New Racism
A lot has been talked about racist issues recently, whether it be new racism, reverse racism, or more broadly whether it be the darkness of a person’s skin who identifies as an Aborigine, or whether it be the unacceptable customs introduced in our country by the migrant population (boat people, for example), or those wanting to enter our country.
Racism is a subject I claim to know a bit about so I thought I’d provide a bit of a background to all the recent media talk about other peoples. People were once racist against Aborigines because they were black. Now that they are no longer as black as they once were, people find other reasons to be racist against them. This is new racism. And this is what I’ll be talking about.
New racism uses bad science as a source of new arguments for racism. Its discernible features are the replacement of biological models and racial hierarchies with an emphasis on the incommutability of cultural alienness. However, I believe that new racism is merely old racism re-labelled and that both advocate the separation of social groups in the interests of social harmony.
With the hegemony of Britain, in particular, threatened by unassimilable migrants, the discourse of new racism has been articulated within political arguments and fueled and legitimised immigration control. This was not built from a political or economic base, but out of instinctive human nature to defend a way of life against outsiders. The political disquisition that advocated that the barriers of cultural difference were insurmountable and the ensuing public suspicions became a central weapon conceptual to the theory of new racism.
The new racism yielded its influence in capitalist societies in the wake of labour migrations and rising unemployment. In the mid 1980s, fanned by the Blainey attacks on Asian migration, the discourse of new racism had entered the Australian rhetoric. The Australian argument rekindles – perhaps even echoes – the British argument in pervading that social cohesiveness within the community would be jeopardised by the size and composition of the migrant population.
In recent decades, many influential writers and politicians have used arguments about cultural difference and a natural preference for one’s own kind in debates about immigration, national identity and multiculturalism. Such arguments explicitly state that they do not assume any biological superiority, and therefore deny being at all racist. Rather they are presented as defensive proposals designed to preserve our way of life form external threat or internal subversion. Yet, some argue these are a new racism.
The emergence of this new form of racial discourse raises important questions about the nature of racism, about constructions of otherness and difference, and the variegated tenets of racism. Termed the new racism by following a study of British political rhetoric – a rhetoric characterised by a denial of racism (or indeed, any reference to it) – the new racism’s culture rather than physical differences was an attempt to deny the discredited overt (old) racism of biological inferiority.
There has been a shift in political discourse from the scientific racism of the past whereby groups were perceived to possess distinctive characteristics that determined their capacities and behaviour: traits once graded as superior or inferior. However, the defining features of new racism are the replacement of biological models and racial hierarchies with an emphasis on ethnically based nationalism. Rather than declaring one’s own culture or country superior to others, there are references to natural or inevitable separation and suspicion. Immigrants – especially non-white immigrants – are said not to be racially inferior, but rather their cultures and values were threats to the preservation of a homogenous society. It was a racism whose dominant theme was not biological heredity but the insurmountability of cultural differences. This new racism, the propagator of cultural alienness may best be summarised as a cluster of beliefs which holds that it is natural for people who share a way of life, a culture, to bond together in a group and to be antagonistic towards outsiders who are different and who seem to threaten their identity as a group. In this, the proponents of the new racism claim that they are not being racist or prejudiced, nor are they making any value judgements about the others, but simply recognising that they are different. Whether people’s fears about the threat from outside are justified does not matter. What matters is what people feel.
This interpretation has gained wide media. It introduced a constitutional theory of human nature and instinct, and most important among such instincts is the supposed desire of human beings for the company of their own kind. With Britain, in particular, being peacefully ‘invaded’ by unassimilable population, it was a theory that was articulated within political arguments and fuelled and legitimised strict immigration controls. The new racism avoided any statement of racial inequality, alleging that recognition of racial differences did not postulate the superiority of one group over another. The whole question of race is not a matter of being superior or inferior, but of being different.
One similarity of the seemingly disparate contentions of old and new racism is that their basic belief systems are upheld by appeals to science. The applications of Social Darwinism – supporting the ideal of white dominance and the biological inferiority of the dominated – can be compared to their more modern counter-parts where sociobiology (the study of human social behaviour in biological terms) is frequently resorted in order to provide an intellectual justification for the new racism. Pivotal to this process is the way racism becomes intertwined with issues of nationalism – and perhaps in the guise of xenophobia – in defining the parameters of the (homogenous) nation-state.
This should be viewed as a critical point, for it is this approach which has to be termed the ‘new racism’ to distinguish it from the more traditional kind. Such a distinction is not seen as a manifestation of racialist attitudes, but as a natural response to the presence of people of a different cultural and racial background. We may all share a common human nature, but part of that very shared nature is the natural tendency to form bounded social units and to differentiate ourselves from outsiders. This, then, is the characteristic of the new racism. It is a theory called biological, or better still, pseudo-biological culturalism. Nations on this view are not built out of politics and economics, but out of human nature. It is in our biology, our instincts, to defend our way of life, traditions and customs against outsiders – not because they are inferior, but because they are part of different cultures.
Although the new racism produced a ‘breathtaking’ analysis of human nature, it still had the task of proving that non-white people, in effect, did not share in a way of life with white people and that they were different. A significant point on the theorising of the (‘culturally powerful British’) nation is that it not only emphasises and affirms the idea that this is the most important natural expression of the bonding of similar people, but that it bounds other people, those who are different as outside of the nation. Further, in the course of such discernment of differences, the new racism frequently implies, although rarely makes explicit, that white society and culture are not just different from others, but superior to them.
The new racism took root in political Britain and Toryism kept in touch with its theory-building tendencies. In the late 1960s and the 1970s Enoch Powell was a prominent critic of coloured immigration – and imported cultures – and highlighted the differences between us and them, assuming that the barriers between ‘racial groups’ could never be overcome. Other politicians also entered into the disquisition.
Churchill had issued earlier warnings about a bitterness that exists among ordinary people who one day were living in Lancashire, and woke up the next day in New Delhi, Calcuttta or Kingston, Jamaica. Such sentiments aroused genuine fears against immigrants and were a central weapon conceptual to the theory of new racism. These fears were amplified within media and political discourse. In January 1978 Prime Minister Thatcher publicly shared these fears about the British way of life being swamped by black immigrants:
If we went on as we are, then by the end of the century there would be 4 million people from the New Commonwealth or Pakistan here. Now that is an awful lot and I think it means that people are really rather afraid that this country might be swamped by people with a different culture. And, you know, the British character has done so much for democracy, for law, and done so much throughout the world, that if there is a fear it might be swamped, people are going to react and be rather hostile to those coming in.
The new racism rose to prominence in capitalist societies in the wake of large scale labour migrations and of the crisis in international capitalism that generated massive economic restructuring and rising unemployment. More notably were Britain and then the USA and Canada. By the mid 1980s, signalled by the so-called Blainey debate in 1984 and incorporating attacks on Asian migration, this new racism had clawed its way to Australia. These attacks were also coded in terms of our way of life, citing community attitudes in a way that constructed a narrow and exclusive community. While the arguments similarly purported to be about cultural difference, the deterministic association of culture with race or country of origin reflected a tapping into the old racism. The claim that government policy on immigration and multiculturalism was at odds with public opinion, and therefore invalid, was a central premise in the Blainey argument. Social cohesiveness, employment and harmony within the Australian community, it was passionately argued, would be jeopardised by the size and composition of the migrant intake. This sounded all too familiar to the British argument, and indeed, echoed many of the sentiments expressed earlier by Enoch Powell and others. Blainey had asked:
How can anyone not be upset at the falling standards, the deterioration of our way of life and a feeling of being a stranger in one’s own town?
Although the ideologies of old and new racism were built on distinct, separate arguments, it can be argued that there are rather significant degrees of similarity between them. New racism is merely old racism re-labelled, with some commentators stressing that both advocate the separation of social groups in the interests of social harmony. Their interpretation provides an emphasis of what the new discourse means in an understanding of racism. They contend that the threads that bind the racisms together are that firstly, many of their techniques of persuasion, including their appeals to scientific credibility, are alike. Secondly, they have played similar roles in the struggle for power in society. The final and most important resemblance is that they both foster the idea that it is natural to resent aliens, leading to polarisation within the community. It is this which makes new racism equally suited to being considered as racism. As the traditional form lost its power in contemporary society racism has developed a new and more acceptable face.
Although, I repeat, the ideologies of old and new racism were built on distinct, separate arguments, there are identifiable similarities between them. New racism, per se, is merely old racism re-labelled, and both ideologies advocate the separation of social groups in the interests of social harmony.
One only need look at the racial divisions being promoted in this country by the likes of Abbott and Bolt, for example, to confirm this. I dread to think where it will lead us.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
20 comments
Login here Register here-
mindmadeup -
Miglo -
Peter F. -
1awansbeck -
Salticid -
Michael Taylor -
Peter F. -
CS the Censored -
earleyeditorial -
johnlord2013 -
VoterBentleigh -
John -
dirkrossey -
Ryan. -
Alison White -
ryan -
ryan -
John -
Bill Lord -
Michael Taylor
Return to home pageReblogged this on you said it….
Thank you, mindmadeup.
Racial differences exist and are both interesting and something that should be regarded as a valuable source of hybrid strength (or vigour) and as a form of genetic diversity that might safeguard our species (or keep our kind of animal around for bit longer than we would be without it).
What ought to be a much more important aspect of how we are, is how we get to believe and behave the ways we do!
In this sense I am an aggressive ‘culturist’; One who is solidly supported in being so by any thoroughly science-aligned (mainly an evolutionary psycho[physio]logy type) full-spectrum definition of our “primal needs” and who is determined to be morally guided by a simple and pragmatic assessment of people’s degree of “Absolute Life Quality” (pragmatically defined as proportional to our individual “primal need fulfillment” until we reach puberty ) “Absolute Life Quality”.
Before beginning to present a culturally “nice” world to the audience, I suggest readers consider the pharaonic rite, female genital mutilation (FGM). Then decide if you are inexorably a ‘culturist’…
Me, I describe as racist anyone who uses the word race without inverted commas.
“It” does not exist in science only in the mind of those whom perceive any difference in the biological isolate homo sapiens sapiens and express same. Emperor’s new clothes is perhaps a good analogy. However, the practices of individuals can and does lead to friction, and blaming history does nothing for the future, and just because the Australian constitution makes “race” exist, does not mean it does so in science. I would have thought that the mapping of the human genome expressed this well enough.
Thinking like this permits the debate to commence and continue on a clean sheet of paper, complete without the freight of our ancestors, many of whom would be only too happy that their influence continues across decades and centuries. But in doing this we must condemn that that is abhorrent human conduct in any cultural domain.
Today is Yom HaShoah…
This is too jargon-heavy to be deemed journalism. It reads like a student essay. I thinks like one, too. Ingenuous, but sincere.
Salticid, even at work people said my style of writing was too academic. Yep, I’m guilty of it, especially when writing something very serious.
My excuse for the mess at the end of my previous post here is that it might have been contributed-to by a mind acutely muddled by thinking and writing involving a mobile phone. %-{
1awansbeck wrote:
I’ve always found this line of argument quite bizarre, and an almost perfect “strawman” straight out of central casting.
1awansbeck, the english-language word “race” (and whatever equivalents in other languages) correlates to the scientific term “phenotype” that biologists use. As do words like “breed” or “strain” if we were describing other organisms. We just use the word “race” when we talk about ourselves.
A phenotype is the observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment. Or as they express it in biology textbooks “P=G+E”. It’s real, and not even remotely controversial.
If we were discussing moths, you would not object to the concept, nor the use of the word phenotype. If we were discussing dogs, you would not object to the concept, nor the use of the word breed. If we were discussing wheat crops, you would not object to the concept, nor the use of the word strain.
So it seems a bit silly for people to pretend science doesn’t exist when it’s inconvenient just because it makes a better political soundbite…
Why not instead make the ethical argument that race is irrelevant? Rather than the ludicrous claim that it doesn’t exist. Because frankly, trying to convince people to believe your slogan rather their own eyes is a pretty tough sell! ;-p
Even if you put intellectually honesty to one side for a minute, it’s just dumb politics. The claim is both false – and unconvincing.
Excellent article on the subject matter; awful on the copy editing side.
Lord ha’mercy, where to begin?
Punctuation, lack thereof: you need to separate your dependent clauses more clearly so people don’t get lost in the thick hedge of your thought process.
“The political disquisition that advocated that the barriers of cultural difference were insurmountable and the ensuing public suspicions became a central weapon conceptual to the theory of new racism.”
* “disquisition” – real word, but not one that most people would know
* “conceptual to the theory” – nope. That’s not how “conceptual” is used.
“preserve our way of life form external threat”
* “from”.
“This interpretation has gained wide media.”
* “wide media”… what? Needs noun.
“With Britain … being peacefully ‘invaded’ by unassimilable population,”
* in this context, using “population” as a singular, you need “by an unassimilable”
“counter-parts where sociobiology … is frequently resorted in order to provide”
* “counterparts”
* “resorted to”
“A significant point on the theorising of the (‘culturally powerful British’) nation is that it not only emphasises and affirms the idea that this is the most important natural expression of the bonding of similar people, but that it bounds other people, those who are different as outside of the nation.
* “theorising of the nation”?
* “those who are different, as outside”
“Other politicians also entered into the disquisition.”
* non-common word used 2x in article.
I stopped editing here, as neither of us could spare the time.
Yes you could argue that this piece is written in somewhat academic terms however that doesn’t detract from the substance which can be clearly understood.
This article is a thoughtful, interesting and valuable contribution to the value of cultural diversity, which provides a wonderful richness to the nature of humanity. When people come to this country they are bound by the laws and regulations which have been instituted for the public good. Unless every Australian living here is an exact replica of one another, these laws have been instituted by a democracy representing a huge diversity of viewpoints and backgrounds. Consequently, the argument that if large numbers of immigrants enter Australia, then we will somehow be forced beyond our will to adopt certain practices which are practised elsewhere and which we consider inhumane cannot be substantiated. As a matter of fact, it is the Coalition and the IPA which have advocated the abolition of many protective regulations aimed at preventing unscrupulousness, unfairness, injustice and inhumanity.
interesting thesis – could you clarify something for me however – what is your best definition of racism? (i need one for an essay) in your article you said that racism is “to advocate the separation of social groups in the interests of social harmony” but, “social groups” is such a broad term that if you define racism in this manner, it appears to me (in my naive ways) that you are ultimately muddling most forms of “prejudice” with “racism” and then I get all confused. Perhaps in answering this question you may need to define “social groups”
racism… /ˈrāˌsizəm/
Noun
The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as…
Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.
At least mindmadeup will have a quality post this week on that internet smear-site. It would make a refreshing change from the adolescent rubbish that is generally posted there.
I had to consult my Webster’s for the meaning of “disquisition”. As they say in Reader’s Digest, it pays to increase your word power, so I thank the author for that!
I do not agree that the first pillar of arguement that have been put forward saying that New racism = Old racism.
Having similar methods of persuasion does not mean that New Racism is the same as Old Racism. Similar formats can be used to argue different perspectives on a wide array of topics. For example, similar processes can be used to argue the following 2 contentions: that purple skinned people shouldn’t be allowed in our society and that Collingwood is the best AFL team that ever existed.
Even if a similar argumentative process were used, it would not be a logical conclusion to say that Collingwood fans dicriminate agaisnt purple people. Similarly, contentions that discriminate on cultural differences do not allow a conclusion of racism, simply because the argumentive processes are similar to those used by racists in the past.
The scientific arguement is in some ways harder, yet also earier, to counter. Hoffsteade’s indicies of cultural differences successfuly show that values and attitudes do vary between national cultures. It is difficult to debunk the science here. What is simple is to ask for for objective evidence that link the inclusion of of particular cultural groups and widespread social upheaval. This is where racists have a tough time in showing a valid link that underpins their reason for dicrimination.
I find myself demonstrating racist behaviour at times – I supervise work for the dole participants and a few of them show no interest at all in learning English. When I offered to organise lessons for them they refused to consider participating. It makes me very cross, especially when their apparent lack of English skills vanish at opportune times but become critical when it’s time to put in a bit of hard graft.
I’m particularly challenged by women clad head to toe in a burka too. The very sight of them makes me shudder…to be fair though…I’m not too keen on nuns either.
There are good and bad in every race and I generally take people as they come, but it is a very thorny issue.
Oh Alison ..NUNS!.. scare the bejesus out of me. I went to a Catholic scool for my first 2 years of education.
theantibogan.wordpress.com is no longer available.
This blog has been archived or suspended for a violation of our Terms of Service.
mindmadeup will be disappointed..many others wont…
Thanks dirkrossey but I was looking for more than that! Nonetheless, lets take that definition you gave and use it to review the piece. If you define racism as pertaining to “race” (and I think we can all agree that doing so is obviously appropriate and self evidently thus) then trying to broaden the definition of racism needs to be done carefully. Michael, if you are discussing how racism shows itself when a value or way of life is “threatened” I think your argument could be strengthened by some more concrete examples, rather than vague, somewhat inappropriate terms, such as “social groups” or “outsiders”. Your definition is so broad that it allows people to easily dismiss the merit in your position by engaging in some type of reductio ad absurdum. It also allows one to define forms of prejudice (that are not racism) as racist. Could you more clearly define for me your conceptualisation of racism briefly ?
Alison White, what a beautifully human and heart-warming and amusing comment. I feel the same way, but had a nice chat with a head-covered lady (from Lebanon) last night as she rang up my groceries that reminded me that “we are all more alike than we are different”. Thanks Alison.
Somebody asked me an interesting question today, tapping into my studies of evolution and anthropology. The question was: “How many races of humans are there?”
My answer confused him. “One”, I replied.