Naturalist law legitimizes repression while historicist law constitutes racial order
Evidence
This distinction between naturalist invocation of legality in a sense after the fact and historicist law as socially constitutive may be further nuanced by distinguishing between legitimation of repression by law and racial governance through the rule of law. — David Theo Goldberg, The Racial State, 78
Categorization
- DEFINE: Distinguishes two modes of racial legality: law legitimating force after the fact versus law constituting race through its categories.
- XREF: connects to: Totalitarian theory derived authority from racial right rather than universal law — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 425; Racial governance splits between naturalist and historicist modes into distinct policy forms — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1691
Related
- Historicist regimes govern race by constituting it through law itself (similarity 0.87)
- Racial governance splits between naturalist and historicist modes into distinct policy forms (similarity 0.84)
- Racial historicism and the rule of law co-evolved as instruments of dominance (similarity 0.84)
- Late nineteenth-century racial rule became rule through law rather than raw force (similarity 0.83)
- Historicist racial thought fueled abolition while naturalism underpinned slavery (similarity 0.80)
- Race is simultaneously discovered and constructed, natural and legal. (similarity 0.80)
- Racial historicism makes racial structures invisible and absolves individuals of responsibility for them (similarity 0.80)
- Naturalistic racial governance treats racialized people as extractable natural resources (similarity 0.79)
- Modern racial states are constituted through the legal fashioning of racial categories (similarity 0.78)
- Totalitarian theory derived authority from racial right rather than universal law (similarity 0.78)