Is conferralism descriptively adequate?

Abstract This paper will develop a set of concerns about a central feature of Ásta's account of social categories that she calls “conferralism.” I argue that generalist approaches to social categories such as Ásta provides are inadequate as a way of understanding the diverse formations of diverse categories, and that conferralism overemphasizes the power of top‐down forces (what she calls “persons with standing”) to confer social identities. This approach then underplays the horizontal and bottom‐up influences on category formation as well as the historical formation of many social identities, especially ethnicity and race. Conferralism sets aside not only physical differences that play a role in some categories but also group‐related historical experiences and practices that produce the “base properties” that justify the use of social identity categories.