Dr. Howard McGary of Rutgers University kicked off this year's Spindel Conference at the University of Memphis' Fogelman Executive Center. The title of this year's conference being Race, Racism, and Liberalism in the 21st Century, Dr. McGary gave a lecture that sought to define what exactly "liberalism" is and to explain its shortcomings both historically and currently in dealing with the issue of race and racism. His lecture, entitled "Contemporary Liberalism and the Problem of Racism", began by defining 'classical liberalism' in the Lockean sense that personal liberty and autonomy are the highest of moral values and that all persons are moral equals. He went on further to define 'contemporary liberalism' as the notion that the state has a moral responsibility in ensuring the equality of results for all its citizens.
The problem with contemporary liberalism, according to Dr. McGary, is that it tends to misconstrue the attitude of race. This is because there is much debate and disagreement regarding whether or not race may appropriately be used in making moral judgements (e.g. "blacks should not kill blacks"). The reason for disagreement on this subject is the notion that moral judgements ought to be universal, and a moral judgement that uses race as a factor is anything but universal. Furthermore, race is a biological factor that humans have no control over, thus rendering it a morally irrelevant criteria for making a moral judgement. Dr. McGary here offers his objection to this argument. According to McGary, it is imperative that race be defined in social and/or historical terms, rather than biologically. Thus the question "Was American slavery wrong because blacks were enslaved or because human beings were enslaved?" is one that may be justifiably answered in terms of race. For, according to Dr. McGary, human oppression and black oppression are completely different notions and must be addressed as such. The blanket term "human oppression" is not nearly sufficient in describing the specific types of pain and anguish that blacks in America have been the victim of since the country's founding. Thus, race is relevant (indeed, is imperative) in sufficiently describing human experience and making corresponding moral judgements.
Finally, Dr. McGary addressed the fact that the philosophical canon tends to be greatly lacking in the topics of race and racism. This is mostly due to the fact that many view this subject area as failing to meet the criteria to qualify as a legitimate philosophic topic. Contemporary liberalism tends to push the subject as racism as strictly being a question that is better-suited for sociologists and psychologists rather than philosophers. Even in the case when the topic's philosophical status is granted, is is often pushed off to the side and designated as "applied philosophy". According to Dr. McGary, race's recognition as a legitimate philosophical branch is of the utmost importance if the appropriate societal changes are to be instated. He emphasized the notion that, to achieve this, contemporary liberalism must address the negative cultural images of blacks in America and beyond (e.g. lazy, welfare-addicted, etc.) as well as the fact that institutionalized racism is a problem that extends far beyond specific individuals. He ends with stating his hope that an alternative theory to contemporary liberalism may be posited - one that sufficiently addresses the issues of race and racism.
4 comments:
The theme of the Spindel Conference this year brought to mind a subject to which I haven’t really given much philosophical thought. While I do understand and agree with Dr. McGary’s argument that racism deserves to be discussed philosophically, I’m not sure that I agree with him that when it comes to making moral decisions, the races of the individuals involved should be a deciding factor. I understand that over the years, different races, particularly in America the African-American race, have been mistreated. I do not, however, believe that it needs to be the state’s responsibility to make up for this issue. If indeed “contemporary liberalism” is the idea that “the state has a moral responsibility in ensuring the quality of results for all its citizens” then I think that all the citizens should be treated exactly alike. No one set of people should be given special treatment because of their race.
While it is unfortunate that racism exists, I don’t at all think it should be the state’s responsibility to make amends. Racism is a personal issue and no amount of government interference will totally stop those who are extremely racist. There is even the possibility that the narrow-minded individual’s racism will increase because he or she will resent the special treatment given to those of the other race. I understand that this may sound a little harsh but I am a big believer in personal responsibility and I think that a change in racism can really only come from the individual. No one can force an already racist individual to change his ways. I realize that racism is a huge issue and when it gets to extremes it is a true evil. I do think that all people, no matter what their race or religion deserve mutual respect. Race just shouldn’t be a factor in making moral decisions in any way at all. People should not criticize or use an individual’s race against them, but I also don’t think that a minority needs to necessarily be treated any differently. I just don’t think that in today’s society the government needs to step in. I am, however, very interested in the idea that racism should be discussed philosophically. I had never really thought about it in that sense but think that it would be very interesting when approached philosophically as opposed to the traditional sociological point of view.
Kaity,
I think that I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you on this. You are correct in your assessment that African-Americans have been mistreated throughout history -- but it is in fact the government that instituted and perpetuated the mistreatment and the racism that has existed and that continues to exist today.
Slavery was allowed by the government. Mass genocide of Native Americans was advocated by the government. Japanese-American citizens were placed in internment camps via direct orders by from the government. Jim Crow laws were an official part of governmental practice. Woman were stripped of the right to vote -- thanks to good ol' Uncle Sam.
So yes, I do think that the notion of the state having a moral responsibility in ensuring the quality of results for all its citizens is one that is certainly justified. Especially when it is the state that caused all of this.
In 2008, we still live in an extremely racist society. A black man still makes 75 cents to the dollar of a white man with the exact same level of education and experience. One of the two major political parties in America (i.e. The Republican Party) has as its nominee a man who vehemently opposed the idea MLK Day becoming a national holiday for 25 years. Just a few weeks ago, at George Fox University in Oregon (a Christian school, mind you), four students were expelled after they hung a likeness of Barack Obama from a tree. Not to mention the scary percentage of voters in America who say that race is a factor in who they cast their ballot for this November.
So yes, the government does indeed have a responsibilty to assure that all its citizens are treated equally. Especially given that it has, for so many years, been an institution that has perpetuated the racism that continues to be so prominent in American society.
As a Classical Liberal myself I cant help but take a libertarian approach to this issue. It seems like, from my understanding of Dr. McGary’s definition of “contemporary liberalism”, he’s addressing the ill-direction of the liberal agenda in thwarting racism. Although he attacks the problem of racial stereotypes, qualifying “contemporary liberalism” as a proponent of such labels, from my understanding of Kyle’s post, he doesn’t address provide a plausible solution to this problem.
This is where I take issue with both Dr. McGary and Kyle. Though I agree that racism (especially in the South and apparently in Oregon too) is inherent among certain people, I strongly disagree that government legislated morality is the solution. Having been brought up and personally experienced a racially divided city (Memphis)I have seen that its not a institutional problem, but rather an individual problem--as Dr. McGary notes.
Kyle--you cite examples of government condoned and enacted racist policies such as slavery in Mass., Jim Crow laws in the South, and the genocide of Native Americans. But you must remember, that these laws and periods of racial abomination came at the demand of the people by means of the state. People wanted slaves, people wanted land (Native Americans), and people wanted security from “potential” threats within its own borders (Japanese-American incarceration). It took brave individuals like Abraham Lincoln and Martin L. King to go against popular demand by persuading the masses to dissolve their racial barriers. If anything, racial history shows us the innate flaws of our government, not its ability to remedy problems. You mention that the state should fix its own mess, but how can the state-in the spirit of democracy-fix its own mess if the people don’t demand it? After all, we are a democracy, not because the government controls its people, but because the government is controlled by its people.
I agree with Katy (as would Sarte) by saying that individuals are responsible for their own choices. As we have freedom to be for or against a deplorable action such as racism, so do we have the responsibility to take action against it as well. This is where the lack of responsibility, of both whites (and esp. whites) and blacks evidently fails. As citizens against racism, its our responsibility to thwart the problem on a micro-level, and not let the government institute laws which are only going to create more dependency for its citizens. The government cant make a choice or decision for you, but you can make a choice for the government. In the same way, we should try to attack racism locally, through the minds of the individual.
I don't think Dr. McGary is necessarily arguing for state regulated morality of race, rather, he is pushing for a total reconsideration of race. Race is a socially constructed notion itself, and I believe that Dr. McGary wants certain respect to be paid to cultural experience, which is overlooked and often essentialized to every member of a "race." I also agree with Kyle W. in that this movement to reconsider race needs to be attacked logically and locally, not by overarching governmental standards. For example, when the South was desegregated, it not immediately, and still has not become, a harmonized community between whites and non-whites. In relation to Sartre also, the current un-educated concept of race is similar to war, in which if we are not seeking to improve and engage it, we are still in it and possibly just making it worse.
Post a Comment