What is race? Epistemic ambiguity and liberal international order

IF 3.9 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
K. Abraham
{"title":"What is race? Epistemic ambiguity and liberal international order","authors":"K. Abraham","doi":"10.1093/ia/iiae129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n There is increasing interest in how anticolonial actors advanced a norm of racial equality in mid-century formations of liberal international order (LIO). Less attention, however, is afforded to simultaneous epistemic conflicts over the scientific object of ‘race’ and their political effects. During postwar order-building and alongside political struggles for racial equality, there was wide and deep scientific debate on the analytical utility of race as a means to categorize human diversity. Race, I demonstrate, was rendered as epistemically ambiguous, caught between social scientists and philosophers who understood it as a social construct akin to ethnicity and natural scientists who maintained a biological basis. This split was not confined to academic debate but shaped political and normative struggles over the institutionalization of racial equality in LIO. Adopting an object-oriented approach, I argue that the epistemic ambiguity of race generated political effects, at once permitting the reproduction of colonial logics in LIO as well as providing latitude for strategies of resistance. Rather than a linear causal effect, I empirically map the work that epistemic ambiguity performed in the creation of mid-century international order.","PeriodicalId":48162,"journal":{"name":"International Affairs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiae129","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is increasing interest in how anticolonial actors advanced a norm of racial equality in mid-century formations of liberal international order (LIO). Less attention, however, is afforded to simultaneous epistemic conflicts over the scientific object of ‘race’ and their political effects. During postwar order-building and alongside political struggles for racial equality, there was wide and deep scientific debate on the analytical utility of race as a means to categorize human diversity. Race, I demonstrate, was rendered as epistemically ambiguous, caught between social scientists and philosophers who understood it as a social construct akin to ethnicity and natural scientists who maintained a biological basis. This split was not confined to academic debate but shaped political and normative struggles over the institutionalization of racial equality in LIO. Adopting an object-oriented approach, I argue that the epistemic ambiguity of race generated political effects, at once permitting the reproduction of colonial logics in LIO as well as providing latitude for strategies of resistance. Rather than a linear causal effect, I empirically map the work that epistemic ambiguity performed in the creation of mid-century international order.
什么是种族?认识模糊与自由国际秩序
反殖民主义行动者如何在本世纪中期形成的自由国际秩序(LIO)中推进种族平等准则的问题日益受到关注。然而,人们较少关注同时发生的关于 "种族 "这一科学对象的认识论冲突及其政治影响。在战后秩序建设期间,在争取种族平等的政治斗争的同时,科学界就种族作为人类多样性分类手段的分析效用展开了广泛而深入的辩论。我认为,种族在认识论上是模棱两可的,社会科学家和哲学家将其理解为一种类似于种族的社会建构,而自然科学家则坚持其生物学基础。这种分裂并不局限于学术争论,它还影响了在 LIO 中种族平等制度化的政治和规范斗争。通过采用一种面向对象的方法,我认为种族在认识论上的模糊性产生了政治效应,既允许了殖民逻辑在 LIO 中的再现,也为抵抗策略提供了空间。与线性因果效应不同,我从经验角度描绘了认识论模糊性在本世纪中期国际秩序建立过程中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Affairs
International Affairs INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
24.40%
发文量
255
期刊介绍: International Affairs is Britain"s leading journal of international relations. Founded by and edited at Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, it has not only developed a much valued insight into European policy debates but has also become renowned for its coverage of global policy issues. Mixing commissioned and unsolicited articles from the biggest names in international relations this lively, provocative journal will keep you up-to-date with critical thinking on the key issues shaping world economic and political change.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信