What Happens to Antiracism when we are Post-race?

8/6/2019 What Happens to Antiracism when we are Post-race?

1/9

What Happens to Anti-Racism When WeAre Post Race?

Alana LentinDepartment of Sociology, University of Sussex, Falmer, UKe-mail:[email protected]

Abstract Despite the resistance from radical antiracist formations, autonomously organised byracialized minorities and migrants themselves, that can be witnessed in many spaces, the successwith which antiracism has been both appropriated and relativized by the state as well as hegemonicactivist voices poses a significant threat. The politics of diversity and the consensus around thenotion that western societies are post-race contribute to portraying the critique of racism frompeople of colour as inaccurate, alienating and counter-productive to the achievement of social

cohesion. The necessity of dismantling the idea of race as suggested by antiracist activists andscholars has been subverted in the deconstruction of the experience of racism by an antiracialistrather than a more radical antiracistagenda intent on relativizing the struggle against racism as oneamong many. The consequence of this in the context of postracialism is for racism itself to bedeparticularized and dissociated from its historical roots. Antiracism needs to reclaim the risk, thatGoldberg argues is inherent to it, and rescue it from being universalised into meaninglessness.

Keywords Antiracism _ Antiracialism _ Multiculturalism _ Diversity

Introduction

In his 1997 lecture, Racethe floating signifier, Stuart Hall talks about a politics without

guarantees. In the interview that precedes the lecture he says that, like race, anti-race is confoundedby the need for certainties such as those provided by the idea of race. In anti-racism this means.

a certain kind of politics that defends the race, tries to protect us against discrimination,etc. in which all black people will be figured as people who are holding the correct positionand when you ask what positions do they hold what you will respond is not the normalpolitical argument: well they believe in the following things which I think are viable andprogressive things for black people to vie for now in order to change their circumstances.You will say well theyre like that, they think like that because thats how black people think,its right that black people should So its right that these functions act as a kind ofguarantee that the work of art will be good because its black and will be politically

progressive because its black (Media Education Foundation 1997).

For Hall, the guarantees of the genetic code damage both those fixed by themstraitjacketed intoraces, genders, sexualitiesand those who nonetheless use the certainties that these categorizationsprovide to resist the discrimination they cause. Hall invites us to plunge headlong into the politicsof the end of the biological definition of race. Taking his argument seriously, I argue that theproblematisation of race put forward by anti-racist activists and scholars has been hampered by apost-racial agenda that participates in relativizing the experience of racism, consequently assisting inperpetuating it.


2/9

This appropriation takes on particular significance today when the call for multiculturalism to bekilled, continuously heard from political leaders and liberal commentators alike, belongs to a post-racial agenda that insists on the need to get beyond race. The portrayal of a permissivemulticulturalism as responsible for the toleration of illiberal minorities unable or unwilling tointegrate into their host societies and singularly responsible for gender discrimination and

homophobic attitudes is discursively accompanied by a proclamation of anti-racist credentials thatseeks to create distance between what is presented as a rational liberal critique of the excesses ofmulticulturalism and the crude intolerance of the far right. The declared commitment to racialequality acts as a means of shutting down anti-racist critique. Furthermore, in a post-racial logicaccording to which racism has been admitted and thus largely overcome, racismif it existsispresented as the preserve of fundamentalist minorities against an increasingly cowed, becauseoverly tolerant and insufficiently muscular, liberal (white) majority (Cameron 2011). Against thiscontext, I critique the way in which the lived experience of racism is often stifled today within thecontext of what Davina Cooper calls the politics of diversity (Cooper 2004) and discuss the effectsthis has upon doing anti-racism. The assimilation of certain critiques of essentialisation, of the typethat Stuart Hall recommends, that emerged from self-defined and autonomously led anti-racisms,with parallels in feminist and queer movements, has led to an appropriation, not only of the anti-

racist label, but also of the experience of racism itself: racism becomes generalized and thusownable. The space of diversity incorporates not only a diversity of identities, but a diversity ofequally pitted racisms that are made to jostle with each other for recognition. The resultantsilencing of racialised experience is most pernicious in that it often comes from self-declared anti-racists and thus ostensible allies.

Anti-Racism Versus Anti-Racialism

Anti-racism has proved itself a significantly malleable, polyvalent and politically useful discourse.Nevertheless, it is impossible to speak of a unitary anti-racist movement, a fact which has hamperedthe cause of anti-racism in many locations (Lentin 2004). This lack of unity has, however,contributed to the political utility of anti-racism as a stance which protects those who espouse it

from the very charge of racism. The political expediency of anti-racism has been enabled because thelabel anti-racist has in fact been applied to two different practices usefully conceptualized by DavidTheo Goldberg as anti-racism and anti-racialism. The latter, while going under the name of anti-racism, has become hegemonic while posing less or no political risk.

Anti-racialism can be traced back to the aftermath of the Holocaust and involved the repudiation ofthe regressiveness of the idea of race, in particular its claim to scientific status. Despite the politicalsignificance of the rejection of racial science, taking this position did not imply either understandingor being able to articulate the extent to which race thinking had come to undergird the politicalculture of the western nation-state (Arendt 1966; Bauman 1989; Balibar 1991; Hannaford 1996;Foucault 1997). Rather, taking a formal stance against race was to consider its insidious effects as a

pathology originating elsewhere that, under a particular political constellation, had come to inflictitself on the body politic. Here the reference point was mainly Nazism and the Jews; colonialism andslavery being externalized and rarely considered in terms of the resultant racialised relationshipbetween Europe and (its) colonial others that was produced both in the colonies and en metropole.

Anti-racialism, for Goldberg, does not entail the risk inherent to profoundly challenging racism. It isto take a stand [] against a concept, a name, a category, categorizing [which] does not itselfinvolve standing (up) against (a set of) conditions of being or living Anti-racism in contrast doesmean standing up to those conditions. In extreme circumstances, it is the risk of death in the name


3/9

of refusing the imposition and constraint, [] the devaluation and attendant humiliation (ibid.)caused by being raced. For Goldberg, there is clearly no evidence of anti-racialism evercommanding that sort of risk (Goldberg2008, 10).

This distinction helps understand how official commitments to ending racism have coexisted with

state policies that have undoubtedly contributed to its perpetuation. Whether or not race is named,refusing the language of race does not mean avoiding acting in ways that produce racialisedinequalities. It is also a useful means of conceptualising anti-racism, as a practice of diverse socialmovements and institutional bodies, which appear to be at political odds despite sharing an officialcommitment to challenging racism. However, the nuances of the distinction Goldberg proposes canbe lost in the blanket label anti-racism under which these diverse instances are grouped (none ofthese call themselves an anti-racialist organisation). The proliferation of initiatives that shouldproperly be named antiracialist and the comparative paucity of anti-racists worthy of the name inGoldbergs terms, appears at least in part to explain the internally conflicted history of anti-racistpractice. While progress on racial discrimination has been made to be sure, the stickiness of racismcan at least partly be explained by the success of antiracialism in curtailing serious and profounddiscussion of the embeddedness of race in culture and politics and effectively, although

paradoxically marching under its banner, silencing the potential radicality of anti-racism.

The seepage of anti-racialism into anti-racism can be seen most clearly at moments of surge in theautonomous anti-racist movement when, following the successful mobilisation of people of colouragainst racism on their own terms, a co-optation, whitewashing, or indeed a total clampdownfollows. At moments like these what we are witnessing is effectively a swallowing up of anti-racismby antiracialism. These moments have included the launch of SOS Racisme in France, heavilybacked by the ruling Socialist Party, on the back of the Marche pour lgalite, organised in 1983 byyoung people of North African origin from Marseille, that instigated the autonomous Mouvementbeur. As documented by Serge Malik in The Secret History of SOS Racisme (Malik1990), as well asby activists of the Mouvement de limmigration et des banlieues among others, far from being the

grassroots phenomenon it claimed to be, the organisation boiled down to nothing but political,media and musical spectacles under the cheerful symbol of the yellow hand with its patronisingslogan: hands off my mate. It was a front for the political aspirations of careerist youth politicians,most prominently those of its founder, Julien Dray, the youthful darling of an aging President,Francois Mitterand, in need of real left-wingers and young people whose presence at the Courtwould demonstrate his humanism and the extent to which he was in touch with ordinary peopleand social problems (Den13 2005). SOS Racisme has consistently resisted what it callscommunitarian activism, or the self-organised anti-racism of people of colour, preferring what itterms a majoritarian approach that would not, as its spokespersons see it, alienate the bulk of itspotential supporters. As a consequence, the organisation rejects the foregrounding of race as a toolfor making sense of the persistence of racism, seeing it instead as a source of further division. Rather

than critiquing the ways in which race tacitly persists as a source of discrimination, the organisationaims to contribute to creating a nation loyal to its republican traditions, refusing communitarianismand respecting all those who live and make our country live. French or foreigner, black, white orBeur, the value of a woman or a man is not judged by their appearance but by their qualities (SOSRacisme leaflet, cited in Lentin 2004, 207).

Similar forms of majoritarian anti-racism may be found in a variety of other contexts. For example,in the British case, Paul Gilroy (Gilroy1987) examined the emergence of the municipal anti-racismof the Greater London Council. He showed how it participated in portraying racism as an


4/9

exogenous force thus circumventing the centrality of race to British history and contemporary publicculture. By creating a body of race relations professionals in the 1980s, institutionally endorsedantiracism in the UK contributed to dismantling the autonomous anti-racisms that had developed inthe 1960s and 1970s from the shared experience of black immigration.

In the US and Latin American contexts, George Ydice documents the incorporation of potentiallyliberatory identity politics into a range of governmental (in the Foucauldian sense) mechanisms(Ydice 2003, 48); he describes the extension of Foucauldian biopower into what he calls culturalpowerthe entry of the state into the realm of culture and identity and its harnessing to stateinstitutions and media and market projections that shape, respectively, clients and consumers. Thisprocess causes a radical identity politics, developing out of the civil rights movement in the UnitedStates, with a potential not only to profoundly question racialised, gendered and heterosexist normsbut also to create solidarities between groups involved in those intersected struggles, to descend intocompetitiveness in a fight for both limited resources and political recognition (cf. Duggan 2003).

Post-Racialism and the Politics of Diversity

The instrumentalisation of anti-racism has hampered, and in some cases shut down, the activism of

autonomously organised people of colour, especially where that activism has involved a visible,street presence, and, in particular, coalitions built through shared experiences of struggle. Anti-racialism can usefully be read as a precursor to the post-racial agenda which can be said tocharacterise mainstream approaches to race and racism in western societies with significant levels ofimmigration.1The relativisation of the experience of racism which characterizes post-racialism isaccompanied by a focus on diversity that blurs the specificity of a variety of marginalisedexperiences by collectively labelling them diverse. As Davina Cooper (Cooper 2004) has described,the growth of the politics of diversity out of diversity politics serves to conceal the productivehistories of antagonism and struggle that were central to shaping the critical space of diversitypolitics (Ahmed 2008, 96).

Diversity politics offered a space, albeit problematic, to negotiate potential alliances betweenindividuals and groups for whom a commitment to anti-racism was a red thread that ran throughtheir particular struggle either or/and as racialised, queer, poor It was cognisant of the multiplicityinherent, not only in class-based, racialised and gendered societal arrangements, but also inindividual lives. The politics of diversity, especially in todays era of post-racial anti-multiculturalism(Lentin and Titley2011) reduces these complex and possibly conflictual, yet fertile, multiplicities tothe jostling for space of a multitude of equal but different identities that all can share in and whoseengagement with poses no risk. It is as a consequence of this history that anti-racism has become alabel which, when worn, becomes a shield, protecting the wearer from being questioned as to thetrue nature of her political intentions. What we have witnessed is the hollowing out of the radicalspaces that have been created at different moments and in a variety of contexts as spaces of

inclusion for diverse, yet potentially unifiable, standpoints. What remains is a language of inclusionand shared struggle, which lingers while being stripped of content and meaningful action. So, the

1This is not to say that the politics of diversity emerged exclusively from an anti-racialist logic. It isimportant to note that the mainstreaming of critical race and gender critiques, intersectionality inparticular (Crenshaw1989), has also played a significant role in facilitating the generalised focus ondiversity consequently, although not purposefully, often removing attention from the specificity of individualdiscriminations.


5/9

label anti-racist continues to be used by and applied to the actors of the politics of diversity, bethey state institutions, nongovernmental organisations, or individuals. However, the qualitativedistinction between anti-racialism and anti-racism is lost, as is the standing (up) against (a setof) conditions of being or living in a way which is potentially personally and profoundlyunsettling which, according to Goldberg, is integral to anti-racism.

The process whereby the truth of the experience of racism is increasingly questioned and placed incompetition with the experiences of other marginalized subjects can be understood only bycontextualizing it within the general slide into post-racialism. In other words, the silencing ofracialised experience from within what I am calling the space of diversity is part of, but not reducibleto, the more widely accepted consensus that western postcolonial and/or immigration societies arebeyond race, and hence over racism. While the post-racial stance is far from unitary and hasdifferent manifestations in different national contexts, ranging from the crude racism of the USAmerican shock jocks to the integrationism of European liberals (Kundnani 2007), one element ofit defines the process I am describing. The relativizing, questioning or outright rejection of racialisedexperience that post-racialism entails, at least in part, borrows from and subverts the radical anti-racist critique of race on which Stuart Hall urges us to embark. Opposition to racism requires that

the objective status of the concept of race be debunked.

However, it is in the shared space of diluted diversities that the radicality of these deconstructionshas been subverted. Anti-racialists took from this, not that race requires questioning because ofracism, but that we should do away with race because of racisms ultimate irrelevance. The post-racial agenda is intimately related to the rise of diversity as a less discomfiting way of admitting thatfull equality has not yet been secured. This is evident in the recalibration of problems once overtlyspecified as racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ablism, etc., under the generalised andmultivalent label of discrimination. Institutional arrangements such as the so-called mainstreamingof diversity concerns in EU campaigns such as For Diversity, Against Discrimination and thedissolution of the UK Commission for Racial Equality and its inclusion in the Equality and Human

Rights Commission are evidence of this. By euphemistically characterizing what are in essenceproblematic differences as diversity, the post-racial agenda lays the ground for a universalisation ofexperience which belies the specificity of discrimination. By equating the experience of being blackwith that of being disabled or of being queer, there is not only a denial of the possibility of being allthree, but there is an even more alarming erasure of the histories of how these categories areconstructed and made socially and politically problematic.

For anti-racism, this is significant because the collapsing of particularisms has resulted not in agreater affinity between marginalised minorities and more fruitful collective action to redress sharedexperiences of inequality. On the contrary, it has enabled a relativization of experience that not onlypits identities against each other, but allows self-legitimated spokespersons to emerge to speak on

behalf of any and/or all of the subjects of diversity. So, for example a 2006 publicly-fundedEuropean Youth Campaign for diversity, human rights and participation, with the slogan AllDifferent-All Equal, styled itself as the updated version of a 1995-6 Council of Europe campaignagainst racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and intolerance. The change in the formulation fromagainst to for is instructive because in so doing and in the stated aims of the organisers of themore recent campaign, (Community Builders 2006) a positive message is more inclusive and lessalienating than a negative one. Not only does being for diversity permit a greater number of people,not confined to those affected by the particular discrimination, to identify with the campaigns aim,but failing to specifically name what we are against, as was the case for the 1995-6 campaign,


6/9

legitimises anyone who supports the nebulous aims of diversity to speak on its behalf without havingto explicitly be implicated in the kind of risk that Goldberg reminds us anti-racism entails.Therefore, the main aim identified by the campaign was to encourage and enable young people toparticipate in building peaceful societies based on diversity and inclusion, in a spirit of respect,tolerance, and mutual understanding. Who is able to intervene publicly in order to achieve this

aimmeaning who has the power to do soremains unquestioned. Furthermore, nowhere is thequestion raised of who should be licensed to speak descriptively of what stands in the way ofachieving these laudable aims. The assumption that we are all beneficiaries and subjects of diversityin its myriad forms is taken as sufficient for allowing a privileged group of youth politicians (theEuropean Youth Forum in this instance) to speak on behalf of minoritised youth.

The equalizing of diversities and discriminations within a post-racial context results in therelativization of experience. In that hegemonic voices within the space of diversity gain legitimacy tospeak on behalf of silenced others, they are also able to reinterpret their experience, evaluating itwith respect to a wider political agenda. It is undoubtedly the case, as Haritaworn et al. point out(Haritaworn 2008), that the politics that they name gay imperialism or which others, followingJasbir Puar (Puar 2007), have termed homonationalism, defines a particular interpretation of the

legitimacy of some racialised minoritiesMuslims in particular todayto speak out against racismand discrimination. Within this context, not only is the deconstruction of race used to discount thelegitimacy of speaking in terms of racism as a particular and qualitatively different form ofdiscrimination, but Muslims (and other racialised groups) are portrayed as the new racists accordingto a logic which equates racism with all other forms of discrimination and departicularises itsexperience. In other words, racism comes to mean both nothing and everything. On the one hand itloses what is considered by post-racialists to be its special status, one which according to this visionleads to the neglect of all other forms of exclusion; on the other, it becomes generalized to theextent that all marginalisations become racisms. Moreover, the real racism is now said to be thatof a hegemonic minority among the subjects of diversitynamely the racialisedwho are portrayedas having received excessive attention at the expense of other, neglected subjects. Under this post-

racial vision, a false opposition is established between, for example, gays and blacks or women andMuslims, according to which the racialised are always involved in the domination, not only of allwomen and queers, but of a political agenda which would see the further neglect of the lattersconcerns especially when they are, as several critics have illustrated, brown queers and brownwomen.

According to this vision, anti-racists need to admit the existence of reverse racism and universalizethe struggle against racism in a way that takes this into account. This post-racial insistence on theperennial universality of racism chimes perfectly with a particular variant of human rights activismthat puts primacy on freedom of speech as a means of enabling racisms universality to be madeclear. In the context of the current crisis of multiculturalismwhich as we argue (Lentin and Titley

2011) is an attack, not on prescriptive multiculturalist policy but, as David Goodhart (Goodhart2004) put it, on too much diversitythe construction of an opposition between human rights andmulticulturalism pits sophisticated universalism against primitive particularism. Multiculturalism,according to this widespread and hegemonic interpretation, is a segregationist, anti-cosmopolitanforce imposed on an overly tolerant, guilt-ridden liberal society by illiberal minorities (Bruckner2010). A misplaced respect for the cultural demands of selfsegregating, minority ethnic groups issaid, according to this view, to trump the vision of a cohesive, integrated society based on therespect for equal rights (fictitious as that may be in the context of neoliberal capitalism). Racism, it isargued, has been used as a fig leaf to conceal the danger posed to womens and gay rights by


7/9

facilitating the inherent illiberalism of unassimilable minorities, particularly in the current context,Muslims.

This type of argument allows for a burgeoning post-racialism to become further entrenched andenter the space of diversity to create the type of polarizations I am describing. Attaching itself to the

ubiquitous critique of multiculturalism, hegemonic actors within this space can use the oppositionbetween liberal and illiberal which has come to define the multicultural problem to argue thattheyrather than the racialisedare both the true anti-racists, and more radically, the real victimsof racism. Only a human rights-based universalism, it is argued, can be truly anti-racist because thebelief in the generalizability of racism (everyone is capable of racism) necessitates a universalistresponse. The apparent resistance to this coming from the racialised is taken as proof of their lack ofsolidarity with the wider cause of human rights, and is extrapolated, for example in the discourse ofthe gay rights activist Peter Tatchell, to propose that an anti-racism that is critical of universalisthuman rights is opposed to struggles around gender and sexuality. The appeal to freedom of speech,portrayed as integral to human rights, makes it incumbent upon those who see themselves asopponents of the dangerous illiberalism of minorities to speak out against the latters racism. AsTatchell expresses it (Tatchell 2009).

All peoples possess a culture. But this does not mean that all cultures are equally virtuous.There are certain laws, art forms, political systems and technologies that are inferior. That areinferior. And we must not be afraid to say so. We have to have the confidence to say thatsome things are better than others. In particular we have to sayand we believe itthatsome values and ideas are better than others We should never let the good principle ofrespect for diversity in other cultures stray into a situation where we end up colluding withhuman rights abuses.

The fact that this civilizational language ultimately rejects the argument for the internal hybriditywithin cultures that this particular variant of anti-racialism surely depends upon, becomes irrelevant

in the rush to define the contours of a new, bold, universalist anti-racism that speaks out against allracisms. Because the remitof this anti-racism is also to save the internal victims of illiberalism fromthe darkness of their own culture, it can barely conceal, nor does it wish to, its civilizing mission.

The political consensus that underlies the type of rhetoric displayed in Tatchells speech is thatmulticulturalism, if not yet dead, should be killed off, a view endorsed by Europes leaders andcompounded in recent high profile speeches by bothmBritains David Cameron and GermanChancellor, Angela Merkel. Just as Tatchell is careful to claim that the principle of respect fordiversity in other cultures is good, Cameron, in his February 2011 speech on the failure ofmulticulturalism, paid lip service to the importance of racial equality while stating that we need a lotless of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism in dealing

with illiberal minorities. What the lip service paid to racial equality does is to negate the anti-racistcritique of persistent racism; if racism continues it cannot be said to be the fault of those who haveopenly declared themselves against it or who have even taken active steps to resist it, for example byjoining anti-racist causes or allocating budgets to anti-racist initiatives. Indeed, according to thispost-racial logic, those responsible for any residual racism are in fact minorities who resistintegration and who, as David Cameron later claimed, have created discomfort and disjointednessin society (Porter 2011).

The success with which anti-racism has been both appropriated and relativized by both the state and


8/9

hegemonic activist voices poses a significant threat. This is true despite the resistance from radicalanti-racist formations, autonomously organized by racialised minorities and migrants themselves,such as the Committee of Immigrants in Italy or the French Parti des indignes de la Rpublique.The comfort derived from post-racialism combined with the apparent inclusiveness afforded bydiversity conspires to portray the critique of racism as alienating and negative, and thus

unproductive. The necessity of dismantling race as an idea made by anti-racist activists and scholarshas been subverted in the deconstruction of the experience of racism by an anti-racialist agendaintent on relativizing the struggle against racism as one among many. The consequence of this in thecontext of post-racialism is for racism itself to be departicularised and dissociated from its historicalroots. The effects this has upon activism by the racialised against the persistence of the racial state(Goldberg2002) is to increase the challenge for an intersectional politics already hampered by thepitting of diversities against each other.

References

Ahmed, Sara. 2008. Liberal multiculturalism is the hegemony: Its an Empirical FactA response toiek, Slavoj. Darkmatter: In the ruins of imperial culture, 19 February 2008.Arendt, H. 1966. The origins of totalitarianism, new edition. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Bauman, Zygmunt. 1989. Modernity and the holocaust. Cambridge: Polity Press.Bruckner, Pascal. 2010. The tyranny of guilt: An essay on western masochism. Princeton, NewJersey: Princeton University Press.Cameron, David. 2011. PMs speech at munich security conference.http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2011/02/pms-speech-at-munich-security-conference-60293. Accessed 20May 2011.Community Builders. 2006. All differentAll equal European youth campaigns for diversity, humanrights and participation. http://www.communitybuilders.ro/all-different-all-equal-european-youthcampaigns-for-diversity-human-rights-and-participation/. Accessed 20 May 2011.Cooper, Davina. 2004. Challenging diversity: Rethinking equality and the value of difference.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Crenshaw, Kimberl. 1989. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feministcritique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and anti-racist politics. University of ChicagoLegal Forum, 1989, 139167. Den13. 2005. Histoire secre`te de SOS-Racisme.http://www.oulala.net/Portail/spip.php?article1697. Accessed 5 Feb, 2011.Duggan, Lisa. 2003. The twilight of equality? Neoliberalism cultural politics, and the attack ondemocracy. Boston: Beacon Press.Etienne, Balibar. 1991. Is there a neo-racism? In Race, nation, class ambiguous identities, ed.Etienne, Balibar, and Wallerstein, Immanuel, 3767. London: Verso.Foucault, Michel. 1997. Il faut defendre la societe: Cours au Collge de France, 1976. Paris:Gallimard Seuil.

Gilroy, Paul. 1987. There aint no black in the union jack: The cultural politics of race and nation.London: Unwin Hyman.Goldberg, David Theo. 2002. The racial state. Oxford: Blackwell.Goldberg, David Theo. 2008. The threat of race: Reflections on racial neoliberalism. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Goodhart, David. 2004. Too diverse? Prospect 95, February.Hall, Stuart. 1997. Race, the floating signifier. Media education foundation film.Hannaford, Ivan. 1996. Race: The history of an idea in the west. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins


9/9

University Press.Haritaworn, Jin, Esra Erdem, and Tamsila Tauqir. 2008. Gay imperialism: The role of gender andsexuality discourses in the War on Terror. In Out of place: Silences in Queerness/Raciality, ed.Miyake, Esperanza and Kuntsman, Adi, 933. York: Raw Nerve Books.Kundnani, Arun. 2007. The end of tolerance: Racism in twenty-first century Britain. London: Pluto

Press.Lentin, Alana. 2004. Racism and anti-racism in Europe. London: Pluto Press.Lentin, Alana., and Gavan Titley. 2011. The crises of multiculturalism: Racism in a neoliberal age.London: Zed Books.Malik, Serge. 1990. Histoire Secre`te de SOS Racisme. Paris: Albin Michel.Media Education Foundation. 1997. Race, the floating signifier: Featuring stuart hall. http://www.mediaed.org/assets/products/407/transcript_407.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2011.Porter, Andrew. 2011. David cameron: Migration threatens our way of life. The Telegraph, 14 April.Puar, Jasbir. 2007. Terrorist assemblages: Homonationalism in queer times. Durham and London:Duke University Press.Tatchell, Peter. 2009. Speech at the centre for local policy studies summer school.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJQK5el5J48&feature=related. Accessed 20 May 2011.

Yudice, George. 2003. The expediency of culture: Uses of culture in the global era. Durham andLondon: Duke University Press.

Documents

What Happens to Antiracism when we are Post-race?