Professional Documents
Culture Documents
4, 2005
ALANA LENTIN
ABSTRACT Lentin sets out to unravel the history of the discourse of culturalism in
the post-Second World War period. Culture is now almost universally used to
categorize distinct human groups and to refer to the differences between them. As
the liberal acceptance of multiculturalism as a recipe for contemporary living
affirms, the use of culture as a viable conceptualization of human difference often
goes unchallenged in present-day scholarship. Lentin focuses on how the concept of
‘culture’ came to replace the language of ‘race’ in the aftermath of the Holocaust.
Looking at the history of the ‘UNESCO tradition’ of anti-racism, she shows how
racial categorizations were replaced by cultural distinctions as a means of explaining
human difference. Whereas ‘race’ was seen as irrevocably invoking the superiority of
some human groups over others, culture was assumed by anti-racist scholars on
both sides of the Atlantic to imply a positive celebration of difference while allowing
for the possibility for progress among groups once considered ‘primitive’. Lentin
argues that such a shift, on which the western discourse of anti-racism is grounded,
by merely replacing ‘race’ with ‘culture’, fails to expunge the ranking of humanity
implied by theories of ‘race’. The essentialization of ‘cultures’ inherent within this
cultural relativism is carried through into multicultural approaches to education,
policymaking and activism that fail to include the dominant group in their
schematization of contemporary social and political relations. Furthermore, the
failure of culturalist approaches to counter racism effectively has been attributed to
the purported identity politics of ‘minority groups’. Contrary to the notion that
culture has come to pervade politics due to a bottom-up call from the marginalized
for greater recognition of their cultural ‘authenticity’, Lentin shows how culturalism
originated within the anti-racist elite and has resulted in the depoliticization of the
anti-racism of racism’s actual targets.
n the West, the first years of the new millennium are being marked by a
I growing public preoccupation with the supposed incompatibility of
diverse groups of people, at both a global and a local level. The ongoing
‘war on terror’, launched by the United States and its allies in response to the
attacks of 11 September 2001, is defined by a discourse that pits ‘civilizations’
against each other in a Manichaean struggle between ‘good’ and ‘evil’,
ISSN 0031-322X print/ISSN 1461-7331 online/05/040379-18 # 2005 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/00313220500347832
380 Patterns of Prejudice
1 See, for instance, David Goodhart, ‘Too diverse?’, Prospect , February 2004.
2 Arun Kundnani, ‘Rally round the flag’, IRR News (online news network), 7 April 2004,
available at www.irr.org.uk/2004/april/ak000006.html (viewed 1 August 2005).
3 Cf. Charles Taylor, Multiculturalism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 2004).
4 Cf. Paul Gilroy, ‘The end of anti-racism’, in James Donald and Ali Rattansi (eds), ‘Race’,
Culture and Difference (London: Sage 1992).
5 Alana Lentin, Racism and Anti-racism in Europe (London and Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto
Press 2004).
ALANA LENTIN 381
between ‘race’ and ‘culture’, and influence the way we look back on the
evolution of multiculturalism.
This mainstream and institutionalized approach to racism in the western
societies of the post-war era is based on a belief that racism, propelled by
aberrant extremists, comes from the outside to infect society. It therefore, to
my mind, fails to place the racism of the postcolonial western world
satisfactorily in the political and historical context of its evolution from the
Enlightenment through slavery, colonialism and the Holocaust. As such,
mainstream approaches often adopt a psycho-social attitude to racism,
seeing it as the problem of pathological or ignorant individuals. Therefore,
they propose individually based solutions, emphasizing the need to over-
come ignorance through education and a greater knowledge of the Other.
Finally, whereas they may admit the wrongdoing of governments, they
avoid connecting racism with the historical development of the modern
European state, thereby seeing racism as an aberration of democracy and the
public political culture of the modern European nation-state.6 Such a view
contrasts strongly with the argument of those such as Hannah Arendt or
Zygmunt Bauman,7 and largely accepted by many theorists of ‘race’ and
racism, that, far from being external to the capitalist liberal-democratic
nation-state, modern racism was a consequence of modernity. In particular,
the political conditions brought about by the institutionalization of nation-
alism in the modern European nation-state, the need for populations of these
territorial units to be defined vis-à-vis external Others, made race-thinking
politically relevant and, indeed, expedient.
Looking critically at the way in which the approach of western govern-
ments to tackling racism has evolved over time can help us to uncover the
foundations of the ‘multicultural regime’. Multiculturalism may be thought
of as being a regime because, in many ways, it has become an ideological
straitjacket and critical distance from it has been all but abolished. As a policy,
multiculturalism would have us see our societies as ‘race-free’ and culturally
rich. However, with the commendable aim of shunning those who condemn
societal diversity, it has become impossible to see clearly the artificiality of the
divide between ‘race’ and ‘culture’ within official discourses that valorizes
culture while*albeit strenuously*demonizing ‘race’. The emphasis placed
/ /
8 David Theo Goldberg, The Racial State (Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell 2002).
9 Ibid.
10 William Macpherson, The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Sir William
Macpherson of Cluny, Cm 4262-I (London: Stationery Office 1999).
ALANA LENTIN 383
outside of the state and that, therefore, immigration policies are not racist
but merely common sense has become ingrained in the contemporary
western consciousness.
In order to provide a solid, historically grounded argument for my claim
that multiculturalism emerges from culturalist responses to racism that
depoliticize anti-racist discourses and obscure the link between ‘race’ and
state, I will, first, offer a brief history of the so-called ‘UNESCO tradition’ at
the core of culturalist anti-racism. I then go on to critique the idea that
became prominent in the 1980s and 1990s, and that largely dominates
thinking on racism in the West today, that a so-called cultural racism has
come to dominate its biological predecessor and, more importantly, that its
appearance is due to the diffusion of anti-racist, anti-colonialist and
‘minoritarian’ discourses in society. In conclusion, I discuss how the
predominance of cultural interpretations of human differences and their
official endorsement suppress state-centred critiques of racism that focus on
‘race’ as, above all else, a political idea that, chameleon-like, adapts itself to a
variety of political circumstances.
11 Martin Barker, ‘Empiricism and racism’, Radical Philosophy, no. 33, Spring 1983, 6/15.
384 Patterns of Prejudice
all men belonged to the same species, Homo Sapiens , that national, cultural,
religious, geographical, and linguistic groups had been falsely termed races; that
it would be better to drop the term and use ‘ethnic groups’ in its place; that the
‘race is everything’ hypothesis was untrue.13
The UNESCO project is mired in two problems, both of which relate to the
argument being made here that culturalist approaches to explaining and
proposing solutions to racism are inadequate because they avoid the
political relationship of ‘reciprocal determination’ between ‘race’ and state.14
The first problem is that UNESCO aimed to tackle racism on its own terms,
namely as a pseudo-science, reasoning that disproving the scientific validity
of ‘race’ would lead to the demise of racism. Second, the project’s authors
(mainly the anthropologists involved) aimed to provide an alternative
explanation of human difference to that of ‘race’ that would serve to rid
the conceptualization of human difference, necessary for making sense of
increasingly diverse populations, of the dangerous reverberations of race-
thinking that were still sounding in the aftermath of the Holocaust.
In order, first, to disprove the validity of the pseudo-scientific concept of
‘race’ it was imperative for the UNESCO panel to diminish the significance
attached to it. This aim nevertheless resulted in a view of racism that denied
its effects on the state and politics, relegating it to the realm of misused
pseudo-science. Point 3(b) of the 1968 version of the UNESCO Statement
reads:
The division of the human species into ‘races’ is partly conventional and partly
arbitrary and does not imply any hierarchy whatsoever. Many anthropologists
stress the importance of human variation, but believe that ‘racial’ divisions have
limited scientific interest and may even carry the risk of inviting abusive
generalisation.15
12 Leo Kuper (ed.), Race, Science and Society (Paris: UNESCO Press and London: George
Allen and Unwin 1975).
13 Ivan Hannaford, Race: The History of an Idea in the West (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press 1996), 386.
14 Etienne Balibar, ‘Racism and nationalism’, in Etienne Balibar and Immanuel
Wallerstein, Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities (London: Verso 1991), 37/67.
15 ‘UNESCO Statement on Race and Racial Prejudice’, Current Anthropology, vol. 9, no. 4,
1968, 270/2 (270).
ALANA LENTIN 385
16 Elazar Barkan, ‘Race’, in Theodore R. Porter and Dorothy Ross (eds), Cambridge
History of Science. Volume 7. The Modern Social Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press 2003).
17 ‘UNESCO Statement on Race and Racial Prejudice’.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid., 270.
386 Patterns of Prejudice
were, many for the first time, coming face to face with Others whom they
often considered racially inferior or, at the very least, dangerously
unfamiliar. The concern at this time with ensuring that racism should never
again ‘raise its ugly head’ in places where the assumed homogeneity of
national identity was being transformed by the arrival of newcomers is
directly associated with the subsequent development of the multiculturalist
ideal as a principle for coping with the diversity of contemporary western
societies.
The main proposal made by UNESCO, and most forcefully by Claude
Lévi-Strauss in his short book Race and History,20 was that human groups
could be divided according to cultures that were relative to each other. The
relativity of culture eradicated the hierarchical implication of ‘superiority’
and ‘inferiority’ built into the idea of ‘race’. Therefore, Lévi-Strauss and
UNESCO insisted on the replacement of ‘race’, as a way of categorizing
human difference, with ‘ethnicity’ or ‘culture’. Racism, too, was therefore
replaced by the term ‘ethnocentrism’ which Lévi-Strauss thought more
adequately described the intolerance between different cultural or ethnic
groups; this was considered to be almost inherent in groups and, therefore,
more benign.
The idea that each culture contributed ‘in its own way’ to humanity as a
whole countered the widely accepted belief that a hierarchy of ‘race’ divided
Europeans from non-Europeans. Lévi-Strauss celebrated the diversity of
humanity, demonstrated by what he called the ‘distinctive contributions’ of
each cultural group.21 He claimed that the different levels of progress of such
groups could not be attributed to any innate differences. Rather, progress
comes about as a result of interaction between groups. The historical chance
that led to the onset of modernity taking place in the West meant that the
other cultures that rubbed shoulders with the Occident experienced more
rapid progress. Those that remained isolated did not. In the culturally
relativist framework adopted by Lévi-Strauss, which so greatly influenced
the UNESCO approach and which formed the basis of the multiculturalist
approach to the ongoing discrimination of non-Europeans in western
societies, the differences between human groups were seen as fortuitous
and almost arbitrary.
By so forcefully making this point, Lévi-Strauss rightly critiques a
Eurocentric notion of progress, which he sees as emerging from the
evolutionist idea that all cultures are merely stages towards a single model
of humanity epitomized by the West. Rejecting the idea of ‘primitive’ and
‘civilized’ cultures and the ideal of assimilation, Lévi-Strauss proposed that
the only means to curb ethnocentrism was through the greater exchange
of knowledge between different cultures. This interculturalist objective
underpins the anti-racism that dominates the policy of international
institutions, such as the United Nations and the Council of Europe, to this
day.
There is a twist, however, to Lévi-Strauss’s celebration of cultural diversity
and his advocacy of greater intercultural knowledge. The anthropologist
claimed that the ideal of a ‘world civilization’, based on what he described as
a fact of cultural diversity, would only be worth pursuing if each culture
were to retain its originality. The more different the cultures involved
were from each other, the more fruitful the intercultural communication.
However, the only way to ensure diversity was actually to enforce the
stratification of human groups according to colonialism’s class hierarchies.
As multicultural society became a reality, Lévi-Strauss feared that cultural
diversity would become a thing of the past. This extreme approach to the
idea of cultural diversity, as something static within which cultural groups
would ideally remain hermetically sealed despite the fact that they would
increase their knowledge of each other, reveals the problems associated with
anthropology’s involvement in the search for solutions to the ongoing
problem of racism. While certainly no longer universally the case, the legacy
of the anthropologists’ role in colonialist regimes and their contribution to an
exoticizing and reifying view of non-European cultures cannot be comple-
tely overlooked.
The UNESCO tradition that developed out of the contributions of thinkers
such as Lévi-Strauss overlooked the complexities of such arguments and,
indeed, later elaborations of them, such as Lévi-Strauss’s own re-evaluation
of Race and History in his essay entitled ‘Race et Culture’.22 The approach it
outlined was based on three fundamental principles that formed the basis of
the proposed solution to the persistent problem of what now had become
known as ‘ethnocentrism’.
There are three main problems arising from this package of solutions
proposed by UNESCO that have a direct bearing on the way in which
multicultural approaches to racism have affected the politics of anti-racism
specifically and the lived experience of many racialized people in
western societies more generally. First, by proposing that racism is a
23 Cf. Floya Anthias and Nira Yuval-Davis, Racialised Boundaries: Race, Nation, Gender,
Colour and Class and the Anti-racist Struggle (London and New York: Routledge 1992);
Gilroy, ‘The end of anti-racism’.
24 Pierre-André Taguieff, La Force du prejugé: Essai sur le racisme et ses doubles (Paris: La
Découverte 1989); Pierre-André Taguieff (ed.), Face au racisme , 2 vols (Paris: La
Découverte 1991); Verena Stolcke, ‘Talking culture: new boundaries, new rhetorics of
exclusion in Europe’, Current Anthropology, vol. 36, no. 1, 1995, 1/24.
390 Patterns of Prejudice
25 Martin Barker, The New Racism: Conservatives and the Ideology of the Tribe (London:
Junction Books 1981), 23/4.
26 Taguieff, La Force du prejugé ; Taguieff (ed.), Face au racisme, vol. 1: Les moyens d’agir and
vol. 2: Analyses, hypothèses, perspectives; Pierre-André Taguieff, Les Fins de l’antiracisme
(Paris: Michalon 1995).
ALANA LENTIN 391
From the moment that we would rely on a communitarian model, we would lose
all our power and all our force because we wouldn’t be speaking to everyone’s
hearts. We would not be speaking to 60 million people, we’d be speaking to the
victims concerned. And the victims concerned are not the majority of the activist
force.28
29 Taylor, Multiculturalism .
30 Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (New York: Grove Press 1963); Frantz Fanon,
Black Skins, White Masks (London: Pluto Press 1967).
31 Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth , 108.
ALANA LENTIN 393
up more with a concern for making the Black visible as such, independent of
the white gaze. However, it is clear that, for Fanon, visibility is of little use
without self-determination, not in the individualist sense applied to it by
Taylor but as a process of freeing a people from colonial rule. As David Theo
Goldberg notes, ‘being recognised, whether as self-conscious or as Other,
and thus being visible, requires that one be outside the Other’s imposition,
free of the Other’s complete determination’.33 Therefore, the recourse to
authentic negritude can be a first step towards humanizing the colonized by
making them visible. Its necessity, however, can begin to be reconsidered
once self-determination is established in order to create a new politics that,
as Barnor Hesse suggests,34 particularizes Eurocentric universalism by
constructing itself in opposition to it.
The history of anti-racism in Europe reveals that the political project of those
facing racism that attempted to ground itself in a Fanonian commitment to
lived experience as a key to interpreting racial domination has always faced
suppression. This has come both from the right and from those generally on
the left who have looked for anti-racist responses in western public political
culture and denounced the self-organized anti-racism of the racialized as
‘communitarian’, ‘particularist’ or ‘culturalized’. I have attempted to show
that a culturalized view both of the interpretation of racism and the solutions
proposed to it was a top-down project that was then misinterpreted as
emerging out of identity politics as a search for authenticity. This reading
ignores the fact that, with the diffusion of multicultural policymaking,
European levels, virtually the only anti-racist projects that receive funding
are those that mobilize culture under one form or another. Mainstream anti-
racist organizations propose that culture is the best way to break down
barriers and increase tolerance. They thus organize concerts of so-called
‘ethnic music’, food festivals and even intercultural football matches. As my
research revealed, in Italy, for example, groups such as the Roma or
Senegalese communities are invited to share their food and music with
local Italians as a way of bringing ‘cultures’ together, despite the fact that
some of them have lived in Italian society for up to two decades. As one of
my British interviewees from the Campaign against Racism and Fascism
pointed out in a comment made about the problem of receiving financial
support for anti-racist activities:
I don’t think we got any money from the European Union at all . . . what was
funded was not anti-racist work. It was cultural work, multicultural work. The
best way to get funding was multicultural work, not stuff that was going to be
critical of state institutions.35
chosen by those they aim to describe. This may pave the way towards
questioning the way in which notions of identity and belonging are
conceived, by whom they are developed and for what purpose: not only
in theory but in political practice.