Stevens Blog Post 2

 In the second half of her paper, Harris argues that the property interest of whiteness continues to give benefits and protections to whites in the modern era, although in a more hidden and subtle nature. The relative economic, social, and political advantages that originated in white supremacy became settled expectations of whiteness. As Harris says, “The existing state of affairs is considered neutral and fair, however unequal and unjust it is in substance.” (1777-1778). Because of its perceived naturalness, the social order is insulated from truly effective reforms.

 

Harris advocates for affirmative action policies to dismantle the property interest of whiteness and explores two different justifications for doing so: corrective and distributive justice. Corrective justice is the idea that “compensation should be paid to the one harmed and that it should be paid by the one who caused the harm.” (1781). As Harris notes, corrective justice would be hard to justify “because the current generation of whites is being required to compensate for the harms caused by prior generations.” (1782). Instead, Harris advocates for the framework of distributive justice which focuses on distributing the fair share of benefits Blacks would have received in the absence of racism. This approach focuses more on the needs of the victims and avoids assignment of sin and innocence.

 

While I see the appeal of the distributive justice approach Harris advocates for, quantifying the benefits and isolating for the effects of racism seems like a near impossible task. Most African Americans would not be in America without racism itself, which makes it hard to picture the benefits they would be entitled to.

 

Another point I am a little unclear about with Harris’s argument is how to know when whiteness has finally been dismantled. As Harris says in the paper, merely removing the explicit legal and political protections of whiteness is not enough; reforms must actively seek to equalize the racial suppression that has occurred over American history. Perfectly achieving perfect racial equity across economic, social, and political spheres seems to be an impossible task, even in the absence of a history of racial supremacy. Even if it is possible, achieving such a high standard may require sacrificing important democratic ideals. When discussing affirmative action, Harris writes: “It conceives of equality in transgenerational terms, and demands a new and different sense of social responsibility in a society that defines individualism as the highest good.” (1778). While achieving perfect racial equity is certainly an important and admirable goal, if it requires damaging the principles of individualism then it should at the least warrant some discussion.