The Imperative of Integration: Introduction

Benjamin R. Hertzberg
Brigham Young University
The following review symposium is an edited and updated version of an author-meets-
critics roundtable about Elizabeth Andersons most recent book, The Imperative of Inte-
gration, held at the 2013 meeting of the American Political Science Association (APSA)
in Chicago. Professor Andersons work is an extended argument that contemporary
liberal democracies ought to pursue racially integrative policies in order to achieve social
justice and a healthy democratic society. Her work is remarkable for two reasons. First,
it cuts against the dominant approach of contemporary multiculturalism in arguing that
public policies ought to prioritize the integration of minority groups into all areas of
social life over preserving minority communities and enclaves. Second, it offers a unique
methodological approach to non-ideal political theorizing. Anderson intends Imperative as
a demonstration of the considerable value pragmatist political theory can add to norma-
tive and policy discussions.
Anderson develops her argument for racial integration through careful examination of
the empirical data about race, opportunity, political participation and segregation in the
US. Her conclusion is that segregation is a principal cause of persistent racial disparities
in health, economic opportunities, and political efcacy and participation. While the data
Anderson analyzes and many of the ethical and policy debates she engages stem from the
US case, her conclusions are of general scope. They are driven by the application of
sociological theories from Max Weber and Charles Tilly that explain social inequality as
a consequence of spatial and role segregation. As such, her conclusions are widely
applicable to all cases of domestic identity-group-based inequalities, whether they occur
as a consequence of race, caste, religion, ethnicity, language group or gender. We believe
that her work and the symposium that follows will be of considerable interest to political
scientists and theorists in the UK and elsewhere, particularly given contemporary con-
troversy over multiculturalism.
Our symposium includes two papers that evaluate and respond to Andersons substan-
tive argument for racial integration (those by Lawrie Balfour and Cara Wong), two that
assess Andersons method (those by Jack Knight and Benjamin Hertzberg) and a response
from Elizabeth Anderson.
Balfour uses the work of James Baldwin and W.E.B. Du Bois to question Andersons
conviction that integration into a national American identity is the proper solution to
racial segregation. She suggests instead that desegregation is a policy goal that is more
sensitive to the real possibility of tragic failures prominent in US history to develop
an inclusive American national identity. Wong raises a series of difcult questions about
how integrative policies can be assessed for their success or failure. She argues that
determining the proper units of analysis used to assess segregation/integration, measuring
POLI TI CAL STUDI ES REVI EW: 2014 VOL 12, 345346
doi: 10.1111/1478-9302.12066
bs_bs_banner
2014 The Author. Political Studies Review 2014 Political Studies Association
integration, and deep racialized differences in public perceptions of integration raise
serious implementation questions for Andersons policy prescriptions. Knight offers an
expansive analysis of Andersons pragmatist method, explaining the connections between
Imperative and the pragmatist tradition analysis Anderson chose to leave out of Imperative
in order to focus on the substantive argument she makes. I argue that Andersons
pragmatic conception of non-ideal theorizing needs to pay more attention to the role
ideals play in problem perception and denition, and that doing so would strengthen her
argument against the direct application of the color-blind ideal to policy. Anderson offers
a generous response in which she expresses her continued commitment to the conclu-
sions for which she argued in Integration.
We would like to express our gratitude to those present at our roundtable at the 2013
APSA meeting for their constructive advice. We owe a particular debt to Michael
Dawson, who participated in our roundtable, but was unable to contribute a review essay
to this symposium. We are also grateful to the editors and reviewers at Political Studies
Review for their advice and feedback.
346 BENJ AMI N R. HERTZBERG
2014 The Author. Political Studies Review 2014 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2014, 12(3)