Jasmine K. Gani

This article explores three key arguments: Firstly, it seeks to demonstrate the contradictions and limits within Kantian hospitality, and its links to colonialism and practices of racialisation. The acclaimed universalism of Kant’s law of hospitality forecloses a discussion of its dualism, and erases the historical, racist context in which it was conceived. The prioritization of concept over conception allows Kant’s theory on race to be obscured from official discourse and framing of policies while it still courses through inherited perceptions and theories. Secondly, in making my case, I will be applying the notion of coloniality, coined by Aníbal Quijano and later developed by Walter Mignolo, to the existing but small body of critical discourse on Kant and race. Debates initiated on the peripheries of philosophy, law and anthropology in the 1990s have led the way in this regard. However, given the time that has elapsed, it is notable that their work has received little scrutiny in political theory and International Relations theory, and thus warrants renewed attention. I argue that the notion of coloniality provides a useful lens through which to do so, and a vehicle through which to apply those excavations to a contemporary context. Finally, the article explores the extent to which Kantian thought constitutes ‘modern’ cosmopolitanism, and draws attention to the inadvertently complicit role of second-generation cosmopolitans in the erasure of race from the study of Kant. The relationship between the collective erasure of race and racism in academia and European practice towards refugees and immigrants is briefly considered.

This article situates Kant’s theories and epistemologies of race within a wider architecture of knowledge production and coloniality, and from there considers how his approach can illuminate our understandings about methodology and scholarly praxis. In doing so, this article seeks to move the conversation beyond Kant’s raciology, which by and large has been “outed,” and to instead draw attention to his methodology and praxis. It argues that by recognizing and articulating Kant’s philosophical and practical incrementalism, dualism, and erasures in knowledge production and dissemination as a methodology, we can better identify, make sense of, and critique those methodologies when they are employed in contemporary scholarship and political action. Additionally, this article attempts to answer the question of what comes next for a racially aware Kantian studies (or at least point toward possibilities) by drawing upon decolonial and postcolonial theories and a necessarily interdisciplinary approach. It then proposes a three-step approach of historicity, citational politics, and contrapuntality to address Kant’s raciology and “white ignorance” as a reflexive method with which Kantian scholars and students may be able to move forward both ethically and intellectually.

This article explores three key arguments: Firstly, it seeks to demonstrate the contradictions and limits within Kantian hospitality, and its links to colonialism and practices of racialisation. The acclaimed universalism of Kant’s law of hospitality forecloses a discussion of its dualism, and erases the historical, racist context in which it was conceived. The prioritization of concept over conception allows Kant’s theory on race to be obscured from official discourse and framing of policies while it still courses through inherited perceptions and theories. Secondly, in making my case, I will be applying the notion of coloniality, coined by Aníbal Quijano and later developed by Walter Mignolo, to the existing but small body of critical discourse on Kant and race. Debates initiated on the peripheries of philosophy, law and anthropology in the 1990s have led the way in this regard. However, given the time that has elapsed, it is notable that their work has received little scrutiny in political theory and International Relations theory, and thus warrants renewed attention. I argue that the notion of coloniality provides a useful lens through which to do so, and a vehicle through which to apply those excavations to a contemporary context. Finally, the article explores the extent to which Kantian thought constitutes ‘modern’ cosmopolitanism, and draws attention to the inadvertently complicit role of second-generation cosmopolitans in the erasure of race from the study of Kant. The relationship between the collective erasure of race and racism in academia and European practice towards refugees and immigrants is briefly considered.

This article situates Kant’s theories and epistemologies of race within a wider architecture of knowledge production and coloniality, and from there considers how his approach can illuminate our understandings about methodology and scholarly praxis. In doing so, this article seeks to move the conversation beyond Kant’s raciology, which by and large has been “outed,” and to instead draw attention to his methodology and praxis. It argues that by recognizing and articulating Kant’s philosophical and practical incrementalism, dualism, and erasures in knowledge production and dissemination as a methodology, we can better identify, make sense of, and critique those methodologies when they are employed in contemporary scholarship and political action. Additionally, this article attempts to answer the question of what comes next for a racially aware Kantian studies (or at least point toward possibilities) by drawing upon decolonial and postcolonial theories and a necessarily interdisciplinary approach. It then proposes a three-step approach of historicity, citational politics, and contrapuntality to address Kant’s raciology and “white ignorance” as a reflexive method with which Kantian scholars and students may be able to move forward both ethically and intellectually.