Sally Haslanger (2006) is concerned with the debate between so-called social constructionists and error theorists about a given category, such as race or gender. For example, social constructionists about race claim that race is socially constructed, that is, the kind or property that unifies all instances of the category is a social feature (not a natural or physical feature, as naturalists about race would hold). On the other hand, error theorists about race claim that the term ‘race’ is an empty term, that is, nothing belongs to this category, since the conditions that something should satisfy in order to fall under ‘race’ are not satisfied by anything. What kind of evidence could we use in order to support one or another of these theories? It seems that this debate is in part semantic: what makes the case that a category is an empty one (and therefore error theory about it holds), as opposed to it being socially constructed, has to do with the meaning of the corresponding expression. In particular, in the case of race, some people have argued that our concept RACE is such that something will fall under it only if it is a natural property that can explain certain features. Arguably, there are no natural properties of human beings that can do the explanatory work that races are supposed to do, and therefore, error theorists have concluded that ‘race’ is an empty term, that is, there are no races (Appiah (1996)). (Some theorists have introduced new terms for a new property that is very similar to that of race and can do part of the explanatory work that races were supposed to do, but it does not have to satisfy all the conditions that races are supposed to satisfy. For instance, Appiah (1996) has introduced the notion of ‘racial identity’ to that effect.) These considerations suggest that if we want to find out whether a certain category is socially constructed, or whether an error theory about it is correct, we have to engage in....
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 68,944
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Philosophical Analysis and Social Kinds.Sally Haslanger & Jennifer Saul - 2006 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 106 (1):89-118.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Race: Biological Reality or Social Construct?Robin O. Andreasen - 2000 - Philosophy of Science 67 (3):666.
Race as a Human Kind.Ronald R. Sundstrom - 2002 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 28 (1):91-115.
How We Divide the World.Michael Root - 2000 - Philosophy of Science 67 (3):639.
A New Perspective on the Race Debate.Robin O. Andreasen - 1998 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (2):199-225.
The Biological Reification of Race.Lisa Gannett - 2004 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (2):323-345.


Added to PP index

Total views
406 ( #23,784 of 2,498,019 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
13 ( #59,196 of 2,498,019 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes