Global Dialogues

In our fragmented multipolar world, moral authority no longer resides exclusively in traditional power centers but in distributed networks anchored in social contexts. As an economist studying markets and institutions in South Asia, I've observed that frameworks guiding decisions develop organically through community interactions rather than descending from global institutions. This creates tension between formal authority and lived reality, requiring individuals to navigate contradictory moral systems.

India exemplifies this through its layered social architecture. The nation's expansive constitution promises comprehensive rights, yet their exercise is mediated through networks of class, religion, caste, and regional affiliations. A paradox has emerged: as formal institutions have strengthened, the gap between constitutional ideals and lived experience has manifested in more sophisticated forms. Citizens operate within parallel moral frameworks—one defined by state authority, another by deeply embedded community structures.

My research examines how names function as navigational strategies. Traditional Indian names contain markers of gender, religion, and caste—identifiers that persist despite anti-discrimination laws. Evidence shows these markers affect outcomes in institutional settings, prompting adaptive strategies: many Indians adopt caste-neutral names officially while maintaining traditional identities personally.

In Bihar, a large state in northern India, my coauthors and I find that the practice of "name doubling" is widespread. More than half of petitioners have caste-neutral names in official legal proceedings and tend to match with lawyers with similar names. Yet this results in subtle disadvantages, including an increase in case dismissal rates when matched with similar judges. Rather than eliminating bias, these practices create new categories of disadvantage, revealing how individuals must navigate multiple systems of authority with conflicting expectations and accountability mechanisms.

The implications of this distributed moral authority extend far beyond South Asia. Recent developments in the United States—such as the Supreme Court's rejection of affirmative action in college admissions—reveal parallel adaptive strategies emerging in western democracies. Individuals must navigate institutional frameworks that promise equality while functioning within social realities that perpetuate inequality. This phenomenon suggests that moral authority today operates not as a hierarchical imposition but as a complex negotiation across overlapping networks. The challenge of our time may be to develop frameworks that acknowledge this complexity—creating systems that protect human dignity not by imposing universal standards from above, but by recognizing the diverse cultural contexts through which moral authority actually flows.

Shareen Joshi, is an associate professor at Georgetown University.