{"title":"What is social constructionism about race? A reply to Hochman.","authors":"Celso Neto","doi":"10.1007/s10539-025-09995-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 <i>investigative practice</i> (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.</p>","PeriodicalId":55368,"journal":{"name":"Biology & Philosophy","volume":"40 5","pages":"20"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12423196/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biology & Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-025-09995-z","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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 investigative practice (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.
本文对种族社会建构主义(以下简称SCR)进行了重新定义。虽然SCR在哲学和学术界被广泛认为是一种霸权观点,但Hochman(2022)认为这种霸权是虚幻的。他在文献中发现了不同版本的SCR,表明种族建构主义者并没有共享一个单一的、共同的观点。在他看来,种族建构主义者甚至没有团结一致地拒绝生物种族现实主义,“关于种族的社会建构主义”这个标签是如此的包容,以至于它几乎变得毫无用处。我确定了Hochman的分析中缺少的东西,即承认SCR是一种调查性实践(Brigandt 2012; Brigandt and Love 2012; Neto 2020)。要认识到这一点,就需要把焦点从种族建构主义者的主张转移到他们的行动上。通过操作这种转变,我解释了为什么SCR在重要和特定的意义上仍然是生物种族现实主义的替代品,以及为什么“关于种族的社会建构主义”这个标签仍然有用。
期刊介绍:
Recent decades have witnessed fascinating and controversial advances in the biological sciences. This journal answers the need for meta-theoretical analysis, both about the very nature of biology, as well as about its social implications.
Biology and Philosophy is aimed at a broad readership, drawn from both the sciences and the humanities. The journal subscribes to no specific school of biology, nor of philosophy, and publishes work from authors of all persuasions and all disciplines. The editorial board reflects this attitude in its composition and its world-wide membership.
Each issue of Biology and Philosophy carries one or more discussions or comparative reviews, permitting the in-depth study of important works and topics.