What do you think?
Rate this book
The Imperative of Integration
More than forty years have passed since Congress, in response to the Civil Rights Movement, enacted sweeping antidiscrimination laws in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. As a signal achievement of that legacy, in 2008, Americans elected their first African American president. Some would argue that we have finally arrived at a postracial America, but The Imperative of Integration indicates otherwise. Elizabeth Anderson demonstrates that, despite progress toward racial equality, African Americans remain disadvantaged on virtually all measures of well-being. Segregation remains a key cause of these problems, and Anderson skillfully shows why racial integration is needed to address these issues. Weaving together extensive social science findings — in economics, sociology, and psychology — with political theory, this book provides a compelling argument for reviving the ideal of racial integration to overcome injustice and inequality, and to build a better democracy.
Considering the effects of segregation and integration across multiple social arenas, Anderson exposes the deficiencies of racial views on both the right and the left. She reveals the limitations of conservative explanations for black disadvantage in terms of cultural pathology within the black community and explains why color blindness is morally misguided. Multicultural celebrations of group differences are also not enough to solve our racial problems. Anderson provides a distinctive rationale for affirmative action as a tool for promoting integration, and explores how integration can be practiced beyond affirmative action.
Offering an expansive model for practicing political philosophy in close collaboration with the social sciences, this book is a trenchant examination of how racial integration can lead to a more robust and responsive democracy.
Considering the effects of segregation and integration across multiple social arenas, Anderson exposes the deficiencies of racial views on both the right and the left. She reveals the limitations of conservative explanations for black disadvantage in terms of cultural pathology within the black community and explains why color blindness is morally misguided. Multicultural celebrations of group differences are also not enough to solve our racial problems. Anderson provides a distinctive rationale for affirmative action as a tool for promoting integration, and explores how integration can be practiced beyond affirmative action.
Offering an expansive model for practicing political philosophy in close collaboration with the social sciences, this book is a trenchant examination of how racial integration can lead to a more robust and responsive democracy.
264 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
34 people are currently reading
625 people want to read
About the author
Elizabeth S. Anderson
6 books138 followersElizabeth Anderson is the John Rawls Collegiate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. She is the author of Value in Ethics and Economics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
January 16, 2019
The normative point of the book (the case for integration) is the weakest part. I think she unnecessarily pegs integration to affirmative action and it weakens the thesis. However, this book is essential--it is a must read for anyone and everyone interested in race. It's also the best account of the present damages of segregation--not just to those segregated but to the rest of us.
xx-dnf-skim-reference
April 24, 2020Recommended for policy-makers, activists, and educators. I skimmed enough to be able to tell that it's well worth reading in full by people who truly can make a difference.
From the title, and an opening anecdote that I'll never forget*, through the working out of the ideas, to the following quotes from the last chapter, this is a concise, thoughtful, and readable work of political philosophy that matters.
From 9.2, "The Limits of Multiculturism:"
"Integration is not the same as assimilation."
"[R]acial equality requires not just propositional knowledge but practical knowledge.... Only by working and thinking *together* can *we* work out mutually respectful and cooperative habits of interaction."
Enough said. But if you want more, here you go:
(Earlier the author does address, with a certain degree of respect if not empathy, segregationists who think of 'others' as distasteful.)
(btw, the author uses the simple words black and white... after all, her ideas are applicable in parts of the world where 'african-american' would not make sense...)
The main point is one I totally agree with. If blacks and whites don't know each other because of self-segregation, ideas of respect, diversity, multiculturalism, are just abstractions. For example, I do know that Black Lives Matter, but having never known a black person, I have no idea how to talk about that, much less support the movement.
*The author opens with her experience in moving to Detroit, where she was shown a home infested with cockroaches, because the real estate agent assumed that living with those pests would be preferable to living with black neighbors. The agent had bragged that they're 'holding the line at 10th.'
From the title, and an opening anecdote that I'll never forget*, through the working out of the ideas, to the following quotes from the last chapter, this is a concise, thoughtful, and readable work of political philosophy that matters.
From 9.2, "The Limits of Multiculturism:"
"Integration is not the same as assimilation."
"[R]acial equality requires not just propositional knowledge but practical knowledge.... Only by working and thinking *together* can *we* work out mutually respectful and cooperative habits of interaction."
Enough said. But if you want more, here you go:
(Earlier the author does address, with a certain degree of respect if not empathy, segregationists who think of 'others' as distasteful.)
(btw, the author uses the simple words black and white... after all, her ideas are applicable in parts of the world where 'african-american' would not make sense...)
The main point is one I totally agree with. If blacks and whites don't know each other because of self-segregation, ideas of respect, diversity, multiculturalism, are just abstractions. For example, I do know that Black Lives Matter, but having never known a black person, I have no idea how to talk about that, much less support the movement.
*The author opens with her experience in moving to Detroit, where she was shown a home infested with cockroaches, because the real estate agent assumed that living with those pests would be preferable to living with black neighbors. The agent had bragged that they're 'holding the line at 10th.'
February 13, 2018
Anderson's case for integration is compelling. She begins with a couple chapters detailing both the empirical reality of segregation and the damages caused by it. Segregation includes both spatial segregation (keeping blacks in separate spaces from whites) and role segregation (allowing blacks in the same spaces as whites but restricting the social roles they may assume).
Segregation itself limits the options for blacks, but the harms of segregation cascade out into other domains. She doesn't use this term, but I found the idea of "corrosive disadvantage" (from Jonathan Wolff and Avner de-Shalit's book, "Disadvantage") to fit Anderson's description of segregation. The spatial segregation is accompanied by a disadvantage in public goods provision, where schools, police, financial services, and the like are generally poorer. Separation from whites excludes them from networking and human capital development opportunities. The material disadvantages accreting from spatial segregation then feed negative stereotypes and unconscious bias about blacks, giving whites (and even blacks, for that matter) justification for continuing anti-black discrimination. And so on.
Anderson argues that integration is the only thing that can disrupt this vicious cycle. Spatial integration (by, e.g, affirmative action policies) would begin to correct the economic disadvantages as well as erode conscious and unconscious bias against blacks (both by exercising whites' interactions with blacks and giving whites more examples of non-stereotypical blacks).
Anderson's discussion of affirmative action was especially clarifying. She argues that affirmative action is often thought to serve the purpose of compensating individuals for discrimination, but this isn't the only purpose for affirmative action, and it's not the best argument for it. Indeed, Anderson argues that affirmative action is ill-equipped to rectify past injustice. And it's poorly targeted (in rectificatory terms) because those who benefit from affirmative action are likely the most advantaged blacks. Instead, a better model for affirmative action is that of an integrationist policy. Affirmative action gets whites and blacks into the same spaces and institutions. This will over time lessen discrimination and bias against blacks (by mechanisms discussed above, predicted by the well-established "contact theory") and insert more black individuals in powerful social and economic networks.
Anderson offers similarly clarifying differentiation when discussing multiple concepts of race. She contrasts "character" or "biological" concepts of race, which hold that race groups have some essential moral characteristics, with "racialized groups" concept, which holds that race is sociologically real but not reflective of any essential moral characteristics. "Color-blindness" fails because it doesn't recognize the possibility of racialized groups.
The subject matter is inherently non-ideal. A world with a history of racialization is not a world in which social justice can be neat and tidy. Anderson recognizes that efforts to integrate society will have costs, and face various forms of backlash. But racial integration is the only way to achieve racial justice in the long term.
Segregation itself limits the options for blacks, but the harms of segregation cascade out into other domains. She doesn't use this term, but I found the idea of "corrosive disadvantage" (from Jonathan Wolff and Avner de-Shalit's book, "Disadvantage") to fit Anderson's description of segregation. The spatial segregation is accompanied by a disadvantage in public goods provision, where schools, police, financial services, and the like are generally poorer. Separation from whites excludes them from networking and human capital development opportunities. The material disadvantages accreting from spatial segregation then feed negative stereotypes and unconscious bias about blacks, giving whites (and even blacks, for that matter) justification for continuing anti-black discrimination. And so on.
Anderson argues that integration is the only thing that can disrupt this vicious cycle. Spatial integration (by, e.g, affirmative action policies) would begin to correct the economic disadvantages as well as erode conscious and unconscious bias against blacks (both by exercising whites' interactions with blacks and giving whites more examples of non-stereotypical blacks).
Anderson's discussion of affirmative action was especially clarifying. She argues that affirmative action is often thought to serve the purpose of compensating individuals for discrimination, but this isn't the only purpose for affirmative action, and it's not the best argument for it. Indeed, Anderson argues that affirmative action is ill-equipped to rectify past injustice. And it's poorly targeted (in rectificatory terms) because those who benefit from affirmative action are likely the most advantaged blacks. Instead, a better model for affirmative action is that of an integrationist policy. Affirmative action gets whites and blacks into the same spaces and institutions. This will over time lessen discrimination and bias against blacks (by mechanisms discussed above, predicted by the well-established "contact theory") and insert more black individuals in powerful social and economic networks.
Anderson offers similarly clarifying differentiation when discussing multiple concepts of race. She contrasts "character" or "biological" concepts of race, which hold that race groups have some essential moral characteristics, with "racialized groups" concept, which holds that race is sociologically real but not reflective of any essential moral characteristics. "Color-blindness" fails because it doesn't recognize the possibility of racialized groups.
The subject matter is inherently non-ideal. A world with a history of racialization is not a world in which social justice can be neat and tidy. Anderson recognizes that efforts to integrate society will have costs, and face various forms of backlash. But racial integration is the only way to achieve racial justice in the long term.
April 10, 2015
This book delivers on the promise of political philosophy. Rather than ideal theory, Anderson engages directly with one of the central forms of injustice in US society. She draws heavily on work in the social sciences, historical examples, and legal precedent to illuminate the impacts of segregation and the idea of integration. She lays out the injustices of segregation over the course of several chapters culminating in two chapters, on affirmative action and color-blindness, which should be required reading for anyone living in America today, let alone anyone interested in political philosophy. All of this would be reason enough to recommend this book, but in addition Anderson is one of the most concise writers in academic philosophy (or any field), without a word wasted.
February 6, 2021
Best progressive book I have read.
December 10, 2015
Perfect for putting Fisher v. Texas (I and II) into perspective.
January 29, 2011
One of the best critical theory books of recent memory.
March 3, 2018
This book is overall very good but I have two major issues with it. The first is that Anderson draws too much of a distinction between ethnocentric behavior and racism, the latter being something whites are morally culpable of, while the former being not worthy of moral condemnation. I think this is flat out wrong, because this is really a spectrum of views and if one spends a lot of time talking and arguing with whites with ethnocentric views, the latent racism of their views are both obvious and something they refuse to consider. I agree with Anderson on certain examples not being things that people are morally culpable, but the difference is a person could be completely conscious of their latent racism in these specific situations and still justify the decision. (ie, whites choosing a mostly white neighborhood over a mostly black one because of a lack of resources in the community, while being completely aware that these lack of resources are due to racism and segregation.) There are plenty of ethnocentric behaviors that are morally inexcusable. (ie, the indifference of whites to police violence against people of color.) Perhaps there is a disconnect between what I consider ethnocentric vs. racist and what Anderson does, but I am going by her own definition here, which she defines as overt belief in the superiority of one race over another.
My second major criticism is, that while she does address the issue, there needs to be a lot more work done on the issue of integration vs. assimilation. Anderson doesn't spend a lot of time on objections in her book, partially because most of her claims are backed up by empirical data, but the time she does spend with it is directed at the right. I think some time spent on why the left might be suspicious of integration as the answer might have helped. She seems to think that her data about "higher satisfaction" from blacks who have more integrated educations is enough, but I can think of several objections to this right off the bat that I think should be addressed.
Despite these two major issues the book is other wise fantastic and delivers a very detailed, densely written and compelling argument, with lots of data to back up the claims. even somebody like me, who has great interest in the subject, learned some things from Anderson's research. It is also great to see these arguments made within the context of political philosophy and its history. The book will be tough going for people who don't read philosophy, which is kind of a shame. I think what we do need more of is people being able to communicate these arguments to a mass audience, but you can hardly fault Anderson for that, because she lays the groundwork for all the arguments so well that anybody wishing to make the same work more mainstream has a firm groundwork to draw from.
My second major criticism is, that while she does address the issue, there needs to be a lot more work done on the issue of integration vs. assimilation. Anderson doesn't spend a lot of time on objections in her book, partially because most of her claims are backed up by empirical data, but the time she does spend with it is directed at the right. I think some time spent on why the left might be suspicious of integration as the answer might have helped. She seems to think that her data about "higher satisfaction" from blacks who have more integrated educations is enough, but I can think of several objections to this right off the bat that I think should be addressed.
Despite these two major issues the book is other wise fantastic and delivers a very detailed, densely written and compelling argument, with lots of data to back up the claims. even somebody like me, who has great interest in the subject, learned some things from Anderson's research. It is also great to see these arguments made within the context of political philosophy and its history. The book will be tough going for people who don't read philosophy, which is kind of a shame. I think what we do need more of is people being able to communicate these arguments to a mass audience, but you can hardly fault Anderson for that, because she lays the groundwork for all the arguments so well that anybody wishing to make the same work more mainstream has a firm groundwork to draw from.
July 28, 2021
Anything by Elizabeth Anderson is always going to be a great read, just because her writing style is exceptionally clear while also being assertive and punchy. This is very much a work of political philosophy that gets to the heart of possibly the biggest moral quandary of contemporary American life: the ghetto. There is a strong normative dimension to the book, which I think is quite necessary considering the severity of the problem and hesitation to adopt the strategy of integration in particular.
Is integration a perfect strategy? Definitely not. Is it a contender for one of the best strategies to address the problem of the ghetto? It would seem so, at least better than strict investment into impoverished communities, which might be fruitless without at least some level of systemic change. Tommie Shelby's Dark Ghetto makes a great companion read to this, though while I find Shelby's work more compelling on a philosophical level, I do struggle to see how it can manifest in a solution as concretely thought out as integration.
Is integration a perfect strategy? Definitely not. Is it a contender for one of the best strategies to address the problem of the ghetto? It would seem so, at least better than strict investment into impoverished communities, which might be fruitless without at least some level of systemic change. Tommie Shelby's Dark Ghetto makes a great companion read to this, though while I find Shelby's work more compelling on a philosophical level, I do struggle to see how it can manifest in a solution as concretely thought out as integration.
July 16, 2024
Compelling argument for the importance of integration for building a just and equitable society in the US. Anderson makes her case in a methodical and theoretical manner that is nevertheless grounded in the lived experiences of people and empirical evidence and studies from a range of disciplines. For me reading this book was an important thought exercise as it disentangles a lot of complex concepts and helped reset my mindset. This is a relatively short book in terms of page length but it’s one that you need to take time to absorb - I read it over the course of several weeks reading no more than twenty pages at a time.
April 13, 2021
very tightly argued and empirically grounded. avoids over emphasis on go-nowhere historical and ideological disputes on race as such, and instead cuts straight to a here-and-now assessment of black/white inequality in america, compares it to other kinds of persisting segregation (using a very general framework adapted from charles tilly), canvasses potential solutions and the usual arguments pro/con, and simply does deeper and better thinking on the topic than you see elsewhere.
October 9, 2023
First half of the book is filled with pretty basic facts and trivial arguments, but it picks up in the second half (starting with chapter 5) with very good comparisons between different models of anti-discrimination policy.
August 5, 2020
Meticulously researched and cogently argued analysis of the advantages of integration to everyone affected by it.
December 13, 2016
This book was really good at explaining how people are oppressed by the system, going into things like cultural, societal, financial, and human capital. I really enjoyed reading it, although I did find it a little hard because of how dry and technical the language was. Philosophical reading takes some getting used to.
Even though the language took some while to acclimate to, I feel like everyone who wants to understand how integration will be a step forward in solving the problems of racial inequality should read this book. I had to read this book for a philosophy class.
Even though the language took some while to acclimate to, I feel like everyone who wants to understand how integration will be a step forward in solving the problems of racial inequality should read this book. I had to read this book for a philosophy class.
April 5, 2013
although there was a lot of technical language, this book does a great job of analyzing the very real presence of racism in current society. I highly recommend it for anyone who thinks institutionalized racism ended in the 1960's.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews