Abstract
Imagine two children playing on a beach in Durban. One of the children’s mothers, identified as White by the former apartheid race categories, is subliminally worried that her son – in his childish naivety – could sooner or later behave in a way that could be misinterpreted as racially offensive by the other child’s mother, who she identifies as Black. Her counterpart is well aware of her unease, but interprets it as a form of anxiety due to the racial identification of her own family. Race is obviously causing suspicion and trouble in this fictive scene. However, do we observe in this an act of racism? And if so, whose behaviour is racist and in what ways?
In Race Trouble the social psychologist Kevin Durrheim and his colleagues Xoliswa Mtose and Lyndsay Brown address the multiple complexities that an analysis of racialised practices in South Africa faces today. They start from the observation that, even if the face of racialisation in South Africa has changed, people are still interpellated as racial subjects in daily interactions. Racism has become ‘counter-normative’ and White supremacy no longer exists institutionally or informally; but race is ‘always ready at hand’ as a (sub-)text in conflicts. In this complex situation, the concept of racism has lost some of its power as an analytical category. Although racism served as an essential unifying concept throughout the anti-apartheid struggle, people today would face ‘dilemmas of interpretation’ using it. Lacking a definite evaluative criteria, accusations of racism regularly lead to denials and counter-accusations, and soon debates become racialised or even racist practices of their own.
Durrheim, Mtose and Brown therefore suggest a shift of analytical focus from racism to their approach of ‘race trouble’. They acknowledge that there are troubling and conflict-loaded experiences based on race. However, starting from the epistemological premise that race is a socially constructed category, which lacks definite criteria but is manifested in context-specific discursive practices, they argue for an approach that understands these practices from the ‘bottom-up’. They attempt to look at how race is manifested within specific social contexts and how it manifests specific social contexts – without being primarily interested in the evaluation of whether these practices fulfil one of the numerous, non-definite criteria of racism.
In refusing to search for a context-independent standard of racism, their approach allows, first of all, for a clearer distinction between the analytical process and the use of its outcomes for political purposes. Secondly, it allows them to comprehend the dialectic processes behind acts of racialisation. Durrheim, Mtose and Brown put much effort into the integration of subjective and contextual, individual and collective, and symbolic and material aspects of racialised practices. In this consolidation, they embrace a wide scope of literature and integrate admirably authors from social psychology, sociology and wider cultural studies (among others Michael Omi and Howard Winant, Philomena Essed, Louis Althusser, Erving Goffmann and Judith Butler).
In the effort to establish a new discourse on race-related trouble, some old questions remain and some new questions appear. First of all, as the authors admit themselves, their approach might lead to ‘political impotence’. Due to the rather descriptive, contextualised and complex character of the approach, their analyses might be less applicable to identity politics and efforts to fight ‘racial’ discrimination on meso- and macro-levels. Some critical theorists and anti-racist activists might therefore find the concept provocative. This goes, secondly, hand-in-hand with a vagueness concerning the question of how analyses of political economy could be integrated. The authors repeatedly stress the emergent momentum of racialised practices, but it will have to become clearer how context-specific forms of race trouble can finally lead to institutional ‘race trouble’. Thirdly, I would like to see clarification on some methodological issues. Does an analysis of ‘race trouble’ favour (or is it limited to) inductive or emic approaches – both interpretative stances? How could single analyses on the micro-level be integrated into a ‘holistic’ picture of race trouble in South Africa? Finally, given the non-essential character of race, by what methods could we ensure that race is actually part of the trouble in a specific context? Participants’ statements and self-perceptions might not be fully indicative as participants might apply racialised associations unconsciously. However, leaving the decision to an external observer would mean imposing top-down criteria again.
The structure of the book is well-balanced, the register accessible and engaging. It is rich in examples, usually using at least one major example/case study per chapter. These examples will be helpful for readers who are not familiar with the prior research of the authors and/or the South African context. Durrheim, Mtose and Brown deliver a highly recommendable book for scholars who are interested in the wide field of race relations and racism, not only in South Africa. Activists, graduate students with a strong interest in the topic, as well as scholars who are looking for access to contemporary race relations in South Africa might concentrate on the concise conclusion and the first chapters (especially the second chapter might be helpful, as a collection of frequently experienced patterns of race troubles in contemporary South Africa is presented). Scholars with a deeper interest in the topic might pay special attention to the second part of the book, in which the main argument is substantiated by reflections on how race is re-cited in discourses, located practices and subjects.