Exploring immigration through formal axiology

Axiology in Conversation: Immigration Through an Axiological Lens

The second conversation in this series brings Jonathan (Jon) Chiampi together with Art Ellis and Steve Byrum to explore immigration through the lens of formal axiology.

Rather than attempting to provide a political position or a definitive solution to immigration, the discussion asks how formal axiology might help us understand the issue more clearly, particularly when public conversations are shaped by fear, assumptions, cultural narratives, and an “us and them” mentality.

Looking Beyond the Labels

A central theme throughout the conversation is the importance of seeing the person before the category.

Art and Steve explore how easily people can become defined by labels such as immigrant, undocumented, foreigner, or outsider. Once that happens, it becomes easier to lose sight of the intrinsic value of the individual.

The conversation draws on Hartman's observation that, when examined across different cultures, there are far more similarities in basic human values than there are differences. This provides an important axiological counterpoint to narratives that emphasize separation and difference.

Steve connects this to the idea of the person of fear and the person of faith. Fear can create suspicion of anything unfamiliar, while a stronger and more open orientation allows us to recognize that genuine risks may exist without allowing fear to become the primary way we see other people.

As Steve explains, “If we're strong within ourselves, we're not going to look first to difference and then to demean.”

Fear, Culture, and the “Us and Them” Mentality

The group considers how fear can be amplified through cultural narratives and repeated assumptions about immigrants.

Jon observes that some narratives appeal to a systemic way of thinking by reducing the issue to definitions such as us versus them, while overlooking the intrinsic question: What do we need, and what do they need, as human beings?

The conversation also explores how cultural experiences can shape the way people perceive those who are different from themselves. Historical examples illustrate how groups including Irish, Italian, Jewish, and other immigrant communities have previously been treated as outsiders, only to become established parts of the wider culture over time.

This raises a broader axiological question: How much of what we believe about other people comes from our own direct experience, and how much has been given to us through the culture around us?

Seeing the Human Value in Immigration

Art shares several examples from his professional experience that demonstrate what can happen when people are evaluated and valued beyond their cultural background.

One example comes from his work with healthcare systems experiencing significant immigration from Vietnam and Cambodia. Using the HVP helped organizations recognize that some of their own assumptions and biases could influence how they viewed potential candidates.

Art recalls one program leader acknowledging that the assessment helped reveal biases that might otherwise have influenced decisions about prospective physicians.

Another powerful story concerns a blind woman who discovered that a close friend she had known for years was Black. Her blindness had removed the visual distinction that had previously been shaping her perception. Her response was simple and striking: “My blindness has removed my color blindness.”

The story illustrates the potential for direct human connection to challenge assumptions that can otherwise remain invisible to us.

From Systemic Thinking to Intrinsic Connection

The discussion does not ignore the practical or systemic dimensions of immigration. Work, economic needs, laws, healthcare, borders, and community structures all form part of the conversation.

However, the participants repeatedly return to the importance of ensuring that systemic responses remain connected to intrinsic and extrinsic realities.

Art shares examples of Mexican workers who contributed significantly to businesses and communities, describing how relationships changed when people were valued as individuals rather than simply as workers.

Jon similarly reflects on immigration in areas where immigrant workers are essential to agriculture, technology, healthcare, and other industries. The group considers how easily economic dependence on immigration can coexist with narratives that portray immigrants negatively.

The discussion suggests that meaningful systemic responses are more likely when they are grounded in an understanding of the people affected by them.

The Power of Human Connection

One of the strongest conclusions from the conversation is that relationships can change perception.

When people eat together, work together, attend one another's celebrations, and become genuinely curious about each other's lives, the distance between “us” and “them” can begin to disappear.

Art shares an example from his work with managers in which one highly productive manager had developed genuine relationships with Mexican employees, including sharing meals and attending their community events. Rather than being a management strategy, these relationships grew from authentic interest. His productivity subsequently increased significantly.

The example reinforces an important axiological principle: intrinsic connection can influence extrinsic effectiveness and, ultimately, systemic outcomes.

The group closes by considering how organizations themselves can be structured to encourage stronger human relationships. Art references W. L. Gore's approach to limiting the size of work groups so that people could maintain meaningful relationships and responsibility toward one another.

Key Takeaways

This conversation demonstrates how formal axiology can provide a framework for exploring a highly complex and emotionally charged subject without reducing it to simple answers.

The discussion encourages us to:

• Look for the human being behind the label.

• Recognize how fear and cultural narratives can influence perception.

• Look for similarities rather than automatically emphasizing difference.

• Consider immigration through Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Systemic dimensions.

• Question our own assumptions and potential biases.

• Recognize the practical contributions immigrants make within communities and organizations.

• Understand the role of genuine human relationships in reducing division.

• Consider how stronger intrinsic connection can ultimately influence better systemic decisions.

Ultimately, the conversation returns to a deceptively simple idea: the more we genuinely know and value one another, the harder it becomes to see each other as “them.”

Help Shape Future Conversations

We would love to know where you think this type of axiological conversation could go next.

What topics would you like to see explored through an axiological lens? Are there practitioners, researchers, or other voices you would like to hear brought together for a discussion like this?

If you have ideas for future topics, suggested participants, or combinations of people who could bring interesting perspectives to the conversation, please email membership@hartmaninstitute.org and let us know.