This is something different from me. Consider it my contribution for Juneteenth—the most libertarian of holidays. I’ve considered a post on reparations for some time—having been convinced by David Boonin’s Should Race Matter?—and may still do that at some point. But I recently listened to a couple of interviews with the author of a provocative new view and this post practically wrote itself. So….
Dr. Sheena Mason has an interesting book, Theory of Racelessness, in which she defends what she calls “racelessness.” I have not studied the book (I’ve listened to her speak about it), but her her view seems to include something like the following argument:
For race to exist, it must be either a natural kind or socially constructed.
Race is not a natural kind.
Race is not socially constructed.
Hence, race does not exist.
Hence, we live in a raceless world.
Premises 1 and 2 seem straightforward and true. Premise 1 seems straightforward because it seems like the dichotomy is necessary. If it’s not—if there is a third option—the argument falls apart. I’ll assume the dichotomy is accurate, but I’d be eager for readers to suggest a third option.
Premise 2 seems true. Consider the Māori of New Zealand. Before they faced Europeans, they were not a unified group, but many tribes. The group or nation “Māori” is a recent construction, owing to European settlement. Still they’re often thought of as a single group – a social construction, not a natural kind. The same seems to apply to larger groups. Why, after all, think dark-skinned people from the Carribbean and from Africa are members of a single group that excludes people from India, Ireland, or China? Why think light-skinned people from Europe and the US are members of a single group that excludes people from India, Ireland, or China? (Also see Thomas Sowell’s Ethnic America.)
As should be clear from what I just said about Premises 1 and 2, I think Premise 3 is the most questionable. As I understand it—and I may not follow this correctly—Mason’s thinking is that we often confuse race with culture, ethnicity, and class. That seems true. It’s not clear to me why this would mean race is nonexistent or not socially constructed.
Can there be a racist that is not opposed to a culture, ethnicity, or class? Perhaps better put, can there be a bigot that is opposed to (or hates) something that might reasonably called a “race” and not culture, ethnicity, or class? If so, what would such a bigot be opposed to? There likely are bigots who falsely associate a particular set of beliefs or behaviors with people from the (racial? racialized?) group they hate, where likely what they oppose is those beliefs and behaviors—and possibly the culture, ethnicity, or class in which they are most common. Perhaps they hate black people because they think black people and only black people create and listen to rap music. I am inclined to think, though, that there are also bigots who would recognize the mistake of these naïve views–they recognize, for example, that some white people make and listen to rap music as well so that this fails to distinguish whom they hate from whom they do not hate. Such bigots simply hate a set of people, where that set is determined by some factor members of the class typically cannot change (black people, e.g., cannot ordinarily change their skin color). It may be that these people are utterly confused and misguided—how can skin color matter on its own?—but such does seem possible. It seems this sort of (perhaps bizarre?) bigot is not opposed to a culture, an ethnicity, or a class, and is opposed to something we (or they) recognize as racial, even if we can’t clearly specify what that is. Is that simply an error? Is there is nothing there that these people hate?
One guess, suggested by Jim Taggart (in conversation), is that Mason over-intellectualizes the topic. Bigots don’t, he suggests—and I agree—usually think through what it is they hate. They don’t, for example, think “well, race is neither a natural kind nor a socially constructed kind so there must be a third possibility or I should give up my view.” Nor do they likely think “sorry, but race is a natural kind and it’s what I hate.” Rather, they have a visceral reaction to something that is “other” to them. It is unfortunately unlikely that we will convince them to renounce their bigotry by convincing them race is not a natural kind, nor (even more) by convincing them that race does not exist. On the other hand, we might help reduce racism—and bigotry more generally, if we could convince them that their own group is also not a natural kind and indeed is not even a cohesive group (see David Bernstein’s Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America). If they realize that, they may come to realize there is no cohesive group to which they belong and no cohesive group for them to oppose.
To be clear, my final suggestion above is that what is behind all sorts of bigotry is “identity politics.” If bigots stop identifying as in one group (e.g. the group of white people), they are less likely to hold negative views of “others” because less likely to see others as members of an out-group. There can’t really be an out-group if there is no in-group. Does this mean there are no racial groups? No, it means that if we work to end identity politics we’ll be working to end the way people are racialized into groups. It’s not to deny that there are such groups; it’s to recognize they are socially constructed and thus subject to change. Perhaps we can end racism by ending identity politics.
Jon-Thanks for this! I take it you mean race is nothing more than an idea (something that is socially constructed clearly exists, but may exist--I think--as nothing more than an idea). That's fine, I suppose. I don't think I'd accept that "believing in race makes one a racist by definition," but that's because I think racists are, by common understanding, wrong or bad. Most of us understand what people mean when they speak of "race," so most of us "believe in it" in some sense--but most of us (I would say) are not wrong or bad. You could say "no, being a racist isn't necessarily being wrong or bad--after all, I said one could be a racist without being a bigot." That's certainly a reasonable way to go, but it would be an uphill battle to convince people concerned about racism of that claim and I am not sure there is enough possible gain to make it worthwhile. What say you? -Andrew
I believe race is a socially constructed idea and doesn't exist. From my perspective believing in race makes one a racist by definition, but not necessarily a bigot. Race inherently "others" groups of people.
What criteria would be used to scientically define a race? I've tried to come up with a list of criteria someone could be tested against for a "race" and it's never a pretty list.