In a recent presentation about a relatively new academic field
called the critical philosophy of race, I was (repeatedly) questioned about the reasons for
retaining the concept of race after it has been so clearly delegitimised. I was
surprised how much I struggled to find a satisfactory answer, both for others
and myself, to this question. Part of my struggle arose from the context of
this discussion. While I appreciate the challenge posed with regard to the
concept of race, the composition of the group made me uncomfortable as to its
motivation. The group was composed of all white heterosexual male
post-Christian European citizens; the epitome of what in the field of critical
philosophy of race is referred to as white privilege. By contrast the field
itself is one of the most diverse in terms of academic philosophy with strong
representations of scholars from underrepresented groups in terms of gender,
religious affiliations, non-European origins, etc.
The latter is significant in that these scholars – many of whom come
from marginalised groups – recognise that because of the history of racism, the
category of race, has been (at least rhetorically) delegitimised and yet there
are several – justice based – reasons for retaining the concept of race. One
such reason is to discredit the claim that we are living in a post-racial
society. Clearly recent events such as the tragic political and legal injustice
that arose in Ferguson
demonstrate this. On a very different scale, which makes it easier to deny that
racism is the root of the problem, are the recent debates in the Low Lands
about ‘Zwarte Piet’.
Another reason is that by denying the category of race, it is much
more difficult – both legally and socially – to fight current manifestations of
racism, such as the cultural-racism central to islamophobia. Partially because of the intentional efforts
on the part of the (surviving) Jewish community after the Shoah to be ‘deracialised’,
there has been a political campaign to detangle the categories of race and
religion – as manifest in terms of anti-Semitism. This however makes it much
more difficult for groups that currently fall within this (cultural)
race-religion constellation, as do Muslims, to appeal to laws created to combat
racism.
This problem brings me back to my original concern. While there may
be good reasons to politically or legally retain this concept, the question
being asked was also why a philosophical field might retain the concept of
race. From the perspective of those posing this question, the concept has been
intentionally delegitimised in European and needs to be forgotten. This claim
is based on how European society responded to the shame of the Shoah by
promoting campaigns, legal, political and social, to delegitimise the concept
of race (see for example UNESCO’s
substitution of the term race for culture in the 1950s). Accordingly it
seems unjust bot to the group that was most destroyed by these events (this is
not to deny that the Nazis did not persecute other groups) to retain the
category of race and to Europeans as it reminds them of a past they have moved
beyond.
Yet isn’t the latter perhaps a reason to retain the concept, to
remind us all that while we can move beyond the signifier, we have not moved
beyond the signified? Do we not need a concept of race to help us make sense of
this particular set of social relations of power that shaped and continue to
shape our world? While I grant those in the room that the concept of race has
morphed and changed since the Shoah and as such we need to constantly study and
reflect upon these changes (a reflection that includes considering letting go
of terms that are no longer philosophically significant), race neither in terms
of philosophy nor politics is at this stage. As such, I have to wonder if the desire to silence race
talk in Europe arises from wanting to sweep responsibility, both past and
present, under the carpet?
Clearly no one would contend that the central problem of exclusion, which has historically been achieved by the creation of hierarchical categories (whether race, religion, nation etc.) has not disappeared – so are there good reasons for retaining such delegitimised and offensive concepts?
