HomerJay wrote:Mr.Samsa wrote:Institutional racism would only apply to the first part of IT's suggestion there (the "government laws" bit), and not to the rest.
No, look it up.
I have done and I did again but I can't find any definition of institutional racism which includes racism outside of institutions. Can you link me?
HomerJay wrote:Mr.Samsa wrote:There's a decent overview of the issue
here.
From the link
Today, then, the absence of a clear "common sense" understanding of what racism means has become a significant obstacle to efforts aimed at challenging it. As usual there are different interpretations -- different racial projects -- in conflict with one another over the very meaning and structure of racism. It is common to find the view, especially among whites (but also among nonwhites), that we must somehow get "beyond" race in order to overcome racism. For example, I often hear in my classes comments such as "I don't care if someone is black, white, green or purple; a person's just a person to me...," etc. This implies that racism is equivalent to color- consciousness and consequently nonracism must be a lack of color- consciousness. We should recognize that this type of idea, however naive, is a true product of the civil rights era, notably the movement's early, "liberal" years.
On the other hand, I hear from other students (from my black and brown students particularly, but by no means only from them), that racism is a "system of power." This idea implies that only whites have power, and thus only they can be racists. We should also recognize the origins of this idea, which exhibits a different but no less dangerous naivete -- for it is highly problematic to assert that racially-defined minorities are powerless in the contemporary U.S.
I guess we should all remember to read the link before we post it.
It is indeed a reminder, as you should have kept reading.
In order to identify a social project as racist using the criterion I have proposed here, one must demonstrate a link between essentializing representations of race and hierarchical social structures. Such a link might be revealed in efforts to protect dominant interests, framed in racial terms, from democratizing racial initiatives. For example: changing to at-large voting systems when minority voters threaten to achieve significant representation. But such a link might also consist of efforts simply to reverse the roles of racially dominant and racially subordinate. In melanin theories of racial superiority (Welsing 1991), for example, or in the racial ontology of the Nation of Islam with its mad scientist Dr. Yacub, we see racist projects which have a black provenance. Racism is not necessarily white, though in the nature of things, it is more often so. It inheres in those political projects that link racial essentialism and racial hierarchy, wherever and however that link is forged.
which is consistent with what I've argued here.
hackenslash wrote:Mr.Samsa wrote:It was done in the relevant fields that study this topic, mostly sociology, and it was around the 70s and 80s when the shift occurred.
And nobody is being denied using it in other ways, you know that's not how science works. Arguments have been made (as summarized in this thread) as to why the revision was necessary and so far only a few fringe views have challenged it. It might still be wrong but you'd need evidence and reasoning to back you up.
I don't recall any citations. I may have missed them, but I'll be happy to give them a look.
No part of that claim really requires citations though, as I've given the reasons for the change in definition and you haven't addressed them at all.
hackenslash wrote:I've given you reasons and you've presented no rebuttal.
I haven't seen anything that I'd call a good reason for redefining a perfectly serviceable word.
Whether the reasons I've given are "good" or not depends entirely on your rebuttals, of which there are currently none. So even if they are "bad" reasons, they are better than the no reason that you've given.
hackenslash wrote:There is no fallacy there for a couple of reasons. Firstly I'm not claiming that it's right because academics think so, I'm pointing out that the arguments behind it being insufficient caused it to be dropped and that's something that needs to be addressed.
I look forward to the citations.
I've linked to one just before your post here.
hackenslash wrote: Secondly, appeals to authority only apply to invalid appeals and there is nothing invalid there as they are relevant experts.
Err, no. The appeal to authority is what makes it invalid. And experts in what? Definitions?
Not at all, argument from authority is only fallacious when it is a
misuse of that authority. Appeals to authority are a common and necessary part of any discussion, especially when discussing the consensus of a field. It only becomes fallacious when the authority is speaking beyond their expertise, is demonstrably biased in some way, or the name is used to dismiss evidence with no further argument. None of which occurred.
It's a commonly misunderstood fallacy, like "ad hominem" which is often misinterpreted as meaning "insult" or "personal attack", but there's a decent overview of the fallacy
here.
And they are experts in race theory, of course.
hackenslash wrote:I'm not sure what your argument is supposed to be here - why would laymen being ignorant of technical definitions affect the validity of those definitions?
I've yet to be convinced that they are valid, which is pretty much the point. See, the way definitions really work in the sciences is to remove ambiguity. The definition I've given contains none.
I'm not saying that they are absolutely valid but if you are saying that laymen being ignorant of technical definitions affects their validity, in means that it questions or harms the validity in some way (e.g. it might demonstrate that it has no validity). I'm saying that I don't understand how laymen being ignorant is an argument against it at all.
And exactly, the definition presented removes ambiguity which is why it's preferred.
hackenslash wrote:Would you apply the same argument to atheism, where the fairly recent revision of it meaning 'lack of belief in god' hasn't been communicated to the public who largely think it means the rejection of God?
That's not a recent revision, it's pretty much always had that definition. Indeed, the first people to whom the word was actually applied were theists (christians, actually). In any event, the definition I employ for atheism applies because it
defines atheism.
"Always had that definition" is a bit of a misrepresentation of the facts. Etymologically it can be understood to refer to that but it's certainly not how most people have understood it throughout history and hasn't been the dominant definition.
hackenslash wrote:It fulfils the obligations of sufficiency and necessity. I can't see that in your treatment of racism which, as far as I can see, introduces ambiguity and fucks rigour up the arse.
Great, if you can present an argument or some kind of reasoning for that assertion I'll happily try to help understand where our disagreement is coming from.
hackenslash wrote:If you look up practically any sociology textbook you'll find it. If you still can't find any then when I'm next at a computer I'll link you to some.
Well, since the
argumentum ad googleityourselfum is the laziest argument, I'll kindly await your citations.
Jesus christ, this is a discussion not a fucking interrogation. I told you I was on my phone and it'd take you 2 seconds to find it. Even though I was on my phone I still took the time and effort to link you to a relevant paper. A discussion requires a little bit of give and take, and if you'll truly interested in holding an accurate position then you shouldn't be waiting around for someone else to type in anything like 'sociology racism definition' and give you the results.
Here you go:
Handbook of the Sociology of Racial and Ethnic Relationshackenslash wrote:Then it's irrelevant to this discussion since I've given reasons as to why the contexts require a more accurate definition.
Lovely way to ignore the argument, which demonstrated the relevance.
You didn't present any argument! I presented the case of racism and explained in detail how there are significant differences that require the terminology to be distinguished. You disagreed and said that even though there are significant differences in the two related phenomena, we should just call them the same thing. Your "reasoning" for this is that a rotting badger is still a rotting badger. What the fuck does that even mean?
Look, if you can give an example of two rotting badgers differing in extreme and significant ways but still not requiring different terms, then we can move forward. Assuming that you can do so, I'll reply by pointing out that just because differences in one area don't require a change in terminology doesn't mean that that applies universally to all cases of significant differences in phenomena.
hackenslash wrote:Your position seems to hinge on the fact that you just happen to personally like that definition and I don't see how any more discussion can be had if you're unwilling to address the points I've made
No, my position hinges on the fact that the definition was perfectly and completely rigorous as it was, and I see absolutely no reason for it to be redefined, not least because that's the way it's used, and always has been.
And I gave reasons as to why it wasn't rigorous at all, and so far you have failed to address them. I don't care if you think I'm wrong and maybe I am, but you have to understand that this discussion isn't going to go anywhere until you present some kind of reasoning for your claim. If you keep asserting that you disagree then we can firmly establish that you disagree but that doesn't help us figure out what's actually true and what position we should take.
hackenslash wrote:OK, read that article, and I'm not sure I see where it supports you. It's dealing with governmental approaches to defeating racism and, in that context, I can see some useful distinctions, but I don't see how it defeats the original definition I gave. What you call a technical definition is a technical definition in a very specific, societal context, but doesn't apply to the attitudes and behaviours of individuals.
Consider your case not made. Got anything else?
This is my position:
Today, a racial project can be defined as racist if it creates or reproduces hierarchical social structures based on essentialized racial categories. This approach recognizes the importance of locating racism within a fluid and contested history of racially based social structures and discourses. It allows us to recognize that there can be no timeless and absolute standard for what constitutes racism, because social structures undergo reform (and reaction) and discourses are always subject to rearticulation. This definition therefore does not invest the concept of racism with any permanent content, but instead sees racism as a property of certain political projects that link the representation and organization of race -- that engage in the "work" of racial formation. Such an approach focuses on the "work" essentialism does for domination, and the "need" domination displays to essentialize the subordinated.
And the author argues against the definition you present in a number of clear ways. If you disagree, you're going to have to start presenting some reasoning because this discussion isn't going to go anywhere with your fingers in your ears.