RSP • No. 54 • 2017: 129-140
R
S
P
ORIGINAL PAPER
Cultural Racism: A Conceptual Framework
Simona Rodat*
Abstract
The term ‘racism’ is omnipresent in the current everyday discourse. The concept was
conceptualized in different sciences but continues to raise debates and controversies. This
paper is a contribution to the conceptual delineation regarding the racism and other
phenomena associated with it, such as ethnocentrism and xenophobia, focusing especially
on the term of ‘cultural racism’. After outlining a framework for defining this term and
depicting the main features of racialist thinking processes, such as essentialization,
reductionism and absolutization, the paper gives particular attention to the discussions
regarding the question if cultural racism is a new form of the ‘classical’, biological racism,
or represents a different phenomenon, and this would be the reason why, in the scientific
discourse, there should be used another, more adequate term, which should replace the
problematic word ‘racism’. The main arguments of the theoretical perspectives which
sustain each answer are presented, thus highlighting the key aspects of the contemporary
racism. Furthermore some remarks are made regarding the approach and research of this
phenomenon and it is emphasized that emergent questions require further investigation
both for the theoretical development and the practical application and anti-racist strategies.
Keywords: racism, cultural racism, racism without races, ethnocentrism, xenophobia,
essentialization
*
Professor, PhD, Romanian Adventist Theological Institute, Cernica, Ilfov, Department of Social
Work, Email: simona@rodat.net
129
Simona RODAT
Introduction
Presently, the term “racism” appears frequently both in the media and political,
as well as in the everyday discourse. The debates opened by this concept cannot be ignored
by the scientific approaches, even more as the term generated many controversies, and the
developed – more or less scientific – theoretical perspectives were used to support or
justify practical action and controversial political interventions. Compared with the
investigation of other ideologies, the approach of racism is more complex, precisely
because the terms on which it is based and on which it relies, in particular those of “race”
and “races classification/ hierarchy” are debatable and objectionable. Based on such terms
and often allegedly “in the name of science” were justified not only different forms of
discrimination, but also – in addition – extreme forms of segregation, expulsions and
extermination of certain groups of people. Under these circumstances, scientific discourse
should delineate itself from other discourses and should investigate this phenomenon
using scientific methods and procedures.
The present paper addresses the conceptual and theoretical problems of
contemporary racism and especially the concept of “cultural racism”. This topic is still of
great interest within sociology and other social sciences. There are delineated the ways in
which the issue of racism has been sociologically conceptualized and the main significant
theses and theoretical approaches concerning the phenomenon of cultural or “differential”
racism. The central aspect which I follow is the question if there exists a shift from an era
of the classical biological racism to that of the emergence of new cultural forms of racism.
In the first part of the paper there are discussed the key definitions of racism, and
are addressed other concepts, such as ethnocentrism and xenophobia, from which the term
“racism” distinguishes itself. The following section gives an outline of the significant
issues relating to contemporary racism, focusing especially on the conceptualization of
the cultural (neo) racism and on the main features of racialist thinking processes, such as
essentialization, reductionism and absolutization. In the third part there is discussed the
question if the current forms of cultural racism represent a new phenomenon or they are a
manifestation of the proto-racism. In the last part of the paper the key aspects of the
contemporary racism are highlighted and some remarks about its research are made.
1. Conceptual framework
Firstly, the conceptual framework of the issue of racism is outlined by discussing
some common definitions of “racism” and its delineation from other concepts such as
“ethnocentrism” and “xenophobia”.
1.1 Definitions of racism – from narrow to extensive definitions
The term “racism” is one of the most controversial and ambiguous concepts in
the social sciences (see Mac Ghaill, 1999; Sow, 2008; Koller, 2009; Fredrickson, 2011).
Being frequently imprecise and unreflected, and even banalized as a result of its political
usage and overloading in mass-media (Taguieff, 2005c), this term also generates many
problems with regard to a scientific definition. According to Taguieff (2005c: 549), since
it is not possible to reach a whole, universally applicable definition, an appropriate
approach would be that any science that makes use of this term to delineate its conceptual
content.
In a narrow definition, for example, R. Miles (1982; 1991) suggests that the
various meanings and uses of “racism” should be scientifically limited for analytical
130
Cultural Racism: A Conceptual Framework
reasons by referring exclusively to it as to an ideological phenomenon. Miles bases his
viewpoint on the fact that “the analytical value of a concept is determined by its utility for
the description and explanation of social processes” (Miles, 1991: 103). Racism refers to
practices and processes of exclusion, though this is, according to Miles, an overstretch,
which “on one hand does not have sufficient separation sharpness, on the other hand
makes the determination of deterministic relationships more difficult” (ibid.).
In order to achieve an analytical accuracy, racism should be therefore understood
as a representational phenomenon, and so should be determined not by its function, but
by its ideological content. According to Miles, this ideological content consists, on the
one hand, of a process of racial construction, which means that one or more biological
features are used as a criterion for the description of a collective group, these
characteristics being regarded as natural and unchanging and attributed as the intrinsic
differentiation opposite to other groups (ibid.: 105). On the other hand, all the people who
belong to this collective group are attributed additional, negative – both biological and
cultural – characteristics and consequently “the presence of such a group appears to be
highly problematic: it is presented ideologically as a threat” (ibid.: 106).
C. Lévi-Strauss (1983; 1988) has also a narrow view on racism by defining it in
the sense of “classical” meaning. He considers racism as a precise doctrine that can be
summed up in four points (Lévi-Strauss, 1988: 208): firstly, a correlation between genetic
heritage and intellectual skills and moral attitudes is constructed; secondly, it is claimed
that this heritage, on which these skills and attitudes are dependent, is common to all
members of certain groups of people; thirdly, these groups, referred to as “races”, may be
hierarchized according to the “quality of their genetic heritage”; fourthly, these differences
entitle the so-called “superior races” to dominate, exploit, and even annihilate the other
races. Compared to Miles’ point of view, this definition takes into account not only a
theoretical but also a practical component of racism, since it involves actions and
behaviors. Nevertheless, according to this definition (cf. Taguieff, 2005c: 558), no racism
could exist in the present, at least not as a significant phenomenon concerning the social
and political sphere.
In the same direction, but with a greater covered area, G.M. Fredrickson (2011)
asserts that racism has two components: difference and power. In the first place, racism
corresponds to a delimitation of the alleged own human group from all “Others”. In this
respect, “They” differ from “Us” permanently, and these differences are not bridging
(Fredrickson, 2011: 19). As the differentiation is always in favor of “Us”, this feeling of
difference provides a motive, respectively a justification, to treat the “inferior Others”
unjustly or cruelly.
The spectrum of possible consequences of this interplay of attitude and
action ranges from an unofficial, but continuous practiced social
discrimination, to genocide; between them lies something like the racial
separation, which is sanctioned by the government, colonial subjugation,
exclusion, expulsion (or “ethnic cleansing”), and enslavement
(Fredrickson, 2011: 19-20).
In this understanding of racism one can see a much broader range of meanings.
Fredrickson no longer talks about the role of biological / genetic features as differentiation
criteria. Thus is this definition more imprecise, but it gives the concept of racism a broader
range of coverage by considering also cultural characteristics as starting points. In
addition, this author emphasizes the element of power: racism appears where a group of
people has power over other groups. It is, therefore, a matter of domination and
131
Simona RODAT
subordination, of “racists” and their victims (ibid.: 20). Last but not least, one can note
that, in this perspective, the “function” of racism (in the sense of Miles’ understanding) is
emphasized, namely, what actions are carried out in the name of racist attitudes.
The coverage area of the concept of racism is even more extensive in other
comprehensions. The term is sometimes also used without having specified an analytical
framework, especially in the everyday, media and political discourse. Thus “racism seems
to have become today a passe-partout under which seemingly any discrimination of the
«others» can be subsumed” (Priester, 1997: 13). The broad use of the concept of racism
makes it an approximate synonym for exclusion, rejection, discrimination, hostility, hate,
intolerance, phobia or contempt (Taguieff, 2005c: 555). In the French language are used
(ibid.) e.g. terms like “racism against the youth”, “racism against the elderly”, “racism
against women”, “racism against homosexuals” or “racism against the French”, etc.. From
this point of view, it becomes more difficult or even impossible not only to develop
relevant scientific approaches, but also to develop accurate, anti-racist strategies at the
actual, practical level.
1.2 Delimitation of racism from ethnocentrism and xenophobia
Before approaching cultural racism, I am discussing two other concepts which
have comparable meanings to that of racism: ethnocentrism and xenophobia. These terms
are often used in a confusing way as synonyms for racism. Whereas all these concepts
refer to the problematic relationship between “Us” and the “Others”, still they do not
overlap.
The concept of “ethnocentrism” was introduced in 1906 by W.G. Sumner in his
book Folkways. According to Sumner, one can denote ethnocentrism as the perception
according to which the group of people, to which «We» belong, is the center of the world,
and the measure to which we refer in order to judge others (Sumner, 1906: 13). As a result,
each group of people got their own pride and own vanity, claims their superiority, regards
contemptuously the outsiders, and believes that only their folkways are good, whereas
those of others, if they are at all noticed, are despised (ibid.).
Ethnocentrism implies therefore, on one hand, a fundamental distinction between
each particular group and other groups, or between “Us” and all members of the category
“Others” (“They” or “Non-We”). On the other hand ethnocentrism presupposes
furthermore a focus on one’s own group and an overestimation of the qualities that are
exclusively assigned to it. This leads to self-preference and contempt and intolerance
towards others. According to this definition, ethnocentrism indicates a global, universal
phenomenon (equally cognitive, affective, evaluative, and normative) (cf. ibid.).
Other, later definitions of ethnocentrism (see Lévi-Strauss, 1961; Taguieff, 1997;
Ferréol, 2005; Fredrickson, 2011) retain the fundamental elements already described by
Sumner. Ethnocentrism is based on a strong identification of the individual with his group
and on a certainty of one’s own superiority of a certain number of values, opinions or
ideas. It can be considered as an attitude, as a mental disposition or as a behavior, which
is accompanied by the rejection of cultural diversity (Ferréol, 2005: 285). Etymologically,
the term “xenophobia” means fear and, in a broader sense, hostility to all that is alien, and
especially to foreigners themselves (Jucquois, 2005: 672). If the meaning of the Greek
word “phobia”, from which the concept originates, is taken into account, xenophobia
would fit into a large category of phobias. However, in the humanities and social sciences
it is regarded above all as a collective attitude and not as an individual neurosis (ibid.).
However, there are many disputes regarding its definition. According to Taguieff (2005c:
132
Cultural Racism: A Conceptual Framework
553), xenophobia refers to fear, hatred, and resentment towards foreigners, and generally
to everything that is foreign or different, or what belongs to the “Non-I”. Taguieff points
out (ibid.) that the term “heterophobia” instead of “xenophobia” would be preferable
because it does not imply a privileged relationship with nationalism.
According to Jucquois (2005: 675), xenophobia contains negative and
“pessimistic” views either against certain ethnic groups or against all other ethnic groups.
This author speaks about three characteristics of xenophobia: firstly, the fear generated by
the perception of a danger from a supposed “contamination” and the threat that this
contamination would be for the own ethnic group; secondly, in response to this fear, the
will to resist this threat, in the form of various political, legal and social dispositions;
finally, the feeling of a gradual “invasion” or an imminent upheaval of demographic
equilibrium.
From these conceptual delineations one can notice that ethnocentrism and
xenophobia have similar elements with racism, but are not identical with it. The
differences are both in content as well as in terms of their origin. Regarding the content,
racism is more than ethnocentrism or xenophobia, because it refers not only to feelings,
attitudes and behavior, but also to an ideology, in the sense of a – often elaborated –
worldview, that can become a doctrine. There are no ideologies or doctrines of xenophobia
or ethnocentrism, but of racism (Priester, 1997: 13). In other words, racism involves
ethnocentric and xenophobic views, but it is more than a rejection of the foreigners
(xenophobia in a broader sense) or “self-preference” of one’s own group and
undervaluation of others (ethnocentrism in a broader sense). According to Taguieff
(1988), racism also implicates a “fear of mixing” or implies a “mixophobia” – a term
introduced by Taguieff (1988: 353) in order to denominate this fear and subsequently a
“sacralization of the differences”. Beyond the convictions of the superiority of one’s own
group and xenophobia, racism presupposes a fear of “mixing”.
In terms of the origin and history of the three terms, many authors (Memmi, 1972;
Taguieff, 1988; Priester, 1997; Fredrickson, 2011) consider that ethnocentrism and
xenophobia exist since ancient times and they are universal phenomena, common to all
human beings. While the emergence of racism can be dated, this is not possible with
xenophobia (Memmi, 1972: 915). Fredrickson (2011: 193) emphasizes that, compared
with xenophobia, racism is a historical construct “whose career can be traced over the
period from the 14th to the 21st century”. According to the same author, ethnocentrism
and xenophobia could be seen as a precursor of racism in many respects (ibid.: 231).
However, Taguieff (2005c: 566) questions whether the “mixophobic” attitude, which is
specific to racism, is indeed a social-historical construction, or is also an universal attitude
spread throughout the human species. This still remains a topic of discussion among
scientists.
2. Cultural racism – an overview
In the following section are presented various aspects and explanations regarding
racism in present. There are brought into focus especially the concept of “cultural racism”
and the main processes of racist thinking: essentialization, absolutization and
reductionism.
133
Simona RODAT
2.1 From biological inequalities to cultural differences. Towards a definition
of cultural racism
„Classical” racism, which focuses on the concept of biological inequality, was
characterized by the support of state and law, explicit examples being the national socialist
government in Germany, racial separation laws in the American Southern States up to the
1960s, and the regime of apartheid in South Africa. However, as Fredrickson (2011: 13)
notes, racism is not a phenomenon of the past, because it does not need this state and legal
support, nor is it an ideology of biological differentiation and inequality. Forms of
discrimination and rejection of people emerge or even flourish, including in societies free
from racism (ibid.). It is a matter of attitudes and behaviors of rejection and that does not
necessarily rely on biology in order to underpin the subordination of some people or
groups of people. Instead, the ethno-cultural origin is absolutized to discriminate,
marginalize, segregate, exclude, or exile (Taguieff, 2005b: 499). These attitudes and
behaviours are called cultural racism (ibid.).
Above all, this phenomenon has emerged in connection with the “problem” of
immigrants (ibid.), that is, as a reference to “supposedly deep-seated cultural differences”
(Fredrickson, 2011: 13), in order to justify the hostility against these and their
discrimination. What is reproached to some categories of immigrants is the fact that they
are not culturally “assimilable” and consequently constitute a danger of disorder for
society and for the national group (Taguieff, 2005b: 500). In his analysis of the new
current forms of racism, P. A. Taguieff (2005b) uses the term “neo-racism”, more exactly,
“differentialist cultural neo-racism” to specifically designate this global phenomenon, this
emerging ideological configuration. Taguieff sees in the “racism against immigrants” only
an illustration, among others, of precisely the neo-racism.
The numerous situations in which people are rejected, discriminated or expelled
show that racism can also be based on other than biological grounds, especially with
respect to cultural differences and ethnic or ethno-national identities. This phenomenon
can come up to the extent that groups of people are essentialized, the differences are
absolutized and declared as “innate, indelible and unchangeable” (Fredrickson, 2011: 15)
and allegedly antagonistic in relation to the “predominant culture” (Taguieff, 2005b: 500).
This is denominated by Taguieff (ibid.) as a “cultural / ethnic heterophobia”. That is
internal and selective, and works neither because of the idea of the “races”, nor because
of the emphasizing of some inequalities, but because of the essentialization and
absolutizing of the differences between groups of people. As in biological racism, the fear
of mixing is also present in the cultural (neo) racism because this “mixing” (or
“hybridization”) would be supposedly destructive for the “pure identity” (ibid.: 501) of
the prevailing group. The “mixophobia" requires the effort to distance oneself from the
“others” or simply to eliminate them.
This (neo) racism may not highlight inequalities but differences, it does not lack
though the construction of a permanent hierarchy of different groups of people. That
happens because some people and groups are regarded as not “adapting/ fitting” to the
prevailing national culture. It reflects the assumption, which can be regarded as strategic
and instrumental overestimation, that these groups, which are characterized by diverse
“other” cultural characteristics, cannot “integrate” in the prevailing culture, and
consequently a coexistence with them is impossible.
In this point of view one can see that – although the term “racism” has an
inescapably linguistic link with that of “race” – (neo) racism/ cultural racism is not based
134
Cultural Racism: A Conceptual Framework
on “races” but on culturalistic essentialized groups of people. Therefore emerged the term
“racism without races”, which is also used to designate the new racist manifestations.
As Fredrickson (2011: 232) points out, “culture can be essentialized to such an
extent that it has the same deterministic effect as the skin color”. However – in order to
avoid confusion between racism and ethnocentrism and “to speak truly about racism”
(ibid.) –, Fredrickson considers that two additional elements are necessary. On one hand,
there should be present a conviction that the differences between the ethnic groups are
permanent and indelible. Otherwise – if conversion or assimilation is a real possibility –
we can talk about cultural or religious intolerance, but not about racism (ibid.: 233). On
the other hand, there must be a political and social aspect of ideology, that is, an “exercise
of power in the name of a «race» and the resulting patterns of domination or exclusion”
(ibid.). According to Fredrickson (2011), the (neo) racism/ cultural racism can be defined
as the phenomenon which appears “when an ethnic group or a historical collective
attempts to dominate, exclude or eliminate another group on the basis of differences,
which are considered hereditary and immutable” (ibid.: 233).
2.2 Essentialization, reductionism, absolutization – processes of cultural racism
In all noticeable aspects racist thinking appears as a paradigmatic representation
of essentialist thinking, since it implies at the same time a somatic-biological
essentialization of different “Others”, and a permanent segregationist behavior
(Guillaumin, 1972: 77-78). Essentialization refers to the tendency to construct substantial
genera / species (“Jew”, “Black”, “Aryan”, etc.) by considering the visible differences as
permanent and unambiguous signs of belonging to one or the other category (Taguieff,
1988: 155). This leads to a transition from a distinct physical aspect to a specific genetic
substance and furthermore to different mental abilities and skills (ibid.: 156; Taguieff,
1997: 65-66). The criteria, as proved by the visible differences, which are regarded as
natural and unchangeable, and on the basis of which the essentialist categorizations and
classifications are developed, can vary and they can be both phenotypical and cultural
(Taguieff, 2005a: 38).
Thus, the process of essentialization means, on one hand, to accept only one or
some of the characteristics of human groups as essential, and furthermore to assign other
specific features or abilities to these groups by virtue of these essential characteristics. On
the other hand, all members of these groups are considered alike/equal, the differences
within the groups are homogenized (Mac to Ghaill, 1999: 10), the multiplicity of the
individual features is not considered and the situational factors are neglected (Taguieff,
2005b: 510). In the construction of the essentialized human identity it is appealed to firm
or essential characteristics which are supposed to persist continually (Mac an Ghaill, 1999:
7).
Basically essentialization requires a double process of reductionism: people are
reduced to one or a few (“significant / enduring / inherent”) characteristic(s), whereas
human groups are reduced to uniform, homogeneous, one-dimensional collectivities. In
this way, for example, all migrants would be similar, and they would be culturally
incompatible or incapable of integrating into the dominant culture, and are therefore of
concern to society.
In addition, besides essentialization and reductionism, a process of absolutizing
the differences contributes to cultural racism. In the light of the fact that in neo-racism the
differences and not the inequalities are emphasized, Taguieff (1988) introduces the
concept of “differential neo-racism” to describe the present racist phenomenon. Cultural
135
Simona RODAT
differences can be both perceived and simply invented, and are absolutized to such an
extent that they appear as irreconcilable. The coexistence of the people who belong to
different cultural groups appears to be not only problematic but also impossible.
Therefore, cultural racism (Taguieff, 2005b: 501) implies an absolutizing of perceived or
invented differences between essentialized groups of people.
3. Approaches to current racism: is cultural racism a new phenomenon, or
is it a manifestation of (proto) racism?
As already mentioned, there is a risk of ambiguity when using the concept of
racism, because its extent was overexpanded to describe various forms of discrimination
and exclusion, as well as ethnocentrism and xenophobia. Furthermore, it has been shown
that in the present a new form of racism is emerging – or at least defined as such – namely
cultural racism. This phenomenon is often designated also by terms such as neo-racism,
differentialist racism, or racism without races. Under these circumstances there is a
question which is still controversial in the various scientific disciplines: is this (new)
phenomenon indeed a form of racism, or is it something different, for which perhaps
another concept should be used? This question was raised with regard to racism as early
as the beginning of the ‘80s (Taguieff, 2005b: 499). Assuming that the term of “cultural
(neo) racism” is adopted, some clarifications are necessary regarding its conceptual value
and its empirical validity.
3.1 Arguments for the thesis of a new, different phenomenon
When approaching racism, one should outline and establish an analytical
framework and rely on a coherent definition of racism. Proto-racism or biological,
“classical” racism was defined as an ideology based on biological or genetic criteria. If
one chooses this analytical framework, racism is understood in a narrow sense, as in the
earlier mentioned definitions and approaches of Miles and Lévi-Strauss. They emphasize
the role of biological criteria in the ideological construction of racism.
In this analytical framework, the thesis that cultural racism should not be
classified in the generic conception of racism appears to be justified, since it lacks basic
elements: in pointing out the differences, it does not refer to the (biologically assigned)
“races”, but to essentialized groups of people; it does not presuppose “racialism” or
“racialization”; it does not appeal to biology or genetics to argue the existence of
hierarchies and superiority/ inferiority, but to the absolutizing of cultural differences in
order to establish the supposed incompatibilities, etc. While cultural racism resembles
classical, biological racism in terms of its manifestations, its affiliated practices, the
implied emotions or passions (such as hatred, fear, contempt, etc.), the consequences, yet
– in this analytical framework – they are different phenomena, because they are based on
different ideologies. And assuming that racism is primarily understood as an ideology,
and this ideology originates from biological criteria, cultural racism would be excluded
from the “umbrella” of racism.
Another argument relates to the fact that the use of the term “racism” could be
misleading, given its link with the ideas of classical racism, namely, the biological criteria
on the basis of which human beings were hierarchized, the existence of “races” and the
justification of racial classifications, etc. Thus, the term “racism” should only be used to
describe what it originally defined (i.e., what biological/ genetic racism depicted). For the
new phenomenon, which is based on cultural criteria, a new concept should be developed.
136
Cultural Racism: A Conceptual Framework
Finally, a linguistic argument must be mentioned: one cannot help not to establish
a link between the words “race” and “racism”. Since the new racism no longer puts the
“race” up for discussion – a term which has fallen into disgrace anyway –, the reuse of
the concept of racism appears justified only in a metaphorical sense (as in “racism without
races”), but not in the scientific analytical frameworks. Under these assumptions, the use
of the term “racism” would be inappropriate.
3.2 Arguments for the thesis of one and the same phenomenon
If one proceeds from a comprehensive scope of the concept of racism, as the
above-mentioned definition of G.M. Fredrickson (2011), then cultural racism is only a
manifestation of racism, and the only difference compared to biological racism would be
the criteria which are used to determine and justify the differentiation and hierarchization
of human groups. It would be one and the same ideology that propagates differences,
inequalities, discrimination and abuses of some categories of people, apart from the fact
that it is not based on the idea of the “race”, but rather the “culture”. The “race” or other
“encodings” of the “race” represent a pretense for differentiation and hierarchization, and
in this case the pretexts are not essential, but what they cause: assignment of (negative)
characteristics to some groups of people, attitudes, behaviors and actions against these
people, which emerge as exclusion, discrimination, exploitation or expulsion. In this
respect, it is not the differentiation criteria that come to the fore, but the manifestations,
practices, and consequences, which are the same.
Culture can be to such an extent “reified and essentialized that it becomes the
functional equivalent of the concept of «race» (…). A deterministic cultural particularism
can have the same effects as a biologically based racism” (Fredrickson 2011: 18).
Provided that “mixophobia” (fear of mixing and of harm of the “purity of
descendence”) is common to both biological and cultural (neo) racism, Taguieff (2005c)
argues that the difference between them does not refer to the foundation, but apparently
to the form and rank, in that cultural racism can be interpreted as an “euphemism of
biological racism” (Taguieff, 2005c: 564).
Furthermore, other arguments for the thesis of the expression of the same
phenomenon relate to the fact that cultural racism is not entirely lacking (pseudo)
biological elements. J. Solomos and L. Back (1996) consider that “race” is nowadays
coded as “culture”, and the central feature of this process is that it “fixes and naturalizes
the characteristics of social groups, and it is embedded in a pseudo-biologically defined
culturalism” (quoted by Fredrickson, 2011: 18-19).
On the other hand, different viewpoints suggest that – conversely – “classic”
biological racism also referred to cultural and differential parameters. M. Wieviorka
(1995) doubts that cultural or differential perspectives are new in racism. He mentions
that the ideology of anti-Semitism in the Third Reich appealed to cultural elements, for
example, by considering that Jews “corrupted the Aryan culture and race”. Therefore the
“final solution” regarding them was not to give them the lowest place in society, but to
destroy them. According to Wieviorka, there exists only one racism that often combines
different versions of the association of cultural differentialism and social unegalitarianism.
Likewise, M.J. Hickman (1995), based on an analysis of racism in the UK, found that both
anti-Semitism and racism against Irish show that there is nothing new in terms of cultural
differentiation as the basis for racist discourse in this country.
In addition, K. Priester (1997) also argues that cultural racism is not a new or
different phenomenon, because racism has always been culturally and differentialist.
137
Simona RODAT
From the beginning, modern racism has not only biologically argued (in
the original underlined). Recognized racial ideologists (...) have always
sustained – independently of any biological “natural selection” optic –
the possibility of an “inner Judaism”, namely the adaptation of non-Jews
to so-called Jewish behaviors through cultural contact. Even in
paroxysmically intensified Nazi racism, the moment of the cultural
(i.o.u.) differentness of the Jews and other discriminated minorities was
always present (...).When the Nazis set out to define who was a Jew at
all, they took as a basis a cultural (i.o.u.) trait, which was designated by
the religious affinity in the third generation (...). And even regarding the
Sinti and Roma the focus was not on their biological “race” but on their
culture, their way of life, their customs and traditions as “travelling
people” (Priester, 1997: 25).
In reflection of this thesis racism is a combination of biological and cultural
arguments, some of these being highlighted. Therefore, there exist different
manifestations of this phenomenon. Moreover, the term “race” as such is not essential; its
meaning can be coded as “culture”. Racist attitudes and practices can only work on the
symbolic level.
Discussion and conclusions
The main focus of this paper was the concept of cultural/ differential (neo) racism
and the question of the extent to which cultural racism differs from “classical” (proto)
racism. As a first conclusion, it can be stated that the term “racism” is one of the most
controversial and ambiguous concepts in social sciences. The phenomenon of racism can
be assessed in a broad range of understandings, from narrow definitions, which consider
racism merely as a representational phenomenon, as an ideology that uses one or more
biological features as a criterion for describing collective groups in order to undertake
racial construction, to comprehensive definitions, which take into account not only the
ideological content of racism, but also its specific emerging attitudes and actions, as well
as the forms and practices of discrimination that are justified thereby. However, it can be
concluded that when racism is analyzed, one should resort to a clear and coherent
conceptual framework to delimit racism from other phenomena such as ethnocentrism or
xenophobia.
It was delineated that if racism would be understood with the “classical”,
biological meaning, it would not be a significant social and political phenomenon in
present. However, it has been ascertained that racism is not an issue of the past, and the
“era of racism” is not over, since other forms of racism, not necessarily relying on biology,
but especially on “culture”, emerged and are even – still – flourishing. It is still debated,
whether these forms of racism, which essentialize cultural characteristics, reduce human
groups on homogeneous, one-dimensional collectivities and absolutize ethnicity and
cultural differences, represent actually another phenomenon, or merely different
manifestations, with different stresses and accentuations, of the same “old/ classical”
racism. It has been shown that there are different views that put arguments in place to
sustain one or other of these positions.
However, it is not the existence of the phenomenon of cultural racism queried,
which has resembling forms, practices and consequences as biological racism, but the
accuracy of using the term “racism” for its description. It can be argued relevantly in both
directions. For example, there is a reason to omit the term “racism” on grounds of its
138
Cultural Racism: A Conceptual Framework
misleading due to its link with the concept of “race” and the idea of racial construction
and classifications based on various biological criteria. On the other hand, there are several
argumentations for the fact that both biological and cultural racism represent one and the
same ideology – only differently justified – and therefore the term “racism” should be
maintained. Starting from such conceptions, one should be less concerned with the
ontological question of whether “races” actually exist or not, and instead should focus on
the impact of the ideology. In this respect, racism is a combination of biological and
cultural ideological arguments, coming into different manifestations by emphasizing some
of these arguments. In addition, “race” is nowadays encoded as “culture”, and culture can
be essentialized to such an extent that it has the same deterministic effects as skin color or
other biological differentiation criteria.
In conclusion, the debates about racism continue in the present, and they still
create different theoretical assumptions and approaches. However, in order to outline a
coherent scientific framework with regard to cultural racism, as well as to other terms that
are based on contemporary racism, questions that require further investigation are
emerging. They refer, on one hand, to theoretical approaches and more precise
explanations regarding the factors that maintain racism and contribute to racist thinking,
provided that on the legal and “objective” levels racism should no longer exist. On the
other hand, there would be investigations necessary that could yield practical and feasible
findings and results needful for effective anti-racist strategies and measures.
References:
Donald, J.; Rattansi, A. (eds.). (1992). ‘Race’, Culture and Difference. London: Sage
Publications.
Ferréol, G. (2005). Etnocentrism. In Ferréol, Gilles; Jucquois, Guy (eds.). Dicționarul
alterității și al relațiilor interculturale. Iași, București: Polirom, p. 285.
Ferréol, G.; Jucquois, G. (eds.). (2005). Dicționarul alterității și al relațiilor interculturale.
Iași, București: Polirom.
Fredrickson, G. M. (2011). Rassismus. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun.
Guillaumin, C. (1972). L’Idéologie raciste. Genèse et langage actuel. Paris, La Haye: Mouton.
Hickman, M. J. (1995). Religion, Class and Identity. The State, the Catholic Church and the
Education of the Irish in Britain. Aldershot: Avebury.
Jucquois, G. (2005). Xenofobie. In Ferréol, Gilles; Jucquois, Guy (eds.). Dicționarul alterității
și al relațiilor interculturale. Iași, București: Polirom, pp. 672-677.
Koller, C. (2009). Rassismus. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. (1961). Race et histoire. Paris: Gonthier.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. (1983). Le Regard éloigné. Paris: Plon.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. (1988). De près et de loin. Paris: Odile Jacob.
Mac an Ghaill, M.. (1999). Contemporary Racisms and Ethnicities. Social and Cultural
Transformations. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Memmi, A. (1972). Racisme. In Encyclopædia Universalis. Paris, pp. 915-916.
Miles, R. (1982). Racism and Migrant Labour. A Critical Text. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Miles, R. (1991). Rassismus. Einführung in die Geschichte und Theorie eines Begriffs.
Hamburg: Argument.
Priester, K. (1997). Rassismus und kulturelle Differenz. Münster: LIT Verlag (Politische
Soziologie; Band 9).
139
Simona RODAT
Solomos, J. ; Back, L. (1996). Racism and Society. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Sow, N. (2008). Deutschland Schwarz Weiß. Der alltägliche Rassismus. München: C.
Bertelsmann.
Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways. Boston: Ginn.
Taguieff, P.-A. (1988). La force du préjugé. Essai sur le racisme et ses doubles. Paris: La
Découverte.
Taguieff, P.-A. (1997). Le Racisme. Paris: Flammarion.
Taguieff, P.-A. (2005a). Antirasism. In Ferréol, Gilles; Jucquois, Guy (eds.). Dicționarul
alterității și al relațiilor interculturale. Iași, București: Polirom, pp. 30-43.
Taguieff, P.-A.. (2005b). Neorasism. In Ferréol, Gilles; Jucquois, Guy (eds.). Dicționarul
alterității și al relațiilor interculturale. Iași, București: Polirom, pp. 498-514.
Taguieff, P.-A. (2005c). Rasism. In Ferréol, Gilles; Jucquois, Guy (eds.). Dicționarul
alterității și al relațiilor interculturale. Iași, București: Polirom, pp. 549-568.
Wieviorka, M. (1995). The Arena of Racism. London: Sage Publications.
Article Info
Received: March 17 2017
Accepted: April 05 2017
140