Critique of the Orthodox Reading

Abstract

The “orthodox reading” of Kant takes for granted that Kant’s philosophy is divided into two parts and that these parts are qualitatively different. This reading essentially says that the critical writings have predominance over Kant’s pre-critical writings because they contain what is considered to be Kant’s main philosophical claims. My contention in this chapter is to argue against this reading because, as I show below, it is not only a misleading approach, it is also inaccurate. This approach is misleading because it promotes the idea that Kant’s pre-critical writings are not of significant importance. This has the consequence of deterring Kant scholars and the general public from reading these texts. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why we have had decades of neglect of Kant’s anthropology, geography, history and education. The “orthodox reading” of Kant is inaccurate because it is not in line with the content of Kant’s anthropology; either it removes Kant’s theory of race from his philosophy or it affirms that it is peripheral. In doing so, the “orthodox reading” promotes its interpretation over Kant’s own understanding of the place of the theory of race in his philosophical system. Furthermore, because it focuses attention on Kant’s racial comments over a systematic analysis of the theory itself, it generates a polarized debate that leaves unaddressed the critical question of why Kant took his philosophical system to require a theory of race in the first place. I consider two objections to the “orthodox reading.” These objections are intended to illustrate that the debate concerning Kant on race has taken an obstructive approach. I also turn the discussion on its head by suggesting an alternative reading. Our ultimate aim in this chapter is to raise doubts about the soundness of various features of the “orthodox reading” of Kant’s racial theory that invite the objections we’ll look at. And at the end of the chapter, I suggest an alternative approach, the “heterodox” reading, that offers a global contextual analysis and which sees Kant’s theory of race as a cohesive component of his philosophy, since his notion of “Charakteristik” through his account of natural predispositions functions as the unifying link for all the parts of his anthropological thought and has considerable significance for his system as a whole.