identify a coherent European radical right agenda\, or do national contexts produce divergent models?
-Think tanks\, metapolitics\, and hegemony in the public discursive sphere\;
-Public Health\, Pandemic Measures\, and Antivax Movements\;
-Reproductive health policy\; broader ideological alignments linking opposition to reproductive rights with other policy domains which impact health and social policies.
This panel aims to foster interdisciplinary dialogue across political science\, global health\, gender studies\, environmental policy\, and critical theory. We welcome theoretical and empirical contributions. We invite scholars at all career stages\, especially young scholars\, to submit abstracts that engage with these themes.
To submit a paper\, please send an anonymized abstract of no more than 500 words\, suitable for a 30 minute presentation (followed by 30 minutes of Q&\;A)\, to Corrado Piroddi (corrado.piroddi@tuni.fi) or Valentine Berthet (valentine.berthet@tuni.fi)\, by Monday 18 May.
Successful applicants will be notified shortly afterwards.
Among Kant&rsquo\;s most enduring contributions to modern moral and political philosophy is the idea that there is a moral duty of respect for persons\, and that persons are owed respect simply in virtue of being persons. This Kantian insight reshaped subsequent debates by suggesting that the fundamental moral relation among citizens is not primarily one of benevolence\, utility\, or shared ends\, but of reciprocal recognition of equal status.
\nIn contemporary political theory\, respect for persons has become a central idiom for expressing ideals of legitimacy\, civic equality\, and the just state. Rawls describes a just society as &ldquo\;a social cooperation on a footing of mutual respect between citizens regarded as free and equal&rdquo\; (Justice as Fairness: A Restatement\, p. 28). Dworkin maintains that &ldquo\;individuals have a right to equal concern and respect in the design and administration of the political institutions that govern them&rdquo\; (Taking Rights Seriously\, p. 180). Nussbaum characterizes her capability approach as providing &ldquo\;the philosophical underpinning for an account of basic constitutional principles that should be respected and implemented by the governments of all nations\, as a bare minimum of what respect for human dignity requires&rdquo\; (Women and Human Development\, p. 5).
Despite its influence\, the idea that persons are owed respect (and that there is a corresponding duty of respect for persons) raises persistent puzzles and theoretical concerns. What kind of thing is respect: an attitude\, a pattern of conduct\, or a relation? How\, if at all\, can the duty of respect be justified? And does the language of respect for persons illuminate debates about justice\, or does it risk obscuring them?
The proposed MANCEPT panel will bring together scholars working on these and related issues. Contributions from a range of philosophical perspectives are welcome\, including historically informed work.
Possible topics include:
&bull\; The relation between respect and other central concepts in political philosophy\, such as justice\, equality\, freedom\, welfare\, and rights.
&bull\; Different kinds of respect at work in political philosophy\, including recognition versus appraisal respect (Darwall)\, opacity respect (Carter)\, care-respect (Dillon)\, and others.
&bull\; Applications of respect for persons to specific debates in political philosophy\, for example\, debates about wrongful discrimination\, state neutrality\, and distributive justice.
&bull\; Respect&rsquo\;s relation to cognate notions such as dignity\, moral status\, and inviolability.
&bull\; Criticisms of respect for persons\, including doubts about its usefulness in political theory and doubts about its role as a foundational political value.
&bull\; Feminist perspectives on respect.
&bull\; Respect for persons and justice toward nonhuman entities\, such as nonhuman animals and artificial intelligence.
Theories of Public Reason
\nPanel at the 2026 MANCEPT Workshops in Political Theory\, 2-4 September 2026 \;
\nThis panel seeks to bring together those working on issues related to public reason\, broadly conceived. Public reason is an influential framework for understanding how liberal democracies can make fair decisions for diverse citizenries. There is now an extensive literature around public reason: alongside John Rawls&rsquo\;s well-known account\, variants of the idea have been developed in the work of Gerald Gaus\, Jonathan Quong\, Andrew Lister\, Kevin Vallier\, Christie Hartley\, Lori Watson\, and others.
\nWe intend for this panel to have a broad remit within this topic. So\, we invite submissions contributing to any of the classic debates internal to public reason liberalism\, including\, e.g.\, the correct foundations of public reason requirements and the appropriate level of idealisation for public reason&rsquo\;s &lsquo\;justificatory constituency&rsquo\;. Papers on the application of the idea of public reason to the international domain also are welcome. Relatedly\, we are interested in the clash between competing approaches to public reason\, as exemplified by the debates between &lsquo\;consensus&rsquo\; and &lsquo\;convergence&rsquo\; public reason liberals. In addition\, we are open to submissions that are critical of the public reason framework\, for instance\, from liberal perfectionist\, realist\, or agonist perspectives. Moreover\, we would be interested in discussing key issues related to political liberalism\, Rawlsian or otherwise\, that go beyond the role of public reason within it. Possible examples include the nature of legitimacy\, the debate between advocates of &lsquo\;egalitarian&rsquo\; and &lsquo\;neo-classical liberal&rsquo\; political conceptions of justice\, and questions concerning the organisation of families within pluralist societies.
\nLike all other MANCEPT workshops this year\, this event will take place in person.
\nhttps://sites.manchester.ac.uk/mancept/mancept-workshops/
ORGANIZER;CN=Gabriele Badano;CN=Blain Neufeld;CN=Collis Tahzib: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260515T122411Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260902T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260904T170000 SUMMARY:Mancept Workshop - Epistemic Democracy and the Lure of Epistocracy: Questions in Metaethics and Political Normativity UID:20260517T222249Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom ORGANIZER;CN=Roger Ventura Cossin: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260515T122411Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260902T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260904T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT Workshop - Speciesism\, Power and Human Prejudice UID:20260517T222250Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester Center for Political Theory\, University of Manchester\, Oxford Road\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:Speciesism has become a central concept in moral\, social and political scholarship and movements concerning animals. Broadly understood\, speciesism refers to discrimination based on species-membership and is often compared to racism and sexism. Nonetheless\, unlike racism and sexism\, speciesism is still generally regarded as an acceptable bias by the public and\, also amongst philosophers\, opinions diverge.
\nNowadays\, most philosophers reject forms of speciesism which rely merely on membership in the human species. However\, anthropocentric approaches which are justified in more indirect terms are widespread. Indeed\, these have received renewed defences recently &ndash\; including accounts which rely on rationality or social categories\, among others.
\nThis raises pressing metaphysical\, normative and epistemic concerns about what it means to be a human\, whether anthropocentric approaches to moral and political theory can be successfully defended\, and a wider question about why philosophers might be compelled to defend them at all. At the same time\, there are a variety of related concerns that are more overtly political in character\, which theorists of race and gender attend to\, but which are under-addressed in the literature on animals. These include issues regarding systems of power\, structural injustice\, social hierarchy\, domination and oppression.
\nThis panel is therefore broadly concerned with the following question: if speciesism is similar to racism and sexism\, what lies behind the former&rsquo\;s largely unchecked dominance in our thinking\, conduct and social structures? And how might we better understand its continued socio-political power\, within and beyond analytic political and moral philosophy? The panel will consider a range of related sub-questions including\, but not limited to\, the following:
\nConfirmed speakers: Hannah Battersby (KU Leuven)\, Catia Faria (Complutense University of Madrid)\, Franç\;ois Jacquet (Université\; de Strasbourg)\, Matthew Wray Perry (University of Sheffield) and Valé\;rie G. Topf (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem).
\nFor remaining speaker slots\, we invite submissions of abstracts of 250&ndash\;300 words from scholars within philosophy\, political science\, law\, animal studies\, and related disciplines. Abstracts should be suitable for a presentation of roughly 20-30 minutes. Please email your anonymised abstract to valerie.topf@unipv.it by 11th May 2026. Responses to submitted abstracts will be provided by 22nd May 2026.
\nPlease note that registration\, travel and accommodation fees must be covered by speakers themselves. Information on current registration fees &ndash\; and bursaries for accepted abstracts &ndash\; will be available on the MANCEPT website. This year&rsquo\;s edition of the workshops will take place in-person only.
ORGANIZER;CN=Hannah Battersby;CN=Matthew W. Perry;CN="Valérie G. Topf": METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260515T122411Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260902T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260904T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT 2026: Who "knows" what Gender is? Arguments and Debates at the Intersection between Epistemic Injustice and Gender Identity UID:20260517T222251Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:Who "knows" what Gender is? Arguments and Debates at the Intersection between Epistemic Injustice and Gender Identity
\nOrganisers: Miriam Ronzoni (University of Manchester)\; Esa Dí\;az Leó\;n \;(University of Barcelona).
\nApplication form:
\n\nIn \;recent years\, the "Gender Wars" have dominated public debates in several Western countries. Whilst in the US the debate is largely one between progressives and conservatives\, the UK debate\, and many other European debates\, are often framed as being internal to feminism and what a feminist public policy should look like. Gender critical feminists argue that gender is an oppressive social construct\; thus\, the feminist thing to do with it is simply to destroy it (while failing to recognize trans identities). Trans-inclusive scholars contend that both gender and gender identity cannot be erased without committing very serious harms to some of the already most marginalised people. Predictably\, very different public policy agendas follow.
\nAt closer look\, however\, trans-inclusive scholars and activists agree that gender is largely a social construct. The idea that trans activists and scholars consider gender identity (whether cis or trans) as immutable and innate is largely a myth. The trans-inclusive claim is\, however\, that something can be a social construct yet be very real and serve important social purposes within a certain social context &ndash\; such that destroying the concept *whilst maintain the broader social context* would produce significant harms. Most trans-inclusive actors also agree that gender has many oppressive elements &ndash\; yet contend that\, all things considered\, trans-inclusion is the most promising way to deconstruct those elements. Gender critical feminists usually counter-argue that this stand is simply confused: if gender and gender identity are not something innate but social constructs\, then what are they if not just the oppressive creation of the patriarchy? What else can they be? Thus\, according to gender critical feminism\, either gender identity is conceived as something immutable and innate &ndash\; and that is an implausible claim\, or it is part of an oppressive ideology which should be dismantled. Everything else is mysterious.
\nThis workshop aims to bring together this debate with developments in feminist epistemology. Recently\, much has been written about how the marginalised can be wronged not just in material terms\, but also in their &ldquo\;capacity as knowers&rdquo\; (Fricker 2007). This can happen because their very plausible accounts of their lived experiences are discredited\; because mainstream language and knowledge lack the terms and concepts for their experiences\; and because\, as a result\, marginalised people have struggled to make sense of their own experiences &ndash\; both to themselves and to others. All of this is compatible with marginalised people being\, in spite of all\, very competent or even uniquely insightful knowers in certain domains (Medina 2013).
\nThe workshop asks whether this can be the case for the concepts of gender and gender identity. Could it be that\, when the opponent says that trans-inclusive accounts of gender identity are &ldquo\;confused\,&rdquo\; &ldquo\;mysterious\,&rdquo\; or &ldquo\;don&rsquo\;t make sense\,&rdquo\; epistemic marginalisation is playing a role? It would not\, after all\, be the first time. A standpoint of uncertainty and puzzlement is not necessarily one of ignorance: it can indeed be the starting point of productive epistemic innovations. Indeed\, paradigmatic cases of hermeneutical injustice confirm that: the working women who struggled to make sense of their experience of unwelcome sexual flirtation in the workplace are the very same women who went on and developed a new concept for it &ndash\; workplace sexual harassment.
\nThe aim is to explore whether this can apply to trans-inclusive conceptual innovations about gender and gender identity and\, if so\, how barriers of intelligibility can be overcome. Conceptions of gender identity are undergoing revisions in feminist philosophy (e.g.\, Barnes 2022\, Cosker-Rowland 2023\, Cull 2024\, Hernandez &\; Bell 2025\, Jenkins 2023). Our aim is to further explore the connections between debates about conceptual innovations on gender and gender identity\, on the one hand\, and questions about epistemic injustice\, epistemic marginalization and conceptual interventions\, on the other hand.
\nIf you are unsure about whether your proposal might fit\, please feel free to reach out to the organisers before submitting.
\nTo apply\, please fill in and submit the application form below by 30th April \;(EXTENDED UNTIL 7 MAY):
\n\nReferences
\nBarnes\, Elizabeth (2022). Gender without Gender Identity: The Case of Cognitive Disability. Mind 131 (523):836-862.
\nBriggs\, R &\; B. R. George (2023). What Even Is Gender? Routledge.
\nCosker-Rowland\, Rach (2023). Recent Work on Gender Identity and Gender. Analysis 83 (4):801-820.
\nCull\, Matthew J. (2024). What Gender Should Be. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
\nFricker\, Miranda (2007). Epistemic injustice: power and the ethics of knowing. New York: Oxford University Press.
\nHernandez\, E. M. &\; Bell\, Rowan (2025). Much Ado About Nothing: Unmotivating "Gender Identity". Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 12 (50):1313-1340.
\nJenkins\, Katharine (2023). Ontology and Oppression: Race\, Gender\, and Social Reality. New York: OUP.
\nMedina\, José\; (2013). The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression\, Epistemic Injustice\, and the Social Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
ORGANIZER;CN=Esa Diaz-Leon;CN=Miriam Ronzoni: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260515T122411Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260902T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260904T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT Workshop on Intimate (In)Justices UID:20260517T222252Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:Convenors: Kristin Kä\;uper\, Isobel Logan\, Charlotte Curran (University of Leeds)
Contact: \;i.j.logan@leeds.ac.uk
This workshop will explore the relationship between intimacy and justice. We will ask: When and how should considerations of justice extend into our intimate lives and influence our actions? How are intimate relationships shaped by\, reproduce\, and resistant to broader structures of injustice and oppression? Should we worry about the distribution of opportunities for intimacy? How do we balance the responsibilities of the individual\, communities\, and the state in promoting just forms of relating?
We hope to better understand the ways in which hegemonic norms\, institutions\, and intersecting forms of oppression structure intimate life\, governing who is able to form certain relationships\, which relationships are socially valued\, and how power operates within them. We seek to explore the potential of intimate practices and communities of care as sites of resistance\, solidarity\, and social transformation.
We are particularly interested in \;exploring \;non-normative ways of relating (e.g. asexuality/aromanticism\, polyamory\, relationship anarchy) and matters of intersecting identities that are underrepresented in philosophy (e.g. sexuality\, disability\, race\, age\, socio-economic status).
By intimacy\, we mean forms of closeness and connection upon which special relationships are based. This encompasses a wide range of relationships\, including but not limited to sexual\, romantic\, platonic\, collegial\, familial\, and parental relationships\, whether in-person or technologically mediated.
Registration opens in April
\nFurther details about the MANCEPT workshops can be found here: https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/activities/mancept-workshops-2026/ \;
ORGANIZER;CN=Isobel Logan;CN="Kristin Käuper";CN=Charlotte Curran: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260515T122411Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260902T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260904T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT 2026: New Directions for Cosmopolitanism and Global Democracy UID:20260517T222253Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:The political optimism of the post-Cold War period was accompanied by sustained scholarly attention to questions of global justice and democratic global governance (Caney\, 2005\; Held\, 1995\; Archibugi\, 2008). Yet the past decade and a half has seen a 'globalisation backlash' that has called into question the feasibility and\, for some\, the desirability of cosmopolitan aspirations\, and of the strong global institutions sometimes associated with them (Walter\, 2021). Alongside these political developments\, growing scholarly interest in the subaltern has prompted accusations that cosmopolitan and global democratic thought\, particularly where it emerges from the liberal tradition\, is guilty of a 'false universalism' that masks parochial moral views (Chakrabarty\, 2000).
\nThese developments raise numerous questions for cosmopolitanism and global democracy alike\, which share a common concern with extending moral and political principles beyond the state\, and face parallel challenges regarding feasibility\, legitimacy\, and the accommodation of diversity. Is democratic global governance compatible with cultural and national diversity? Is it possible to construct a truly inclusive cosmopolitan theory\, or is the tradition irredeemably particular? What institutional forms might a legitimate global order take? And what methodological approaches are best suited to theorising such questions?
\nRecent scholarship has sought to address these challenges from a variety of angles. Some scholars have engaged with non-Western philosophical traditions\, or the methods of comparative political theory\, to diffuse charges of Western-centrism (Graness\, 2018\; Xu\, 2018\; Shapcott\, 2020). Others have turned to 'grounded normative theory'\, using empirical research into lived experience to inform normative theory (Cabrera\, 2020). Scholars have also examined the relationship between cosmopolitan commitments and pluralist visions of global political order (Ulaş\, 2025). A further strand of literature has brought insights from empirical political science into conversation with normative political theory\, testing assumptions about the feasibility of global democratic institutions (Koenig-Archibugi\, 2024\; Agné\;\, 2022). Meanwhile\, scholars continue to debate the relative merits of polycentric approaches to global governance against proposals for more centralised supranational authority (Smith\, 2018\; Scholte\, 2014).
\nThis panel invites papers that engage with these debates. It welcomes contributions focused on cosmopolitanism\, on global democracy\, or on both\, including (but not limited to) their relationship to questions of diversity. It aims to bring together scholars working across different theoretical traditions and methodological approaches to reflect on substantive questions of global political order\, and the methods by which such questions are best addressed.
\nPapers are welcome on topics including\, but not limited to:
\nThe workshop will take place as part of the MANCEPT Workshops in Political Theory at the University of Manchester (September 2-4\, 2026). Bursaries are available to help cover the conference registration fee\, and participants are encouraged to apply if needed.
\n\nTo submit a paper\, please send an anonymised abstract of no more than \;500 words\, suitable for a 30 minute presentation (followed by 30 minutes of Q&\;A)\, to Maximillian Afnan at \;m.a.afnan@lse.ac.uk\, by \;Monday 11 May. Successful applicants will be notified shortly afterwards. \;
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260515T122411Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260902T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260904T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT Workshop on Republican Political Economy UID:20260517T222254Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:Since the publication of Quentin Skinner (1997) and Philip Pettit&rsquo\;s (1999) groundbreaking analyses of the republican tradition and the notion of freedom as non-domination associated with it\, political theorists and philosophers have applied the &ldquo\;neo-republican&rdquo\; lens to a wide variety of political issues. One domain where the implications of neo-republicanism are particularly contested is political economy. While some neo-republicans posit that republicans should simply want a familiar type of competitive market economy supplemented by a universal basic income (Pettit 2006\, Lovett 2009)\, many others have argued that the implications of republican values may well be more radical. To truly realize freedom as non-domination\, they have argued\, we may need a property-owning democracy (Thomas 2017)\, an economy of worker cooperatives (Gourevitch 2014)\, or even some form of socialism (O&rsquo\;Shea 2020\, Muldoon 2022). In addition to these big-picture questions about economic systems\, however\, neo-republican theory has much to offer for the normative analysis of more particular economic phenomena\, such as work\, debt\, housing\, financialization\, trade\, and many others.
This panel will serve as a venue for republican theorists to further interrogate the implications of republican values for normative political economy. We invite proposals that address\, but are not limited to\, the following questions:
If you are interested in participating\, please send a 500-word abstract to mjaarte@stanford.edu by May 10th. \;
\n
The MANCEPT Workshops is an annual conference in political theory\, organised under the auspices of the Manchester Centre for Political Theory. The conference offers academics an opportunity to come together in a series of workshops to develop specialised work and engage in lively philosophical discussion. Attracting scholars throughout the world\, the conference is now established as a leading international forum dedicated to the development of research in all subfields of political theory. You can find more information here: \;https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/activities/mancept-workshops-2026/
As Israel continues its genocide in Gaza and genocidal violence continues to be waged against the Rohingya in Myanmar\, Uyghurs in China\, the people of Sudan\, Ukraine\, Yemen and other places\, this calls for the re-examination of the basic contours of democratic theory. What are the implications for our thinking about democracy and democratic ideals when a genocide is perpetrated\, in the case of Israel\, by a regime that understands itself and is understood by many to be a democracy? What does it mean when genocidal violence is supported and facilitated in one way or another by democracies? When some genocides are sidelined\, minimized\, or denied by democratic publics or even by left movements that appeal to democratic ideals? How should this affect our analyses of democracy\, of its central commitments and tensions\, its values and authority\, its current crises and its futures? The goal of the workshop is to bring political philosophy and democratic theory into conversation with insights from genocide studies and other relevant fields.
\nGenocide has received relatively little attention from contemporary political philosophers (notable exceptions include contributions from Anne O&rsquo\;Byrne\, Mathias Thaler\, Larry May\, Claudia Card). Few contributions consider it from the perspective of democratic theory. The logic and practice of genocide is usually seen to be the antithesis of a presumed universalistic and egalitarian ethos of liberal democracy. Helpful starting points for addressing this theoretical disconnect include Mahmood Mamdani&rsquo\;s (2020) genealogy of political modernity. The political anthropologist argues that nation-states (first as settler democracies) are created from an ethnonationalist logic for which ethnic cleansing and genocide are\, if not inevitable\, always an option. This logic has led to ongoing cycles of political violence as nation-building necessarily creates permanent minorities. Genocide scholar Dirk Moses (2021) has argued that a liberal notion of permanent security\, which envisions the world to be secured from &ldquo\;enemies of humanity&rdquo\; in the name peace and self-determination\, has been used to justify civilian destruction and mass displacements. Malcom Bull (2006) has polemically argued that liberal just war theory&rsquo\;s consideration of &ldquo\;supreme emergencies&rdquo\; and humanitarian interventions in &ldquo\;outlaw states&rdquo\; have allowed for the liberal justification of mass violence against civilian populations. Sociologist Michael Mann (2004) has suggested that murderous ethnic cleanings are the &ldquo\;dark side of democracy\,&rdquo\; where the democratic ideal of rule by the people entwines the demos with the dominant ethnos. Philosopher Anne O&rsquo\;Byrne (2023) has emphasized the intricate tension between demos and genos\, the &ldquo\;empty form of democratic citizenship&rdquo\; and the need for a people&rsquo\;s reproduction over time and the creation of boundaries of belonging (which are attacked by genocidal violence). \;
\nFellow philosopher Melanie Altanian (2024) has observed that long-term genocide denialism serves to &ldquo\;consolidate relations of domination through epistemic means&rdquo\;\, with serious implications for the presumably egalitarian ethos of democracies. Indeed\, theorist of psychoanalysis Sarah El Bulbeisi (2026) argues that the suppression of the Palestinian experience of violence serves a social function\, especially in post-Holocaust Germany\, where it enables the construction of &ldquo\;a national narrative of atonement and moral righteousness&rdquo\; despite the country&rsquo\;s historical and continuous entanglements in racializing and colonial violence. Meanwhile\, these and other legacies of erasure and genocide denial have also significantly shaped scholarly debates. In response\, environmental humanities scholar and theorist of ecocide Darya Tsymbalyuk (2022) has highlighted that academia ought to re-center embodied and uncomfortable knowledges\, as its ongoing normalized detachment from the &ldquo\;wreck of reality&rdquo\; and lived experience reinforces hierarchies of knowledge&mdash\;and thereby arguably undermines the egalitarian character of democratic deliberation. Concerningly\, decolonial scholar Madina Tlostanova (2025) has observed that too often\, these hierarchies of knowledge reinforce the hierarchies of suffering\, fueling a binary either-or logic dividing the world into us and them\, which effectively enables various forms of exceptionalism that fuel genocides\, and in turn\, fail to uphold humanity and protection of life for all. \;
\nAgainst the backdrop of these persistent issues\, workshop contributions will confront genocidal aspects and tendencies of (or at least seeds in) central concepts of democratic theory and political philosophy\, such as peoplehood\, popular sovereignty\, majority rule\, national self-determination\, citizenship\, security\, and self-defense. How do seemingly emancipatory democratic ideals and rhetorics become intertwined with the large‑scale destruction of civilian life and social worlds? What does it mean when democratic publics authorize\, support\, tolerate\, or deny such genocidal violence? What are blind spots of global left\, decolonial and anticapitalist movements in recognizing and supporting victims of genocidal violence? How do colonial and imperial legacies shape who is removable\, killable\, and grievable? How does the so-called boundary problem of democratic theory relate to genocidal forms of boundary-drawing? How do anti-imperialist national movements avoid the pitfalls of postcolonial nationalism\, and simultaneously\, how can we better distinguish between the forms of ethnonationalism that drive genocides and the political forms of nationalism that resist the genocidal erasure and annihilation of a people? How do we imagine genuinely non-genocidal forms of political life (building on\, for example\, Wendy Brown&rsquo\;s notion of &ldquo\;reparative democracy&rdquo\; or Mamdani&rsquo\;s project of &ldquo\;decolonizing political community&rdquo\;)? And which approaches to knowledge making and political deliberation can best nurture such communities and support livable and equitable conditions across the world?
\nThe discussions in the workshop are meant to be exploratory and generative. The workshop is open to contributions from various disciplines and philosophical traditions\, and welcomes systematic and historical contributions and discussions of particular case studies\, specific theoretical approaches\, or individual thinkers. \;
\nPlease send abstracts of 300-500 words to \;gdt.mancept2026@protonmail.com. The deadline is May 1\, 2026. We will encourage participants to share a draft of their thoughts in some form (short paper\, handout\, etc.) by Aug. 1\, if feasible. \;
\nThe workshop will be held in person on Sept. 2-4\, 2026 as part of the annual MANCEPT Workshops. Please visit the \;conference website \;for information about costs and registration. MANCEPT provides a limited number of bursaries to participants on the basis of need. \;
\nIf you have any questions\, please feel free to contact us directly (torsten.menge@northwestern.edu).
ORGANIZER;CN=Torsten Menge;CN=Tereza Hendl: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260515T122411Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260902T113000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260904T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT 2026: Political Ordinary Language UID:20260517T222256Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:Political philosophy has long privileged public speech and institutional political discourse as central sites of analysis. Increasingly\, however\, attention has shifted toward the normative dimensions of ordinary language use and the dynamics of linguistic change in non-ideal social contexts.
Language is a social practice through which shared forms of understanding\, coordination\, and mutual orientation are sustained over time. Shifts in linguistic conventions can reshape how individuals relate to one another\, influence how social differences are marked or obscured\, and affect patterns of inclusion within pluralistic and diverse societies. The ways in which linguistic expressions are used\, repeated\, and taken up also structure expectations about what can be said and contribute to the reinforcement or attenuation of prejudices and stereotypes. In this sense\, language plays a constitutive role in shaping the normative environment in which social and political life unfolds.
This constitutive role gives rise to a range of philosophical questions concerning the emergence\, stability\, and contestation of norms governing language use. It invites reflection on how such norms are maintained over time and on the extent to which participants in shared linguistic practices are answerable to one another for their contributions to evolving communicative environments.
This panel seeks to bring together normative and descriptive perspectives on how patterns of language use emerge\, stabilize\, and transform across different settings. It therefore welcomes contributions that offer conceptual\, normative\, or empirically informed philosophical analyses of language as a social practice. These include\, but are not limited to\, the following areas:
&bull\; language in social construction
&bull\; the relationship between language use and social coordination
&bull\; feminist philosophy of language
&bull\; communicative responsibilities
&bull\; normative views on stereotyping and discrimination in communication
&bull\; social/political speech and social norm change
&bull\; linguistic injustice
&bull\; the distribution and justification of normative expectations across different speakers and contexts
&bull\; methodological issues in language and analytic ideology critique
&bull\; counterspeech
Tolerance and Education: Concepts\, Justifications\, and Limits
\n\;
\nPanel at the 2026 MANCEPT Workshops in Political Theory\, 2-4 September 2026
\n\n&ldquo\;Toleration&rdquo\; has long been a central concept in political philosophy\, yet its role in education remains surprisingly under-theorised. Philosophers typically analyse tolerance as forbearance: refraining from interfering with practices or ways of life one disapproves of. By contrast\, educational policy\, public debate\, and classroom practice often invoke tolerance in a thicker sense\, associating it with open-mindedness and being &ldquo\;non-judgemental&rdquo\;. This divergence raises a set of questions about what tolerance should mean in educational contexts\, and what schools can legitimately be expected to teach.
\nThis panel will explore the concept\, justification\, and practical implications of tolerance in education. It will bring together work in political philosophy and philosophy of education to examine how tolerance should be understood when the subjects are children and young people rather than adults\, and when the setting is the classroom rather than the public square.
\nOne set of questions concerns conceptual analysis. In the educational context\, is tolerance best understood as non-interference\, as non-disapproval\, as open-mindedness\, or as something else entirely? Are these rival concepts in tension\, or can they play complementary roles at different stages of education or in relation to different kinds of disagreement? Should tolerance be understood as a civic virtue\, a moral attitude\, an epistemic virtue\, or a cluster of beliefs and practices? And how does tolerance differ from neighbouring ideals such as respect\, recognition\, and inclusion?
\nA second set of questions concerns \;legitimacy and justification. Liberal political theory has traditionally been wary of state efforts to shape citizens&rsquo\; beliefs or attitudes. Yet schools routinely aim to influence how students think and feel about others\, and educational policy often treats certain attitudes &ndash\; racism and sexism\, for example &ndash\; as objectionable in themselves. When\, if ever\, is it legitimate for the state\, acting through its educational institutions\, to promote or discourage particular attitudes? And does the justification for tolerance in education rest on harm prevention\, autonomy\, or something else?
\nThird\, there are questions relating to \;feasibility and efficacy. Can tolerance be taught\, and if so\, what does successful teaching look like? How should philosophical accounts of tolerance respond to recent challenges questioning whether tolerant attitudes can be taught?
\n\nPresentations are likely to take the form of 30 mins presentation followed by 25 mins Q&\;A. The Q&\;A will be friendly and exploratory\, and there is no need for your paper to be near final form &ndash\; it can be a work-in-progress. Participants will be encouraged to submit and read papers in advance\, but this will not be a requirement.
\n\nLike all other MANCEPT workshops this year\, this event will take place in-person only.
\nFor information about the conference\, see the conference website: https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/mancept/mancept-workshops/
\nPlease note that registration\, travel and accommodation fees must be covered by speakers themselves. Information on current registration fees will be available on the MANCEPT website. Bursaries are available to help cover the conference registration fee\, and participants are encouraged to apply for these if needed (deadline 10th June).
\n\nSubmission Guidelines:
\n\;
\nPlease also feel free to reach out to Christina Easton\, the workshop convener\, with any questions.
ORGANIZER;CN=Christina Elizabeth Easton: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260515T122411Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260903T093000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260904T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT Workshop on Justice in Climate Litigation UID:20260517T222258Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:This workshop will focus on questions of justice raised by efforts to litigate the climate crisis. \;
\nAs climate change progresses\, individuals and groups are increasingly turning to the courts in pursuit of climate justice. As of March 31\, 2026\, the Climate Litigation Database maintained by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law lists over 4800 climate court cases\, nearly 70% of which were filed in the USA. Climate lawsuits have been used to pursue a variety of goals\, including injunctions on fossil fuel extraction\, stronger regulation of greenhouse gas emissions\, the implementation or funding of adaptation measures\, compensation for climate loss and damage\, and even punishment of those who contribute to severe climate-related harm. Climate litigation may also be undertaken for strategic reasons\, in an effort to promote awareness of the climate crisis\, undermine the social license of those contributing to it\, and spur more systemic change.
\nThough climate litigation is often used in an attempt to pursue goals of climate justice\, its use for this purpose raises various normative questions. These include questions about the legitimate role of the courts in climate governance\, and the potential for litigation to reproduce patterns of disadvantage due to the unequal accessibility of legal remedies. Some have also raised concerns that climate litigation could prove strategically counterproductive\, for example by spurring political backlash. \;
\nThis workshop will examine how litigation might be used as a tool in the pursuit of climate justice\, new concerns of justice that are raised by such efforts\, and how such concerns might be addressed.
\nQuestions that papers may examine include:
\nHow might litigation serve to promote or undermine climate justice?
\nWhat role should courts play in climate governance?
\nWhen should judicial interventions into climate policy be viewed as legitimate or illegitimate?
\nHow might climate litigation provide access to justice without reproducing existing inequalities?
\nWhat kinds of legal innovation or evolution might be required for the law to adequately respond to the challenge of climate change?
\nWhat are the ethical responsibilities of legal practitioners regarding climate litigation?
\nWhat is the proper role of scientists\, and scientific research\, in supporting climate litigation?
\nWhat role might philosophers and political theorists play in supporting climate litigation?
\nConfirmed speakers: Megan Blomfield\, Laura \;Garcí\;a‐Portela\, Santiago Truccone\, and Paula Nieto \;Herná\;ndez
\nCFA
\nIf you would like to present a paper at this workshop\, please send an abstract of 300-500 words to m.blomfield@sheffield.ac.uk\, by midnight UK time on Monday the 11th of May. Please include your name and any affiliation. We will endeavour to inform you whether your paper has been accepted by May 22nd.
\nPapers will be pre-circulated and everyone attending the workshop will be asked to read the whole set of papers in advance (anticipated to be approx. 6-10 papers). The deadline to submit full versions of the conference papers (maximum 8000 words) will be confirmed after acceptance\, but is likely to be around August 20th.
\nPractical information
\nPlease note that this workshop will take place on Thursday the 3rd and Friday the 4th of September. This year&rsquo\;s MANCEPT workshops are expected to take place in-person only. If this will be a barrier to your participation\, please make note of this in your submission.
\nParticipants will be required to register in full for the MANCEPT workshops (September 2nd to 4th) and will be free to attend other panels when ours is not running. This year's registration fees are £\;325 for academics (including postdocs) and £\;175 for those up to graduate level (including PhD candidates). More information about registration and how to apply for a bursary is available at:https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/activities/mancept-workshops-2026/
\nIf you have any questions\, please don&rsquo\;t hesitate to contact us at: m.blomfield@sheffield.ac.uk
ORGANIZER;CN=Megan Blomfield;CN="Laura García-Portela";CN=Santiago Truccone: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR