Race and the Meso-Level Sources of Domination

• Published date: 01 March 2018
• Author: Abraham Singer,Kiran Banerjee
• Date: 01 March 2018
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912917727370
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917727370

Political Research Quarterly

2018, Vol. 71(1) 215 –227

© 2017 University of Utah

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1065912917727370

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

Article

This paper contributes to our understanding of the prob-

lem that racial domination presents to liberal political

thought, and the work of John Rawls in particular. We

take as our point of departure the recent scholarly debate

over the place of race in the work of John Rawls, whose

thought has been so influential in shaping contemporary

political theory. Recent critiques and defenses of Rawls’s

approach to questions of racial injustice center on the

nature of Rawls’s commitment to “ideal theory,” and

whether that precludes his engagement with racial domi-

nation. We suggest that the problem of Rawls’s inability

to offer either a central place to racial injustice, or a via-

ble means of addressing such claims, lies elsewhere. The

underappreciated tension of Rawls’s thought we locate is

found not in his commitment to ideal theory, but in the

limits of the Rawlsian understanding of institutions and

their role in conditioning and perpetuating the sorts of

racialized forms of hierarchy and domination that charac-

terized both his age and ours. As studies in race and

American Political Development have shown, institu-

tions such as political parties and labor unions have his-

torically been key to the development and maintenance of

racial hierarchical order. Fully understanding the role of

these institutions in perpetuating racial injustice shows us

that the limitations of Rawls’s approach are his preoccu-

pation with the “basic structure” of society. By restricting

his political philosophy to this subject of justice, many

institutions and associations necessary for understanding

the nature of American racial domination invariably fall

outside the scope of his analysis. Rawls’s philosophical

architecture leaves him unable to either account for or

attend to the meso-level institutions that play such a cen-

tral role in sustaining racial injustice.

Rawls’s inability to adequately address racial injustice

speaks to a deeper problem with a broader tradition of

twentieth century, “welfare state liberalism,” character-

ized by an inability to focus on nonstatutory institutions

and organizations.1 With the historic rise of the welfare

state in the twentieth century, mainstream liberals such as

Rawls have become preoccupied with the state and its

role in creating and remedying injustice. The problem is

not that Rawlsian liberal theory is inherently racist. It is

rather that, because the questions it asks are so focused on

the question of what a state owes rights-bearing citizens,

727370PRQXXX10.1177/1065912917727370Political Research QuarterlyBanerjee and Singer

research-article2017

1University of Saskatchewan, SK, Canada

2Loyola University Chicago, IL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Abraham Singer, Management Department, Quinlan School of

Business Administration, Loyola University Chicago, 820 N. Michigan

Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.

Email: asinger2@luc.edu

Race and the Meso-Level Sources of

Domination

Kiran Banerjee1 and Abraham Singer2

Abstract

This paper contributes to recent debates over the place of race in liberal theory, and the work of John Rawls in

particular. Controversy has centered on whether Rawls’s broader philosophical approach is capable of addressing

racial injustice, and if not, precisely why the Rawlsian framework remains disconcertingly blind to such issues. Pace

scholars who focus on Rawls’s emphasis on “ideal theory,” and whether that precludes his engagement with racial

domination, we show that Rawls’s inability to account for, or address, racial injustice lies in his limited understanding

of the kinds of “associations” or institutions that condition and perpetuate racial oppression. As studies in race and

American Political Development have shown, nonstatutory institutions such as political parties, unions, and universities

were key to the development and maintenance of racial hierarchical order. Fully understanding the role of these

institutions in perpetuating racial injustice allows us to see that the limitations of Rawls are not his ideal theory, per

se, but his preoccupation with the “basic structure” of society, which rendered such institutions outside his analysis.

We conclude by drawing on thinkers in the Afro-Modern tradition who help us conceptualize how such institutions

are complicit in, and can be weaponized against, racial domination.

Keywords

race, liberalism, John Rawls, racial injustice, meso-level institutions, basic structure