Read the passage given be low and answer the question that follows :

I eschew the notion of racial kinship. I do so in order to be free to claim what the distinguished political theorist Michael Sandel labels "the unencumbered self. "The unencumbered self is free and independent, "unencumbered by aims and attachments it does not choose for itself," Sandel writes. "Freed from the sanctions of custom and tradition and inherited status, unbound by moral ties antecedent to choice, the self is installed as sovereign, cast as the author of the only obligations that constrain . " Sandel believes that the unencumbered self is an illusion and that the yearning for it is a manifestation of a shallow liberalism that "cannot account for certain moral and political obligations that we commonly recognize , even prize "- "obligations of solidarity, religious duties, and other moral ties that may claim us for reasons unrelated to a choice," which are "indispensable aspects of our moral and political experience."

Sandal's objection to those who, like me, seek the unencumbered self is that they fail to appreciate loyalties that should be accorded moral force partly because they influence our identity, such that living by these attachments "is inseparable from understanding ourselves as the particular persons we are-as members of this family or city or nation or people, as bearers of that history, as citizens of this republic. " There is an important virtue in this assertion of the value of black life. It combats something still eminently in need of challenge: the assumption that because of their race black people are stupid , ugly, and low, and that because of their race white people are smart, beautiful , and righteous. But within some of the forms that this assertiveness has taken are important vices-including the belief that because of racial kinship blacks ought to value blacks more highly than others.

I shun racial pride because of my conception of what should properly be the object of pride for an individual: something that he or she has accomplished. I cannot feel pride in some state of affairs that is independent of my contribution to it. The color of my skin, the width of my nose, the texture of my hair, and the various other signs that prompt people to label me black constitute such a state of affairs. I did not achieve my racial designation. It was something I inherited-l ike my creed and socio-economic starting place and gender-and therefore something I should not be credited with.

In taking this position I follow Frederick Douglass, the great nineteenth -century reformer, who declared that ''the only excuse for pride in individuals is in the fact of their own achievements. " I admire Sandel's work and have learned much from it. But a major weakness in it is a conflation of "is " and "ought. " Sandel privileges what exists and has existed so much that his deference to tradition lapses into historical determinism. He faults the model of the unencumbered self because, he says, it cannot account for feelings of solidarity and loyalty that most people have not chosen to impose upon themselves but that they cherish nonetheless. This represents a fault, however, only if we believe that the unchosen attachments Sandel celebrates should be accorded moral weight. I am not prepared to do that simply on the basis that such attachments exist, have long existed , and are passionately felt. Feelings of primordial attachment often represent mere prejudice or superstition , a hangover of the childhood socialization from which many people never recover.