![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fridi posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsA debate on Immanuel Kant's purported racism is now underway in Germany, a local historian named Michael Zeuske having stated in an interview for Deutschlandradio Kultur that in his anthropological works, the philosopher had actually laid the foundations of European racism. The historian said he was hoping the protests now sweeping across the US, UK and elsewhere, knocking down monuments, to not just pass by and be forgotten, but really start a cultural revolution.
The topic of the racism element in Kant's works is now being active in the public discourse and especially among academics, who are questioning some of the ideas of the philosopher who was instrumental for the formation of modern thinking.
This whole debate is based on some more obscure works by Kant, mostly in natural sciences and anthropology, published in the 70s and 80s of the 18th century, where he appears to formulate a theory of the races. In those studies of his, Kant establishes the thesis that, while all people share a common ancestry, with time, due to the various climate conditions around the world, they developed differently, thus forming four races. He calls them white, Indian, black, and Americans. Those races could be recognized by certain hereditary features, and in some cases of racial intermarriage those could be mixed. Kant's main interest was not political but mostly in the natural sciences and anthropology. He was aiming to investigate the differences emerging between people over time, and the way science could explore these.
The external features of the postulated races were in his focus, and Kant attributed certain characteristics to each of the four. He claimed the four races differed in their intelligence and reason, their ability to concentrate, and develop culture and civilization. Much in line with the zeitgeist of his time, he assumed the white race was superior in that regard, followed by Indians, blacks, and Americans last.
It's this position that has made some of his fellow philosophers determine that he was racist in the modern sense of the word. Conversely, their opponents say that describing a 18th century author as racist would mean a retroactive application of modern laws, since the term racism is largely a 20th century construct.
There are grounds, however, for believing that Kant's detractors might have a point, and he wasn't merely a product of his epoch, merely parroting the mainstream prejudice of the time. They argue that he had an active, autonomous, and actually quite detailed contribution to the development of race ideology, which he himself considered an important part of his work. Kant presented his position on race at various intellectual debates with fellow authors such as Johann Gottfried von Herder, who was his main opponent on the subject, and completely rejected his theories.
The real problem is actually how Kant should be interpreted today. We're talking of a philosopher, who, on the one hand, formulated the universal ethics of freedom and equality, while on the other postulated a hierarchical theory of the races. Should the man who famously said that if justice dies, human life loses any meaning, keep his high pedestal at this point? Or should Kant rather be completely rejected because of his race theory, which assumed that the moral imperatives formulated by him exclusively applied to white people, while all the rest were Untermenschen? Is his creed that everyone should respect human dignity really meant to apply to all humans, regardless of their race?
So far, most sides on this debate seem to have taken a compromise stance that Kant should be interpreted in his ambivalence, and his practical philosophy should be taken just as seriously as his racism. It is in the complex relation between the two that a new, updated understanding of the "pure conscious" of humankind could be obtained. Furthermore, in his later works, Kant appears to have reviewed his thoughts on race, i.e. he "evolved" and taught himself out of his own racism, which may mean that this is achievable for today's mankind as well.
The topic of the racism element in Kant's works is now being active in the public discourse and especially among academics, who are questioning some of the ideas of the philosopher who was instrumental for the formation of modern thinking.
This whole debate is based on some more obscure works by Kant, mostly in natural sciences and anthropology, published in the 70s and 80s of the 18th century, where he appears to formulate a theory of the races. In those studies of his, Kant establishes the thesis that, while all people share a common ancestry, with time, due to the various climate conditions around the world, they developed differently, thus forming four races. He calls them white, Indian, black, and Americans. Those races could be recognized by certain hereditary features, and in some cases of racial intermarriage those could be mixed. Kant's main interest was not political but mostly in the natural sciences and anthropology. He was aiming to investigate the differences emerging between people over time, and the way science could explore these.
The external features of the postulated races were in his focus, and Kant attributed certain characteristics to each of the four. He claimed the four races differed in their intelligence and reason, their ability to concentrate, and develop culture and civilization. Much in line with the zeitgeist of his time, he assumed the white race was superior in that regard, followed by Indians, blacks, and Americans last.
It's this position that has made some of his fellow philosophers determine that he was racist in the modern sense of the word. Conversely, their opponents say that describing a 18th century author as racist would mean a retroactive application of modern laws, since the term racism is largely a 20th century construct.
There are grounds, however, for believing that Kant's detractors might have a point, and he wasn't merely a product of his epoch, merely parroting the mainstream prejudice of the time. They argue that he had an active, autonomous, and actually quite detailed contribution to the development of race ideology, which he himself considered an important part of his work. Kant presented his position on race at various intellectual debates with fellow authors such as Johann Gottfried von Herder, who was his main opponent on the subject, and completely rejected his theories.
The real problem is actually how Kant should be interpreted today. We're talking of a philosopher, who, on the one hand, formulated the universal ethics of freedom and equality, while on the other postulated a hierarchical theory of the races. Should the man who famously said that if justice dies, human life loses any meaning, keep his high pedestal at this point? Or should Kant rather be completely rejected because of his race theory, which assumed that the moral imperatives formulated by him exclusively applied to white people, while all the rest were Untermenschen? Is his creed that everyone should respect human dignity really meant to apply to all humans, regardless of their race?
So far, most sides on this debate seem to have taken a compromise stance that Kant should be interpreted in his ambivalence, and his practical philosophy should be taken just as seriously as his racism. It is in the complex relation between the two that a new, updated understanding of the "pure conscious" of humankind could be obtained. Furthermore, in his later works, Kant appears to have reviewed his thoughts on race, i.e. he "evolved" and taught himself out of his own racism, which may mean that this is achievable for today's mankind as well.
(no subject)
Date: 24/6/20 12:05 (UTC)We've really got to stop teaching history if we're going to purge ourselves of the memory of folks who didn't measure up to today's standards. This goes for the founding fathers who owned slaves or associated with those who did, Gandhi who had less than enlightened views about black people, and MLK for his homophobia and sexism.
(no subject)
Date: 24/6/20 13:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/6/20 13:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/6/20 13:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/6/20 18:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/6/20 18:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/6/20 18:06 (UTC)I haven't read any of his work on Natural Science. I suppose it needs a further investigation; but his three critiques are still pretty essential to the history of philosophy, whatever his other views. I seem to recall that James Watson did Nobel prize-winning work and than had some dodgy ideas much later on. DNA is still a real thing unlocked and described by Franklin, Crick, & Watson. That he later went awry is another matter.
Hume owned slaves IIRC; and advised others to purchase plantations in the West Indies. That's damnably uncool in any sort of philosopher post the classical era.
(no subject)
Date: 24/6/20 18:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/6/20 22:13 (UTC)^This.
I have very mixed feelings about the statue thing.
I think that history should be taught, and it's important to see that there were people who achieved great things who were also maybe not great people or had some attitudes that we consider problematic by modern sensibilities. MLK was brought up earlier in the thread as an example. Great civil rights leader, also homophobic and sexist.
The difference between teaching history and something like a statue is that a statue is a monument, a celebration, of a person. In the United States (I know we're discussing Kant right now, but I'm bringing this up because I live in the States), I agree with tearing down statues of Confederate figures and not allowing the Confederate flag to be flown at NASCAR events and the like, because that feels like a celebration of slavery and its continued effects.
It becomes a much more nuanced thing with something like Kant who formulated the ethics of freedom and equality, espoused problematic theories on race, and then seemed to have progressed and taught himself out of racism. I don't have easy answers for that. Even here, it's difficult to say "where do you draw the line between someone like General Lee, and MLK who fought for civil rights but was also homophobic and sexist", tearing down MLK's monuments and things named after him would cause an outcry.
Every single one of us has said or done something problematic at one time, myself included, and I would rather deal with people who admit "I did that, I messed up, I changed, I'm trying to do better" than people who insist they were always 100% progressive and have never made a mistake. I find in the latter category there's often some sort of insidious racism / homophobia / something that the person won't admit to but comes crawling out of the woodwork eventually.
One of the reasons why I dislike "cancel culture" as a whole (while I think there are individual cases to be made) is because if we continue crucifying somebody for something they said or did ten years ago when they've apologized and demonstrated that they have changed, is because it tells people "you can't change, no not really." This helped get Trump elected in 2016 when people who were formerly liberal decided "it doesn't matter to try to be more understanding of black issues / LGBT issues / etc." It has strengthened divisions, instead of seeking reconciliation.
I think it is very important to have discussions on where that line is, where the nuance is. I appreciate this community for having these discussions (and other reasons!).