Questions:
1. “Color of Mind” – Intellect, character, conduct – why these three? (p. 2, 13)
2. What kind of normativity is involved in the argument/what kind of argument is it? (pp. 15-16)
3. What is the scope of the argument? (p.5)
a. K-12 schools; AJC – University
4. P. 4 – track how the concept of dignity is figuring into their argument on diagnostic and prescriptive side
a. Does it take white dignity as the standard to meet? “perfect social equality” (p. 5)
5. Methodology? “Ideology historically functions as a ‘foundation for black/white education and achievement gaps’” (p. 2)
a. What are they bringing into focus vs. what are they not?
6. Outcome/opportunity focused – measurement focus (pp. 11-12)?
Discussion:
- “Color of Mind” to describe racial ideology (p. 2)
o Works in tandem with practices but is not itself a practice – it is an ideology concerned with intelligence, character, and conduct
o As idea(s) that can be expressed in practices or that cannot be reduced to practice
o Practices sustain it; ideologies and practices mutually reinforce each other
o Ideology rationalizes the practices which in turns sustains them
- They are concerned with practices but not focused on them exclusively
o Are beliefs a part of the notion of colour of mind?
- Focus on overcoming ideology not necessarily practices
- Practices follow from ideology? Or Ideology having some kind of normative authority?
- Action guiding component to Color of Mind
- Normativity in the sense of the moral “ought” (rule/binding, action guiding) – prescriptive and a broader sense of normativity that can be characterized as any possible form of correctness – epistemic or ethical
o P. 12 ideology as both descriptive and prescriptive (concerned with the moral “ought”)
- Work at the level of ideas and solve problems
o Intelligence, character, and conduct existing as ideas (p. 2); tracking the idea that the belief that one is more superior to each other
- Linked to end of chapter with mere suggestion (remedies as optional); OR, their prescriptions are mere suggestions because they are actually more pragmatist in what they are concerned about – they realize that you cannot just defeat these issues by arguing against it
- Normative diagnosis: this is wrong; solution requires on-the-ground work that would have to be achieved outside the book
- If they are focused on ideology as main thing, then that would require being idealist about practices and then they would need to offer a robust prescription – expressive of ideological material
- Offers specific actions that are vital to achieving this but are not advocating or endorsing them being picked up as educational practice/policy
- P. 13 issue of asserting ideology – as prescriptive component
- Relationship of the book’s argument to current problems (Ron DeSantis and education)
o Book makes an appeal to school admins and teachers who make social justice a priority – social justice as currently being called into question
- Dignitary Injustice:
o Prescriptive core of their argument (normative in the narrow sense)
o Dignitary vs. distributive paradigms
- Allows to track relational component, moral status, that distributive paradigms can’t capture in the same way
- Linked to ethical ideal
- “equal partners” and “shared status”
- Thinking of dignity as an ideal; term of dignitary injustice, so they’re starting with injustice first before the ideal
o To have an understanding of a dignitary injustice, one must have an ideal understanding of indignity (such that one knows when it is lost)
- Or what is realized as lost in the injury
- Ideal as shared dignitary status; the injustice is the violation of dignity
- Possible political understanding of dignity
- Authors as doing ideal theory
- But also have appeals to dignitary injustice
• A kind of methodological distinction
- To what extent are they including (implicitly or not) a kind of distributive justice?
o The dignity is logically prior to distribution; distribution is secondary to dignity and relational equality – dignitary equality as fundamental
- Grounding their theory in Kant, is the intent to expand dignity to all human beings (and therefore, taking for granted or extending “white dignity” to others?)
o How does this relate to their call to dismantle white superiority? Isn’t dignity a part of white superiority? Can this be untangled from the history of this?
- Who is the onus on?
- P.41-43 (discussion of Frederick Douglass)
o Demand of reason (independent of historical reality) – in grounding it in Kant
- Calls into question who their audience is – they assert the idea of equal dignity (p. 3)
o Why is the term dignity important if they’re speaking to a person who already believes in this formal equality?
o From dignity comes this intrinsic equality – a way to not be focused on distributive justice
- They take dignity to be foundational for spelling out relational equality
o Links between dignity, equality, and justice
- Dignity is what relational equality is (the plane of it)
- About worth and recognition
No comments:
Post a Comment