Read more Marianne: How do you distinguish between "anti-racism" and "neo-anti-racism"? Pierre-André Taguieff: This is a conceptual or ideal-typical distinction, which applies as much to racism as to anti-racism, as I have tried to show since my work in the late 1980s (see in particular La Force du préjugé 1988). Anti-racism, which can be called classical, in its many variants, is based on the postulate that humans are equal in rights and dignity, regardless of their community affiliations or their so-called cultural, ethnic or racial identities. It presupposes that belonging to the human race takes precedence over belonging to particular groups. In particular, it calls for no value judgment to be associated with skin color. This is why it can be called universalist, or even humanist. This voluntary blindness to color, which is an ethical norm, distinguishes it from neo-anti-racism. It symbolizes the principle that there is no insurmountable barrier between human groups. It is therefore directly opposed to the thesis of the inequality of human races. The emphasis can be placed on the equality of said races or on their non-existence (or even on their indefinability). But since racist ideology also includes the motive of the rejection of the other (xenophobia) and that of miscegenation as a cause of decadence (mixophobia), universalist antiracism aims to be both xenophile and mixophile. In the order of passions and that of virtues, it proposes to substitute respect for contempt, love for hatred, hospitality for fear, openness for self-closure. READ ALSO: Pierre-André Taguieff: “Decadence acts as a unifying myth”Neo-antiracism, for its part, postulates that group affiliations prevail over belonging to the human race, which it tends to reduce to an abstraction of little interest. This is why its orientation is anti-universalist. It follows that neo-antiracism can be described as identitarian or differentialist: it consists of absolutizing and sacralizing particular collective identities, which it perceives as permanently threatened by forces moving in the direction of standardization or undifferentiation. But the good identities are “minority” identities, supposedly “non-white”. The marriage of the universal and the demand for equality is replaced by that of identity and diversity. From this perspective, the very idea of assimilation is denounced as a racist idea. Neo-antiracism is a racialist antiracism, which multiplies the quasi-races or pseudo-races constructed by the process of "racialization". Because any collective identity or community can be "racialized". This is what leads to a paranoid vision of "minority" identities that are threatened, discriminated against or "racialized", and that must be defended unconditionally.
Marianne: How do you distinguish « antiracisme » et « neo-antiracism » ?
Pierre-André Taguieff: This is a conceptual or ideal-typical distinction, which applies as much to racism as to antiracism, as I have tried to show since my work at the end of the 1980s (see in particular The Power of Prejudice 1988). Anti-racism, which can be called classical, in its many variants, is based on the postulate that humans are equal in rights and dignity, whatever their community affiliations or their so-called cultural, ethnic or racial identities.
It presupposes that belonging to the human race takes precedence over belonging to particular groups. In particular, it calls for no value judgment to be associated with skin color. This is why it can be called universalist, or even humanist. This voluntary blindness to color, which is an ethical norm, distinguishes it from neo-antiracism. It symbolizes the principle according to which there is no insurmountable barrier between human groups. It is therefore directly opposed to the thesis of the inequality of human races. The emphasis can be placed on the equality of said races or on their non-existence (or even on their indefinability). But since racist ideology also includes the motive of rejecting the other (xenophobia) and that of crossbreeding as a cause of decadence (mixophobia), universalist antiracism aims to be both xenophile and mixophile. In the order of passions and that of virtues, he proposes to substitute respect for contempt, love for hatred, hospitality for fear, openness for self-closure.
READ ALSO : Pierre-André Taguieff: “Decadence acts as a unifying myth”
Neo-antiracism, for its part, postulates that group affiliations prevail over belonging to the human race, which it tends to reduce to an abstraction of little interest. This is why its orientation is anti-universalist. It follows that neo-antiracism can be described as identitarian or differentialist: it consists in absolutizing and sacralizing particular collective identities, which it perceives as permanently threatened by forces moving in the direction of uniformity or undifferentiation.
But the good identities are the "minority" identities, supposedly "non-white". The marriage of the universal and the demand for equality is replaced by that of identity and diversity. In this perspective, the very idea of assimilation is denounced as a racist idea. Neo-antiracism is a racialist antiracism, which multiplies the quasi-races or pseudo-races constructed by the process of "racialization". Because any collective identity or community can be "racialized". This is what leads to a paranoid vision of "minority" identities that are threatened, discriminated against or "racialized", and that must be defended unconditionally.
"This post is a summary of information from our information monitoring"
