Day: March 12, 2025

1. Contribution to Psychoanalytic Literary Theory

• Examines race through the lens of Lacanian psychoanalysis
  • Khan explores how race is a discursive construct shaped by the unconscious rather than a biological reality.
  • Race is an effect of discourse, as Lacan states, “[a race] is constituted according to the mode in which symbolic places are transmitted by the order of a discourse” (Khan, 148).
  • This insight expands psychoanalytic readings of racial identity beyond traditional Freudian notions of repression.
• Connects the concept of jouissance to racial hatred
  • Khan builds on Miller’s idea that racism is driven by an intolerance of the Other’s jouissance rather than mere visual difference.
  • “Racism calls into play a hatred which goes precisely toward what grounds the Other’s alterity, in other words its jouissance” (Khan, 157).
  • This provides a psychoanalytic explanation for racialized violence and exclusion in literature.
• Applies the concept of extimacy to racial identity
  • Extimacy (external intimacy) explains how racism reflects an internal rejection of aspects of the self projected onto the Other.
  • “The root of racism is the hatred of one’s own jouissance… it is also hatred of myself” (Khan, 159).
  • This contributes to psychoanalytic readings of literature by showing how race functions as a psychological structure in narratives.

2. Contribution to Postcolonial Literary Theory

• Analyzes how colonial discourse shapes subjectivity
  • Khan highlights how the master’s discourse, particularly in colonialism, alters the unconscious of colonized subjects.
  • “The unconscious that had been sold to them along with the laws of colonization” (Khan, 149).
  • This supports postcolonial critiques of Western literary canons and their racialized structures of power.
• Critiques the “melting pot” as a colonial fantasy
  • Lacan’s critique of assimilationist ideologies aligns with postcolonial theorists like Homi Bhabha’s concept of hybridity.
  • “Leaving this Other to his own mode of jouissance, that would only be possible by not imposing our own on him” (Khan, 156).
  • This challenges narratives of integration in colonial and diasporic literature.
• Interrogates the colonial legacy of scientific racism in literature
  • The text examines how scientific discourse historically justified racial hierarchies, shaping literary representation.
  • “The human sciences take both madmen and racialized bodies as an object of segregative reason” (Khan, 149).
  • This contributes to postcolonial critiques of literary representations of race in Western texts.

3. Contribution to Critical Race Theory in Literary Studies

• Frames racism as a structural and unconscious phenomenon
  • Critical Race Theory (CRT) argues that racism is embedded in systems rather than individual prejudice.
  • Khan extends this by showing that racism is structured through the master’s discourse and the symbolic order (Khan, 150).
  • This helps deconstruct racial ideologies in literature by focusing on underlying linguistic and psychoanalytic structures.
• Challenges humanist universalism in literary representation
  • Khan critiques the universalizing claims of science and capitalism, which reinforce segregation rather than eliminating it.
  • “The universal mode—which is the mode under which science elaborates the real—seems to have no limit, when in fact it does” (Khan, 160).
  • This insight contributes to CRT’s critique of universalism in literary theory, showing how “colorblind” narratives still reinforce racial divisions.
• Expands CRT’s understanding of racial subjectivity through Lacanian theory
  • CRT often focuses on material and legal structures; Khan adds a psychoanalytic dimension, showing how racial difference is internalized at the unconscious level.
  • “The hatred of the jouissance of the Other is the structuring logic of racism” (Khan, 157).
  • This enriches literary analyses of racial identity and trauma.

4. Contribution to Structuralism and Poststructuralism in Literary Theory

• Race as a signifier within the symbolic order
  • Khan applies Lacan’s structuralist approach by arguing that race is a signifier produced within discourse, not a biological reality.
  • “Race is constituted according to the mode in which symbolic places are transmitted by the order of a discourse” (Khan, 148).
  • This aligns with poststructuralist critiques of essentialism in literary theory.
• Challenges essentialist representations of race in literature
  • By framing race as a discursive effect, Khan supports Derrida’s deconstruction of racial binaries.
  • This undermines fixed racial categories in literary analysis, promoting an understanding of identity as fluid and constructed.
• Questions the stability of racial identity in literary texts
  • Khan’s discussion of jouissance and extimacy suggests that racial identity is inherently unstable.
  • This aligns with poststructuralist readings of identity as fractured and shifting.

1. Implicit Racism in Defenses of Sexism

• The article argues that many justifications for sexism are implicitly racist because they rely on principles that could also be used to justify racial discrimination (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 91).
• The authors examine three common defenses of sexist practices:
  • The Conservative Defense
  • The Pseudo-Liberal Defense
  • The Libertarian Defense

2. The Conservative Defense: Tradition as Justification for Discrimination

• This argument claims that established prejudices should be preserved in law and policy.
• J.R. Lucas argues that sexist employment policies are justified because people “recognise that a person’s sex can reasonably be regarded as relevant to his or her suitability for particular posts” (Lucas, 1973, pp. 166-168, cited in Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 92).
• The authors point out that this reasoning could also justify racial discrimination, as some people historically saw “boss-servant roles in racial terms” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 93).

3. The Pseudo-Liberal Defense: Using Statistical Differences to Justify Discrimination

• Some philosophers argue that equal opportunity should depend on further investigation into gender differences.
• W.T. Blackstone suggests that gender equality “would be correct only if all relevant facts, characteristics, or circumstances… were independent of gender” (Blackstone, 1975, p. 247, cited in Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 93).
• J.R. Lucas extends this reasoning by saying that “the more integrally and the more invariably a difference is connected with a person’s sex, the more we are entitled to insist that the mere fact of being male or female can constitute a conclusive reason against being allowed to do something” (Lucas, 1973, p. 167, cited in Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 93).
• Ketchum and Pierce argue that this logic can be applied to race, justifying discriminatory hiring practices if statistical differences exist between racial groups, leading to racial bias in employment (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 94).

4. The Libertarian Defense: Defending Discrimination as a Matter of Choice

• W.E. Cooper defends sexist institutions by appealing to individual freedom, arguing that people should be free to choose traditional gender roles (Cooper, 1975, p. 256, cited in Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 94).
• The authors criticize this argument by showing that the same logic could be used to justify racial oppression, arguing that if Black individuals “choose” lower-status positions, this could be seen as legitimizing racial discrimination (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 95).
• They note that no one argues for the right of Black people to be treated as slaves, yet Cooper uses similar reasoning to defend sexism (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 95).

5. Critique of These Defenses

• The authors argue that these defenses of sexism fail to recognize how discrimination is institutional and systemic, rather than a matter of personal choice.
• They point out that all three defenses imply that societal change should only happen if sexist or racist attitudes disappear naturally, rather than being challenged through policy and law (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 96).

6. Conclusion: Challenging Implicit Bias in Justifications of Inequality

• The authors conclude that justifications for sexism often rely on principles that could be applied to racism, exposing the hidden racial biases in these philosophical defenses (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 96).
• They argue for a more critical approach to discrimination, one that does not rely on cultural traditions, statistical differences, or individual choices as justifications for inequality (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 97).

Key Takeaways

• Sexist defenses often rest on arguments that could justify racial discrimination.
• Conservative, pseudo-liberal, and libertarian defenses of sexism reinforce implicit racism.
• Discrimination should be challenged systematically, not passively accepted as tradition or personal preference.

1. Critical Race Theory (CRT)

• Revealing the Overlap Between Sexism and Racism:
  • The article argues that philosophical justifications for sexism often rely on principles that could also justify racism, thus exposing the implicit racism within arguments defending gender inequality.
  • “Several articles which defend sexist practices are implicitly racist… principles that apply to the areas where sexism and racism are similar” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 91).
• Exposing Institutional Racism Through Gender Analysis:
  • The study shows how institutional discrimination is defended using logic that maintains both racial and gender hierarchies.
  • “A racist who thinks of servility and deference as essential characteristics of negritude will have as much difficulty taking orders from a Black boss as will a sexist who thinks of a woman boss as inappropriate” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 93).

2. Feminist Theory

• Intersectionality of Gender and Race:
  • The article precedes and informs later feminist theories of intersectionality, showing how sexist oppression often mirrors racial oppression.
  • “The conservative argument policies directed against racism or sexism can be justified only if the society is not racist or sexist” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 93).
• Critique of Gender-Based Essentialism:
  • Challenges the pseudo-liberal argument that women’s roles should be determined by biology or statistical differences, a concept later addressed by feminist theorists like Judith Butler.
  • “The more integrally and the more invariably a difference is connected with a person’s sex, the more we are entitled to insist that the mere fact of being male or female can constitute a conclusive reason against being allowed to do something” (Lucas, 1973, cited in Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 93).

3. Postcolonial Theory

• Colonial Logic in Justifications of Oppression:
  • The article highlights how the same arguments used to justify sexism were used historically to uphold colonialism and racial hierarchy.
  • “If a widespread association between the role of priest or the role of soldier and maleness justifies excluding women from professions related to those roles, similar associations would justify excluding Blacks” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 92).
• Cultural Norms as Justifications for Discrimination:
  • The conservative defense of discrimination as “tradition” parallels colonial arguments for maintaining racial hierarchies in occupied territories.
  • “If attitudes and habits of discrimination are sufficiently integral to the culture, discriminatory policies and laws are justified” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 92).

4. Social Constructivism

• Critique of Biological Determinism:
  • The authors challenge the idea that social roles are dictated by biological sex or race, instead arguing that they are social constructs reinforced by power structures.
  • “Neither Blackstone nor Lucas explains why he thinks that hiring people on the basis of sex—and, within the favored sex, on qualifications—would be so much easier and more beneficial than hiring on the basis of individual qualifications” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 94).
• Discrimination as a Socially Maintained System:
  • The article supports later social constructivist theories by demonstrating that discrimination persists not due to natural differences but due to constructed social norms.
  • “One person cannot be discriminated against as a woman without there being some practice or policy of discrimination which would affect other women who might not so choose” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 95).

5. Legal and Political Philosophy

• Critique of Libertarian Defenses of Discrimination:
  • The authors challenge libertarian arguments that discrimination should be a matter of free choice, pointing out that discrimination is systemic and affects all individuals within an oppressed group.
  • “Such institutions regulate and affect people other than those who choose them” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 95).
• Opposing the “Consent” Argument for Inequality:
  • They argue that just because individuals “choose” to accept lower status does not mean the discrimination is justifiable—a key critique of laissez-faire approaches to social justice.
  • “One could produce a racially just society by convincing Blacks that they are better off as slaves, servants, and manual laborers” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 95).

6. Moral and Ethical Philosophy

• Moral Critique of Discrimination Justifications:
  • The article challenges the idea that discrimination is morally acceptable if it is statistically or culturally justified.
  • “Lucas argues for institutionalizing sexist discrimination in such cases on the analogy of the speed limit” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 94).
• Critique of Relativism in Discrimination:
  • The authors expose the danger of moral relativism in justifications of racism and sexism, showing how similar reasoning has historically been used to justify slavery and segregation.
  • “No articles in the literature champion the rights of Blacks to be treated as inferior (or to be slaves if they want to be) in order to safeguard their freedom, and Cooper offers no reason for granting such rights to sexists while not granting them to racists” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 95).

7. Influence on Intersectionality Studies

• Early Formulation of Intersectionality Concepts:
  • The article precedes and contributes to Kimberlé Crenshaw’s later work on intersectionality, which examines how multiple forms of discrimination overlap.
  • “Policies directed against racism or sexism can be justified only if the society is not racist or sexist” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 93).

Conclusion: Broader Impact on Literary and Social Theory

• Implicit Racism bridges multiple literary, social, and philosophical disciplines, offering an early critique of implicit bias, intersectionality, and institutional discrimination.
• The study challenges sexist and racist justifications by exposing their shared logic, laying groundwork for later scholarship in critical race theory, feminist theory, and postcolonial studies.
• It remains an important work in understanding how social injustices are justified through flawed philosophical reasoning, making it a foundational text in intersectional and social justice studies.

7. Lack of Cross-Cultural Analysis

• The article focuses on Western philosophical debates without considering how sexism and racism are justified differently across cultures.
• Non-Western perspectives on discrimination may not align with the conservative, pseudo-liberal, and libertarian defenses described in the paper.

1. Postcolonial Theory

• Colonial Travel Writing as an Ideological Tool: Howell demonstrates how Victorian travel narratives used climate to define racial hierarchies and justify imperial expansion.
  • “The politicised, racialised discourse of ‘climatism’… afforded writers of fictional and non-fictional travel narratives unique frameworks within which to explore national and imperial identity” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 5).
• Resistance to Colonial Discourses: The study highlights how writers like James Africanus Horton and Mary Seacole subverted colonial rhetoric by using climatic and disease discourse to challenge European superiority.
  • “Horton used the notion of climatic danger to criticise western colonial arrogance, champion native constitution, and create ‘space for a pocket of educated West African authorities’” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 97).

2. Ecocriticism and Environmental Humanities

• Climatism as an Imperial Justification and Environmental Determinism: Howell’s study examines how colonial travel narratives framed non-European spaces as inherently diseased and inhospitable to Europeans, reinforcing environmental determinism.
  • “Despite the increasing acceptance of germ theory and a plethora of discoveries in the fields of bacteriology and parasitology in this time period, environmental pathologies continued to persist in the imperial imagination” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 14).
• The Role of Miasma in Environmental Rhetoric: The book discusses how miasma was used to describe colonial spaces as places of danger and degeneration, reinforcing imperialist narratives.
  • “She makes a case, for example, for the utility of miasma as a ‘particularly rhetorically flexible element of climate’, which enabled writers to reimagine landscapes as irredeemable spaces of pathology, or as spaces of untold potential, in need of palliative imperialism” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 14).

3. Medical Humanities and Disease Narratives

• Medical Geography and Imperial Biopolitics: Howell reveals how climate was central to colonial medical discourse, shaping perceptions of racial immunity and vulnerability.
  • “Burton’s ability to ‘sense’ an unhealthy area is used not only as a tool to reinforce his rhetorical authority, but as a framework for maintaining racial and moral hierarchies in a kind of ‘medical moral geography’” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 67).
• Hybrid Physiology and Racial Medicine: The study highlights how figures like Mary Seacole used medical narratives to challenge colonial racial theories by emphasizing mixed-race immunity to disease.
  • “By contrasting her ‘strong’ hybrid physiology with the ‘weak’ constitutions of white British subjects, Seacole, ‘tapped into [the] very germane and contentious topic[s]’ of polygenism and racial fitness” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 32).

4. Biopolitics and Foucault’s Theory of Power

• The Body as a Site of Colonial Control: Howell’s analysis demonstrates how colonial authorities used environmental medicine to regulate bodies and populations in the empire.
  • “The resulting pro-imperial narratives united racial anthropology with geography and colonial medicine to produce intensely political frameworks which ‘inscribe[d] Africans within geographical boundaries’” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 57).
• Racialized Disease and Surveillance: Travel narratives framed non-European bodies as inherently diseased, reinforcing colonial biopower over indigenous populations.
  • “The aesthetic and rhetorical choices that the authors make in narrating their own tropical experiences represent ‘moments when […] the gaze of the coloniser and the gaze of the medical geographer’ collide” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 20).

5. Gender and Postcolonial Feminism

• Mary Seacole and the Reframing of Colonial Womanhood: The study highlights how Seacole subverted gendered imperial ideologies by positioning herself as a competent healer rather than a passive colonial subject.
  • “Seacole positioned herself, and others like her, as ‘surrogate mothers’, and exploited white British subjects’ fear of disease in order to frame mixed-race nurses as indispensable” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 34).
• Mary Kingsley’s Resistance to Colonial Feminine Norms: Howell examines how Kingsley manipulated gendered narratives to gain authority in colonial travel writing while maintaining a racially separatist stance.
  • “She garnered narrative authority from this somatic robustness, which she framed as a ‘sympathy’ with local environments, and was able, at the same time, to use climate to argue against widespread European settlement” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 124).

6. Psychological Modernism and Literary Impressionism

• Joseph Conrad and the Psychological Symbolism of Climate: Howell explores how Conrad’s use of mist and environmental symbolism represents the psychological and moral deterioration of European colonialists.
  • “Conrad’s ‘impressionism’ and use of symbolic mist, she argues, function as motifs, which focus attention on the process of becoming ill and its mental toll” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 141).
• Climate as a Metaphor for Colonial Anxiety: The study connects Conrad’s atmospheric descriptions to broader existential doubts about imperialism.
  • “This psychologised understanding of climatic illness ultimately ‘thr[e]w the colonial project’s basic feasibility into doubt’” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 141).

Conclusion: The Broader Impact on Literary Theory

• Howell’s study bridges multiple fields, including postcolonial studies, ecocriticism, medical humanities, biopolitics, feminist theory, and modernist literary analysis.
• By examining climate as a multifaceted literary and ideological tool, the book sheds light on how environmental discourse functioned in the imperial imagination.
• Howell’s interdisciplinary approach makes Exploring Victorian Travel Literature a valuable resource for scholars studying colonial literature, travel writing, and the intersection of race, disease, and environment in literary history.

1. Over-Reliance on Climatism as an Analytical Framework

• The study heavily focuses on climatism as a primary interpretative lens, potentially overshadowing other significant factors, such as political, economic, and technological influences on colonial travel writing.
• Howell’s argument that climate was used in “multivalent and sometimes conflicting ways” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 5) is strong, but it may overstate the dominance of climate over other imperial narratives, such as direct racial violence, economic exploitation, and administrative policies.

2. Limited Engagement with Indigenous Perspectives

• While the study acknowledges African authors like James Africanus Horton, it still prioritizes European colonial writers as the central voices, reinforcing a Eurocentric focus.
• There is less direct engagement with indigenous narratives, which could provide a more nuanced counterpoint to the colonial discourse on climate, disease, and race.

3. Narrow Focus on Victorian Travel Writing

• The study limits itself to the 1857–1899 period, which, while historically significant, may miss broader literary and scientific shifts in climate and disease discourse that occurred in the 18th and early 20th centuries.
• Expanding the analysis to later colonial or postcolonial texts could provide a more comprehensive perspective on how these ideas evolved.

4. Generalization of Literary Intentions

• Some literary authors’ intentions may be oversimplified, particularly when classifying them as either pro- or anti-colonial.
• Mary Kingsley, for example, is described as holding an “anti-colonial but pro-imperial” stance (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 118), but this label may fail to capture the complexity of her personal and ideological positions.

5. Potential Overstatement of Medical Moral Geography

• The argument that Burton and other writers constructed racial and moral hierarchies through medical geography is insightful, but it risks attributing too much intentionality to their descriptions of disease and climate.
• Some Victorian travel writers, rather than actively reinforcing imperial rule, may have simply reflected contemporary scientific beliefs about disease and environment rather than strategically shaping colonial ideology.

6. Absence of Contemporary Scientific Counterpoints

• The study does not engage deeply with contemporary medical or scientific critiques of Victorian climatism.
• Including scientific perspectives from historians of medicine might provide a more balanced evaluation of how climatism functioned alongside emerging germ theory.

7. Lack of Comparative Analysis with Non-British Colonial Texts

• The study focuses exclusively on British imperial narratives, missing a comparative perspective with French, Portuguese, or Dutch colonial travel literature, which could provide additional insights into how climatism functioned across different empires.
• A broader cross-colonial analysis could test whether the same climate-race-disease narratives were used beyond British imperial writing.