of the challenges of leading a community of student ethnographers come to the fore, particularly as Beste recounts an incident in which a student disclosed to her committing a rape for which they had not confessed or faced any kind of sanction (p. 264). Engaging with such situations seems to be the cost of an embedded methodology for ethicists such as Beste, posing the question of how an ethnographer should best respond to unethical and criminal conduct in cultures under observation. The burden of Part III is to give attention to some of the negative effects of hookup culture and to offer some suggestions for amelioration. Just as it may be a context for the expression of unfettered sexual freedom, hookup culture is also associated with trauma, exploitation and the ruination of academic potential. As the students themselves report, law enforcement is only one aspect of what is at stake here: issues of enduring shame, peer pressure, victim blaming, and secondary victimisation all play a role. Beste acknowledges that the challenge for educational institutions manifests in the need to establish ever more sophisticated policies to adjudicate claim and counter-claim, often in situations where one student’s word is pitted against another’s and an unregulated ‘trial-bysocial-media’ has already occurred. There is a capacity for real tragedy to unfold as particular lives are caught up in crude institutional responses that need to balance a demand for due process, so protecting the presumption of innocence, and provision of pastoral carers who will genuinely believe accusers and offer credible mental health and legal support. After listening to her students’ experiences and facilitating their reflections, Beste is of the view that Christian ethics should respond to college hookup culture with a commitment to ‘freeing one another from dominant sexual, social norms’ (p. 301). What she provides is an immersive study demonstrating some of both the potential and the limitations of placing ethnographic methodologies in the service of Christian ethics. Beste moves beyond mere description to issue a call for action: ethnographic encounter fuels a normative ethical claim. Beste holds before us an alternative vision of human fulfilment than that enacted in hookup cultures. Inspired by Metz and her students’ reflections, she calls for institutional responses based on positive consent and proactive efforts to counter victim blaming. This is a worthwhile book for Christian ethicists who are keen to follow Beste in drawing upon the methods of social anthropology, as well as all who work to care for emerging adults.

中文翻译：

---

书评：伊丽莎白·阿格纽·科克伦，新教美德和斯多葛伦理学

领导学生民族志学者社区的挑战脱颖而出，特别是当贝斯特讲述了一个事件，其中一名学生向她披露了他们没有承认或面临任何形式的制裁的强奸（第 264 页）。处理这种情况似乎是对 Beste 等伦理学家来说嵌入方法的代价，这就提出了一个问题，即民族志学家应该如何最好地应对所观察文化中的不道德和犯罪行为。第三部分的负担是关注联播文化的一些负面影响，并提供一些改善建议。正如它可能是表达不受约束的性自由的背景一样，联播文化也与创伤、剥削和学术潜力的破坏有关。正如学生们自己报告的那样，执法只是这里利害攸关的一个方面：忍受羞耻、同辈压力、责备受害者和二次受害等问题都发挥了作用。贝斯特承认，教育机构面临的挑战体现在需要制定更复杂的政策来裁决索赔和反索赔，通常是在一个学生的言论与另一个学生的言论相矛盾并且已经发生不受监管的“社交媒体审判”的情况下. 真正的悲剧有能力上演，因为特定的生活陷入了需要平衡正当程序需求的粗略制度反应中，因此保护无罪推定，并提供真正相信指控者并提供可信精神的牧师照料者健康和法律支持。在听取了学生的经历并促进他们的反思之后，贝斯特认为基督教伦理应该以承诺“将彼此从主导的性、社会规范中解放出来”（第 301 页）来回应大学联播文化。她提供的是一项沉浸式研究，展示了将民族志方法论用于基督教伦理服务的一些潜力和局限性。贝斯特超越了单纯的描述，呼吁采取行动：民族志遭遇激发了规范的道德主张。贝斯特在我们面前展示了一种人类实现的替代愿景，而不是在联播文化中制定的愿景。受到梅茨及其学生反思的启发，她呼吁机构在积极同意和积极努力的基础上做出回应，以反击受害者的指责。