Explaining Racism: Anti-Racist Discourse between Culture and the State — Study Notes

Overview: anti-racism, culture, and the state

• The chapter investigates how anti-racism has been constructed in Europe, focusing on competing explanations of racism and the political origins of anti-racist discourse.
• Central tension: anti-racism seeks to critique racism but is shaped by the political culture of the state and by culturalist ideas about race, culture, and identity.
• Two broad explanatory lines in anti-racist thought emerge: culturalist (culture/ethnicity as key to understanding and combating racism) vs. statist (the state, power, and imperial/colonial histories as the core frame).
• The chapter traces how UNESCO’s cultural-relativist, UNESCO-based anti-racism shaped much of postwar European thinking, and how this tradition interacted with later, state-centered anti-colonial critique and self-organised anti-racism in Europe.
• The discussion culminates in the argument that culturalism has been institutionalized through state policies and funders, yet self-organised anti-racism remains important for addressing material inequality and political power relations.

Key concepts and terms

• Anti-racism: efforts to oppose racism; not a single, uniform tradition but a continuum of interpretations tied to national public political cultures.
• Culture vs race: UNESCO promoted replacing race with culture/ethnicity as explanatory and corrective categories; this shift aimed to de-naturalize hierarchy but risked decoupling racism from state power.
• Cultural relativism: the idea that cultures should be understood on their own terms; used to argue for education about cultures to reduce prejudice, while potentially de-emphasizing structural power and colonial histories.
• State-centred (statist) anti-racism: emphasizes the role of the state, imperialism, neocolonialism, and class relations in producing racism; foregrounds political economy and power, not just prejudice.
• Neoracism: a late-20th-century form of racism that uses cultural difference and sociobiology-inspired arguments to justify exclusion without explicit biological hierarchy.
• Differentialist racism: a form of racism that focuses on cultural difference rather than biology, yet still contributes to exclusion and hierarchy.
• Self-organisation: Black and minority groups organizing themselves (instead of relying on white-led or state structures) to pursue anti-racist goals.
• Anti-colonialism and Pan-Africanism: historical currents from the Global South influencing European anti-racism, linking domestic struggle to anti-imperialist politics.
• “Community” and multicultural policy: European funding and policy tends to frame immigrant and minority groups as culturally homogeneous blocs, shaping activism and politics.

The UNESCO tradition: cultural relativism and anti-racism

• Postwar Europe faced the Shoah and the horrors of race-based violence; anti-racism sought an alternative political discourse to racism.
• Early anti-racist currents in Europe included anti-slavery and self-help movements; UNESCO and anthropologists worked to debunk the biological basis of race by promoting cultural difference as harmless and non-hierarchical.
• UNESCO’s 1950 world panel produced the UNESCO Statement on Race and Racial Prejudice; updated in 1951 and revised in 1968. Core claims include:
  • All humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens.
  • National, cultural, religious, geographical, and linguistic groups were misnamed as races; the term should be replaced with ethnic groups or cultures.
  • The hypothesis that race is everything is false; race has no scientific validity.
• UNESCO’s approach sought to replace racial descriptions with cultural diversity as a non-hierarchical basis for understanding human difference (the “culture” solution).
• Limitations of UNESCO:
  • The declaration was perceived as apolitical; it did not foreground the political power relations that produced racism (e.g., colonialism, imperialism, neocolonial dependencies).
  • It sometimes dehistoricized the state’s role in creating racialized hierarchies, treating racism as prejudice rather than a product of political economy.
• The UNESCO line is often linked to Claude Lévi-Strauss and cultural relativism, which shaped anti-racist praxis through education about cultures and a celebration of cultural diversity.
• UNESCO also popularized terms like ethnicity and culture, shifting focus from biology to culture as markers of difference.
• The UNESCO tradition remains influential, but critiques argue that it underplays agency, power, and the state’s role in creating racialized hierarchies.

Lévi-Strauss, culture as explanation and solution

• Lévi-Strauss argued for using ethnicity and culture to explain human differences instead of race.
• He promoted education about other cultures as a path to reduce racism, embracing cultural diversity as a positive force.
• He warned about ethnocentrism: seeing other cultures as primitive betrays one’s own barbarism; cultural relativism aims to counter this by recognizing equal cultural value.
• Key tension in his work:
  • Ethnocentrism and the belief in progress can still imply a hierarchy of cultures; cultural relativism alone may not fully resolve racism when cultures remain imagined as separate and unequal.
  • He acknowledged that increasing intercultural contact can threaten diversity, potentially leading to homogenization unless diversity is actively preserved.
• Lévi-Strauss’s later critique of UNESCO (Race and Culture) raised concerns about the practical implications of cultural relativism and intercultural cooperation, warning that cultures may not necessarily align with a shared universal progress and that cultures may seek to stay distinct.
• Gobineau reference: Lévi-Strauss cites Gobineau to illustrate how cultural differences can be framed in terms of preserved cultural distinctiveness, used to argue for a coalition of original cultures rather than global homogenization.

The problem of cultural relativism: culture vs race in practice

• Cultural relativism provided a framework to reconcile progress with diversity, but challenges remained:
  • It risks neutralizing political power relations and state violence by focusing on cultural differences as fixed identities.
  • It can imply that cultures should remain in their own spheres, which can hinder intercultural cooperation and integration.
• The critique emphasizes that cultural relativism, if unpaired with an analysis of state power and globalization, can enable a passive stance toward inequality and exclusion.
• The UNESCO approach helped develop a solidarity model (education about cultures, cross-cultural dialogue) but sometimes without adequate attention to structural drivers of racism (states, empire, economy).

Culturalism and the neoracism debate

• The 1980s–1990s saw a perceived shift toward culturalist explanations of racism, especially among right-wing and anti-immigration movements.
• Pierre-André Taguieff argued that cultural relativism contributed to neoracism by providing a frame in which cultural differences become the basis for exclusion, sometimes framed as defense of a “way of life.”
• Two strands of anti-racism argued by Taguieff:
  • Cultural relativism as a problematic driver of differentialist racism and neoracism.
  • A liberal universalism that resists essentialist culture-based hierarchies.
• Balibar’s critique of Taguieff: there is no clear distinction between biological racism and culturalist racism; neoracism is built on state, institutional, and class dynamics, not solely on cultural relativism.
• Balibar argues that to understand neoracism, one must connect it to the political processes of the state and capitalism, not just debates about culture.
• The discussion suggests that both anti-racist and racist discourses borrow from the language of culture, ethnicity, and identity; this linguistic shift does not by itself resolve racism or its new forms.

Anti-colonialism, class, and state-centred anti-racism in Europe

• Anti-colonial critique linked racism to capitalism and imperialism, stressing how colonial exploitation echoes in metropolitan labor markets and immigrant experiences.
• Two versions of the ‘race and class’ approach shape European anti-racism:
  • A state-centred anti-racism rooted in labor, class solidarity, and integration within existing political institutions (common in Britain and France).
  • A self-organised anti-racism influenced by anti-colonialism and Black Power, emphasizing autonomous groups and critique of the state.
• The anti-colonial legacy provided a framework for connecting domestic struggles against racism with global struggles against empire and capitalism.
• This anti-colonial lens influenced European anti-racist movements, pushing for a solidarity-based approach that saw immigrant workers as part of a broader fight against capitalist exploitation.
• The Pan-African movement and writers like Fanon, Memmi, and Césaire informed European anti-racism by linking colonialism, racism, and capitalism to a broader struggle for emancipation.

France: MRAP, SOS Racisme, Mouvement beur, and the left

• France’s anti-racist landscape intertwined with anti-colonialism, especially around Algeria.
• MRAP (Movement against Racism and for Friendship between People) emerged post-World War II amid Algerian war dynamics and policing of Algerian immigrants.
• The left’s alliance with anti-racism included the CGT union and movement actors, but this alliance was contested within the Left itself (Balibar analyzes the PCF’s ambivalence over colonialism and immigration politics).
• SOS Racisme (1980s) and the Mouvement beur (1980s) represented shifts to more youth- and minority-led anti-racist organizing in France; the latter highlighted a second generation of North Africans wearing anti-racist activism.
• Balibar’s critique of the PCF’s anti-colonialism shows how historical anti-colonial stands can become detached from today’s immigration realities and racism in France, illustrating the tension between ideological legacy and contemporary political needs.
• The beur movement built local community power but often faced criticism for not embedding itself in national anti-racist politics, illustrating a broader tension between local, communal organizing and national policy influence.

Britain: self-organisation, race relations, and immigrant workers

• Britain’s anti-racism history includes early Pan-African currents and a long tradition of race relations research and activism (e.g., Rex; Mullard).
• The Institute of Race Relations (IRR) was commandeered by black staff led by Sivanandan in the 1970s, marking a shift toward self-organised anti-racism and a focus on race/class analysis in Race Today (IRR bulletin).
• Race Today (Race Today Collective) emphasized self-organisation, the links between race and class, and including women in race discourse (Race Today, 1974; 1976 editorials).
• The shift toward self-organisation reflected a move away from white-led, state-supported approaches toward grassroots, racialised community-led activism.
• The Commonwealth and postcolonial migrations (carrying British citizenship or not) shaped different pathways for immigrant workers and their political mobilization.
• The turn to anti-colonial solidarity in Britain linked domestic struggles to Grenada to Africa and the US Civil Rights Movement, broadening the anti-racist agenda beyond local concerns.
• Pan-Africanism in Britain evolved differently from Africa but remained a critical frame for organizing and political thought in the UK.

Self-organisation, beur and the UK-France comparative dynamic

• Self-organisation in Britain and France did not simply mirror the US civil rights model; it adapted to national contexts:
  • In Britain, self-organisation emerged within a strong union and political left framework, blending race with class and labor struggles.
  • In France, self-organisation often surfaced later (e.g., Mouvement beur) and sometimes remained parallel to state-led or civil-society funding structures, facing tension between political activism and community leadership.
• A key dynamic across Europe: state funding and multicultural policy often redirected anti-racist energy toward cultural events and education about diversity rather than structural critique or direct anti-racist organizing.
• This policy dynamic created a challenge: self-organised groups could be co-opted or depoliticised when funding priorities emphasized culture over political change.

The politics of multiculturalism and the policy environment

• Multicultural policy embedded in local governance and EU-level funding often treated immigrant and minority groups as cultural blocs rather than political actors with collective demands.
• Policy examples and consequences:
  • Local governments funded cultural events, “multiethnic” dinners, and cultural centers; such activities could reify internal community homogeneity and dilute political activism.
  • EU and national funding often favored “cultural education” over anti-racist, structural, or policy-focused work.
  • Community liaison structures sometimes placed minority groups in a position of mediating between the state and communities, potentially disempowering grassroots activism.
• The SOS Racisme and ARCI examples illustrate how culturalist frames can be used to valorize immigration as enrichment, while still overlooking issues of discrimination in housing, policing, and employment.
• Critics argue that the emphasis on culture and identity can obscure state racism and structural inequality; a purely cultural approach may foster superficial integration without addressing systemic change.

The state, culture, and the return of culture in anti-racism

• The book argues that a culturalist logic did not merely accompany anti-racism but, in many contexts, became a state-sponsored frame that constrained self-organised movements.
• The “return of culture” refers to the persistence of cultural explanations of racism (ethnicity, culture, consent to assimilation) even as neoracist discourses evolved to emphasize cultural difference and “mismatch” rather than biology.
• The critique emphasizes that while cultural knowledge and intercultural dialogue can reduce prejudice, they must be linked to political critique of state power, immigration regimes, and capitalism.
• The chapter cautions against equating identity politics with anti-racism, arguing that identity-based claims can be co-opted by political formations that do not address structural racism.
• A balanced anti-racism requires recognizing both cultural diversity and the ongoing power relations that generate inequality; culture cannot be used as a stand-alone explanation for racism or as a substitute for political action.

Connections to foundational principles and real-world relevance

• Foundational links:
  • History of anti-racism in Europe and the postwar moral and political synthesis against racial science.
  • The interplay between anthropology, sociology, and political movements in shaping anti-racist discourse.
  • The global anti-colonial and Pan-African traditions informing European anti-racist thought and organizing.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Current debates over immigration, integration, and multiculturalism in Europe echo the UNESCO culture-versus-race framework and the neoracism discourse.
  • The tension between culture-based tolerance and structural critiques remains central to policy debates about citizenship, rights, and social inclusion.
  • Understanding self-organisation and its history helps explain contemporary movements that challenge state-centric approaches to racism and advocate for grassroots, community-led action.

Ethico-political implications and methodological cautions

• Ethical implications:
  • Cultural relativism can protect minority cultures but may mask power asymmetries and the persistence of systemic discrimination.
  • Neoracism can reframe exclusion as a cultural incompatibility, which can justify restrictions on immigration or rights without acknowledging structural causes.
• Philosophical implications:
  • The problem of ethnocentrism persists in debates about progress and cultural difference; intercultural dialogue must avoid simply trading one form of hierarchy for another.
  • The “universal” values of secularism and humanism can be mobilized to oppose racism, but they must be deployed without erasing cultural difference or state power dynamics.
• Practical implications for anti-racist work:
  • Anti-racist activism needs to link cultural education with political critique of state policy, labor capitalism, and colonial legacies.
  • Self-organisation remains vital for empowerment but must be connected to broader political goals and alliances to counter state and corporate power.
  • Policymaking should avoid depoliticizing racism through a purely cultural lens; structural reforms are essential.

Conclusion: The return of culture or how to use culture wisely in anti-racism

• Culture is neither a simple ally nor a straightforward enemy to anti-racism; it is a double-edged instrument:
  • It can promote intercultural understanding and reduce prejudice through education and cultural exchange.
  • It can also reify identities, mask structural oppression, and legitimate exclusion when used as a surrogate for political critique.
• The chapter argues for a nuanced approach that integrates cultural understanding with robust attention to state structures, imperial histories, and global capitalism.
• In short, anti-racism must recognize the significance of culture without allowing it to eclipse the political economy and power relations that generate racism.
• The legacy of UNESCO’s culturalism remains influential, but contemporary anti-racism must push beyond culture-only explanations to confront systemic inequality and the state’s role in policing racialized populations.

Key dates and actors to remember

• UNESCO antiracist work: 1950 (world panel), 1951 (revised statement), 1968 (updated statement).
• Lévi-Strauss: Race and History (1951); Race and Culture (1971); later critiques (1988–1989) on UNESCO’s failures.
• British context: Pan-African Congresses (early 1900s in Britain); Institute of Race Relations (IRR) leadership change (1970s, Sivanandan); Race Today (1970s–1980s).
• French context: MRAP, SOS Racisme; Mouvement Beur; CGT links with Algerian anti-colonial struggle; Charonne events (1962) and Algerian War history.
• Neoracism literature: Barker (1981), Taguieff (1990s), Balibar (1991–1994).
• Policy and funding: European Union multicultural funding (late 1990s); ongoing debates about funding anti-racist vs. multicultural projects.

Connections to previous lectures (where applicable)

• Postwar attempts to reconcile liberal universalism with anti-racist practice.
• The shift from “race as biology” to “culture/identity” in public discourse and policy.
• The continuing relevance of anti-colonial and Pan-African perspectives in European anti-racism.
• The tension between state-centered political strategy and grassroots, self-organised anti-racism.

Important quotations (paraphrased or cited in context)

• “The division of the human species into ‘races’ is partly conventional and partly arbitrary and does not imply any hierarchy whatsoever.” (UNESCO 1968:270)
• “Seeing others as savages unveils the very savagery of our own society.” (Lévi-Strauss, in context of ethnocentrism and cultural relativism)
• “One cannot both rejoice in the other, identify with him and remain different.” (Lévi-Strauss, Race and Culture)
• “The fight against racism is paradoxical because despite its necessity, the fight against all forms of discrimination participates in the same movement that leads humanity towards a global civilisation that destroys those old particularisms.” (Lévi-Strauss, Race and Culture)
• “Genuine fears” and the defense of a ‘way of life’ as foundational to the new racism (Barker 1981).

If you want, I can tailor these notes to a specific exam format (e.g., short-answer study prompts, multiple-choice practice, or a condensed outline) or extract direct quotations for flashcards. Also tell me if you’d like any section expanded with more examples or linked to particular lecture slides.