Defences of racial anti-realism typically proceed by establishing that nothing possesses the descriptive characteristics associated with the term ‘race’. This leaves them vulnerable to the externalist challenge that the descriptive meaning of ‘race’ is subject to revision based on discoveries about the nature of its referent. That referent is, according to constructionist realists, the groups we call races (the R-groups). Anti-realists and constructionist realists agree that the R-groups are constructed as real social groups by being viewed and treated as though they were relatively homogenous groups, differing in significant, inherent, heritable ways. Only, anti-realists insist they are not races, but racialized groups. I seek to harness their agreement about the socially constructed nature of the R-groups to break the impasse between anti-realists and constructionist realists and settle their dispute in the anti-realist position's favour. On the account of their social construction agreed by both sides, R-groups exhibit empty concept dependency: they depend for their existence on people's utilizing a concept with no referent. Race cannot be both the concept which captures the R-groups’ nature and the empty concept on whose utilization their existence depends. When we are forced to choose, I argue, the latter is the only justifiable option.

中文翻译：

---

种族与空概念依赖问题

对种族反现实主义的辩护通常是通过确定没有任何东西具有与“种族”一词相关的描述性特征来进行的。这使他们很容易受到外在主义的挑战，即“种族”的描述性含义可能会根据其所指对象的性质的发现而被修改。根据建构主义现实主义者的说法，这个指称就是我们称之为种族的群体（种族）。右- 团体）。反实在论者和建构论实在论者一致认为右-群体被构建为真正的社会群体，被视为相对同质的群体，在显着的、固有的、可遗传的方面存在差异。只是，反现实主义者坚持认为他们不是比赛， 但种族化群体。我试图利用他们对社会建构性质的共识右-打破反现实主义者和建构主义现实主义者之间的僵局并以有利于反现实主义者的立场解决他们的争端的团体。基于双方都同意的社会建设，右- 团体展览空概念依赖：它们的存在依赖于人们使用没有指称的概念。种族不可能同时是捕捉右-群体的本质和空洞的概念，群体的存在取决于其利用。我认为，当我们被迫做出选择时，后者是唯一合理的选择。