Appiah lecture
4 April 2006

What makes Appiah’s work philosophical?
•	conceptual analysis
•	political and ethical implications

From In My Father’s House:
•	three categories:  racialism, extrinsic racism, intrinsic racism.
•	the first of these simply the thesis that there are races.  Notice that this is a thesis, not a fact.  This thesis is (arguably) ethically neutral although there are metaphysical problems (the so-called “natural kinds” problem.  E.g., the debate in biology over what constitutes a species).
•	one can be a racialist without being a racist.  However, racialism is a necessary pre-condition for racism.
•	extrinsic racism – the thesis that certain morally relevant traits track particular races (the drunken Irishman, e.g.).  What can we do about extrinsic racism?  Produce falsifying evidence.  At this point, the extrinsic racialist will either give up their theory, or they will hang on to it – evidence doesn’t always work.  This either reflects a “cognitive incapacity” on the part of the racist, or it reveals that the racist is pretending to be an extrinsic racist, but is in fact an intrinsic racist.
•	intrinsic racism – the thesis that members of different races deserve particular treatment in virtue of their races, even though no claim is made that they possess morally relevant traits warranting this treatment in virtue of their races.  What do you do with someone like this?   What can you do with someone like this?  Whereas evidence might fail in practice with the extrinsic racist, it fails in principle with the intrinsic racist.

From Color Conscious:
•	social identity versus shared common culture.
•	Is there an African-American culture?  An Asian-Canadian culture?  A white Canadian culture?  That such cultures exist is not certain.  It is a point that needs to be argued and not simply assumed.  The very notion of such cultures can create obstacles to communication.  We need to understand the problem correctly if we’re going to solve it.  Appiah thinks that characterizing problems of marginalized groups as problems of cultures is a red herring.  
•	whether or not these cultures exist, it is clear that we all identify to some degree or another with a number of groups.  This group identity is fluid and always under-construction, by those both within and outside of the group.  Which groups we identify with is sometime, but not always, a matter of choice.   Even in the latter case, however, we have some degree of choice about the degree to which we identify with these groups, and how this identification plays out in our lives.  (The Irish lapel pin.)  How central is this identification for you?  Narrative uses of collective identity.
•	a whole new set of problems.  Collective identities, argues Appiah, have a tendency to “go imperial.”  Problems with letting a collective identity be the be-all-and-end-all for you.  
•	Appiah’s suggestion:  “a more recreational conception of racial identity.”  (We’re all wearing the equivalent of Irish pins.)  “Cosmopolitanism”:  if we don’t understand others, at least we get used to them.  Habit, exposure, communication, not necessarily argumentation.  Appiah’s example of gays and lesbians.

Next class:  review.  As well, optional review session next Thursday 10:30-12:30 in TC202.