Allison Evans March 3, 2012 Prompt 1 I have decided to analyze Homs Semantics of Racial Epithets paper, specifically his

view on combinatorial externalism. First, I must define what a racial epithet is, and then look at the nine adequacy conditions Hom mentions in his paper. I will then address the opposing views Hom brings up. After I have explored the traditional theories I will present Homs view and analyze it with the nine conditions. Once all the arguments have been presented I will then give my opinion on Homs theory in relation to the other views mentioned along with my personal thoughts. The first task is to define what a racial epithet is. According to Hom, Racial epithets are derogatory expressions, understood to convey contempt and hatred toward their targets (Hom 416). We understand that slurs are meant to cause harm, but how do we understand the meanings of these slurs? I will address many different approaches to this complex question, but according to Hom there are nine conditions of adequacy that an explanation needs to meet in order, for him, for the theory to be good. The conditions are as follows: 1. Derogatory force: Epithets forcefully convey hatred and contempt of their targets (Hom 426). This means that the epithets cause an extreme amount of harm to the person being targeted. This insult is also much more than just calling a person dumb or lazy. 2. Derogatory variation: The force of derogatory content varies across different epithets (Hom 246). Meaning that different slurs hold different

weights of derogation in a specific society. For example, most people would agree that the word nigger is a much more harmful word than the word spick. The two slurs, while both being based on race and the history behind each race, do not hole the same weight or cause the same amount of harm when uttered. 3. Derogatory autonomy: The derogatory force for any epithet is independent of the attitudes of any of its particular speakers (Hom 426). This is saying that no matter the opinion or how racist a speaker is, a specific slur has the same derogatory force when uttered; the speakers feelings are not taken into consideration. 4. Taboo: Uses of epithets are subject to strict social constructions, if not outright forbidden (Hom 427). Epithets are rarely used, if ever used, due to social norms. 5. Meaningfulness: Sentences with epithets normally express complete felicitous, propositions (Hom 427). Sentences with slurs might be rude, inappropriate, wrong, insensitive, offensive, ect, but they are not meaningless, and people seem to understand the message behind the sentence, even when the slur causes the sentence to not be 100% true. 6. Evolution: The meaning and force of epithets evolve over time to reflect the values and social dynamics of its speakers (Hom 427). This concept is that slurs change with the values and practices of the society speaking the slur.

7. Appropriation: Targeted groups often appropriate uses of their own epithets to alter their meanings for nonderogatory purposes (Hom 428). Groups that are being derogated often take the slur from the general public and change the meaning of the slur to use within the group in a different way. When used now by the in-group the slur no longer is harmful, but if used by the out-group it does not necessarily have the meaning the in-group intended. 8. NDNA uses: Epithets can occur in nonderogatory, nonappropriated (NDNA) contexts (Hom 429). There are times when slurs are used and they are not derogatory towards a target nor have they been appropriated, but they still do not cause harm. These sentences still have meaning, while the derogation still holds the same amount of force. 9. Generality: The account of derogatory force for epithets needs to generalize to similar language; for example, sexist, gender-biasing, religious epithets and approbative terms. An adequate account of racial epithets should generalize over other kinds of epithets (Hom 430). Now that it is clear what a racial epithet is and what criteria we have to judge theories, I am going to recap the opposing theories Hom brings up in his article. These approaches are broken down into two groups. There is the semantic strategy, and then there is the pragmatic strategy. The semantic strategy argues that the derogatory content of an epithet is fundamentally part of its literal meaning (Hom 416). This theory believes that a slur such as chink means Chinese and despicable because if. The slurs mean its

nonderogatory counter part plus the derogation. But this theory has some flaws, as also pointed out by Hom. First this theory cannot take into account that different slurs hold different weight (meaning nigger and spick dont throw the same punch). This theory also seems to be lacking when you try and reduce the meaning of nigger. African-American plus despicable because of it, does not seem to even come close to what the slur actually represents. As described in Homs paper, there have been some attempts to decrease this gap. Some scholars believe you could say African-American plus despicable because of it and then also give some kind of hand gesture. But even then with the figure or the cutting of the throat sign we still do not get the same force and racial aspect of the actual slur. This approach also disregards nonderogatory uses of slurs such as appropriated uses between members of the targeted class. The other approach is the pragmatic strategies, which takes into account the contextual features of how epithets are used (Hom 419). Hom mentions and examines three of them. The first is called radical contextualism. According to this view, the meaning of and epithet varies according to the features of its particular context of utterance (Hom 419). This would mean that slurs have different meanings depending on the situation, the relationship of the speaker and listener, the background context, ect. But there are flaws to this argument. First, there really is no way to analyze all the different aspects of context, because there are so many different things that are involved. Because of all the factors this does not allow us to predict the content; which according to Hom is unsatisfying because the stakes surrounding these words (Hom 419) are high.

Hom then brings up Fergean minimalism. According to Ferg, there are words that share the same sense, but differ in coloring or shading (Hom 420). This theory states that slurs and there nonderogatory counterparts have the same sense but different colorings or shadings. Ferg says, They are literally synonymous, and differ only in tone (Hom 420). So according to Ferg, nigger and African American are synonymous but differ in tone. Yet again, there are major flaws to this argument. There seems to be no rubric for this shading. And Ferg offers little explanation of how to understand these metaphors (Hom 420). There also seems to be more problems when we dive further into the argument. Most people would agree that (1) has meaning and is understandable, and yet (2) seems to be redundant and something an English speaking person would never say. (1) African-Americans are niggers. (2) African-Americans are African- Americans. Therefore there seems to be something missing from this argument. The last pragmatic approach is called pragmatic minimalism. This theory states that the derogatory content is merely implicated and not part of what the sentence literally says (Hom 423). According to this approach slurs say nothing more that their nonderogatory counterparts. So for this theory chink is the same as Chinese. This theory also allows us to evaluate the truth-value of the sentence without taking into account the implied derogation. But, just like the others there are flaws to this argument too. As seen in some other theories this theory can be worked through with less harmful words, but it never holds for nigger. This theory does not take into account the weight difference behind each slur and therefore has

a hard time accounting for the more sever slurs. There also seems to be some problems when using a slurs NPCs with the slur. For example Chinese are chinks does not hold the same truth-value, as lawyers are attorneys. There seems to be major problems with all of these arguments so Hom introduces his approach called Combinatorial Externalism. This view holds that racial epithets express complex, socially constructed, negative properties determined in virtue of standing in the appropriate external, causal connections with racist institutions (Hom 431). Hom also states that the corresponding racist institution supports the meanings behind the slurs. Epithets both insult and threaten their intended targets in deep specific ways by both predicating negative properties to them and invoking the threat of discriminatory practices towards them (Hom 431). This theory also allows for some uses of epithets to not express derogatory force to their targets, but the slurs themselves still hold the semantic context. So according to Hom, in order for his theory to rise above the other theories mentioned we must see if combinatorial externalism meets the nine adequacy conditions. 1. Derogatory force: Holds true. According to CE, calling someone by a racial epithet is much worse than just calling someone stupid or lazy because epithets literally say something significantly more negative by invoking an entire racist ideology along with the discriminatory practices that it supports (Hom 432).

2. Derogatory variation: Holds true. This theory allows for theyre to be variances between different slurs. For example nigger seems to be worse than spick. This theory states that this is caused by the power of the raciest institution that supports it (Hom 433). 3. Derogation autonomy: Holds true. The slur is autonomous from the speakers belief or attitudes. This would be why no matter how much a person hates Englishmen limey can never hold the same force as nigger, even if the speaker has no hatred for African-Americans at all. 4. Taboo: Holds true. As a society we have social constraints that decide the use of slurs because of how loaded they are in general. 5. Meaningfulness: Holds true. According to CE, epithets are meaningful in that they provide semantic contents to propositions expressed by sentences containing them. CE is (also) committed to the further claim that epithets make distinct truth-conditional contributions for their corresponding NPCs (Hom 435). 6. Evolution: Holds true. CE holds that the racist institutions hold the meanings and with the change in the views of the institutions the shifts in the meanings of slurs corresponding to the specific institutions also shifts. 7. Appropriation: Holds true. CE holds that this comes from the complex and more rapid form of semantic evolution (Hom 438). But according to this view to be successful you need a strong counterinstitution support.

8. NDNA uses: Holds true. This is how we are able to use slurs without derogating a target in the process. 9. Generality: Holds true. As a semantic account, CE generalizes over other dimensions of social bias, both positive and negative (Hom 439). According to Hom he has accomplished his task and has presented a theory that holds true to all nine conditions. I would have to agree with Hom, that he has presented the best approach, but I still think there could be room for improvement or clarification. I believe that the ideas of these institutions that he refers to are vague. I have a hard time evaluating the strength of an institution when I cannot see where the boundaries of the institution lie. I think a major part of this argument revolves around the strength of the institutions, and while I agree that this general concept exists I have a hard time justifying them when they are not clear. Going along with the strength of the dominant institution, appropriation relies on the strength of the counterinstitution. Yet again how can you know the strength of the counter institution if it is unclear where the dominant institution is? In general I think if this theory had just a little more clear direction on how to interoperate and define the institutions, I think the theory would be perfect, and I would have no problem jumping on board completely.

Source: Hom, Christopher. "The Semantics of Racial Epithets." The Journal of Philosophy (2008): 416-440.