关于种族的社会建构主义是什么？对霍克曼的回应。
What is social constructionism about race? A reply to Hochman.
作者信息
Neto Celso
机构信息
Egenis-Centre for the Study of the Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Department of Social and Political Sciences, Philosophy and Anthropology, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
出版信息
Biol Philos. 2025;40(5):20. doi: 10.1007/s10539-025-09995-z. Epub 2025 Sep 10.
This paper reconceptualizes social constructionism about race (hereafter SCR). While SCR is considered a hegemonic view in philosophy and academia more broadly, Hochman (2022) argues that this hegemony is illusory. He identifies different versions of SCR in the literature, showing that race constructionists do not share a single, common view. For him, race constructionists are not even united in rejecting biological race realism, and the label "social constructionism about race" is so inclusive that it has become almost useless. I identify what is missing in Hochman's analysis, namely, the recognition that SCR is an (Brigandt 2012; Brigandt and Love 2012; Neto 2020). This recognition demands shifting focus from what race constructionists claim to what they do. By operating this shift, I explain why SCR remains an alternative to biological race realism in a important and specific sense, and why the label "social constructionism about race" is still useful.
本文重新审视了关于种族的社会建构主义（以下简称SCR）。虽然SCR在哲学及更广泛的学术界被视为一种主导观点，但霍赫曼（2022）认为这种主导地位是虚幻的。他在文献中识别出SCR的不同版本，表明种族建构主义者并没有一个单一的、共同的观点。对他来说，种族建构主义者甚至在拒绝生物种族实在论方面也没有达成一致，“关于种族的社会建构主义”这一标签包容性太强，几乎变得毫无用处。我指出了霍赫曼分析中缺失的部分，即认识到SCR是一种 （布里甘特，2012；布里甘特和洛夫，2012；内托，2020）。这种认识要求将关注点从种族建构主义者声称的内容转向他们的实际行动。通过进行这种转变，我解释了为什么SCR在一个重要且特定的意义上仍然是生物种族实在论的替代方案，以及为什么“关于种族的社会建构主义”这一标签仍然有用。
Zotero 插件