Harris, Shelby, and a Question of Nonideal Theory


Cheryl Harris’s “Whiteness as Property” argues that American law has recognized and protected a property interest in whiteness, and that this interest survived Brown in modernized form. She believes Brown limits the harm to legalized racial separation, as she puts it, “selecting desegregation as the sole remedy was the consequence of defining the injury solely as racial separation” (1755). The settled expectations of white privilege were then manifested as a “neutral baseline” (Harris 1753).



This account I think sits interestingly alongside Shelby’s argument in Dark Ghettos that residential integration is not a requirement of justice (Shelby 67). While Harris is not making an explicit argument against integration, her critique of Brown suggests that desegregation alone leaves whiteness as property intact. Shelby’s egalitarian pluralism rests on black autonomy and the worry that integrationist remedies “show a lack of respect for those they aim to assist” (Shelby 75). Shelby and Harris’s argument might help shed light on the other. Anderson’s social capital argument, which Shelby resists, treats integration as necessary because segregation produces the network closures and opportunity gaps that concentrate disadvantage (Shelby 65). Harris, on the other hand, offers a different account of where those gaps come from, which she argues is the legal protection of whiteness as property. If this is right, the disadvantages Anderson points to could be addressed without requiring integration, which is closer to what Shelby argues for. 


Harris’s part V argument that affirmative action should be understood as distributive rather than corrective justice (Harris 1781) , and she endorses Fiscus’s claim that in a “racially fair world” white individuals would not have won the benefits they currently claim (1784). The standard for what affirmative action should restore is what individuals “would have been awarded under fair conditions” (1781). Shelby’s commitment is to work within nonideal theory. This leaves me with a question I’m still thinking through: Is Harris a nonideal or ideal theorist? Her work in the first parts reads as nonideal, as it is grounded in legal history and the actual mechanisms of racial subordination. But the “racially fair world” standard when arguing for distributive justice appears to me to measure today’s solution against an imagined just society. I’m not sure how these two sit together in Harris’s argument.

Comments

  1. Andy CheungApril 23, 2026 at 1:41 AM

    Very interesting post Tonalli! On the ideal/nonideal theory question, I'm not sure if Harris' "racially fair world" standard makes her an ideal theorist. When she endorses Fiscus that affirmative action should restore what individuals "would have been awarded under fair conditions," I don't think she's making a distinction between today and some utopia, but more as a counterfactual to show the severity of the historical injustice (1784). The "racially fair world" is Harris' way of asking what a baseline might have looked like without those specific wrongs. And perhaps that's why she makes the distinction between corrective and distribution justice in Part V; she wants to avoid asking who is to blame but more like what would a just solution entail. But to your credit, I agree those two frameworks don't "sit together" all too well. And in this way, the "racially fair world" counterfactual is meant to figure out what someone is owed as compensation, which is corrective not distributive. Hence, Harris is kind of making a distributive justice claim while appealing to corrective justice as a standard for what affirmative action should restore, which is stronger compared to ideal theory in the Rawlsian sense.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We're all separate but equal

During my tutorial with Dylan yesterday, he brought up the SCOTUS case Brown vs. Board of Education in our discussion of a minimal state. Whilst reading Marx, I realized that both the legal implication (state according rights to individuals) and the societal implication (abolishment of the 'separate but equal' doctrine) of the case are relevant to the claims Marx is making.  Marx delineates between two societies -- political and civil -- and further between the two lives one leads in each -- public and private. In a political society, man is entitled to the liberties given to him by the state, and considers himself a member of a functional community. Marx hints at the mirage of political society, writing that man is “the imaginary member of an imaginary sovereignty, divested of his real, individual life, and infused with an unreal universality” (34). In such a society, he leads a public life, one in which the state can establish political equality by abolishing “the distinctio...
Read more

What Brettschneider Ought to Admit: Democracy Is Substantive

Although Corey Brettschneider presents his value theory of democracy as a third way between pure proceduralism and outcome-based accounts, his framework collapses into substantivism. Despite insisting that democracy cannot be reduced to “procedure-independent evaluations of outcomes,”(2) he explicitly grounds democratic legitimacy in substantive rights that “limit those policy outcomes that would fail to respect citizens as rulers.” (20). Legitimacy therefore hinges not merely on fair participation but on conformity to three independently specified values—equality of interests, political autonomy, and reciprocity. These values operate as external normative standards against which democratic decisions are judged. Brettschneider treats policies such as ex post facto laws or vote buying as democratically illegitimate regardless of procedural authorization, making clear that outcomes remain subject to direct moral assessment. This is not procedural democracy supplemented by rights; it is ...
Read more

'Enough and as Good' for Whom?

 Both Hobbes and Locke describe a state of nature grounded in equality and natural law. Yet, they reach sharply different conclusions about property. Hobbes denies any possibility of owning property in the state of nature. Locke, by contrast, argues that individuals may aquire private property prior to any government by mixing their labor with common resources. By allowing pre-political appropriation, Locke commits himself to moral constraints on ownership.  Locke introduces these limits through two provisos. The Spoiling proviso requires that an individual only claim ownership over land/natural resources to what one can use before it spoils, critizicing waste as a violation of natural law: "Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy" (21). To me, this limit is relatively clear and intuitive.  More demanding, however, is Locke's second proviso, claiming that appropriation is only legitimate if "enough, and as good" is left in common for others. At first...
Read more