"What was necessary for slavery to be possible in the U.S.?"
Nothing; only that human organization carry on as it always had done, did at the time, and continues to do even today in many places. Slavery - chattel slavery, not symbolic slavery - is a profoundly "natural" part of human experience, and our struggles to transcend the impulse to own others is a sign of civilization. The more interesting question is "what was necessary for slavery to be seen as evil, and why did such views appear in the U.S. when they did?"
"It can be possible for there to be legal emancipation without remediation of the symbolic structures which placed the enslaved class in a generally-dishonored position."
I was glad to see Prof. Loury engage with Prof. Lloyd's analysis on this level, but was disappointed that the follow up was "but it's 2023" instead of prying deeper into the implications of that mode of thought. Some example questions which I immediately shouted impotently in my car are:
- Who does the "honoring" in society? Does it always have to be from without, or can one create one's own honor?
- Is it possible for a "generally dishonored" group's cultural output to be honored and adopted while the group itself remains dishonored?
- Is it not paradoxical for social benefits to be distributed on the basis that a group is "generally dishonored"? Must not either the benefits be a sham or the "generally-dishonored" status be an incorrect appraisal?
- Absent the use of state power (e.g. laws) to enforce those social structures dishonoring a subordinate class (or enabling/tacitly-permitting private vigilante actions doing so), what impact do those structures actually have?
But then again, Prof. Loury is an economist, not a political theorist, and Prof. McWhorter, while well-placed to pick apart the language games that this type of analysis plays, prefers to take a different tack.
"What was necessary for slavery to be possible in the U.S.?"
Nothing; only that human organization carry on as it always had done, did at the time, and continues to do even today in many places. Slavery - chattel slavery, not symbolic slavery - is a profoundly "natural" part of human experience, and our struggles to transcend the impulse to own others is a sign of civilization. The more interesting question is "what was necessary for slavery to be seen as evil, and why did such views appear in the U.S. when they did?"
"It can be possible for there to be legal emancipation without remediation of the symbolic structures which placed the enslaved class in a generally-dishonored position."
I was glad to see Prof. Loury engage with Prof. Lloyd's analysis on this level, but was disappointed that the follow up was "but it's 2023" instead of prying deeper into the implications of that mode of thought. Some example questions which I immediately shouted impotently in my car are:
- Who does the "honoring" in society? Does it always have to be from without, or can one create one's own honor?
- Is it possible for a "generally dishonored" group's cultural output to be honored and adopted while the group itself remains dishonored?
- Is it not paradoxical for social benefits to be distributed on the basis that a group is "generally dishonored"? Must not either the benefits be a sham or the "generally-dishonored" status be an incorrect appraisal?
- Absent the use of state power (e.g. laws) to enforce those social structures dishonoring a subordinate class (or enabling/tacitly-permitting private vigilante actions doing so), what impact do those structures actually have?
But then again, Prof. Loury is an economist, not a political theorist, and Prof. McWhorter, while well-placed to pick apart the language games that this type of analysis plays, prefers to take a different tack.
"The more interesting question is "what was necessary for slavery to be seen as evil, and why did such views appear in the U.S. when they did?""
Adam, this is indeed the more interesting question. Would love to know the origins of that.