PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 6, 2026Nordic Wittgenstein Review1 citationsOpen Access

Minstrel Shows and Murderous Tautologies

View Full Paper
JBJoel Backström

Key Points

  • The paper examines the conflict between Gaita’s personal moral understanding and his account of racism.
  • Introduces Gaita’s ethical perspective on remorse and moral understanding.
  • Analyzes Gaita’s views on racist dehumanization.
  • Explores alternative perspectives on racism in the context of collective belonging.
  • Gaita’s account perceives remorse as essential for moral understanding.
  • The analysis reveals a contradiction in Gaita’s treatment of racism and dehumanization.
  • The paper suggests Gaita’s views may inadvertently reflect the very confusion they intend to critique.

Abstract

Moral understanding is, Lars Hertzberg writes, “absolutely personal” (2022, 105). Alas, this understanding is attacked and obfuscated by what Simone Weil called “the commonest of crimes” in the moral-existential-spiritual realm: the “idolatry” of attributing “a sacred character to the collectivity” (2005, 76). My theme is how this difficulty manifests in Raimond Gaita’s ethics. After introducing Gaita’s essentially (inter)personal view of the moral understanding revealed in remorse, I argue that his account of racist dehumanisation conflicts with that view. I then outline an alternative perspective on racism as a determination to exclude-and-denigrate-in-the-name-of-collective-belonging and a fantasy of escaping-one’s-own-humanity-through-denying-the-other’s. My worry is that Gaita’s account, rather than analytically exposing racism’s moral-existential confusion, unwittingly comes to echo it.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Joel Backström (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6985852f8f7c464f230084bfhttps://doi.org/10.15845/nwr.si2026.3756
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper