What Happens to Anti-racism_FLS_2011

8/6/2019 What Happens to Anti-racism_FLS_2011

1/12

1 3

Feminist Legal Studies

ISSN 0966-3622

Fem Leg Stud

DOI 10.1007/

s10691-011-9174-5

What Happens to Anti-Racism When We

Are Post Race?

Alana Lentin


2/12

1 3

Your article is protected by copyright and

all rights are held exclusively by Springer

Science+Business Media B.V.. This e-offprint

is for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If youwish to self-archive your work, please use the

accepted authors version for posting to your

own website or your institutions repository.

You may further deposit the accepted authors

version on a funders repository at a funders

request, provided it is not made publicly

available until 12 months after publication.


3/12

What Happens to Anti-Racism When We Are Post

Race?

Alana Lentin

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract Despite the resistance from radical antiracist formations, autonomously

organised by racialized minorities and migrants themselves, that can be witnessed in

many spaces, the success with which antiracism has been both appropriated and

relativized by the state as well as hegemonic activist voices poses a significant

threat. The politics of diversity and the consensus around the notion that western

societies are post-race contribute to portraying the critique of racism from people of

colour as inaccurate, alienating and counter-productive to the achievement of socialcohesion. The necessity of dismantling the idea of race as suggested by antiracist

activists and scholars 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 one among many. The consequence of

this in the context of postracialism is for racism itself to be departicularized and

dissociated from its historical roots. Antiracism needs to reclaim the risk, that

Goldberg 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 confounded by the need for certainties such as those provided by the

idea of race. In anti-racism this means.

A. Lentin (&)

Department of Sociology, University of Sussex, Falmer, UK

e-mail: [email protected]

123

Fem Leg Stud

DOI 10.1007/s10691-011-9174-5


4/12

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 position and when you ask what positions do they hold

what you will respond is not the normal political argument: well they believe

in the following things which I think are viable and progressive things forblack 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 of guarantee 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 them

straitjacketed into races, genders, sexualitiesand those who nonetheless use the

certainties that these categorizations provide to resist the discrimination they cause.

Hall invites us to plunge headlong into the politics of the end of the biological

definition of race. Taking his argument seriously, I argue that the problematisation

of race put forward by anti-racist activists and scholars has been hampered by a

post-racial agenda that participates in relativizing the experience of racism,

consequently assisting in perpetuating it.

This appropriation takes on particular significance today when the call for

multiculturalism to be killed, 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 permissive multiculturalism as responsible for thetoleration of illiberal minorities unable or unwilling to integrate into their host

societies and singularly responsible for gender discrimination and homophobic

attitudes is discursively accompanied by a proclamation of anti-racist credentials that

seeks to create distance between what is presented as a rational liberal critique of the

excesses of multiculturalism and the crude intolerance of the far right. The declared

commitment to racial equality acts as a means of shutting down anti-racist critique.

Furthermore, in a post-racial logic according to which racism has been admitted

and thus largely overcome, racismif it existsis presented as the preserve of

fundamentalist minorities against an increasingly cowed, because overly tolerantand insufficiently muscular, liberal (white) majority (Cameron 2011).

Against this context, I critique the way in which the lived experience of racism is

often stifled today within the context of what Davina Cooper calls the politics of

diversity (Cooper 2004) and discuss the effects this has upon doing anti-racism.

The assimilation of certain critiques of essentialisation, of the type that 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 thus ownable. The space of diversity incorporates notonly a diversity of identities, but a diversity of equally pitted racisms that are made

to jostle with each other for recognition. The resultant silencing of racialised

experience is most pernicious in that it often comes from self-declared anti-racists

and thus ostensible allies.

A. Lentin

123


5/12

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 hampered the 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 the label

anti-racist has in fact been applied to two different practices usefully conceptu-

alized by David Theo 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 of the regressiveness of the idea of race, in particular its claim toscientific status. Despite the political significance of the rejection of racial science,

taking this position did not imply either understanding or being able to articulate the

extent to which race thinking had come to undergird the political culture 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 inflict itself on the body politic. Here the

reference point was mainly Nazism and the Jews; colonialism and slavery 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 is to take a stand [] against a concept, a name, a category,

categorizing [which] does not itself involve standing (up) against (a set of)

conditions of being or living Anti-racism in contrast does mean standing up to

those conditions. In extreme circumstances, it is the risk of death in the name 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 ever commanding that sort of risk (Goldberg 2008, 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 racialised inequalities. It is also a useful means of

conceptualising anti-racism, as a practice of diverse social movements and

institutional bodies, which appear to be at political odds despite sharing an official

commitment to challenging racism. However, the nuances of the distinction

Goldberg proposes can be lost in the blanket label anti-racism under which these

diverse instances are grouped (none of these call themselves an anti-racialist

organisation). The proliferation of initiatives that should properly be named anti-

racialist and the comparative paucity of anti-racists worthy of the name in

Goldbergs terms, appears at least in part to explain the internally conflicted history

of anti-racist practice. While progress on racial discrimination has been made to be

What Happens to Anti-Racism When We Are Post Race?

123


6/12

sure, the stickiness of racism can at least partly be explained by the success of anti-

racialism in curtailing serious and profound discussion 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 atmoments of surge in the autonomous anti-racist movement when, following the

successful mobilisation of people of colour against racism on their own terms, a

co-optation, whitewashing, or indeed a total clampdown follows. At moments like

these what we are witnessing is effectively a swallowing up of anti-racism by anti-

racialism. These moments have included the launch of SOS Racisme in France,

heavily backed by the ruling Socialist Party, on the back of the Marche pour

le galite , organised in 1983 by young people of North African origin from

Marseille, that instigated the autonomous Mouvement beur. As documented by

Serge Malik in The Secret History of SOS Racisme (Malik 1990), as well as byactivists 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 patronising slogan: 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 Court would

demonstrate his humanism and the extent to which he was in touch with ordinary

people and social problems (Den13 2005). SOS Racisme has consistently resistedwhat it calls communitarian activism, or the self-organised anti-racism of people

of colour, preferring what it terms a majoritarian approach that would not, as its

spokespersons see it, alienate the bulk of its potential supporters. As a consequence,

the organisation rejects the foregrounding of race as a tool for 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

organisation aims to contribute to creating a nation loyal to its republican

traditions, refusing communitarianism and respecting all those who live and make

our country live. French or foreigner, black, white or Beur, the value of a woman or

a man is not judged by their appearance but by their qualities ( SOS Racisme 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 (Gilroy 1987) examined the

emergence of the municipal anti-racism of the Greater London Council. He showed

how it participated in portraying racism as an exogenous force thus circumventing

the centrality of race to British history and contemporary public culture. By creating

a body of race relations professionals in the 1980s, institutionally endorsed anti-

racism in the UK contributed to dismantling the autonomous anti-racisms that had

developed in the 1960s and 1970s from the shared experience of black immigration.

In the US and Latin American contexts, George Yudice documents the incorporation

of potentially liberatory identity politics into a range of governmental (in the

Foucauldian sense) mechanisms (Yudice 2003, 48); he describes the extension of

Foucauldian biopower into what he calls cultural powerthe entry of the state into

A. Lentin

123


7/12

the realm of culture and identity and its harnessing to state institutions and media

and market projections that shape, respectively, clients and consumers. This process

causes a radical identity politics, developing out of the civil rights movement in the

United States, with a potential not only to profoundly question racialised, gendered

and heterosexist norms but also to create solidarities between groups involved inthose intersected struggles, to descend into competitiveness 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 builtthrough shared experiences of struggle. Anti-racialism can usefully be read as a

precursor to the post-racial agenda which can be said to characterise mainstream

approaches to race and racism in western societies with significant levels of

immigration.1 The relativisation of the experience of racism which characterises

post-racialism is accompanied by a focus on diversity that blurs the specificity of a

variety of marginalised experiences 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 productive histories of antagonism

and struggle that were central to shaping the critical space of diversity politics(Ahmed 2008, 96).

Diversity politics offered a space, albeit problematic, to negotiate potential

alliances between individuals and groups for whom a commitment to anti-racism was

a red thread that ran through their particular struggle either or/and as racialised,

queer, poor It was cognisant of the multiplicity inherent, not only in class-based,

racialised and gendered societal arrangements, but also in individual lives. The

politics of diversity, especially in todays era of post-racial anti-multiculturalism

(Lentin and Titley 2011) reduces these complex and possibly conflictual, yet fertile,

multiplicities to the jostling for space of a multitude of equal but different identities

that all can share in and whose engagement with poses no risk. It is as a consequence

of this history that anti-racism has become a label which, when worn, becomes a

shield, protecting the wearer from being questioned as to the true nature of her

political intentions. What we have witnessed is the hollowing out of the radical

spaces 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 inclusion and shared struggle, which lingers while being stripped

of content and meaningful action. So, the label anti-racist continues to be used by

and applied to the actors of the politics of diversity, be they state institutions,

1 This is not to say that the politics of diversity emerged exclusively from an anti-racialist logic. It is

important to note that the mainstreaming of critical race and gender critiques, intersectionality in

particular (Crenshaw 1989), has also played a significant role in facilitating the generalised focus on

diversity consequently, although not purposefully, often removing attention from the specificity of

individual discriminations.


123


8/12

nongovernmental organisations, or individuals. However, the qualitative distinction

between anti-racialism and anti-racism is lost, as is the standing (up) against (a set

of) conditions of being or living in a way which is potentially personally and

profoundly unsettling which, according to Goldberg, is integral to anti-racism.

The process whereby the truth of the experience of racism is increasinglyquestioned and placed in competition with the experiences of other marginalized

subjects can be understood only by contextualizing it within the general slide into

post-racialism. In other words, the silencing of racialised experience from within

what I am calling the space of diversity is part of, but not reducible to, the more

widely accepted consensus that western postcolonial and/or immigration societies

are beyond race, and hence over racism. While the post-racial stance is far from

unitary and has different manifestations in different national contexts, ranging from

the crude racism of the US American shock jocks to the integrationism of

European liberals (Kundnani 2007), one element of it defines the process I amdescribing. The relativizing, questioning or outright rejection of racialised experi-

ence 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

deconstructions has been subverted. Anti-racialists took from this, not that race

requires questioning because of racism, 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 that fullequality has not yet been secured. This is evident in the recalibration of problems

once overtly specified as racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ablism, etc.,

under the generalised and multivalent label of discrimination. Institutional

arrangements such as the so-called mainstreaming of diversity concerns in EU

campaigns such as For Diversity, Against Discrimination and the dissolution 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 essence problematic differences as diversity, the post-racial agenda lays

the ground for a universalisation of experience which belies the specificity of

discrimination. By equating the experience of being black with that of being

disabled or of being queer, there is not only a denial of the possibility of being all

three, but there is an even more alarming erasure of the histories of how these

categories are constructed and made socially and politically problematic.

For anti-racism, this is significant because the collapsing of particularisms has

resulted not in a greater affinity between marginalised minorities and more fruitful

collective action to redress shared experiences of inequality. On the contrary, it has

enabled a relativization of experience that not only pits 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-funded European

Youth Campaign for diversity, human rights and participation, with the slogan All

Different-All Equal, styled itself as the updated version of a 1995-6 Council of

Europe campaign against racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and intolerance. The

change in the formulation from against to for is instructive because in so doing

A. Lentin

123


9/12

and in the stated aims of the organisers of the more recent campaign, (Community

Builders 2006) a positive message is more inclusive and less alienating 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 thecase for the 1995-6 campaign, legitimises anyone who supports the nebulous aims of

diversity to speak on its behalf without having to 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 to participate

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 the question raised of who should be licensed to speak

descriptively of what stands in the way of achieving these laudable aims. Theassumption that we are all beneficiaries and subjects of diversity in its myriad forms

is taken as sufficient for allowing a privileged group of youth politicians (the

European 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 the relativization of experience. In that hegemonic voices within the space

of diversity gain legitimacy to speak on behalf of silenced others, they are also able

to reinterpret their experience, evaluating it with 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, following Jasbir Puar(Puar 2007), have termed homonationalism, defines a particular interpretation of the

legitimacy of some racialised minoritiesMuslims in particular todayto speak

out against racism and discrimination. Within this context, not only is the

deconstruction of race used to discount the legitimacy of speaking in terms of

racism as a particular and qualitatively different form of discrimination, but

Muslims (and other racialised groups) are portrayed as the new racists according

to a logic which equates racism with all other forms of discrimination and

departicularises its experience. In other words, racism comes to mean both nothing

and everything. On the one hand it loses what is considered by post-racialists to be

its special status, one which according to this vision leads to the neglect of all

other forms of exclusion; on the other, it becomes generalized to the extent that all

marginalisations become racisms. Moreover, the real racism is now said to be that

of a hegemonic minority among the subjects of diversitynamely the racialised

who are portrayed as 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 and Muslims, according to which

the racialised are always involved in the domination, not only of all women and

queers, but of a political agenda which would see the further neglect of the latters

concerns especially when they are, as several critics have illustrated, brown queers

and brown women.

According to this vision, anti-racists need to admit the existence of reverse

racism and universalize the struggle against racism in a way that takes this into

account. This post-racial insistence on the perennial universality of racism chimes


123


10/12

perfectly with a particular variant of human rights activism that puts primacy on

freedom of speech as a means of enabling racisms universality to be made clear. 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 (Goodhart 2004) put it, on too much diversitythe constructionof an opposition between human rights and multiculturalism pits sophisticated

universalism against primitive particularism. Multiculturalism, according to this

widespread and hegemonic interpretation, is a segregationist, anti-cosmopolitan

force imposed on an overly tolerant, guilt-ridden liberal society by illiberal

minorities (Bruckner 2010). A misplaced respect for the cultural demands of self-

segregating, minority ethnic groups is said, according to this view, to trump the

vision of a cohesive, integrated society based on the respect for equal rights

(fictitious as that may be in the context of neoliberal capitalism). Racism, it is

argued, has been used as a fig leaf to conceal the danger posed to womens and gayrights by facilitating the inherent illiberalism of unassimilable minorities, partic-

ularly in the current context, Muslims.

This type of argument allows for a burgeoning post-racialism to become further

entrenched and enter 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 opposition between liberal and

illiberal which has come to define the multicultural problem to argue that they

rather than the racialisedare both the true anti-racists, and more radically, the real

victims of racism. Only a human rights-based universalism, it is argued, can be trulyanti-racist because the belief in the generalizability of racism (everyone is capable

of racism) necessitates a universalist response. The apparent resistance to this

coming from the racialised is taken as proof of their lack of solidarity with the wider

cause of human rights, and is extrapolated, for example in the discourse of the gay

rights activist Peter Tatchell, to propose that an anti-racism that is critical of

universalist human 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 as opponents of the dangerous

illiberalism of minorities to speak out against the latters racism. As Tatchell

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 are inferior. And we must not be afraid to

say so. We have to have the confidence to say that some things are better than

others. In particular we have to sayand we believe itthat some values and

ideas are better than others We should never let the good principle of

respect for diversity in other cultures stray into a situation where we end up

colluding with human rights abuses.

The fact that this civilizational language ultimately rejects the argument for the

internal hybridity within 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 all racisms. Because the remit

A. Lentin

123


11/12

of this anti-racism is also to save the internal victims of illiberalism from the

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 that multiculturalism, if not yet dead, should be killed off, a view endorsedby Europes leaders and compounded in recent high profile speeches by both

Britains David Cameron and German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. Just as Tatchell

is careful to claim that the principle of respect for diversity in other cultures is

good, Cameron, in his February 2011 speech on the failure of multiculturalism,

paid lip service to the importance of racial equality while stating that we need a lot

less 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-racist critique of persistent racism; if racism

continues it cannot be said to be the fault of those who have openly declaredthemselves against it or who have even taken active steps to resist it, for example by

joining anti-racist causes or allocating budgets to anti-racist initiatives. Indeed,

according to this post-racial logic, those responsible for any residual racism are in

fact minorities who resist integration and who, as David Cameron later claimed,

have created discomfort and disjointedness in society (Porter 2011).

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

both the state and hegemonic activist voices poses a significant threat. This is true

despite the resistance from radical anti-racist formations, autonomously organised

by racialised minorities and migrants themselves, such as the Committee ofImmigrants in Italy or the French Parti des indigenes de la Re publique. The comfort

derived from post-racialism combined with the apparent inclusiveness afforded by

diversity 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 scholars has been subverted in the deconstruction of the experience of

racism by an anti-racialist agenda intent on relativizing the struggle against racism

as one among many. The consequence of this in the context of post-racialism is for

racism itself to be departicularised and dissociated from its historical roots. The

effects this has upon activism by the racialised against the persistence of the racial

state (Goldberg 2002) is to increase the challenge for an intersectional politics

already hampered by the pitting of diversities against each other.

References

Ahmed, Sara. 2008. Liberal multiculturalism is the hegemony: Its an Empirical FactA response to

Slavoj Zizek. 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, New Jersey:

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 20

May 2011.


123
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2011/02/pms-speech-at-munich-security-conference-60293http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2011/02/pms-speech-at-munich-security-conference-60293http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2011/02/pms-speech-at-munich-security-conference-60293http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2011/02/pms-speech-at-munich-security-conference-60293


12/12

Community Builders. 2006. All differentAll equal european youth campaigns for diversity, human

rights and participation. http://www.communitybuilders.ro/all-different-all-equal-european-youth-

campaigns-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, Kimberle. 1989. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique ofantidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and anti-racist politics. University of Chicago Legal

Forum, 1989, 139167.

Den13. 2005. Histoire secrete 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 on

democracy. 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 de fendre la societe : Cours au College 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 University

Press.

Haritaworn, Jin, Esra Erdem, and Tamsila Tauqir. 2008. Gay imperialism: The role of gender and

sexuality 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 Secrete 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 and London:Duke University Press.

A. Lentin

123
http://www.communitybuilders.ro/all-different-all-equal-european-youth-campaigns-for-diversity-human-rights-and-participation/http://www.communitybuilders.ro/all-different-all-equal-european-youth-campaigns-for-diversity-human-rights-and-participation/http://www.oulala.net/Portail/spip.php?article1697http://www.mediaed.org/assets/products/407/transcript_407.pdfhttp://www.mediaed.org/assets/products/407/transcript_407.pdfhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJQK5el5J48&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJQK5el5J48&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJQK5el5J48&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJQK5el5J48&feature=relatedhttp://www.mediaed.org/assets/products/407/transcript_407.pdfhttp://www.mediaed.org/assets/products/407/transcript_407.pdfhttp://www.oulala.net/Portail/spip.php?article1697http://www.communitybuilders.ro/all-different-all-equal-european-youth-campaigns-for-diversity-human-rights-and-participation/http://www.communitybuilders.ro/all-different-all-equal-european-youth-campaigns-for-diversity-human-rights-and-participation/

Documents

What Happens to Anti-racism_FLS_2011