Hom and Camp [Rigo Acevedo]

1. Hom presents an argument for what he calls Combinatorial Externalism, which suggests that racial epithets gain their ability to express socially constructed, negative properties by standing in a certain causal relationship with racial institutions. These racial institutions are composed of ideologies and certain sets of practices that distinguish themselves and their view. It is with these distinguished views and the size of these racial institutions that endow racial epithets with their expressive content and strength.

2. Camp presents an argument for Perspectivism, which suggests that racial epithets gain their expressive content and power through the identification that a speaker signals their allegiance to a certain perspective. Adopting a perspective requires that a speaker notice and remember particular features of a group, to a point in which these features become salient, along with holding the believe that some features of a group are central to their identity. For slurs, perspectives hold negative intentions and beliefs and it is this cognitive position that is conveyed when a slur is exclaimed.

3. I find Hom's argument to be more compelling. Both seem to present arguments that the expressive content that is expressed when slurs are said or mentioned appear to come from some external source or causal relationship. However, I feel that Camp's perspective(ism) doesn't seem to exactly account for why slurs hold their expressive power when mentioned, and not said. Regardless of the intent, or true perspective of a speaker it appears as if slurs still hold their expressive power and ability to cause a strong feeling in all listeners- whether the listener is of the target group, or whether the speaker is merely mentioning the slur.