PHILOS 1420 Racism/Sexism Final Study Sheet PDF

PHILOS 1420: Philosophy of Racism/Sexism Final Study Sheet Date of Final: Friday, December 6th at 8am in the normal classroom (McPherson 2015) Racist Writings Fitzhugh, Cannibals, All! ○ Fitzhugh thought restrictions on human liberty were natural and desirable ○ Capitalist s...

PHILOS 1420: Philosophy of Racism/Sexism Final Study Sheet Date of Final: Friday, December 6th at 8am in the normal classroom (McPherson 2015) Racist Writings Fitzhugh, Cannibals, All! ○ Fitzhugh thought restrictions on human liberty were natural and desirable ○ Capitalist society was more predatory than slave society Slave owners own their slaves, capitalists merely rent workers. ○ Christian Morality dictates slavery to us. ○ Since husband already “has property in” his wife and children, natural to think he might have property in others as well. ○ Slavery of whites in principle acceptable as well – however, for the sake of the slaves, we wouldn’t want to introduce racial strife in their ranks. ○ The liberty of the slave is a curse to him – it is the humane thing to take it away. Hitler, Mein Kampf ○ Appeals to nature and biology – the “struggle of the races” has produced a superior race in the Aryan. ○ We ought to let the “higher order” triumph over lower orders – it’s in line with nature ○ Man is subordinate to nature, not the other way around. ○ True genius is innate, not learned. No possibility for the lesser races to become greater. ○ Denial of individualism, which should be subordinate to group identity Yockey, Imperium ○ Against race as a biological category – biological classifications can only be arbitrary. ○ Race is “spiritual” and makes individuals what they are, not the other way around. Commonalities between the three writers ○ Individual subordinate to the group. ○ Society naturally hierarchical, not egalitarian. ○ Since races are different, we ought to treat them differently. Sexist Writings  Romanes, “Mental differences between men and women” ○ Switches between norms and descriptions – what do we expect of men, versus what we actually see men doing. ○ Men’s qualities are born of strength, women’s of weakness. Wright, “The case against women’s suffrage” ○ Women don’t have the intelligence or moral qualities needed to vote. ○ Women incapable of being impartial or objective – overly subjective and personally biased. What is racism? Appiah, “Racisms” ○ Racialism is the doctrine that races exist – that there are heritable characteristics of humans that allow us to divide them into a relatively small number of “races” Not necessarily wrong, or morally bad, though Appiah denies that racialism is true. ○ Extrinsic racism is the doctrine that there are moral differences between members of different races because their racial essences entail certain morally relevant qualities. Thus, members of different races may differ in respects that warrant differential treatment – they differ in respects that we all agree ought to be grounds for differential treatment. If one person is less honest than another, that is proper grounds for us to treat them differently. So if one race is less honest than another, that is also grounds for us to treat them differently. When presented with evidence that such differences do not exist (or are greatly exaggerated), this rarely changes peoples’ minds. This seems to indicate that many extrinsic racists are not sincere. ○ Intrinsic racism is the doctrine that different races have different moral worths solely in virtue of their being different races. A intrinsically racist white person might value white people more than non-whites solely because they are white, not because of any difference in other qualities. Some extrinsic racism is (clearly?) really intrinsic racism but with an attempt to justify it. ○ Racism often involves a distorted rationality – an inability to think through evidence, or unwillingness to even consider evidence. ○ Racial prejudice is a disposition to believe false propositions about races, even in the face of evidence or argument that such propositions should be given up.  Zack, “Racism and Neoracisms” ○ Hearts-and-minds racism is racism by individuals, consisting of beliefs, reactions, emotions, and dispositions to act in racist ways. ○ Institutional racism, or structural racism, or systemic racism, is when institutions or policies adversely affect one race, or benefit one race over another, in an unjust way. No intentional bias is needed for something to be institutionally racist. US Criminal Justice system as a possible case of institutional racism. Question: is any and all differential treatment a case of institutional racism? Or does it need to be “unfair”, or meet some other condition? US school system also as a possible case of institutional racism. ○ Implicit racism is potentially non-intentional, or unconscious, racial attitudes that people might have. Micro-aggressions are small acts or statements that could reveal an implicit racial attitude. Implicit Bias Testing might reveal that people naturally “group” certain races together with positive/negatively valenced terms, like “criminal” or “citizen” White privilege refers to the possible benefits of being white in a hierarchical system of race. Epistemic oppression means exclusion from knowledge production, or discounting or evidence or testimonials from particular groups. What is sexism? Manne, Down Girl ○ The naive conception of misogyny as hatred of all women. Makes misogyny psychologically puzzling and rare. Even Elliott Rodger may not count as misogynist on this conception. Also hard to discuss misogyny when we can’t see into others’ heads. ○ Conceptual project Offers an analysis of our current concept of X ○ Descriptive project Attempts to describe how people use the term “X” in everyday life. ○ Ameliorative (or, Analytical) project See that a concept is useless (like that of “misogyny” under the naive conception), offer a new concept that we can better use to talk about things we care about. “What is the purpose of talking about X at all?”  ○ Manne is giving an ameliorative account of misogyny. ○ Misogyny is the “law enforcement arm” of a patriarchal order. A patriarchal order is made of norms and expectations that benefit men at the expense of women. Misogyny enforces and polices those norms and expectations. This moves the point of view on misogyny from that of the accused to that of its victims or targets. ○ Acts of misogyny may not be intentional or done by misogynists, but if they enforce the norms and expectations of a patriarchal order, we can reasonably call them misogynist. ○ Any action that affects women as women, and has the effect of policing a norm of a patriarchal order, counts as misogynist. Political Irrationality Huemer, “Why people are irrational about politics” ○ The Problem of Political Disagreement Why are political disagreements so widespread, strong, and persistent? Possible theories: due to miscalculation, due to ignorance, due to divergent values, or due to irrationality. Huemer thinks only irrationality really explains the problem of political disagreement. ○ If people held differing political opinions due to miscalculation or ignorance, we might expect them to hold them only weakly, or be unsure about them. Instead people are incredibly confident, even when provably wrong. ○ Political beliefs tend to correlate with “non-cognitive traits” like race, gender, personality, occupation, parents’ beliefs, etc. ○ Political beliefs tend to “cluster” even when no logical relation exists – views on abortion rights and gun rights will form two large clusters, even though the two issues are completely distinct. This would be unlikely and surprising if political disagreement were due to divergent values. ○ There are rational reasons why people would be ignorant about politics – learning more political information is costly and gives them almost no personal benefit. ○ There are instrumentally rational reasons why people would be epistemically irrational about politics. Instrumental rationality is about doing the things that best benefit you. Epistemic rationality is about forming your beliefs on the basis of evidence and argument.  You benefit from being a loyal part of the tribe, not from wisely picking apart the beliefs of your tribe. ○ Political beliefs act as self-image constructors – we want to appear a certain way to others. ○ Political beliefs act as tools of social bonding. Hanson and Simler, The Elephant in the Brain ○ The Political Do-Right – the ideally politically engaged citizen Does this archetype properly capture the political engagement of most people? ○ Puzzles Disregard for vote decisiveness: being in a swing state increase voter turnout, but only by a small amount. Most votes hardly matter at all, yet this doesn’t seem to trouble most voters. Uninformed voters If voters want to do right, why do they hardly know what’s happening at all? Entrenched opinions and strong emotions These don’t lend themselves to good political decision-making. ○ The Apparatchik – the loyal political flunkie Does this archetype better capture much political engagement? ○ Loyalty signaling We often vote out of group interest rather than self-interest. Voting behavior often seems “expressive” and an attempt to show loyalty. Sacrifices made to show political loyalty Strategic irrationality can show loyalty – that an issue is beyond discussion for us. Social Construction Searle, The Construction of Social Reality ○ Brute/Base reality vs observer-relative features of the world ○ Epistemic objectivity vs ontological objectivity Epistemic: can never be settled by objective means. Example: what’s the best symphony? Ontological objectivity: depends on subjectivity for its reality. ○ Functions are always observer relative ○ Features of social reality Self-referentiality  Performative utterances Logical priority of brute facts over institutional facts Systematic relationships among institutional facts Primacy of social acts over social objects, processes over products Linguistic component of institutional facts ○ Money as a socially constructed reality. What is race? Political constructionism ○ Haslanger’s ameliorative account of race/gender ○ We create a new concept that serves the political purpose we want it to serve (in her case, liberation) ○ A woman is someone who is oppressed on the basis of real or perceived feminine traits ○ A racialized person is someone who is oppressed on the basis of real or perceived racial traits (traits tied to geographic origin) Cultural constructionism ○ Social construction account, but not political construction ○ Biological realism is odd because it is about geographic origin circa 1492. ○ Rejects racial anti-realism (the idea that races do not exist) on the grounds that race is an important social reality ○ Participation in distinctive ways of life makes race real Biological realism ○ Race used in medical prediction, prognosis ○ There is a distinctive part of the human genome that allows us to predict someone’s declared race with a high level of accuracy What is gender? “Gender is the social meaning of sex” Epistemic problem of gender – many people clearly know their gender from a very early age (and not just from social cues, Fileva argues) The normativity problem – giving a substantive view of gender will exclude some, and include others, in a value-laden way Possible views of gender ○ Gender as “brain configuration” – Gender as subjective experience that arises from sexually dimorphic characteristics of the brain ○ Gender as a historical kind – women are women in virtue of sharing a common history with other women.  ○ Existential concept of gender – we have “first-person authority” over our gender and can simply declare it Economics Gender pay gap ○ Women are paid ~60 cents to every dollar a man is paid when there are no controls. ○ Women are paid ~78 cents to the dollar when controlling for some aspects of occupation. ○ Women are paid ~99 cents to the dollar when controlling for nearly all aspects of occupation. ○ Which is the “real” gender pay gap? It’s a normative question – it depends on what you value, on what you take a just society to be Segregation ○ Segregation can occur due to law, or top-down government intervention in peoples’ lives ○ Segregation can also occur spontaneously – Schelling gives a model of spontaneous segregation ○ Spontaneous segregation could result in a highly segregated society – brings up question of what we value more – freedom of choice, or integration/equality? Footbinding and FGM ○ Both practices are used to guarantee paternity (fatherhood of a child) ○ Both practices are extremely painful and dangerous ○ However, securing the “marriage premium” was often more valuable than not suffering through the practice – so the practice continued. ○ Footbinding ended in a single generation through the use of pledge associations ○ FGM could end similarly Contrary Voices Caplan – “Don’t Be a Feminist” ○ Feminism is not simply the view that men and women should be treated equally – there is widespread agreement on that. ○ Feminism is also the view that women are treated less fairly than men. ○ Caplan thinks it is not true that women are treated less fairly than men – the unfairnesses are roughly equal. Unfairnesses to do with labor hours, child work, house work, levels of pay, objectification, rates of violence, Not necessarily true that just because results are unequal that therefore the treatment was unfair.  ○ Why does feminism seem true? Because it is false – we take women’s suffering more seriously than men’s, so it seems like a bigger deal to us. Benatar, The Second Sexism ○ Caplan viewed unfairnesses as “canceling out” – Benatar sees them as adding up. ○ Benatar thinks the feminist critique of society is correct – women are treated poorly as women, often. ○ But he thinks the critique doesn’t go far enough – men are also treated unfairly, as men. ○ Most important example – men included in the military draft, make up the majority of victims of war. Sowell, “Race and Intellectuals” ○ Hayek’s critique of intellectuals Intellectuals look for the kind of understanding that can be put into a textbook or article – theoretical knowledge. But many things are only explicable through diffuse knowledge – the particular knowledge of time and place. There is no textbook explaining how to make cars from scratch. And yet cars are made. Most of this knowledge is particular to individuals or institutions and will never be written down. ○ Sowell’s critique of intellectuals on race They ignore the particular knowledge of time and place that could lead to massive inequalities without oppression. If one society has the political and economic institutions to sustain 2% economic growth, and another society has the political and economic institutions to sustain 0% growth, over time they will diverge by a huge margin. But this wasn’t due to oppression, necessarily. It could be due to small differences in “culture” – a nebulous concept, not appealing to intellectuals who want to write books and articles. White Supremacy Mills, The Racial Contract ○ It is taken as given that most of the classic works of political philosophy (Hobbes, Locke, Hume, etc.) don’t apply their analysis of rights to non-white people. ○ Most philosophers treat this as a mistake – Locke was just too racist to apply his theory appropriately. ○ But this is clearly not a mistake in some sense. The entire point of the theories, in some cases, was to justify racial hierarchies.  ○ This unspoken assumption running through political philosophy is white supremacy – the unmentioned racial contract that whites would share political rights, but only at the expense of non-whites. ○ Example: Locke’s theory of property rights. You gain property rights over part of the world when you mix your labor with it. Turn a piece of driftwood into a walking stick, and it’s rightfully yours. Agriculture counts as mixing one’s labor. Hunting and gathering does not. Thus, many Native American societies were excluded from property rights protections, and taking over the land on which they lived wasn’t morally wrong, according to Locke. List of Readings Fitzhugh, Cannibals, All! excerpts Hitler, Mein Kampf excerpts Yockey, Imperium excerpts Romanes, “Mental differences between men and women” Wright, Case against Women’s Suffrage excerpts Appiah, “Racisms” Zack, “Racism and Neoracisms” Huemer, “Why People are Irrational about Politics” Hanson and Simler, The Elephant in the Brain excerpts on politics Manne, Down Girl, chapters 1 and 2 Searle, The Construction of Social Reality, chapters 1 and 2 Haslanger, “Gender and Race: What are they? What do we want them to be?” Jeffers, “Cultural Constructionism” Spencer, “Biological Realism” Fileva, “Gender Puzzles” Mackie, “Ending Footbinding and FGM” Schelling on segregation Caplan, “Don’t be a feminist” Benatar, “The Second Sexism” Sowell, “Intellectuals and Race” Mills, “The Racial Contract” Additional Helpful Resources (if you need them) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (free, online, the best of the best, but sometimes difficult) Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (free, online, the second best) Wikipedia (fine, for the most part) Other online resources (beware, not recommended)