Charles W. Mills Racial Liberalism

Charles W. Mills Reading notes

• Liberalism is the dominant global political outlook, with a focus on individual rights and freedoms, emerging in opposition to absolutism and hierarchy in the 17th and 18th centuries.

• The dominant debate within liberalism centers on the comparison between neoliberal/free market and social democratic/welfarist conceptions, while liberalism itself is rarely challenged.

• Within liberalism, rival perspectives exist on the moral foundations of the state and people's rights, with utilitarianism dominating from the 1800s onward, followed by a return to natural rights after World War II, influenced by the death camps and postwar decolonization.

• The language of rights and duties, rooted in natural rights and the social contract tradition (especially John Locke and Immanuel Kant), is now central in liberal discourse.

• Contractarian (deontological) liberalism, particularly as revived by John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice (1971), has become hegemonic.

• A key issue in liberalism's history is overlooked: it has been predominantly racial in nature, with racialized conceptions of personhood shaping rights, duties, and government responsibilities.

• The social contract, historically, has been a racial agreement among white individuals to exploit non-white individuals for white benefit, a history largely ignored in contemporary political theory.

• The social contract is a metaphor or thought experiment, not to be taken literally, imagining the formation of society and the state through a "contract" in a presocial, prepolitical stage.

• The appeal of this metaphor lies in two key insights:

  • Society and polity are artificial, human constructs (against divine or organic creation views).

  • Humans are naturally equal, and this equality should translate into egalitarian socio political institutions (against natural social hierarchy).

• In the Lockean and Kantian versions of the social contract, moral equality is foundational, advocating for individualism and a polity respecting individual personhood and property rights.

• The state’s role is to codify and enforce basic moral entitlements, ensuring fairness and non-exploitative economic transactions.

• The good polity is a just one, protecting individual rights as outlined in Lockean and Kantian frameworks.

• However, if historically, some people's personhood was disregarded and their rights disrespected, it challenges the abstract ideals of liberalism and contractarianism.

• The unequal treatment of certain persons, seen as acceptable or unchallenged, suggests a need to recognize that race has been foundational in the liberal framework.

• Understanding normative debates requires recognizing the social contract not just as an abstract ideal but as a nonideal, racial contract, especially in the context of the United States and potentially other places.

• In Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, Michael Sandel highlights that John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice was central to two major political debates of the 1970s and 1980s:

  • Left/social democratic liberalism vs. right/laissez-faire liberalism (Rawls vs. Robert Nozick).

  • Liberalism/contractarianism vs. communitarianism (Rawls vs. Michael Walzer, Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, and Sandel).

• A third debate, emerging from Rawls’s 1980s essays and culminating in Political Liberalism (1996), focused on comprehensive vs. political liberalism.

• These dominant frameworks have shaped the political agenda, establishing key assumptions and alternatives, leading theorists to align with one or the other.

• While other theoretical alternatives exist, they are often marginalized in this hegemonic framing.

• There is an ongoing debate between racial liberalism (or white liberalism) and deracialized liberalism, which is more pressing than traditional political debates.

• Racial liberalism is the liberalism that has historically dominated, where full personhood was restricted to white men, and nonwhites were relegated to an inferior category.

• Racial liberalism's schedule of rights and justice was color-coded, abolishing hierarchy for white men but not for white women or people of color.

• Racism is not an anomaly in liberalism but is symbiotically related to a qualified, particularistic liberalism.

• Despite some white liberals being antiracist and anti-imperialist, they have been in the minority.

• Key liberal philosophers like John Locke and Immanuel Kant limited property rights, self-ownership, and personhood racially:

  • Locke supported African slavery, justified Native American expropriation, and contributed to creating the Carolina constitution, which granted masters absolute power over slaves.

  • Kant, a key figure in modern ethics and personhood theory, was also foundational in modern scientific racism, contributing to the concept of sub-personhood and disrespect.

• The inferior treatment of people of color aligns with racialized liberal norms, as nonwhites were seen as less than full persons.

• The inequality rooted in racial liberalism is arguably more fundamental than other political debates, as all parties are theoretically committed to the nonracial moral equality of all.

• The rethinking and deracializing of racial liberalism should be a priority, with struggles for racial equality seen as part of this project.

• Michael Dawson notes that most Black theorists challenge how liberalism is practiced in the U.S., not the ideal version of liberalism, as contradictions exist between Black liberalism and U.S. liberalism in practice.

• Despite this, the need for reconstructing liberalism has not been addressed.

• Rawls and Nozick, while debating left vs. right-wing liberalism, ignore racial subordination within racial liberalism.

• Rawls and Sandel, while debating contractarian vs. communitarian liberalism, do not confront how the whiteness of the American contract and community affects justice.

• Later Rawls and earlier Rawls, while debating political vs. comprehensive liberalism, fail to address how both have been shaped by race.

• From the perspective of people of color, all these debates fail to confront the central reality of racial exclusion and injustice, which requires a reconceptualization of liberalism and radical rectification

• Political philosophers, especially liberal contractarians, need to take race seriously but have not done so for various reasons.

• Demographically, philosophy is predominantly white, with only about 1% of American philosophers being African American, and even smaller percentages of Latino, Asian American, and Native American philosophers.

• While significant work on race has been produced, mostly by philosophers of color, it remains marginalized and is not widely recognized in mainstream, prestigious sectors of philosophy (e.g., top journals, graduate programs, leading figures).

• Race issues are not considered a respectable philosophical subject; this is evident in the lack of race-related entries in resources like Brian Leiter’s Philosophical Gourmet Report and in job ads for philosophers, which rarely list race as a desired specialization.

• Although Africana philosophy and critical race theory are formally recognized by the American Philosophical Association, they are still marginalized in the field compared to issues of gender and feminism, which have more representation due to the higher proportion of women in the profession (about 20%).

• Philosophers of color are absent not only from academic institutions but also from political philosophy texts.

• Standard political philosophy introductions rarely address race, except briefly for topics like affirmative action.

• Historical anthologies of political philosophy predominantly feature white male thinkers, perpetuating a misleading narrative.

• Example: Steven Cahn’s Classics of Political and Moral Philosophy (2002) includes only one nonwhite thinker, Martin Luther King Jr., relegated to the appendices.

• Key nonwhite theorists such as Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. DuBois, Mahatma Gandhi, and Frantz Fanon are excluded from mainstream discussions.

• Central political debates (e.g., aristocracy vs. democracy, liberalism vs. socialism) ignore the global history of racism and antiracism movements.

• The political history of the West is sanitized, omitting the transnational racial oppression and white supremacy that shaped modernity.

• The global struggle for racial equality, such as the rejection of Japan’s "racial equality" clause at the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference, is excluded from mainstream narratives.

• Focus of Anglo-American Political Philosophy: Contemporary political philosophy primarily addresses normative issues rather than historical or rectificatory justice.

• Shift in Contract Theory: Early contract theorists addressed political obligations to the state; modern theorists, influenced by Rawls, focus on justice in an ideal society.

• Ideal vs. Non-Ideal Theory:

  • Ideal Theory: Examines what justice demands in a perfectly just society without considering historical injustices.

  • Non-Ideal Theory: Focuses on justice in societies with histories of injustice, emphasizing corrective or remedial measures (e.g., racial justice, reparations).

• Exclusion of Racial Justice: By focusing on ideal theory, white philosophers sidestep addressing racial injustice and the legacy of white supremacy.

• Implications of Ideal Theory:

  • Ideal theory assumes a society where no racial discrimination has occurred, rendering measures like affirmative action or reparations unnecessary.

  • In an ideal society, race would not exist, aligning with the notion of "color blindness," which absolves philosophers from engaging with racial issues in real-world contexts.

• Perverse Philosophical Outcome:

  • Color blindness" gains philosophical validation under ideal theory.

  • The emphasis shifts blame to those acknowledging race as perpetuating racism, aligning with majority white perspectives.

• John Rawls, a leading 20th-century political philosopher, barely addressed racial injustice in his extensive writings (over 2,000 pages).

• Affirmative action, a major racial justice measure in the U.S., is absent from his works.

• Major compilations and discussions on Rawls's legacy, such as The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, exclude significant engagement with race or racial justice.

• Symposia and journal articles on Rawls’s contributions often provide little to no focus on racial issues.

• Rawls’s focus on ideal theory sidelined "partial compliance theory," which includes addressing pressing issues like racial injustice.

• This avoidance reflects racial privilege, as these injustices predominantly affect nonwhite populations.

• The supposed universality of Rawls’s contract theory is deceptive; it is implicitly grounded in white experiences and assumptions.

  • Illusion of neutrality

• Addressing racial liberalism requires a shift to non-ideal theory, emphasizing the need for corrective justice.

• This involves reevaluating the social contract to account for the role of race in shaping modern society and its injustices.

• Contract theory should acknowledge and address the historical realities of white oppression and racial exploitation.

• A "domination contract" framework (as explored by Mills and Pateman) is proposed to replace traditional, idealized contract models.

• raditional contract theory emphasizes agreement, which often ignores the historical foundations of force and oppression.

• David Hume criticized the contract metaphor for ignoring the role of coercion in the origin of governments.

• In The Social Contract, Rousseau outlined an ideal polity grounded in equality and collective agreement.

• In Discourse on the Origins of Inequality, Rousseau described a nonideal contract rooted in inequality and property rights.

  • This "class contract" prioritizes the wealthy, excludes others, and entrenches societal domination.

• The domination contract reflects the actual mechanisms through which societies have been historically structured, privileging certain groups (e.g., wealthy or white individuals) at the expense of others.

• Adopting this framework shifts focus to structural injustices, making racial and class inequalities central to contract theory analysis.

• Rousseau's alternative democratic strain in contract theory:

  • Exposes domination behind the facade of liberal consensuality.

  • Retains two core insights of the contract metaphor:

    • Polity is constructed, not natural.

    • Human moral equality is foundational.

  • Shows how these ideals are perverted, as some dominate others, denying equality.

• Parallels in modern theory:

  • Carole Pateman’s The Sexual Contract:

    • Intramale agreement to subordinate women

  • Charles Mills’ The Racial Contract

    • Intrawhite agreement privileging whites through European expansionism, colonialism, slavery, apartheid, and jim crow

    • Whites regard each other as moral equals while marginalizing nonwhites

• Nature of the domination contract:

  • Exclusionary: Contracts benefit a minority and exclude others, reflecting real societal hierarchies.

  • Recognizes privilege and power hierarchies that structure societies.

• Benefits of the domination contract framework

  • Aligns with non-ideal theory:

    • Focuses on real-world injustices and inequalities.

    • Highlights how these structures are created and maintained by privileged groups

  • Contrasts with evasive ideal theory, which assumes universal inclusion and egalitarianism.

  • Provides a better foundation for addressing normative questions of social justice and dismantling structures of injustice.

• Idealization in Mainstream Liberalism:

  • Ideal theory sanitizes both normative and descriptive aspects of society.

  • Abstracts away from historical realities like slavery, aboriginal expropriation, and genocide.

  • Creates a white-centric view of society as a "cooperative venture for mutual advantage" (e.g., Rawls).

• Criticism of Contract Theories:

  • Rawls: Ignores the oppressive origins of the United States, favoring an idealized cooperative society.

  • Nozick: Uses hypothetical "state-of-nature" scenarios that are factually incorrect and disconnected from real historical injustices.

• White-Centric Abstraction:

  • Mainstream liberalism abstracts from European and Euro-American experiences.

  • Ignores Native American expropriation, African slavery, and the state's role in enabling both.

  • Reflects the worldview of white settlerdom rather than universal human experience.

• The Domination Contract as an Alternative:

  • Frames societal creation and maintenance around oppression and privilege, especially white privilege.

  • Reveals how liberal norms (freedom, equality, rights, justice) fail in practice for people of color.

  • Attributes this failure to mystified individualist social ontology that hides structural inequalities.

• Revising Liberal Theory:

  • Calls for rethinking "colorless" liberalism that is, in reality, white-centric.

  • Advocates for a group ontology (as in the domination contract) to reflect the true sociopolitical order.

  • Suggests retaining liberal ideals but situating them within a framework that acknowledges and addresses racial injustice.

• Implications for Deracializing Racial Liberalism:

  • Requires acknowledging the racialized nature of historical and present-day liberalism.

  • Demands theoretical revisions to include the realities of sociopolitical oppression and group privilege.

• Necessary to rethink and theorize the polity, addressing historical racial subordination.

• Racial liberalism idealizes history, editing out racial subjugation to maintain myths of consensual and impartial state creation.

• Modern states are inherently racialized, as argued by David Theo Goldberg.

• The Rechtsstaat ideal (impartial rule of law) is replaced by a Rassensstaat (racial state), with civic status tied to racial identity.

• European expansionism created a racialized global order, dehumanizing and dispossessing non-Europeans.

• The social contract metaphor falsely assumes universal inclusion of individuals, ignoring race-based privilege and subordination.

• Race fundamentally constitutes the social ontology of modern societies.

• Mainstream theorists prioritize "social opacity," denying historical and conceptual truths about white supremacy.

• Particularly salient example of a Herrenvolk society (racially exclusive democracy) where people of color are treated as permanent outsiders.

• This aligns the U.S. with other racialized societies like apartheid South Africa.

• The contractarian ideal must confront the racial realities underlying modern state formation.

• Acknowledging race as a central structure in political theory is essential for achieving genuine social transparency.

• The founding of the U.S. uniquely aligns with the social contract metaphor, perceived as almost literal due to the formal creation of the Constitution and the portrayal of the land as a "state of nature."

• However, the racial contract metaphor is equally apt, as racial exclusion, particularly Anglo racial exclusion, was foundational to American institutions.

• Whiteness became central to moral, civic, and political status, codified in laws on marriage, voting, militia participation, and property rights.

• Citizenship was defined through racial distinction, with black slavery positioned as the antithesis of full citizenship.

• The myth of an inclusive contract obscures the reality of a racialized sociopolitical order where the state enforced racial privilege.

• Native Americans were dispossessed through the discovery doctrine, converting indigenous landowners into tenants (e.g., Johnson v. M’Intosh, 1823).

• Blacks faced slavery in the South and racial stigmatization in the North, with rulings like the 1857 Dred Scott decision denying rights to black individuals.

• Despite Reconstruction Amendments, federal troop withdrawal in 1877 led to the restoration of white supremacy in the South.

• Federal sanction of segregation (e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896) maintained racial inequality until 1954.

• Discriminatory laws reinforced inferior status for people of color, with segregation enforced across federal institutions.

• National narratives upheld white superiority, leaving black Americans fighting systemic oppression, as noted by leaders like A. Philip Randolph.

• The U.S. functioned as a "divided polity," with black Americans marginalized as a separate and unequal group.

• “The appropriate benchmark should not be the low bar of abolition and repeal of jim crow but the simple ideal of racial equality” p.1390

• The civil rights victories of the 1950s and 1960s (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Loving v. Virginia, Fair Housing Act) raised hopes but failed to eliminate racial inequality.

• De facto discrimination persists despite the end of de jure discrimination, with whites circumventing antidiscrimination laws through new strategies.

• "Color-blind racism" and "racism without racists" describe modern racial dynamics, as highlighted by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva.

• Schools are more segregated now than in 1954, and residential segregation remains largely unchanged since the Fair Housing Act.

• The Voting Rights Act has not prevented widespread disenfranchisement, with black exclusion affecting elections, such as Florida in 2000.

• Black political representation remains disproportionate to their population, and affirmative action has largely been dismantled, seen as "reverse discrimination."

• Black and Latino communities are disproportionately affected by poverty and incarceration, with black males making up one-third of the imprisoned despite being less than 7% of the population.

• Some argue racism is a permanent feature of the U.S., with racial progress limited to three key periods: the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and Cold War, each requiring specific conditions for change.

• Progress is often followed by backlash and retreat, as seen in the current period.

• The benchmark for progress should be racial equality, not just the abolition of Jim Crow or slavery.

• Black intellectuals and people of color recognize race as central to the American polity and liberalism, contesting the notion of democracy as fundamentally good.

• Black political thought emphasizes racial injustice as a core issue in American political thought and practice, not a minor or peripheral concern.

• Contemporary racial liberalism dismisses and avoids acknowledging racial subordination, unlike its overtly racist origins.

• Past atrocities like native genocide and African slavery are denied, minimized, or bypassed due to their embarrassment to modern racial liberalism.

• Racial liberalism fosters a cultivated amnesia, avoiding topics, issues, and subjects that challenge its narrative.

• The ideal of social transparency is avoided, as acknowledging historical and present truths would disrupt the status quo.

• European colonizing powers and white settler states exemplify "states of denial," erasing genocide and slavery from collective memory.

• Leading theorists like de Tocqueville, Myrdal, and Hartz have inaccurately depicted American political culture as egalitarian and inclusive, treating racism as anomalous.

• Addressing racial liberalism requires more than confronting historical facts—it demands a theoretical recognition of white supremacy as a political system.

• Terms like "white republic," "white-supremacist state," and "racial polity" frame white supremacy as a structured political order.

• Racial liberalism's façade of racelessness is inherently racialized, requiring a conceptual shift to acknowledge racial dynamics explicitly.

• "Deracializing" racial liberalism involves confronting and filling in its racialized blanks.

• Contemporary political philosophy centers on fairness and social justice, with the social contract aiming to prohibit exploitation.

• The social contract is supposed to limit personal advantage by moral constraints when forming society.

• Marxism challenges the social contract's claim by asserting that liberal capitalism is inherently exploitative.

• The labor theory of value, although largely refuted, remains subversive in its implications for liberal ideals of justice.

• Both Rawls and Nozick, in their influential texts, claim adherence to Kantian principles against exploitation.

• Rawls' vision, "justice as fairness," promotes redistribution to reduce class disadvantage and prevent exploitation of the poor.

• Nozick's libertarian view ("entitlement theory") focuses on self-ownership and property rights, seeing Rawls' redistribution as exploitation of productive individuals.

• Nozick argues that the hardworking, productive individuals are exploited by state-driven wealth redistribution, as it sacrifices their effort for the benefit of the less responsible.

• Thirty years later, Rawls' A Theory of Justice is considered a foundational text in political philosophy, but Nozickian and neoliberal ideas have dominated global society since the 1980s, particularly after the Reagan and Thatcher revolutions.

• Rawls and Nozick both agree on the equal, rights-bearing personhood of individuals and the importance of respect, which remains uncontested.

• The debate between the two revolves around how to best define respect and exploitation in a polity of equal contractors.

• Public policy debates reflect traditional left-right differences over fairness, rights, entitlement, and justice.

• Neither Rawls nor Nozick addresses racial exploitation, which challenges the egalitarian and individualist frameworks of liberalism.

• Racial exploitation, as a blatant violation of equality norms, undermines liberal contractarian ideals, regardless of the version (left or right).

• Both Rawls and Nozick, by transplanting European contract theories to the U.S., adopt a white settler perspective and exclude indigenous peoples' rights.

• Rawls, even in later years, acknowledges race and ethnicity but focuses on black Americans, overlooking Native Americans' claims for justice.

• Political theory often ignores the historical reality of the violent origins of American society, proceeding from a theoretical "blank slate" and overlooking genocide and the expropriation of native peoples.

• White appropriation of black labor and native land were fundamental to the development of the U.S. and its wealth.

• African slavery provided immense contributions to white welfare, benefiting not only slave owners but the wider economy.

• Discriminatory practices post-emancipation resulted in whites having vastly better access to education, jobs, loans, housing, and state transfer payments.

• Jim Crow institutionalized racial inequality at all levels, with exploitation and opportunity hoarding in both the South and the North.

• The racialized distribution of resources is reflected in wealth differentials: in 2004, the median white household's net worth was ten times that of the median black household.

• In contrast to idealized political philosophies (Lockean-Nozickian self-ownership or Kantian-Rawlsian respect for persons), the reality involves systematic violations of property rights for people of color and ongoing exploitation.

• Racial exploitation is central to the actual polity, with nonwhite rights, liberties, opportunities, income, and wealth continuously transferred to whites.

• A racialized moral economy complements the political economy, where whites do not recognize their privilege, as it is viewed as "normal" and justified.

• While Rawls and Nozick appeal to fairness, they ignore how race shapes whites' sense of justice, making understanding white moral psychology essential for analyzing public policy.

• Whites have traditionally seen nonwhite assets as resources to be exploited, with their systemic advantage viewed as justified by superiority. In the current "color-blind" phase, whites no longer perceive this differential advantage, obscuring the reality of exploitative transfers.

• Thomas Shapiro found that white family assets not only provide wealth but also a pathway for passing down racial legacies across generations.

• The intergenerational transfer of wealth in the U.S., currently reaching nine trillion dollars, exacerbates racial inequalities.

• White families often deny or downplay the advantages they gain from the legacy of white supremacy, focusing instead on their hard work and deserved success.

• Whiteness itself is treated as "property," offering baseline entitlements and rights to full citizenship, as analyzed by Cheryl Harris.

• The idea of reparations faces strong opposition from whites, with about 95% rejecting it, justified by the norms of racial liberalism.

• Race and liberalism have been intertwined for centuries, with modernity bringing both liberalism and race into existence as systems of entitlement and restriction.

• Political theorists have a role in dismantling the symbiotic relationship between race and liberalism, but this requires recognizing the historical whiteness of liberalism.

• Racial liberalism, established by the racial contract, must be acknowledged before achieving a truly inclusive social contract.

Charles PDF summarizer

Liberalism and its Dominance

• Liberalism has emerged as a triumphant ideology globally, characterized by individual rights and freedoms.

• It originated as an antifeudal and egalitarian philosophy in the 17th and 18th centuries, opposing absolutism and hierarchy.

• Contemporary debates primarily focus on neoliberal versus social democratic versions of liberalism, rather than contesting the liberal framework itself.

Historical Context of Liberalism

• For 150 years from the 1800s, utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill, Sidgwick) was the primary moral foundation of political thought.

• Post-World War II, the atrocities of the death camps and decolonization led to a resurgence in natural rights philosophy, anchoring individual protections more securely.

• The emphasis shifted from social welfare entitlements to natural entitlements independent of social utility, aligning with the social contract traditions of Locke and Kant.

Contractarian Liberalism

• Since the 1971 publication of John Rawls's A Theory of Justice, contractarian or deontological liberalism has gained a dominant position within political theory.

• Important discussions in liberalism tend to overlook the historical racial implications and the failures of liberalism to address systemic inequalities.

Racial Liberalism

• The author argues liberalism has historically been a form of racial liberalism, where rights and responsibilities are racially defined.

• The social contract has been shaped into a racial contract favoring white individuals while subordinating nonwhites, which continues to influence contemporary liberal frameworks.

• Ignoring the racial history of liberalism perpetuates systemic inequalities.

Social Contract Theory

• The social contract is not to be understood literally; it's a metaphor for the societal construction of governance and order.

• Two key insights of the social contract: society is an artificial construct, and humans are naturally equal, thus demanding egalitarian institutions.

• Both Locke and Kant emphasize moral equality and the necessity of non-exploitative relationships in ideal societies.

Implications of Racial Exclusion

• The tradition of liberalism assumes moral equality yet fails to acknowledge the exclusion of non-whites in contractual agreements.

• Racial exploitation remains embedded within the fabric of liberal contracts, raising questions about justice and rights distribution.

Challenges to Liberal Theory

• Recent philosophical debates (Sandel vs. Rawls; Nozick vs. Rawls) struggle with racial implications in liberal narratives, often sidelining discussions on race.

• Racial liberalism has established a pattern of excluding persons of color from full contractarian rights and recognition.

Contemporary Liberalism and Exclusion

• Racial liberalism is described as symbiotic with white superiority, wherein a contract exists that privileges whites while marginalizing nonwhites.

• The argument highlights that many political philosophers, both historical and contemporary, ignore race, perpetuating exclusionary practices.

Rethinking Liberalism

• Racially structured liberalism requires a reevaluation to address the realities of political and social segregation.

• A shift from ideal theory to nonideal theory is necessary for addressing the historical and ongoing social injustices faced by people of color.

The Domination Contract

• The author proposes a 'domination contract' framework that acknowledges historical oppression and exploitation.

• This approach illuminates existing power dynamics and promotes a more realistic thesis regarding social justice and contractual agreements.

Conclusion

• The intertwining of race and liberalism historically suggests that the faith in a raceless liberal contract distracts from the realities of racial privilege.

• Addressing the racial nature of liberalism is vital for moving toward a truly inclusive and just society, reformulating contemporary discourse on justice and morality.