Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book examines how the social fact of race shapes the ethical-political orientations of citizens in diverse democracies. It develops the concept of racialized solidarity; explores its impact on current conceptions of racial justice, particularly as formulated in theories of multiculturalism; and suggests how it might begin to be addressed. Political solidarity is the reciprocal relation of trust and obligation between members of a political community necessary for them to live together on terms of fairness, reciprocity, and mutual respect. The contours of political solidarity continue to be indelibly shaped by race, however. Racialized solidarity is thus an important obstacle to racial justice. Weaving together insights drawn from African American political philosophy, theories of multiculturalism, and the literature on solidarity in political theory, the book develops a distinctive approach to questions of racial justice. Against the prevailing tendency to claim that the best way to deal with racism is to abandon the concept of race altogether, the book suggests that one way to begin to confront the racialized politics of solidarity is to attempt to transform the ethical-historical perspectives of dominant groups by making whiteness visible. This requires confronting past collective injustices and transforming the content of the political community's public memory so that it reflects the ethical-political perspectives of both dominant and subordinated groups. The book provides a detailed analysis of Latin American models of multiculturalism, which are compared to those developed in the United States and Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".