Decisions are hard, words feel easier
Categorization often serves the purpose of making decisions. Recall, making decisions is hard. Sometimes it’s easier (but not necessarily more effective) to think about if a word applies, rather than to think directly about how a decision should be made. This happens on the in individuals and in groups.
Groups
Explicit note: When a word appears in quotation marks, I’m referring to the English word itself. When it appears unquoted, I’m referring to the concept it invokes.
Read this carefully. This post makes claims about “racism”, not many about racism. If you disagree, please use your best inference powers to engage with what I mean, lest I become a “racist”.
“Racism”. Not racism, but “racism”.
What do I know about someone who is racist? Depends on what I meant. What do I know about someone who is “racist”? I know that:
If I associate with them I’m in danger of being attacked.
Other people consider them unsavory.
The move to notice is that regardless of whatever racism actually is, there’s a decently stable way that the word “racism” works in America. This is the lawyer. If the word sticks, game moves are allowed to be made. I’m allowed to dox someone on the internet for being “racist”. I’m not allowed to dox someone on the internet who isn’t “racist”. But am I allowed to dox someone o the internet who is racist? Hard to say, unless I know they’re “racist”. Until that battle has been fought, I don’t know what’s going to happen.
My argument is not that you shouldn’t use the word racism like this, but to make clear the actual cognition and social inferences that are happening. Defining racism is not a “just for fun” intellectual exercise. Through inter-subjective magic, the word “racism” has power. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn’t. Either way, it does.
Oops, we’ve got a situation on our hands that incentives being a lawyer. All parties know that if there is loud consensus on X being “racist”, a certain outcome will happen. All parties want certain outcomes. Arguing about if the word “racist” applies becomes such a direct path to getting what one wants, why go a different route?
Being “racist” means that a lot of people agreed to use the word “racist” to talk about you. Being racist means [something].
Now, the “if… then...” decision rules are no longer applied to the neural categories. They are applied to things that the social fabric allows to be called a WORD.
You can argue if the CONCEPT of racism applies (what’s active in your mind when you think of that? What decision rules? What memories?) Separately, you can argue if the WORD “racism” applies.
Individual
In some fields, one draws boundaries to convey a lot of meaning quickly and more easily make intellectual process. But remember, it’s natural for neural categories to have corresponding “if then” decision rules. In my pursuit to figure out once and for what a friend really means, I might be a nerd who hates putting effort into figuring out social stuff and wants a straightforward decision procedure that will always lead me to outcomes I like.
Hah.
That is the goal. But also, it feels like friendship is just a thing that’s out there and it must mean something. This is the student again. The student wants to always get the test right. It’s easier to talk about what the right word is rather than to talk about what gets me what I want.
I think—especially as, IIRC, this is intended as material for people unfamiliar with this sort of thinking—this could use a thorough reworking in search of greater clarity. I’ll pick a particular bit to illustrate.
If I’m understanding your intentions right, when you ask
what you intend it to mean is something like “What do I know about someone, as a result of knowing that the word ‘racist’ is applied to them with its usual meaning?”. Note that this is not the exact same use of quotation marks as when you put “racism” in quotation marks so that you can talk about the word itself—you aren’t asking “What do I know about someone who is the word ‘racist’?”, which is just as well because that wouldn’t make any sense. But it took me a moment’s thought to figure out what I think you do mean there, and I suspect that for some readers it will be a real stumbling block. And I’m not certain that I’ve interpreted it the way you intend; maybe what you mean is ”… that the word ‘racist’ is applied to them by many other people?” or something, which is similar but not the same. So it might be better to say something like
But … I think this words-versus-concepts distinction is the wrong distinction here. If you ask “What do I know about someone to whom I apply the word ‘racist’?” then it’s a question about your own usage, in just the same way as “What do I know about someone who is racist?” allegedly is. And when you ask “What do I know about someone who is racist?”, that can be universalized or particularized just as word-meanings can. “What do I know about someone I consider racist?” “What do I know about someone who would generally be considered racist?”. You could, in principle, consider these questions without invoking words at all.
A couple of other specific points:
What? Maybe there’s something in one of your earlier posts that indicates what this is about, but as it stands it doesn’t seem to me like it makes any sense. If it is a reference to some earlier thing where you (e.g.) introduce some fictional characters and explain that you’re going to analyse things in terms of what they would say, then you should probably provide a link back to the earlier thing in question. Similarly for “This is the student again” near the end.
You probably want “incentivizes” or something of the sort.
But, generally, I’m afraid the whole thing feels a bit impressionistic and unfinished. Sorry!
Thanks! This version is “write out important important points that myself”. I see the points you made about the lack of clarity in what I mean. Very useful feedback.
When you say “parentheses” in your “explicit note”, do you mean “quotation marks”?
Seems like yes; fixed this.