Day: March 8, 2025

1. The Social Construction of Reality

• Haslanger argues that social categories such as race and gender are not natural kinds but are instead socially constructed realities that shape human interactions and institutions (Haslanger, 2012).
• She emphasizes that “language is a collective social practice”, and our understanding of social categories is shaped by discourse rather than by inherent biological or metaphysical truths (Haslanger, 2012, p. 298).

2. Race as a Social Kind

• Haslanger challenges the essentialist view of race, rejecting “race naturalism”, which holds that races are biologically real, and “race eliminativism”, which denies the existence of race altogether.
• Instead, she advocates for a “realist, social constructionist account of race”, arguing that race exists as a social kind—it is real because it has significant material and political consequences (Haslanger, 2012, p. 299).
• Race, she argues, “is the social meaning of the ‘colored’ body”—a classification imposed on individuals based on perceived physical traits and linked to historical power dynamics (Haslanger, 2012, p. 308).

3. The Role of Language in Social Construction

• Haslanger explains that debates over race are often hindered by semantic misunderstandings. She states, “What concept of race should we employ in order to achieve the antiracist goals we share?”, shifting the focus from whether race is real to how racial categories function in society (Haslanger, 2012, p. 299).
• She draws on semantic externalism, arguing that the meaning of terms like “race” is shaped by both expert knowledge and collective social usage (Haslanger, 2012, p. 305).

4. The Political Implications of Race and Gender

• Haslanger connects her social constructionist account of race to issues of social justice, emphasizing that racial classifications serve to “justify systems of privilege and subordination” (Haslanger, 2012, p. 309).
• She extends this argument to gender, contending that gender functions as “the social meaning of sex”, meaning that gender roles and expectations are not biologically determined but institutionally reinforced (Haslanger, 2012, p. 307).

5. Critique of Race Eliminativism and Naturalism

• Haslanger critiques race eliminativism, which argues that race should be abandoned as a concept, by stating, “We can all confidently identify members of different races”, which means race cannot simply be wished away (Haslanger, 2012, p. 306).
• She also critiques race naturalism, which claims that races are biologically determined categories, arguing that “race is not a natural or genetic category”, but one that has been historically shaped by power structures (Haslanger, 2012, p. 307).

6. The Need for Conceptual Change in Public Discourse

• Haslanger urges scholars and activists to redefine race and gender categories in ways that contribute to social justice, stating that, “If the folk concept of race is not an adequate tool to help achieve social justice, then how should we proceed?” (Haslanger, 2012, p. 304).
• She argues that race should be understood not as an immutable fact but as a tool for political change, allowing for the dismantling of racial hierarchies and systemic discrimination.

7. Application of the Social Constructionist Model

• Haslanger applies her theory to policy and legal debates, showing how racial categories affect medical treatment, education, and economic opportunities.
• She discusses the example of the FDA’s approval of BiDil (a heart failure drug marketed for Black patients), explaining how different perspectives on race (eliminativist, naturalist, and constructionist) lead to different evaluations of the policy (Haslanger, 2012, p. 301).

8. The Dynamic Nature of Social Categories

• She emphasizes that social categories are not fixed but fluid, stating that “language evolves in complicated and subtle ways”, and so do our concepts of race and gender (Haslanger, 2012, p. 298).
• She concludes that “constructionism about race is currently the best candidate” for understanding racial categories in a way that advances social justice (Haslanger, 2012, p. 310).

1. Feminist Literary Theory

• Reconceptualizing Gender in Literature

• Haslanger defines gender as a social kind, arguing that “gender is the social meaning of sex”, rather than a biological distinction (Haslanger, 2012, p. 307).
• This aligns with feminist literary theory, which critiques the essentialist representation of gender in literature, emphasizing how narratives construct and reinforce gender roles.
• Her work challenges literary critics to analyze how gender is represented as a hierarchical social position in literature rather than as a natural or fixed identity.
• Structural Subordination in Literary Representation

• Haslanger critiques structural subordination, which aligns with feminist critiques of patriarchy in literature (Haslanger, 2012, p. 309).
• She argues that literary narratives often normalize gender oppression, mirroring real-world structural inequalities.
• This contribution helps feminist literary theorists examine how literature sustains or challenges systemic oppression through narrative structures.

2. Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Postcolonial Literary Theory

• Race as a Social Construct in Literature

• Haslanger’s “realist social constructionist account of race” supports CRT’s critique of race as a biologically false but socially real construct (Haslanger, 2012, p. 299).
• She states, “race is the social meaning of the ‘colored’ body,” highlighting how literature constructs racial identities to reinforce social hierarchies (Haslanger, 2012, p. 308).
• Her framework helps literary critics deconstruct racial stereotypes in literature and reveal how narratives racialize characters to maintain power structures.
• Critique of Race Eliminativism and Literary Erasure

• Haslanger critiques race eliminativism, stating that race cannot be ignored since it is “deeply embedded in our social and political structures” (Haslanger, 2012, p. 306).
• This aligns with CRT and postcolonial literary theory, which argue that literature has historically erased or marginalized racial identities.
• Her analysis supports postcolonial literary studies in examining the role of race in imperialist narratives and how it shapes representations of identity.

3. Poststructuralist Literary Theory

• Language as a Site of Social Power in Literary Texts

• Haslanger’s argument that “language is a collective social practice” aligns with poststructuralist critiques of language’s role in shaping meaning (Haslanger, 2012, p. 298).
• This connects with Derrida’s deconstruction, which critiques the assumption that language reflects reality rather than constructs it.
• Literary critics can use Haslanger’s ideas to analyze how texts create and reinforce social categories through language and discourse.
• Interrogating Essentialism in Literature

• Haslanger challenges essentialist definitions of race and gender, which aligns with poststructuralist critiques of fixed identities in literature (Haslanger, 2012, p. 302).
• This supports literary readings that question stable identity categories in texts, showing how characters’ racial and gender identities are socially determined rather than inherent.

4. Discourse Analysis and Narratology

• Reframing Narrative Structures through Conceptual Change

• Haslanger calls for “conceptual engineering” to redefine race and gender for justice (Haslanger, 2012, p. 304).
• This aligns with discourse analysis in literature, which examines how narratives create social meanings and reinforce dominant ideologies.
• Her work encourages literary critics to explore how novels, films, and plays contribute to the social construction of race and gender.
• Narrative Power and the Construction of Identity

• Haslanger states, “If we want to change or refine the concept of race, we should be aware of where we are starting from” (Haslanger, 2012, p. 298).
• This resonates with narratology, which examines how storytelling constructs identities and shapes perceptions of reality.
• Her work provides a framework for studying how literary narratives construct racialized and gendered subjects through storytelling techniques.

5. Intersectionality in Literature

• Intersections of Race, Gender, and Class in Literary Analysis
  • Haslanger argues that race and gender “are not independent categories but are shaped by intersecting power structures” (Haslanger, 2012, p. 309).
  • This aligns with intersectionality, a key concept in feminist and CRT literary analysis, which examines how multiple identity markers interact to shape oppression in literature.
  • Her insights help critics analyze how characters experience multiple forms of oppression based on race, gender, and class in literary texts.

Conclusion: Impact on Literary Theory

Haslanger’s Resisting Reality significantly impacts literary theory by:

1. Supporting feminist critiques of gender representation as a social construct.
2. Advancing critical race theory in literature by highlighting race as a social kind.
3. Aligning with poststructuralist and deconstructionist critiques of essentialism.
4. Providing a framework for discourse analysis and narratology in literature.
5. Enhancing intersectional literary analysis by examining the interplay of race, gender, and class.

1. Overemphasis on Social Construction at the Expense of Material Reality

• Critics argue that Haslanger’s social constructionist model downplays the role of material conditions, particularly in relation to race and gender.
• Some Marxist theorists contend that class and economic factors are more fundamental in shaping racial and gendered oppression than linguistic and conceptual frameworks.
• Critics claim that emphasizing conceptual change does not necessarily translate into material social change (e.g., addressing economic inequality or legal structures).

2. Limited Engagement with Intersectionality and Lived Experience

• While Haslanger acknowledges intersectionality, some scholars argue that her focus on linguistic and conceptual analysis fails to fully account for the lived experiences of marginalized groups.
• Intersectional feminists argue that race and gender cannot be reduced to conceptual categories, as they are experienced differently across social, cultural, and historical contexts.
• Some critics suggest that her model lacks sufficient empirical engagement with diverse experiences of racial and gender oppression.

3. Tension Between Conceptual Engineering and Political Strategy

• Haslanger advocates for “conceptual engineering”, arguing that we should redefine race and gender in ways that serve justice and equality.
• However, some critics argue that changing conceptual categories does not necessarily lead to real-world political change.
• Pragmatists and political theorists argue that political action, legal reforms, and economic policies are more effective in dismantling oppression than shifting conceptual frameworks.

4. Race as a Social Kind vs. the Persistence of Biological Race

• While Haslanger rejects race naturalism, some philosophers of science argue that genetic studies reveal biologically significant variations that might justify some aspects of racial classification.
• Haslanger claims that “race is the social meaning of the ‘colored’ body”, but critics argue that some racial categories are tied to genetic factors relevant to medicine and public health (Haslanger, 2012, p. 308).
• Philosophers of science argue that a purely social constructionist view might ignore biological variations that have practical implications (e.g., medical disparities).

5. Abstract Theoretical Focus and Accessibility Issues

• Some scholars critique the book for being overly theoretical and difficult for non-specialists to engage with.
• Haslanger’s technical use of philosophical language makes her arguments less accessible to activists, policymakers, and general readers.
• Critics argue that her conceptual framework, while intellectually rigorous, might not be practical for grassroots movements seeking tangible social change.

6. Debate Over Race Eliminativism vs. Race Constructionism

• Haslanger rejects race eliminativism, arguing that race is a real social kind that should be used to combat injustice (Haslanger, 2012, p. 306).
• Some eliminativists, like Kwame Anthony Appiah, argue that race should be completely abandoned as a concept because it is a harmful social fiction.
• The debate raises the question: Should we redefine race to fight racism, or should we eliminate the concept altogether?

7. Potential Relativism in the Definition of Social Categories

• Haslanger claims that race and gender definitions should evolve based on political and ethical goals (Haslanger, 2012, p. 304).
• Some critics argue that this leads to conceptual relativism, where categories become too fluid and politically motivated, rather than grounded in stable social structures.
• Philosophers of language question whether meanings can be engineered at will, arguing that social categories emerge organically rather than through deliberate redefinition.

1. Critique of Traditional Women of Color Organizing

• The essay begins by questioning the conventional approach to “women of color” organizing, which assumes that different racial groups experience white supremacy in the same way.
• Smith critiques the “oppression olympics” explanation for conflicts in organizing spaces, arguing that these conflicts stem from an inadequate political framework rather than competition over who is most oppressed (Smith, p. 67).
• She states that the usual model of unity—overlapping circles of racial groups like a Venn diagram—is misleading: “This framework has proven to be limited for women of color and people of color organizing” (Smith, p. 67).

2. Introduction to the “Three Pillars of White Supremacy”

Smith proposes an alternative framework that recognizes distinct but interconnected forms of oppression:

1. Slavery/Capitalism – Black people are positioned as inherently “slaveable,” meaning their oppression is rooted in their commodification as property. This logic sustains capitalism by racializing economic hierarchy (Smith, p. 68).
2. Genocide/Colonialism – Indigenous peoples must “disappear” to justify settler colonialism. This erasure enables non-Natives to claim land and Indigenous culture while denying ongoing Indigenous presence (Smith, p. 69).
3. Orientalism/War – Asian, Arab, and Latinx communities are marked as “perpetual foreign threats,” legitimizing U.S. militarization and imperialism (Smith, p. 69).

3. Slavery and Capitalism: The Enslavability of Blackness

• The logic of slavery dictates that Blackness is inherently linked to property and commodification, which persists in systems like the prison-industrial complex.
• Smith explains that, post-slavery, Black people became “state property” through systems like convict leasing, which “rendered Black people as inherently slaveable—as nothing more than property” (Smith, p. 68).
• The racial hierarchy encourages non-Black people to accept their subordinate economic positions because “at least they are not at the very bottom of the racial hierarchy” (Smith, p. 68).

4. Genocide and Colonialism: The Erasure of Indigenous Peoples

• The logic of genocide works by constantly portraying Indigenous people as “disappearing,” thus legitimizing settler colonialism.
• Smith quotes Ella Shohat and Robert Stam’s concept of the “present absence”: Native people exist but are treated as though they are vanishing, reinforcing the right of non-Natives to Indigenous lands (Smith, p. 69).
• The “wannabe Indian” phenomenon, where non-Natives claim Indigenous identity or spiritual practices, is also an extension of this logic, as Rayna Green notes: “The living performance of ‘playing Indian’… depends upon the physical and psychological removal, even the death, of real Indians” (Smith, p. 69).

5. Orientalism and War: Justification for Imperialism

• The logic of Orientalism positions certain racial groups, particularly Arabs, Asians, and Latinx peoples, as permanent outsiders and threats to Western civilization.
• The U.S. state legitimizes racial profiling and military expansion under the guise of “protecting itself” from these racialized threats (Smith, p. 69).
• Smith cites Sora Han’s argument that the U.S. is not just at war, but is war, meaning that white supremacy requires perpetual war to sustain itself (Smith, p. 69).

6. The Role of Heteropatriarchy in White Supremacy

• Smith argues that heteropatriarchy is the foundation of white supremacy and U.S. empire-building.
• She explains how the Christian Right connects the nuclear family to national security: “We must preserve traditional marriage in order to protect the United States from those who would use our depravity to destroy us” (Smith, p. 72).
• The patriarchal family model mirrors the hierarchical structure of the state, where men rule women as elites rule over oppressed groups (Smith, p. 73).

7. Organizing Beyond Shared Victimhood: Challenging Complicity

• Instead of basing solidarity on shared oppression, Smith calls for recognizing how different groups are complicit in each other’s oppression.
• For example, Indigenous people resisting U.S. colonialism must also oppose U.S. militarism, since “Native peoples who join the military become complicit in U.S. imperial wars” (Smith, p. 70).
• This approach prevents activists from reinforcing white supremacy through their organizing and ensures that “our model of liberation does not become the model of oppression for others” (Smith, p. 70).

8. Conclusion: Toward a New Politics of Solidarity

• Smith urges women of color organizers to move beyond simplistic multiculturalism and oppression hierarchies.
• She calls for a decolonial, anti-capitalist, and anti-heteropatriarchal model of resistance that challenges all forms of white supremacy without reinforcing them (Smith, p. 73).
• This means rejecting the idea that the U.S. is a democracy with “flaws” and instead recognizing that “genocide is the law of the country” (Smith, p. 70).

1. Critical Race Theory (CRT)

• Challenges the Black/White Binary in CRT:
  • Smith critiques the dominance of the Black/white binary in racial justice frameworks, arguing that white supremacy functions through multiple racializing logics.
  • “Simply saying we need to move beyond the black/white binary…obfuscates the racializing logic of slavery and prevents us from seeing that this binary constitutes Blackness as the bottom of a color hierarchy” (Smith, p. 71).
• Introduces the Three Pillars Framework to CRT:
  • Unlike traditional CRT, which often focuses on legal structures of racism, Smith presents a multi-axis racial framework beyond a single system of oppression.
  • “White supremacy is constituted by separate and distinct, but still interrelated, logics” (Smith, p. 67).

2. Intersectionality and Women of Color Feminism

• Critiques Traditional Women of Color Organizing Models:
  • Smith argues that organizing based on shared oppression is inadequate because different racial groups experience white supremacy in distinct ways.
  • “This framework has proven to be limited for women of color and people of color organizing” (Smith, p. 67).
• Emphasizes the Role of Heteropatriarchy in Oppression:
  • Smith extends intersectionality by linking racial oppression directly to heteronormativity and patriarchy.
  • “Heteropatriarchy is the building block of US empire. In fact, it is the building block of the nation-state form of governance” (Smith, p. 72).

3. Postcolonial Theory

• Expands Postcolonial Framework to Indigenous Peoples in Settler Colonies:
  • While postcolonial theory often focuses on former colonies, Smith emphasizes ongoing settler colonialism in the U.S.
  • “The pillar of genocide serves as the anchor for colonialism—it is what allows non-Native peoples to feel they can rightfully own Indigenous peoples’ land” (Smith, p. 69).
• Introduces the Concept of the “Present Absence”:
  • She critiques how Indigenous peoples are symbolically included in narratives but structurally erased.
  • “Kate Shanley notes, Native peoples are a permanent ‘present absence’ in the US colonial imagination” (Smith, p. 69).

4. Queer Theory

• Critiques Heteronormativity as a Foundation of White Supremacy:
  • Smith argues that queer and feminist struggles must be central to racial justice movements, rather than secondary.
  • “Any liberation struggle that does not challenge heteronormativity cannot substantially challenge colonialism or white supremacy” (Smith, p. 73).
• Connects the Family Unit to Colonial and Imperial Control:
  • She exposes how heteropatriarchal family structures sustain nationalism and state control, a core argument in queer critiques of the state.
  • “Christian Right politics work through the private family (which is coded as white, patriarchal, and middle class) to create a ‘Christian America’” (Smith, p. 72).

5. Indigenous Studies and Settler Colonial Theory

• Critiques the Erasure of Indigenous Peoples in Racial Discourse:
  • Smith argues that U.S. racial discourse often ignores Indigenous people’s unique structural positioning under white supremacy.
  • “In the United States, democracy is actually the alibi for genocide—it is the practice that covers up United States colonial control over Indigenous lands” (Smith, p. 70).
• Positions Genocide as a Pillar of White Supremacy:
  • Unlike many theories that focus on slavery and racial discrimination, Smith explicitly names genocide as a necessary logic of settler colonialism.
  • “Genocide is not just a historical event—it is an ongoing process that justifies settler claims to land” (Smith, p. 69).

6. Marxist Theory and Critique of Capitalism

• Links Capitalism to Anti-Black Racism:
  • Smith extends Marxist critiques of capitalism by showing that capitalism depends on the logic of Black enslavability.
  • “To keep this capitalist system in place…the logic of slavery applies a racial hierarchy to this system” (Smith, p. 68).
• Critiques How Racial Groups Become Complicit in Capitalist Exploitation:
  • She challenges simplistic anti-capitalist narratives that do not address racial complicity in systems of economic oppression.
  • “Our survival strategies and resistance to white supremacy are set by the system of white supremacy itself” (Smith, p. 70).

7. Critique of Multiculturalism

• Challenges Superficial Inclusion in Social Movements:
  • Smith argues that simply including more racial groups in discussions does not dismantle white supremacy.
  • “This model does not address the nuanced structure of white supremacy, such as through these distinct logics of slavery, genocide, and Orientalism” (Smith, p. 71).
• Calls for Solidarity Based on Structural Positioning, Not Shared Victimhood:
  • She critiques multiculturalism’s focus on representation instead of dismantling systemic oppression.
  • “Our alliances would not be solely based on shared victimization, but where we are complicit in the victimization of others” (Smith, p. 70).

1. Oversimplification of Racial Oppression into Three Pillars

• Some scholars argue that reducing white supremacy into only three pillars (Slavery/Capitalism, Genocide/Colonialism, and Orientalism/War) oversimplifies the complexities of racial oppression.
• The essay does not fully account for anti-Blackness in non-Western contexts or colorism within communities of color.
• Some critics believe that focusing on three separate logics risks neglecting intersections where groups experience multiple forms of oppression simultaneously.

2. Neglect of Intra-Group Differences and Class

• Smith’s framework assumes all members of a racial group experience oppression similarly, without fully engaging in class analysis.
• Critique from Marxist scholars: While she links capitalism to white supremacy, she does not engage deeply with economic class struggles or how capitalism functions differently in non-U.S. contexts.
• Not all Black people experience oppression solely through the “logic of slavery”, nor do all Indigenous people relate only through “genocide”—some face marginalization through economic exclusion, migration policies, or state surveillance.

3. Lack of Agency for Marginalized Communities

• Some scholars argue that her framework paints marginalized groups as passive subjects of white supremacy, without exploring agency, resistance, and subversion.
• The essay does not sufficiently address how women of color resist oppression through their own cultural, political, and social frameworks rather than just being positioned in opposition to white supremacy.

4. U.S.-Centric Perspective

• Critics from postcolonial studies argue that Smith’s work is highly U.S.-centric, overlooking how race and white supremacy function differently outside of the U.S..
• The framework does not sufficiently address global struggles, such as the role of Black and Indigenous people in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.
• Smith’s analysis may not fully apply in postcolonial contexts, where colonialism operated differently than in settler-colonial states like the U.S. and Canada.

5. Essentialization of Identities

• Some scholars argue that categorizing entire racial groups within separate pillars could lead to essentialism, reinforcing fixed identities rather than recognizing fluid and changing racial dynamics.
• For example, Arab, Latinx, and Asian people are placed within Orientalism/War, but many face economic exploitation (capitalism) or displacement (colonialism) just as much as other groups.

6. Insufficient Engagement with Gender and Queer Theory

• While Smith critiques heteropatriarchy, some queer and feminist theorists argue she does not go far enough in exploring gender fluidity, trans identities, and intersectional feminism.
• Her work does not fully engage with queer of color critique, which examines how white supremacy intersects with sexuality and gender beyond heteronormativity.

7. Potential for Strategic Division Instead of Solidarity

• Some activists worry that dividing racial oppression into distinct pillars could encourage division rather than solidarity among communities of color.
• Instead of focusing on how white supremacy pits marginalized groups against each other, critics argue she should place more emphasis on coalitional politics and collective resistance.

8. Limited Historical and Theoretical Engagement

• Smith’s work is largely based on contemporary U.S. racial politics and does not engage deeply with historical or international theories of white supremacy.
• Some scholars argue that critical race theory, Black radical thought, and Indigenous studies offer more nuanced and historically grounded analyses of race and power.