Abstract
Lawrence Blum’s ‘ I’m Not a Racist, But...’ : The Moral Quandary of Race is purposeful moral philosophy done well. It is, however, not without fault. I challenge Blum on three issues regarding the language of race. First, I suggest that disagreements about the racial language we use are part and parcel of the debate about racism, rather than being something that we can and should resolve ahead of time. Second, I question whether the language of ‘racialized groups’ can be institutionalized in a way that is clearly distinct from the language of ‘race’. I focus especially on challenges to implementation within the classroom context. Third, I argue that Blum wrongly assumes that changing our language will change our social psychology. By contrast, data from both system justification theory and stereotype threat theory indirectly demonstrate that individuals are likely to perpetuate racist assumptions and behaviors, even if they adopt ‘racialized group’ language.
Highlights
At no point does one wonder, as one does with all too much moral philosophy these days, “Why does this matter?” Blum makes it clear from the start why we should care about the language and concepts of race and racism, and he does a brilliant job of integrating careful philosophical analysis with contemporary examples, historical explication, and creative thought experiments
Blum suggests that language is a key: we can both move forward in the fight against racial injustice and promote cross-racial dialogue about racism and other racial ills, he suggests, if we analyze and clarify what we mean by certain words that are often used too loosely; recapture other terms that have inappropriately been divested of moral weight; and abandon the language of “race” altogether because its history of use has made it inherently misleading
I will suggest that disagreements about the racial language we use, such as about “what racism is,” are integral elements of the debate about race and racial injustice, rather than something that can and should be resolved ahead of time
Summary
This outright rejection of race sets up the challenge he confronts in the final two chapters (and unstated third section) of the book: how simultaneously to rid ourselves of the inimical concept of “race” while still promoting the causes of racial justice and equality — causes which, as Blum showed, require for their achievement that we name and pay attention (as opposed to blind ourselves) to differences among racial groups.iii In chapter 8, “Racialized Groups and Social Constructions,” Blum proposes to replace the concept of “races” with “racialized groups,” arguing, “The term ‘racialized groups’ is preferable as a way of acknowledging that some groups have been created by being treated as if they were races, while acknowledging that ‘race’ in its popular meaning is entirely false”
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
