The main idea behind Chris Hom's account of slurs is that he believes that the semantic argument with slurs fares better than the pragmatic in many ways. He introduces us with combinatorial externalism as he states is, "the view that racial epithets express complex, socially constructed, negative properties determined in virtue of standing in the appropriate external, causal connection with racist institutions",(Hom 2008, 431) or in other words, slurs are given pejorative meanings by the institutes whom uses them and have a certain force. Which then brings us to shifty and scalar terms, such that slurs may be derogatory in some context or have variation in force.
The main feature that Liz Camp accounts for is that there is a perspective behind the slurs, as using perspectivalism. She attributes slurs not to truth conditions but the way they are used, serving only to express emotional state of a speaker. Such that a speaker using a slur has an attributed force (perspective) towards a certain group in which that slur refers to in certain contexts.
Comparing the two from what I understand, I am compelled to lean towards Camp because I feel that it makes sense that slurs are meant from the perspective of the speaker. It is in contrast with the meaning of the slur because as I see it, there is may be no pejorative force at all if used in a certain perspective. That makes me also think about Hom's view as closely related, therefore I can't discount that slurs have a variation in force and are 'shifty'.
No comments:
Post a Comment