Understanding Race: The Case for Political Constructionism in Public Discourse

David Ludwig

doi:10.1017/can.2019.52

Abstract

AbstractThe aim of this article is to develop an understanding-based argument for an explicitly political specification of the concept of race. It is argued that a specification of race in terms of hierarchical social positions is best equipped to guide causal reasoning about racial inequality in the public sphere. Furthermore, the article provides evidence that biological and cultural specifications of race mislead public reasoning by encouraging confusions between correlates and causes of racial inequality. The article concludes with a more general case for incorporating empirical evidence about public reasoning into philosophical debates about competing specifications of the concept of race.

Highlights

Debates about racial ontologies raise difficult questions about public understanding
Specifications of race fail on explanatory grounds. While this argument has a lot of initial plausibility, it fails to acknowledge that alternatives to political constructionism can provide adequate explanatory resources if they specify the causal roles of hierarchically structured social positions through substitute concepts
The previous section introduced a causal-hermeneutical case for political constructionism by arguing that public reasoning about racial inequality is facilitated by a specification of race that tracks causes rather than correlates

Summary

Introduction

Debates about racial ontologies raise difficult questions about public understanding. Political constructionism in the sense of this article specifies “race” in terms of hierarchically structured social positions rather than biological or cultural features. The main goal of the article is to provide evidence that political constructionism supports adequate resources for public reasoning by identifying causes of racial inequality. Biological and cultural specifications of “race” are prone to producing public misunderstandings by foregrounding correlates rather than causes of racial inequality. Specifications of race fail on explanatory grounds While this argument has a lot of initial plausibility, it fails to acknowledge that alternatives to political constructionism can provide adequate explanatory resources if they specify the causal roles of hierarchically structured social positions through substitute concepts. It is argued that political constructionism supports adequate causal reasoning, while alternative specifications of race mislead public reasoning through confusions of correlates and causes of racial inequality.

The causal-explanatory case for political constructionism

The causal-hermeneutical case for political constructionism

Empirical evidence in support of the causal-hermeneutical argument

Toward a public discourse without “race”?

Findings

Conclusion