----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:27
AM
Subject: Hardt - Negri on racism
Hardt and Negri have a section on "Imperial
Racism" in their book, entitled "Empire" (Harvard U P, 2001),
p.190-195.
The authors state: "from our perspective . . .
racism has not receded but actually progressed in the contemporary world, both
in extent and intensity." (p191) They construct two ideal types of racism -
namely, "modern racism", which they distinguish from "the postmodern form of
racism" (p191). Their concept of "modern racism" is associated with the era of
national sovereignty (which is withering away, in their opinion); their
concept of "postmodern racism" is associated with the era of "imperial
sovereignty" ("empire", which is on the rise, in their opinion). The authors
use the terms "postmodern" and "imperial" racism interchangeably.
Hardt and Negri describe the difference between
modern and postmodern (imperial) racism in terms of two aspects - doctrinal
and spatial.
(a) doctrinal
In their view, "modern racism"
(i.e., the one associated with nation-states and colonies) was/is associated
with racist theory based on biology, whereas "postmodern racism" ("imperial
racism") is associated with racist theory based on culture. (p 191 etc) -
"biological differences have been replaced by sociological and cultural
identifiers as the key representation of racial hatred and fear."
(p191)
(b) spatial dimension
Their concept of "modern
racism" has a spatial dimension, as in "colony" and "nation-state". In
contrast, their concept of "imperial racism" is non-spatial. Instead of being
related to "colony" and "nation-state" (territorially defined entities), their
"imperial racism" operates in a world without borders and is based on "degrees
of deviance from whiteness" (p194). They write, "modern racism takes place on
its boundary, in the global antithesis between inside and outside. . .
.Imperial racism . . . rests on the play of differences and the management of
micro-conflictualities within its continually expanding domain." (p195) As
examples for "modern", as opposed to "postmodern"/"imperial", racism they
mention: "Manichaen divisions and rigid exclusionary practices (in South
Africa, in the colonial city, in the southeastern United States, or in
Palestine) as the paradigm of modern racism" (p191).
Hardt-Negri's section on racism is only 5 pages
long and is a theoretical sketch rather than a detailed historical or
sociological analysis.
On the critical side, it appears questionable
whether there is anything "postmodern" about the 'imperial racism' that they
describe. For example, a formulation like "the management of
micro-conflictualities within its continually expanding domain" also describes
former colonial management in Rwanda or British imperial management in the
Indian subcontinent.
Gert