Global Dialogues

Moral authority is often imagined as an intrinsic quality shaped by personal experience, relationships, and the customs of the communities we belong to. It’s easy to assign moral authority to intimate sources—maternal guidance, late-night conversations, or the unspoken lessons absorbed through relationships. A year ago, I would have traced moral authority to these intimate sources, believing that my ethical compass was shaped by those close to me, by the quiet wisdom passed down through generations. Yetwhen we scrutinize the language we use to describe moral authority, the foundations of our ethical convictions may be more complex. For example, the very phrase "moral authority" contains a paradox. Moral, derived from the Latin moralis (concerning customs), evokes the idea of communal practices—values evolving horizontally through lived experience, negotiated by equals. In contrast, authority, derived from auctoritas (the capacity to augment), suggests a vertical imposition of judgment, where some individuals are positioned as arbiters over others. This tension—between the horizontal, evolving nature of moralis and the vertical imposition implied by auctoritas—reflects the contradictory forces at play within the concept of moral authority itself. It is this very tension that defines the ethical dilemmas we face in the world.

Michel Foucault's influence has complicated my understanding of this inheritance. His work reveals how our moral intuitions, which we might have once attributed to personal experience or intimate sources, are actually inscribed by broader societal structures that precede us. Foucault argues that power is not just wielded through overt institutions, but also operates through more subtle, internalized mechanisms that shape our thoughts, desires, and behaviors. What if the moral tug we feel in our hearts isn’t rooted in some intrinsic moral core, but is the result of these subtle operations of power? Foucault's unsettling contribution lies in his ability to denaturalize what we assume is most innate—revealing how external influences shape even our most personal moral convictions.

Even as I grapple with Foucault’s insights, I remain hesitant to fully surrender to his "hermeneutic of suspicion." When contemplating tender gestures of care—a mother teaching kindness, a child learning discernment—I perceive something that resists complete reduction to power relations. There is something in these moments that speaks of authentic ethical engagement, something that transcends mere linguistic construction or external manipulation. In this sense, moral authority cannot be entirely explained by Foucault’s framework, though his insights are invaluable in understanding how external systems shape our ethical lives.

The challenge, then, is not to resolve the tension between these forces but to consciously inhabit it—To recognize how language—through its roots in power, authority, and custom—shapes our moral commitments while still holding space for the authentic ethical relations that arise from our most intimate experiences. Like Garth Greenwell’s sentences, which Parul Sehgal describes as a "technology" that can both reflect and reveal, our lives reflect and reveal the complex interplay of power, language, and moral authority. Sometimes they even hold.

Christina Pan (C'27) is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences at Georgetown University.