Chris Hom's account of slurs sees them as a combination of an ideology and a set of institutional practices/ They get their offensive qualities from representing bigoted views and calling on institution practices that support or perpetuate these views.
Liz Camp's account of slurs is that they represent certain perspectives. When they are used, they bring to the hearer's attention those bigoted perspectives which is why any use or mention of slurs is so uncomfortable to the hearer: in some sense they feel complicit in the perspective being referenced by the slur.
I find Camp's account slightly more compelling (but not completely accurate) than Hom's. I think there is some sense in which slurs represent ideologies and institutional practices, but at the same time I think this idea can be captured by perspectives. I do think that intuitions about how slurs can "scope out" are accurate and that this can be captured by perspectivalism. My only worry about Camp's account is that she does not provide an explanation as to how the perspectives represented by slurs are part of their semantic meaning, which seems to be the case and I want to know how Camp would account for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment