Racial Figleaves and the Shifting Boundaries of the Permissible

Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.

1

RacialFigleavesandtheShiftingBoundariesofthePermissible

JenniferSaul

Weliveinatimewhen‘racist’isoneoftheworstinsultsaround.Veryfew

peopleopenlyprofessaviewthattheylabel‘racism’,andthosethatdoarevery

muchmarginalized.(Evendenizensofthealt-rightwilloftencalltheirviews

‘racialist’ratherthan‘racist’.)Andyet,asweallwellknow,wearedevastatingly

farfromeradicatingracism.Buteventhosewellawareofracism’spowerhave

beensurprisedbytheovertracismoftheRepublicanPresidentialPrimaryin

2016.Despite,orperhapsbecauseofthis,Trumphastriumphedtobecomethe

Republicanpresidentialcandidate.Whatdoesthismean?Isitbecoming

acceptabletobeopenlyracist?Howmuchworse,onefindsoneselfthinking,will

thingsbecome?

Thispaperisanexaminationofhowthispoliticalmomentcouldcometobe:how

ashiftcantakeplaceinwhichonceunutterablesentimentsbecomeincreasingly

utterable.Inparticular,it’sanexaminationofaparticulardevicethat,Iwill

suggest,facilitatesit—onethateasilygoesunremarked,butthatinfactvery

muchdeservesscrutiny.Icallthisa‘figleaf’,andthevarietythatismyfocushere

a‘racialfigleaf’.Aracialfigleafisanutterance1madeinadditiontoanotherwise

overtlyracistone,thatservesthefunctionofcallingintoquestiontheracismof

thespeakerandtheutterance.Iusetheterm‘figleaf’becauseitisanutterance

thatprovidesasmallbitofcoverforsomethingthatisunacceptabletodisplayin

public.2Inwhatfollows,Ifirstoutlinethestateofaffairsthatmakesracial

figleavesanappealingandusefultechniquetodeploy;thenIturntoadiscussion

ofhowthesefigleavesfunctioninthechangingofourconversationalstandards.

1Sometimesafigleafmightalsobesomethingotherthananutterance,likeasymbolorevenaperson:arguably,non-whiteUKIPspokespeopleserveashumanfigleaves.2Oneconsequenceofthisisthatwhichthingsfigleaveswillbeusedforwillvaryfromculturetocultureandtimetotime,dependingonwhichthingsareconsideredunacceptabletoshowinpublic.


2

ButbeforeIgoanyfurther,aterminologicalnoteisinorder.Iamcastingthis

discussionintermsof‘racism’.Imeanthisinabroadsense,encompassing

prejudicesofnationalityorofreligionaswellasprejudicesthatmapmore

clearlyontotraditionalconceptionsofrace.Thisisabitofanoversimplification,

asIthinkthereareimportantdifferencesbetweenthesesortsofprejudice.3

However,Idon’tthinkanythingturnsonitforthepurposesofthepresentpaper.

1. Background:Norms,Resentments,andProcessesofChange

1.1 Mendelberg,ImplicitandExplicitAppeals

Althoughtherehavebeensomerecentshifts(moreonthissoon),itstillseems

correcttosaythattheoverwhelmingmajorityofwhiteAmericansdonot

currentlyself-identifyasracists,andtheywouldbehorrifiedbythethoughtthat

theyareguiltyofracism.AsTaliMendelberg(2001)notes,itwasnotalways

thus:PriortotheCivilRightsMovement,onecouldrunandwinatanational

levelonaplatformthatincludedclaimsofwhitesupremacyandpoliciesoflegal

segregationoftheraces.However,Mendelberg,argues,thingschanged.Atthe

timeofherwriting(2001,2008a,b),Americanpoliticaldiscoursewasgoverned

bywhatshecallstheNormofRacialEquality.Andyet,shenoted,themajorityof

whiteAmericansshowedremarkablyhighlevelsofwhatpsychologistscall

“racialresentment”,measuredbylevelofagreementwithclaimslike“Irish,

Italian,Jewishandmanyotherminoritiesovercameprejudiceandworkedtheir

wayup.Blacksshoulddothesamewithoutanyspecialfavors.”(Teslerand

Sears2010:19)

Mendelbergarguedthatthissituationgaverisetoaveryspecificsortofpolitical

messaging.Shedrewacontrastbetweenexplicitracialappeals—definedas

thosewhichuseexplicitracialvocabulary;andimplicitracialappeals—ones

whichwerefarsubtler,alludingtoraceeitherviaimages(mostfamously,the

WillieHortonaddiscussedinher2001)orcodewordslike“innercity”or

3Idiscusstheseissuesinmoredetailinmy(inprogress)paper“‘Immigration’intheBrexitCampaign:Dogwhistletermsincomplexcontexts”.


3

“welfare”(HorwitzandPeffley2005).Implicitappeals—whatIelsewherecall

‘covertdogwhistles’—veryeffectivelyactivateracialattitudeswithoutavoter’s

awareness,whileexplicitappealstriggerself-monitoringandarethereforeless

effective.ThisiswhytheWillieHortonadvertisement—animplicitappeal—

causedraciallyresentfulvoterstosupportGeorgeHWBush.Anditisalsowhy,

Mendelbergargues,JesseJackson’scriticismofthisadasracistcausedthiseffect

todissipate(eventhoughhiscriticismwastreatedasutterlymisguidedby

mainstreammedia).4Atthispoint,theappealceasedtobeimplicitandbecame

explicit,whichrendereditineffective.Throughthe1990sandearly2000s

substantialevidenceaccumulatedforMendelberg’scontrastbetweenthe

workingsofimplicitandexplicitappeals.

Recently,thestarkcontrastbetweenimplicitandexplicitappealsseemstohave

dissipated.TherewereinitialindicationsofthisinworkbyHuberandLapinski

(2006,2008).ButMendelbergresponded,pointingtopotentialdesignflawsin

theirexperiments.Morerecently,however,Valentinoet.al.(2016)appearto

havedemonstrated,inexperimentalworkconducted2010-2012,thatexplicit

andimplicitracialappealscanbeequallysuccessful.Theirworkisnot

susceptibletoMendelberg’scriticism,andiftheyarerightitisnowclearthatan

explicitracialappealcanworkjustassuccessfullyonraciallyresentfulsubjects

asanimplicitracialappeal.Theyconcludethat“thepowerofracialattitudesin

mainstreamAmericanpoliticsisnolongerdependentuponthewaysinwhich

raceisdiscussed”(2016:6).Thischangeislargelyattributedtotheelectionof

BarackObama,andthesubsequentwidespreadbeliefthatracismisnolongeran

issue.

1.2 TheNormofRacialEgalitarianism

OnemightthinkthismeansthattheNormofRacialEgalitarianismisnolonger.

Certainly,theriseofDonaldTrumphasledtomuchspeculationalongthese

lines.ButIthinkthatthisispremature,andthatthereisevidenceofthisinthe4Idiscussthesefurtherinmyforthcoming“Dogwhistles,PoliticalManipulation,andPhilosophyofLanguage”.


4

detailsofTrump’sutterances.First,IthinkitisworthnotingthatValentinoet.

al.havenotdemonstratedaconclusionquiteasstrongasthatwhichtheyassert

inthequoteabove.Theyhavedemonstratedthatmakingraceexplicitnolonger

nullifiestheimpactofracialresentmentoncandidateandpolicypreferences,a

deeplyimportantfinding.However,it’safurtherstepfromthistotheideathat

anythinggoes—that“thepowerofracialattitudesinmainstreamAmerican

politicsisnolongerdependentuponthewaysinwhichraceisdiscussed”(2016:

6).AndIdon’tthinkweshouldmakethisstep.Infact,itseemsquitelikelyto

methattheNormofRacialEgalitarianismisstillinforce.

Toseethis,let’sthinkalittlemoreabouttheformthattheNormofRacial

Equalityneedstotake.ThemajorityofwhiteAmericanswere,afterall,saidto

accepttheNormofRacialEqualitywhiledisplayinghighlevelsofRacial

Resentment.AnyremotelydemandingNormofRacialEqualitywouldprevent

onefromendorsingitemslike“Irish,Italian,Jewishandmanyotherminorities

overcameprejudiceandworkedtheirwayup.Blacksshoulddothesame

withoutanyspecialfavors.”(TeslerandSears2010:19).ThefactthattheNorm

iscompatiblewiththeendorsementofstatementslikethesemeansthatthe

normmustbearatherthinone.Mendelbergnevergivesusastatementofthe

norm,butshedoesstatethatitinvolves“thenotionthatracialinequalitywasan

immoralprinciple”;“oppositionto[whitesupremacy]andtothelegal

segregationitdefended”;anddiscreditingof“theideaofbiologicalinferiority”.

ShenotesthatundertheNorm,“neithercitizensnorpoliticianswanttobe

perceivedortoperceivethemselvesasracist”(18).Myworkinghypothesisis

thattheNormcanbeunderstoodastakingtheverysimpleform“Don’tbe

racist”.Adherentsthenapplytheirownunderstandingsofwhatisrequiredto

notberacist—andinmanycases,thisisnotverymuch.

Here,itisusefultolookattheworkofJaneHill,whodescribesthatshecallsthe

“folktheory”ofwhiteracism.AccordingtoHill,akeycomponentofthisisthe

IdeologyofPersonalism,whichholdsthat:“racismisentirelyamatterof

individualbeliefs,intentions,andactions”(2008:6).IfweformulatetheNormof

RacialEqualityas“don’tberacist”,andwerealizethattheIdeologyof


5

Personalismiswidespread,webegintoseehowitisthatonewhoacceptsthe

NormofRacialEqualitymightalsoassenttotheitemsontheRacialResentment

test:aslongastheydon’tclassifythoseitemsasracist,theywilltakethemselves

tobeadheringtotheNormofRacialEquality.

ItisalsoworthnotingthattheNormofRacialEqualityisnot,andhasnever

been,inforceforeveryoneintheUnitedStates.MendelbergspeaksoftheNorm

ofRacialEqualityaseitherbeinginoperationornot:itwasnotinforceforthe

UnitedStatesin1900,anditwasinforcefortheUnitedStatesin1988.Andfor

herpurposesthismakessense.Thevotersthatareherfocusarethosewho

politiciansseektoswayviasubtleracistmanipulations—peoplewithhighlevels

ofRacialResentment,butwhononethelessadheretotheNormofRacial

Equality.Butitisofcourseanoversimplification,forthenormmaybeinforce

foronegroupandnotforanother.SomeAmericans,thosewhoidentifyaswhite

supremacists,thinkitisperfectlyacceptabletobeopenlyracist;othersdonot.

Valentinoet.al.’s2016papershowsthatexplicitracialappealsdonotalwaysfall

fouloftheNormofRacialEqualityinsuchawayastoblocktheirinfluenceon

raciallyresentfulvoters.Thissuggeststhateitherthenormisnotinforce,oritis

nolongerrighttotakeittoprecludeallexplicitracialappeals.Thelatteris

possibleifexplicitracialappealsarenowseenascompatiblewithnotbeinga

racist.Mysuggestioninthispaperisthatthisisnowthecase,atleastforsome

explicitracialappeals.Inthefollowingsections,Isketchwhatseemstobeone

commontechniqueformakinganexplicitracialstatement,indeedoftenan

explicitlyraciststatement,withoutbeingseenasracist:thefigleaf.First,

however,weneedsomemorebackgroundinplaceonchangesofattitudesand

norms.

1.3 ChangesinAttitudes,Norms,Permissibility

RaeLangton(2012)andMaryKateMcGowan(2012)tellacompellingstoryof

howcertainsortsofshiftsinacceptabilitycantakeplace.Theybeginfromthe

waythatwhatLewis(1979)calls“conversationalscore”canshift.Acrucial


6

notionhereisthatofaccommodation:ifaspeakersayssomethingwhich,for

example,carriesapresupposition,then—providednobodyobjects—that

presuppositionistakenonboard.When,forexample,Isay“myhusbandmight

besurprisedbythethoughtthatallfeministshatemen”,thisintroducesthe

presuppositionthatIhaveahusband,whichcannowbetakenforgrantedfor

therestoftheconversation.

McGowandrawsattentiontotheubiquityofchangesinconversational

acceptability,arguingthateveryutterancechanges—atleastinasmallway—

whatisacceptableforthatconversation.Someofthesechangeswillbesmall

ones,liketheneedtotakeintoaccountwhatwaspreviouslyuttered.Butothers

willbemuchlarger—likeashiftintheacceptabilityofracistutterances.Langton

tellsasimilarstoryaboutconversationalaccommodation(thoughwithagreater

focusontheroleofauthority),arguingthatthatthiscanthenbringabout

psychologicalchangesinspeakers,causingthemtohaveattitudesandemotions

thatareappropriatetotheracismnowbeingtakenforgranted.Langton’sand

McGowan’sdiscussionsareespeciallyfocusedonthewaythatopenlyracist

utteranceseffectsignificantchangestostandardsofconversationalacceptability.

Ifthesearemadeandnotchallenged,theymaintain,theconversationalscore

shiftssoastoaccommodatethemasacceptable.

McGowanalsonotesthatracistbehaviormaybecomepermissibledueto

utterancesthataremade.Andofcourse,thismayleadtoquitedevastating

consequences.LynneTirrell(2012),forexample,hasshownhowthe

legitimationofhatefulspeechhelpedtogiverisetotheRwandangenocide.

Assofartold,however,thisstoryisincomplete.Toseethis,considerwhat

happenswhenawhitesupremacistmakesanopenlyracistutterance—thesort

ofcasethatisMcGowan’sfocus.Ifsheistalkingtoanotherwhitesupremacist,

theremarkwillnotbeobjectedto.Butthiswon’tleadtoanychangeinattitudes.

Themeetingofmindsoftwopeoplewithrepugnantsentimentsisobviouslyno

goodthing,butthereisnoreasontothinkthatitwillmoveothersinamore

racistdirection.Now,considerwhathappenswhenawhitesupremacistmakes


7

anopenlyracistremarktosomeonewhoadherestotheNormofRacialEquality.

LangtonandMcGowansuggestthatifnobodyobjects,theracistpresuppositions

willgenerallybetakenonboardandbegintoaffectboththepsychologicalstates

ofconversationalparticipantsandpermissibilityfactsmorebroadly.

Buthowlikelyisitthatnobodywillobject?Tomakethisquestionvivid,let’s

turntotheactualexampleMcGowanuses(2012:121).

ImaginethatanAfricanAmericanmanboardsapublicbusonwhichall

theotherpassengersarewhite.Unhappywiththenewcomer,anelderly

whitemanturnstotheAfricanAmericanmanandsays,“Justsoyou

know,becauseIrealizethatyourkindarenotverybright,wedon’tlike

niggersaroundhere…boy.So,gobacktoAfrica…soyoucanstopkilling

eachother…anddotheworldafavor!

Itmaywellbethatpeoplewillnotopenlyobject:confrontationisdifficult,and

peopletrytoavoidit,evenmoresowhenraceisatissue.Mendelberg’s(2001,

2008a,b)viewwasthatopenmentionofracecandisarmwhatwouldotherwise

beaneffectiveimplicitappeal/covertdogwhistle:adherentstotheNormof

RacialEqualityself-monitor,andwillrejectwhattheycannotavoidseeingas

racist.Asnoted,Valentinoet.al.’s(2016)workhascomplicatedthispicture,

meaningthatopenmentionsofracemaynotblocktheeffectivenessofanappeal.

However,itdoesnotbyanymeansfollowfromtheirworkthatpeoplewillbe

untroubledbyaggressivehatespeechcontainingatabooracialepithet,directed

atanelderlyman.5If,asIhavehypothesized,evenathinnormofRacial

Egalitarianismisstillinforce,thiswillbeseenasunacceptablyracist.Itwon’t

simplybeseamlesslyassimilated,butinstead—insomeway—rejectedbythose

whoadheretothisnorm,eveniftheyareraciallyresentful.Thisrejectionmight

consistofmentaldistancing,changingthetopic,orendingtheconversationas

5Theirresearchisonadifferenttopic—explicitVSimplicitracialpoliticalappeals,andtheireffectsonthecorrelationbetweenracialresentmentandpolicypreference.Theydonotdiscussanaggressiveutteranceofthissort(whichisnotinanywayapoliticalappeal),noraretheyconcernedwithconversationalnormsandaccommodation.


8

quicklyaspossible.ButanadherenttotheNormisveryunlikelytosmoothly

assimilatetheracistassumptions,oncetheyareseenasclearlyracist.How,then,

donormsshift?Istheresomethingwhichallowsthesortofassimilationthat

LangtonandMcGowanposit?

Whatismissingfromtheirpicture,itseemstome,isrecognitionofafurther

conversationalphenomenon:thefigleaf.Afigleafgivesanopenlyracist

utterancejustenoughcoverthatanadherenttotheNormofRacialEqualitycan

reassurethemselfofthespeaker’s,andtheirown,non-racism.Thisisnecessary

tomakeanopenlyracistutteranceseemlikesomethingthatanon-racistmight

conceivablysayandthereforecrucialtothesortofconversational

accommodationthatLangtonandMcGowandrawourattentionto.Withoutit,

thepsychologyofspeakersandthepermissibilityfactswillnotchange.Itis

thereforevitallyimportantforustoattendtofigleavesandhowtheyworkin

conversation6.

2. Figleaves

Aracialfigleafisanutterancemadeinadditiontoonethatwouldotherwisebe

seenasracist.Unlikeinthecaseofanimplicitappeal/covertdogwhistle,race

hasbeenexplicitlymentioned.Thefigleafprovidescoverforwhatwould

otherwisehavetoomuchpotentialtobelabeledasracist.Sometimesthefigleaf

isutteredatthesametimeastheracistutterance.However,aswe’llsee,

figleavescansometimesbeprovidedaspartofanother,laterconversation(they

canevenbeprovidedinadvance).Theideaisthatthefigleafofferssomewayof

avoidingaconfrontationwiththepossibilitythatsomethingracistisgoingon.

Howwellthisworksvariesagreatdealfromcontexttocontextandaudienceto

audience.

6IconsiderfigleavestobeafriendlyadditiontoMcGowan’sandLangton’saccounts,whichiswhollycompatiblewithwhattheysay.


9

Thispaperbeginstheprojectofexploringkindsoffigleavesandtheirfunction.

Wewillnamesomeofthemostcommonformsoffigleaves,butwewillalso

discusssomethataremorecomplexandlesseasilylabelled.

2.1 SynchronicFigleaves

Asynchronicfigleafisoneprovidedatroughlythesametimeastheutterancefor

whichitisafigleaf.Probablythemosteasilyrecognizablefigleafistheclassic

“I’mnotaracistbut…”,followedbysomethingexplicitlyracialandquitepossibly

explicitlyracist.VanDijk(1993:102-103)referstothisasan“apparentdenial”

ofracism,andHill(2008:120)actuallytreatsitsintelligibilityasatestofovert

racism,notingthatitonlymakessensetousethisphrasealongsidesomething

overtlyracist.7We’llcallitaDenialFigleaf.

TheclassicDenialfigleafattemptstododgeaccusationsofracismbysimply

assertingthattheyarenottrue.Itisoneofthemoststraightforwardandcrude

offigleaves.Figleaveslikethisonearesowell-knownthatthereareentireblogs

devotedtomockingthem8.Theyarewellknownaroundtheworld.Totakejust

oneexample,VanDijk(82),writingin1993,citesJean-MarieLePen,then-leader

oftheFrontNational:

(3)Weareneitherracistnorxenophobic.Ouraimisonlythat,quite

naturally,therebeahierarchy,becausewearedealingwithFrance,and

FranceistheCountryoftheFrench.

AcloselyrelatedfigleafistheFriendshipAssertionfigleaf,whichoften

accompaniesit.Itsclassicformis(2)

7I’mactuallynotsosureaboutthis.Ithinkitdoesmakesensetosay“I’mnotracist,butIdislikeObama’sforeignpolicy.Whilethismayarousesuspicionthatthespeakerisracist—whyelsedotheyfeeltheneedtoasserttheirnon-racism?—Idon’tthinkitindicatesthatdislikeofObama’sforeignpolicyisaracistview,orthatthosewhodislikeObama’sforeignpolicymustberacist.8http://imnotracistbut.tumblr.com;https://twitter.com/imnotsexistbut.


10

(2)Someofmybestfriendsareblack,but…[racistutterance].

Itakeanotherformofthistobetobetheassertionofafondnessforthegroup

attacked—asin“I’vealwayshadagreatrelationshipwiththeblacks”.9Theyare

easilyrecognizableasweakattemptstodeflectaccusationsofracism,andare

generallynotgivenmuchcredence.Forthisreason,theyaregenerallynotvery

effective.10Thisiswhymorecomplexsynchronicfigleavesarealsoused,as

discussedbelow.

Ihavedefinedfigleavesintermsoftheirfunctions—theyareadditional

utterancesthatservetounderminetheclaimthatanapparentlyracistutterance

isracist.ASimpleDenialfigleafwillveryoftenfailtodothis.Technically,then,

itwillinthesecasesbeamerelyattemptedfigleaf.

2.1.1 TrumponMexicans

DonaldTrump’sremarksaboutMexicansincludeasynchronicfigleaf:

WhenMexicosendsitspeople,they'renotsendingtheirbest.They'renot

sendingyou.They'renotsendingyou.They'resendingpeoplethathave

lotsofproblems,andthey'rebringingthoseproblemswith

[them]…They'rerapists.Andsome,Iassume,aregoodpeople.11

9http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/29/donald-trump-blacks-lawsuit_n_855553.html10This,ofcourse,variessubstantiallyfromsubculturetosubculture.Itisalsoworthnotingthattherearegenerationalaspectstothis—olderpeoplemayfinditmuchmorenaturaltoinsertSimpleDenialorFriendshipassertionfigleaves,andmaydosooutofanabundanceofcaution.Forexample,non-racistmembersofcertainsubcultures/generationsmightquitesincerelyutter“I’mnotaracist,but...”beforeanycommentremotelyrelatedtoblackpeople.Itisentirelypossiblethatonewhoassertsthisisnotintheslightestmotivatedbyracism.Arathertragicconsequence,however,willbethatsomeonefromoutsidethespeaker’ssubculturemightwellattributeracismonthebasisofthefigleaf(wherethecommentonitsownwouldnothavetriggeredthisattribution).IthankDanEgonssonforpressingmeonthispoint.11https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald-trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/


11

Thefirstthingtonoteisthatthequotationdoesnotexplicitlyclaimthatall

Mexicansarerapists.Instead,itexplicitlyassociatesMexicanimmigrantswith

rapists,whileatthesametimeputtinginplacefigleaves.Itfocusesnoton

Mexicans,butontheMexicanswhoaresent.ThisallowsforbothTrumpandhis

supporterstoinsistthattheyarenotprejudicedagainstMexicans.Instead,they

havemuchmorespecificnegativebeliefsaboutsomeMexicans.Andthere’sa

furtherfigleafattheend:“some,Iassume,aregoodpeople”.Thisisacaveat

addedon,toallowadenialthatthespeakerismakingsweepinggeneralisations

evenaboutthoseMexicanswhoare“sent”.

Theadditionofthefigleavestowhatwouldotherwisebeveryclearlyracist

generalisationsleavesuswithtwoclaims:

(4)They(theMexicanswhocometotheUS)arerapists.

(5)Someofthem(theMexicanswhocometotheUS)are,Iassume,good

people.

(4)isagenericclaimaboutMexicanswhocometotheUS.Genericclaimshave

notoriouslyslipperyandconfusingandcontroversialtruthconditions,andthose

aboutsocialgroupshavebeenrecentlyarguedtohaveacrucialroleinfomenting

andperpetuatingsocialprejudice.12Butit’sworthcallingattentiontotwo

important(andwidelyaccepted)factsaboutgenerics.First,theyarenot

universalgeneralisations,butcanbetrueevenifthereareexception.(“Cats

havefourlegs”istrueeventhoughtherearethreeleggedcats.)Thismeanswe

canmakesenseof(4)and(5)beingbothtruewithouttakingitthatsomerapists

aregoodpeople.Second,theyarenonethelesswidelymisunderstoodas

universalgeneralisations.(Weseethiseverytimeageneralizationabout,say,

therelativeincomesofblackandwhitepeopleismetwiththeobjectionthat

therearesomerichblackpeople.)

12See,forexample,Leslieforthcoming;Rhodes,LeslieandTworek2012;Wodak,LeslieandRhodes2015;Haslanger2011.ButforopposingviewsseeSterken2015aand2015b;Saulforthcoming.


12

Thisleavestheaudiencewithaninterpretationthatcan,onaveryweakversion

oftheNormofRacialEquality,beunderstoodasnotracist.Becausetheclaimis

notaboutallMexicans,andbecausethere’sanexplicitrecognitionthateven

someofthosewhocometotheUSare(orareassumedtobe13)goodpeople,

thosewhofeeldrawntosomehowassociateMexicansandrapecannodalong

whilenothavingtoseethemselvesasracist.

Andthisfigleafservesitspurpose.Trump’sdefenderscitethesepointsinorder

toarguethathiscommentsaboutMexicanswerenotracist.

IthinkTrumpisattackingthembasedontheiractions,nottheirethnicity.

Heisaddressingtheillegalimmigrantgroup,nottheracegroupthey

belongto.(https://www.quora.com/Did-Trump-really-make-racist-

comments)

Ididn'thearhimsayanythingracistagainstanyrace.WhatIdidhearhim

sayis,"IllegalMexicansbringdrugs,crime,andarerapists,butI'msure

somearegoodpeople."Seriously,whatsracistaboutthat?(Dirk,

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150728210521AAWJ

Qfa)

Trumpisnotracist…Trumpisnotagainstallmexicansjusttheillegals.

(JuliusGranstrom,

https://twitter.com/juliusgranstrom/status/675231238366625792)

2.1.2 GlennBeckonMuslims

SabaFatima(2013:341)discussesanutteranceofGlennBeck’sthatisalsoa

synchronicfigleaf.BeckisinterviewingMuslimcongressmanKeithEllison.

13It’sworthnotingthattheadditionof‘Iassume’weakenstheclaim,bysuggestingthatTrumpisgivingthemthebenefitofthedoubtwithoutsufficientevidence.Still,thegivingofthisbenefitofthedoubtcanbereadasanindicationofnon-racismbyonewithasufficientlynarrowunderstandingofracism.


13

OK.Nooffense,andIknowMuslims.IlikeMuslims.I’vebeento

mosques.Ireallydon’tbelievethatIslamisareligionofevil.I—you

know,Ithinkit’sbeinghijacked,quitefrankly.Withthatbeingsaid,

youareaDemocrat.Youaresaying,“Let’scutandrun.”AndIhave

totellyou,Ihavebeennervousaboutthisinterviewwithyou,

becausewhatIfeellikesayingis,“Sir,provetomethatyouarenot

workingwithourenemies.”AndIknowyou’renot.I’mnotaccusing

youofbeinganenemy,butthat’sthewayIfeel,andIthinkalotof

Americanswillfeelthatway.

ApartofBeck’sutterance,(6),wouldseemquiteclearlyIslamophobicifuttered

onitsowntoEllison.

(6)“Sir,provetomethatyouarenotworkingwithourenemies.”

OnewaythatBeckavoidsthisisbyusingagroup-basedversionofthe

FriendshipAssertionFigleaf,(7).

(7) IlikeMuslims.

Butthat’snotallthathedoes.Crucially,hedoesn’tutter(6)onitsown.He

imbedsitinaruminationaboutwhathefeelslikesaying,mentioningitrather

thanusingit.

(6*)AndIhavetotellyou,Ihavebeennervousaboutthisinterviewwith

you,becausewhatIfeellikesayingis,“Sir,provetomethatyouarenot

workingwithourenemies.”

ThiswewillcallaMentionFigleaf.ItallowsBeck(andhissupporters)to

truthfullyinsistthathedidnotactuallydemandthatEllisonprovethatheisnot

workingwiththeenemy.Heavoidsthisspeechactbymentioningratherthan

usingthewordsthatwould,ifutteredontheirown,constitutetheactofmaking

suchademand.


14

Andthenhemakesafurthermove.Hecontinueswith(8).

(8)AndIknowyou’renot.I’mnotaccusingyouofbeinganenemy,but

that’sthewayIfeel,andIthinkalotofAmericanswillfeelthatway.

HereheexplicitlystatesthatheknowsEllisonisnotworkingwiththeenemy,

whichmakesitratherpuzzlingthathealsoadmitstofeelinglikesaying“proveto

methatyouarenotworkingwiththeenemy”.Creatingsuchpuzzlesisoften

crucialtotheworkingofafigleaf,somethingwe’lldiscussmorelaterinthe

paper.Finally,Beckfinisheswithanexplicitdenialthathisutteranceisan

accusation.Wesee,then,atleastthreekindsoffigleavesatworkinBeck’s

utterance:FriendshipAssertion,Mention,andamorecomplexfurthermove

with(8).

2.2 DiachronicFigleaf

Adiachronicfigleafisoneappliedsubstantiallylaterthantheproblematic

utterance.Sometimesthisisbecauseattentionhasbeendrawntotheoriginal

utterance,andaresponseisdemanded.Oncemore,themostobviousandcrude

versionsareDenialandFriendshipAssertion.HerewehaveTrump,being

interviewedaftermakingseveralutterancesthatwerewidelytakentoshow

anti-blackracism,suchtweetingasfalsestatisticsaboutblackcrimetakenfroma

whitesupremacistwebsiteandanexpressionofsupportfortheassaultofa

blackprotestoratoneofhisrallies.

(9)IhavegreatAfrican-Americanfriendships.Ihavejustamazing

relationships,andsomanypositivethingshavehappened.

Onitsown,thismightnotbeterriblyeffective—itissoveryclosetotheclassic

claimofablackbestfriend.ButTrumpalsousedamuchmoresophisticated

dischronicfigleaf.Thiswasanutterancedesignedtodemonstratealackof

prejudice,ratherthanmerelydeclaringitasadenialfigleaf.Inadditiontohis

group-basedFriendshipAssertionFigleaf,Trumpweighedinonthetopicof


15

SupremeCourtJusticeAntoninScalia’srecentcommentsaboutaffirmative

action.Scaliahadrecentlysaid“Therearethosewhocontendthatitdoesnot

benefitAfrican-AmericanstogetthemintotheUniversityofTexaswheretheydo

notdowell,asopposedtohavingthemgotoaless-advancedschool,aless--a

slower-trackschoolwheretheydowell,"14commentsmetwithwidespread

outrage.Trump’scommentsonthecontroversycameasasurprise:

(10)IthoughtitwasverytoughtotheAfrican-Americancommunity,

actually…Idon'tlikewhathesaid.No,Idon'tlikewhathesaid.Iheard

him,Iwaslike,'Letmereaditagain'becauseIactuallysawitinprint,and

I'mgoing--Ireadalotofstuff--andI'mgoing,'Whoa!'15

(10)usesamuchmoreeffectivemaneuverthantheDenialorFriendship

Affirmation.Itcriticizessomeoneelsefortheirracism,thusallowingthespeaker

totakethemoralhighgroundanddemonstratewhatappeartobesomeanti-

racistconvictions.Once(10)hasbeenuttered,Trumpsupporterscandefend

himagainstaccusationsofracismbynotingthathecriticizedScalia.16

3. HowFigleavesWork—AndDon’tWork

3.1 Inference-blocking

Aracialfigleafis,generallyspeaking,anattempttoblockaninferencefromthe

factthatthespeakerhasmadeanopenlyracistutteranceRtoaclaimlike(11):

14http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/13/politics/donald-trump-antonin-scalia-affirmative-action/15http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/13/politics/donald-trump-antonin-scalia-affirmative-action/16Althoughthecentralnotionoffigleafisthatofanutterance,itseemstomethatnot-utterancescanfunctionjustlikefigleaves.Forexample,itiscommonlybelievedthatnomemberofagroupcanbeprejudicedagainsttheirowngroup.AracistutteranceR,then,utteredbyamemberofthegroupthatRisabout,willgenerallybepuzzlingtotheaudience.Theywillhesitatetoinferthateitherthespeakerortheutteranceisracist.Insuchacase,Iamtemptedtosaythatapersonmayfunctionasakindofhumanfigleaf,butthisrequiresbroadeningthenotionofafigleafbeyondwhatIdiscusshere.


16

(11)Thespeakerisracist.

Giventheideologyofpersonalism,thisblockingwillalsohavetheresultthatthe

utteranceRitselfisnolongerseenasracist.Blockingtheseinferenceshasa

tremendousfeltimportanceincontextswheretheNormofRacialEqualityisin

force.Thesearecontexts,I’vearguedabove,whereconversationalparticipants

feelboundbyarequirementtonotberacist—howevertheyinterpretthat.If

theyfindthemselvesinclinedtoagreewithaspeaker,theyarelikelytohesitate

ifthespeakerseemstohaveexplicitracistcommitments.Hillargues,rightly,

thattheideologyofpersonalismmakesspeakerintentionthenearly-exclusive

focusofanydiscussionsthattakeplaceregardingracistlanguage,allowinga

widerangeofdenialsbasedonideaslikemis-speaking,carelessness,oragood

heart.Myclaimhereisthatfigleavesareanimportantmechanismofteninvolved

indenialsofracism,duetotheirabilitytoblockinferencestoclaimslike(11).

ADenialfigleafattemptstodothisinthemostdirectway,bysimplyasserting

thedenialof(11).TheaudienceinsuchacaseisconfrontedwithanutteranceR

thatsoundsracist,accompaniedbytheassertionthatthespeakerisnotracist.

Onitsown,theutteranceofRmightlicenseaninferenceto(11)fairlyquickly.

ButtheDenialFigleafattemptstoblockthis.Howsuccessfulthisiswilldepend

onanumberofthings.

Iftheutteranceseemedclearlytobethekindofthingthatonlyaracistwouldsay,

thentheinferenceto(11)isverystrong,andtheaudiencewillprobablydoubt

thefigleafinstead.Andthiswilloftenbethecase.AsVanDijknotes,“denialsof

racismarethestockintradeofracistdiscourse”(81).Similarly,ifthereisa

greatdealofotherinformationpointingtothespeaker’sracism,theaudience

willprobablydoubtthefigleafinsteadof(11).Furtherevidencethatmightbe

usedtocastdoubtonthefigleafisknowledgethatassertionsofnon-racismare

verycommonamongracists,duetotheNormofRacialEquality.TheDenial

Figleafwillonlysucceedifnoneofthesefactorscausetheaudiencetorejectthe

figleaf,whichexplainswhyitisonlyrarelysuccessful(onitsown).


17

Otherfigleavesdothisinlessdirectways.TheFriendshipAffirmationfigleaf

worksbywayofaninferencefromaclaimlike“someofmybestfriendsare

black”tothedenialof(11).Thisismeanttobebased,itseems,onthe

(incorrect)thoughtthataracistwouldnothavecloseblackfriends.The

Mentionfigleafworksbyimbeddingtheutterancethatwouldhavelicensedthe

inferenceto(11)withinquotationmarks.Thismakesitsomewhattrickierto

infer(11).Obviously,it’snotthecasethateveryonewhomentionsaracist

utteranceisaracist.InacaselikeBeck’s,however,(11)willstillseema

reasonableinferencetomanyofus.Nonetheless,employingtheMentionfigleaf

renderstheinferenceto(11)debatableinawaythatitwouldnothavebeen

withoutit.Beck’sdefenderscaninsistthathedidnotdemandthatEllisonprove

thathewasnotworkingfortheenemy.

Onewaythatafigleafcanbeeffectiveissimplybycreatingastateofconfusion

onthepartoftheaudience.Trump’saudience,forexample,mightfeelthathis

utterancesseemedpotentiallyracistbutthathiscriticismofScaliacastsdoubt

onthis.Inordertoblocktheinferenceto(11),theyneednotactuallyreachany

conclusionabouthisracism.Astateofconfusionanduncertaintywillsufficeto

blockthecondemnationthatmayseemmandatoryundertheNormofRacial

Equalityif(11)isendorsed.

3.2 ShiftingPermissibility

DuetotheNormofRacialEquality,politiciansattemptingtoexploitracial

resentmentsneedtobeabletodenythatthisiswhattheyaredoing.Ofcourse,it

isfareasiertomakeaconvincingdenialifyouhaveavoidedmentioningrace.

Thisisasignificantadvantageofusinganimplicitappeal/covertdogwhistle.

However,figleavescanbeusedtoprovidedeniabilityevenwhenonehasbeen

moreexplicit.Indeed,aswehaveseen,thisdeniabilitymaycomeintheformof

simplydenyingracism,asinaDenialFigleaf.However,themoresubtlefigleaves

offermorepossibilities.GlennBeck,criticizedforhisinterviewwithEllison,has

amplepotentialtodenyanyracismbypointingoutthathewasveryexplicit

aboutnotaccusingEllisonofworkingwiththeenemy.DonaldTrumpcaninsist


18

thatheisnotracist,andpointtoevidenceofhisnon-racism,likehiscriticismof

Scalia’sremarksonaffirmativeaction.

Afigleafhasadramaticeffectonaconversation.Inmostsituations,openlyracist

utterancescreatesubstantialdiscomfort.Itisenormouslydifficult,socially,to

accusesomeoneelseofracism.But,foronewhosubscribestotheNormof

RacialEquality,itisalsoclearthatexplicitracismisnotacceptable.Afigleaf

providesawayoutofthismassivelydisquietingimpasse.Ifafigleafhasbeen

uttered,thereisroomfordoubtabouttheracismoftheutterance,which

removestheotherwiseuncomfortablypresentobligationtoobjecttoracism.

Andthisiswhatpotentiallyshiftstheboundariesofthepermissible.Ifnobody

objectstoaracistmove,McGowanargues,theracismbecomesacceptable.But,

aswesawearlier,manyexplicitlyracistutteranceswillnotnormallybe

smoothlyassimilatedwheretheNormofRacialEqualityisinforce.Afigleaf

altersthisdynamic.Aneffectivefigleafallowsexplicitlyracistutterancestobe

made,withoutobjection.Thismeansthattheprocessofconversational

accommodationisabletofunctioninitsnormalsmoothmanner,adaptingtothe

realitythatR,theracistutterance,hasbeenmadeandnotmetwithany

objections.

Figleaves(whentheywork)havetheeffectofdefusingworriesaboutracism.

Onceafigleafhasbeeneffectivelydeployed,standardsforwhatonecansay

withoutbeingracistshift.Andthisispowerfullyworrying.Iftheaudience

acceptsthatthefigleafblockstheconcernaboutracismarisingfromthe

utteranceofracistsentenceR,thenRbecomessseenassomethingonecansay

withoutbeingracist.AndthiswillmakeitfareasiertosayR,andeventodoso

withoutfigleaves.Nowwehaveouranswertohowtheboundariesofthe

permissiblecanshift.AmongadherentstotheNormofRacialEquality,the

crucialthingistorejectwhatisobviouslyracist.Thisallowsanadherentto

believethattheyarefollowingtheverythinnorm“Don’tberacist!”Andwhat

countsasobviouslyracistcan,anddoes,change.Pairsomethingobviouslyracist

withaneffectivefigleafenoughtimes,anditsracismisnolongerobvious.At


19

thatpoint,thefigleafmaywellbegintodropoff.

Afurthereffectisonhowotherutterancesareperceived.AsR+Figleafmakesits

wayintoourdiscourse,slightlylessracistutterancesthanRbecomeunshocking.

So,forexample,DonaldTrump’scalltobanMuslims(accompaniedbythefigleaf

“untilourcountry'srepresentativescanfigureoutwhatisgoingon”17)was

initiallyshocking.Asitwasreplayedonthenewsoverandover,itbecameless

shocking.And,crucially,theonlyslightlylessracistcalltobanallSyrianscame

tobeseenasthemoderatepositionintheRepublicanprimary.

4. Problems/Complexities

4.1 HowEffectiveAreFigleaves?

Whileitmaysometimeshappenthatafigleafis100%effectiveandconvincing

forallaudiences,thiswillberare.Audienceswilldifferintheextenttowhich

theyacceptafigleafascastingintodoubttheracismofanutterance.First,most

obviously,thegrouptargetedbytheutteranceisfarlesslikelytoacceptthe

figleaf.Therearesurelyvery,veryfewMexicanswhodoubtDonaldTrump’s

bigotrytowardthem.ButthereceptionofTrump’scommentsalsoshowsus

othercomplexities.Whilehehasmanyadmirerswhodenythatheisracist,

manyothershavecondemnedhisutterancesasracist.Thefigleavesworked

wellwithonegroup,butnotwithanother.Itisoverlysimple,then,totalkabout

afigleafsimplyworkingornotworking.Evenahighlyeffectivefigleafwillbe

effectivewithaparticulargroupandineffectivewithothers.Shiftsinthe

boundariesofthepermissiblewillalsobecircumscribedinthisway:what

becomespermissiblewithinonecommunitywillnotbepermissibleinanother.

17http://www.npr.org/2015/12/08/458875362/trump-on-his-plan-to-ban-muslims-not-politically-correct-but-i-don-t-care.


20

4.2 ConfusedFigleaves

Self-knowledgeisadifficultthing,andself-knowledgeaboutracialattitudesis

especiallydifficult,givenwidespreadracialresentmentcombinedwithanorm

demandingthatonenotberacist.Moreover,peoplehaveconflictingattitudes–

famously,explicitcommitmentstoanti-racismmaycoexistwithimplicitracist

biases(seee.g.Brownstein2016).Thismeansthatutterersoffigleavesmaynot

bedeliberatelyengaginginmanipulation.Theymaygenuinelybelieveallthe

partsoftheirfigleaf,andtheymaygenuinelybelievethatthefigleafmakestheir

utterancenon-racist,oreventhatitdemonstratestheirlackofracism.Oneeffect

ofthiswillbeablockingofself-understanding.Makingaracistutterance,and

havingthisbenoticedandremarkedon,canbeavaluableturningpoint,which

allowsonetolearnandchange.Figleavesmayblockthisfromhappening.

Itmayalsobeusefultothinkaboutfigleavesatthelevelofbelief,ratherthan

utterance.TheNormofRacialEqualityisnotjustanormthatcausesoneto

worryaboutothersconsideringonetoberacist.Itisalsoonethatmakespeople

notwanttoseethemselvesasracist.Aftersaying(oreventhinking)something

racist,manypeoplewillfindthemselvesworried—atleastbriefly—thatthey

mightberacist.Attimeslikethis,itisalmostirresistibletoseekreassuranceby

reachingforevidencethatoneisnotracist.Onekindofevidencecanbeafigleaf

atthelevelofbelief.Onemightthinktooneselfoneoftheobviousfigleaves:butI

haveablackbestfriend;orbutI’mnotracist.Or,perhaps,onemightmoveonto

othertopicsthatallowonetodemonstrateone’slackofracism—quickly

followingaracistthoughtwithacondemnationofsomeoneelse’sracism.

4.3 FigleavesandIntention

Itisimportanttonotethatafigleafisdefinedintermsofitsfunction,notthe

intentionbehindit.Afigleafisanutterancemadeinadditiontoanexplicitly

racistone,whichprovidescoverbyintroducingdoubtabouttheracismofthe

utterer,andthereforeoftheutterance.Sometimes,aswitharacistbutclever

politician,thisisintentional.However,asnotedabove,sometimesitisdueto


21

confusionandconcernoverone’sownpossibleracism—inacaselikethisit

seemswrongtodescribeitasintentional.

Ihavemostlyfocusedthusfaronnefarious,deliberatelydesignedfigleaves,

craftedtoconvinceanaudiencethatone’sracistutterancesarenotracist.ButI

thinkitisamistaketofocustoomuchonintention.Whatmattersmostabout

figleavesistheireffects.

ItisinfactactuallypossiblethatDonaldTrumpthinksboththattheMexicans

cometotheUSaregenerallyrapistsandmurderers,andthatsomeofthemare

goodpeople.Certainly,apersonwhobelievedthismightmakethesame

utterancesaboutMexicansthatTrumpmade,withnoefforttoconcealracism

fromeitherhimselforothers.Hemightsimplybelievebothofthesethings.

Thereneedbenodeliberateefforttomanipulate.Importantly,however,this

wouldmakenodifferencetotheclassificationof“someofthemaregoodpeople”

asafigleaf.Thisutterancestillhastheeffect(forsomeaudiences,anyway)of

blockinganinferencetotheclaimthatthespeakerisracist.Andthisiswhat

mattersfortheclassificationasafigleaf.

Tofocusattentionontheintentionsbehindafigleafistobuyintothefolktheory

ofracismthatgivesacentralroletotheIdeologyofPersonalism.Theonly

differenceisthatthefocusnowisontheintentionbehindthefigleafratherthan

ontheintentionbehindtheapparentlyracistutterance.Ourattentionwillstill

be,wrongly,focusedonattemptingtodiscernthestateofmindofthespeaker,

andtherewillalwaysbewaystodoubtourjudgmentsabouttheintention

behindafigleaf.

Butevenwhereitisclearthatafigleafisanintentionalmanipulation,Ithinkitis

amistaketoengageinmuchdiscussionoverintentions.Why?Because,as

hintedearlierandarguedbelow,whatreallymattersaboutfigleavesistheir


22

abilitytochangewhatweseeaspermissiblediscourse,inextremelypernicious

ways.Andintentionhasnothingwhatsoevertodowiththat.18

4.4 TheImportanceofEffects

Afigleafprovidescoverforanutterancethatwouldotherwisebeseenasclearly

racist.Thismayinsomeinstancesbeadeliberatemanipulationoftheaudience

byafullyexplicitracist.Itmayinotherinstancesbeaback-pedallingbya

genuinelyconflictedperson.Itmayevenoccasionallybeanattempttocorrecta

genuineinstanceofmis-speaking.However,inallofthesecases,asuccessful

figleafmeansthattheinferencefromthisutterancetothethoughtthatthe

speakerisracistisblocked.AnutteranceofasentenceSthatwouldhavebeen

clearlyracistwithoutthefigleafnowcomestobeseenasthesortofthinganon-

racistmightsay.Andsinceintentionsandbeliefsofthespeakerarethemost

importantthingaccordingtotheIdeologyofPersonalism,thismeansthatS

comestoseemnot-racist,oratleastnot-clearly-racist.Crucially,thiseffecttakes

placenomatterwhatintentionsandbeliefsliebehindthefigleaf.

IffigleavesdoworkinthewaythatI’vesuggested,leadingustochangeour

viewsonwhetheranutteranceisclearlyracistornot,andfacilitatingthespread

ofracistspeech,weshouldbeveryworriedabouttheirfurthereffects.Lynne

Tirrell’s(2012)andDavidLivingstoneSmith’s(2012)workdevastatingly

demonstratesthewaysthathatespeechcanleadtoandbeapartofgenocidal

violence.Andtheyarenotaloneinthis.Indeed,theUnitedNationscondemns

hatespeech.Andcrucially,theUN’scondemnationfocusesnotonthespeech’s

intentions,butalmostentirelyonitseffects—onspeechthatinciteshatred:

18Definingfigleavesintermsofinference-blockingeffectshasanotherconsequence.Wehavesofarlookedatcaseswheretheinferencebeingblockedisonetoaplausiblytruebelief.However,itwillstillbeafigleafifthebeliefbeingblockedisafalseone.Forexample,considerthecaseofafeministwantingtoblocktheinferencetothebeliefthatshehatesmen.Shemightsay“Idon’thatemen,butIthinksocietyisstructuredinawaythatunfairlydisadvantageswomen.”“Idon’thatemen”isafigleaftoblocktheinferencetothebeliefthatthespeakerhatesmen.Thefactthatshedoesnotinfacthatemendoespreventthisfrombeingafigleaf.


23

alldisseminationofideasbasedonracialsuperiorityorhatred,

incitementtoracialdiscrimination,aswellasallactsofviolenceor

incitementtosuchactsagainstanyraceorgroupofpersonsofanother

colourorethnicorigin

Let’slookagainatanutterance-figleafcombination,andthinkaboutwhatthe

figleafdoesanddoesn’tdo.

WhenMexicosendsitspeople,they'renotsendingtheirbest.They'renot

sendingyou.They'renotsendingyou.They'resendingpeoplethathave

lotsofproblems,andthey'rebringingthoseproblemswithus…They're

rapists.Andsome,Iassume,aregoodpeople.19

Withoutthefigleaf,thisisaclearcaseofincitementtohatredagainstMexicans.

Youcannotcallagroup‘rapists’withoutincitinghatredagainstthem.Dothe

figleavesmitigatethis?Well,theyallowforthepossibilityofgoodMexicanswho

stayedinMexico;andofanoccasionalgoodMexicanintheUS.Butifyouhave

cometobelievethat,otherthantheseexceptions,Mexicansaregenerallyrapists,

group-basedhatredhasclearlybeenincited.Thefigleavesdonothingto

mitigatethehatredagainstthegroup.Indeed,bymakingitmoresocially

acceptable—bycallingintoquestiontheinferencetothespeaker’sracism—they

mayincreasetheeffectivenessoftheincitement.

Andthisiswhyintentiondoesnotmatterverymuchinthebigpicture,atleast

whenwearediscussingthepublicutterancesofpublicfigures,especially

politicians.Whatismostworryingaboutthesefigleavesistheirabilitytomake

otherwiseracistutterancesseemacceptable,shiftingournormsinsuchaway

thatincreasinglyexplicitexpressionsofracialhatredbecomepermissible.This

19https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald-trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/


24

facilitatestheincitementofracialhatred,whichisanddeservestobeamatterof

theverygreatestconcern.20

5. Conclusion

Mechanismsthatchangeournormsaboutracistutterancesarevitallyimportant.

Thosemethodsthatallowpreviouslyunacceptableutterancestobecome

acceptablecanhavedevastatingeffectsintheworld.Rightnow,very

dramatically,oursocialworldisbeingalteredbythesemethods.Weneedto

noticeit,andfindawaytofightiteffectively.

20Itisfarmoreappropriatetofocusonintentionswhenconsideringutterancesthatdonothavesignificantpotentialtoreshapethenormsofourworld.Inparticular,whenweareconsideringtheutterancesofthosewithwhomwehavepersonalrelationships(e.g.familymembers),itmaybeespeciallyimportanttofocusonintentions.However,thefocusoneffectswillremainimportantforutterancesthatdohavesignificantpotentialtoshapeoursocialworld.Thiswillincludenotjustpublicfiguresbutotherswhohavetheabilitytoinfluencesignificantnumbersofotherpeople—teachers,journalists,lawyers,andsoon.


25

Brownstein,Michael,"ImplicitBias",TheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy

(Spring2016Edition),EdwardN.Zalta(ed.),URL=

<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/implicit-bias/>.

Fatima,Saba.2013.“Muslim-AmericanScripts”,Hypatia28:2,341-359.

Haslanger,Sally.2011.“Ideology,Generics,andCommonGround”inWitt,Charlotte

(ed.),FeministMetaphysics.SpringerVerlag179-207.

Hill,Jane.2008.TheEverydayLanguageofWhiteRacism.Chichester:Wiley-

Blackwell.

Langton,Rae.2012.“BeyondBelief:PragmaticsinHateSpeechandPornography”,in

Maitra,I.andMcGowan,M.K.,SpeechandHarm:ControversiesOverFree

Speech,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,72-93.

Leslie,Sarah-Jane.Forthcoming.“TheOriginalSinofCognition:Fear,Prejudice,and

Generalization.”JournalofPhilosophy.

Lewis,David.1979.“ScorekeepinginaLanguageGame”,JournalofPhilosophical

Logic8:1,339-359.

McGowan,MaryKate.2012.“On‘WhitesOnly’SignsandRacistHateSpeech:Verbal

ActsofRacialDiscrimination”,inMaitra,I.andMcGowan,M.K.,Speechand

Harm:ControversiesOverFreeSpeech,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,121-

147.

Mendelberg,Tali.2008a."Racialprimingrevived."PerspectivesonPolitics6,1:109-

123.

Mendelberg,Tali.2008b."Racialpriming:Issuesinresearchdesignand

interpretation."PerspectivesonPolitics6,1:135-140.

Rhodes,Marjorie;Leslie,Sarah-Jane;andTworek,Christina.2012.“Cultural

TransmissionofSocialEssentialism.”PNAS109(34):13526-13531.

Smith,DavidLivingstone.2012LessThanHuman:WhyWeDemean,Enslaveand

ExterminateOthers.StMartinsPress.

Sterken,Rachel.2015a.“LeslieonGenerics”.PhilosophicalStudies172(9):2493-

2512.


26

Sterken,Rachel.2015b.“Generics,ContentandCognitiveBias”.AnalyticPhilosophy

56(1):75-93.

Tesler,M.andSears,D.O.2010.Obama’sRace:The2008ElectionandtheDreamofa

Post-RacialAmerica.(UniversityofChicagoPress.)

Tirrell,Lynn.2012.“GenocidalLanguageGames”,”,inMaitra,I.andMcGowan,M.K.,

SpeechandHarm:ControversiesOverFreeSpeech,Oxford:OxfordUniversity

Press,174-221.

VanDijk,Teun.1993.EliteDiscourseandRacism.NewburyPark:Sage.

Valentino,Nicholas;Neuner,Fabian;andVandenbroek,L.Matthew.2016.“The

ChangingNormsofRacialPoliticalRhetoricandtheEndofRacialPriming”,

paperdeliveredtoAPSA.

Wodak,Daniel;Leslie,Sarah-Jane;andRhodes,Marjorie.2015.“WhataLoaded

Generalization:GenericsandSocialCognition”.PhilosophyCompass10(9):

625-634.

Racial Figleaves and the Shifting Boundaries of the Permissible

Documents

Transcript of Racial Figleaves and the Shifting Boundaries of the Permissible