Notes on: Walton, S. (2020). Why the critical race
theory concept of 'White supremacy' should not be
dismissed by Neo – Marxists: Lessons from
contemporary Black radicalism. Power and
Education. 12 (1): 78 – 94 DOI:
10.1177/1757743819871316
Dave Harris
[A useful summary of the debates over the years
between marxists like Cole and CRT spokespersons
like Gillborn. A plea for neo-marxism that
looks alot like the old stuff in British Cultural
Studies based on Gramsci associated with S Hall --
see my own wonderful 1992 book]
An essential points of disagreement between
Marxists and CRT has been over white supremacy.
Marxists see it as actively damaging to radical
movements because it misrepresents the white
working class as beneficiaries of racism and thus
alienates them. Some think it should be replaced
with 'racialisation', rooted in capitalist modes
of production with a definite basis. But white
supremacy itself could be grounded like this and
has more appeal for black radicals.
[Usual summary of the debates and the origins of
CRT, including the struggles with CLS, the
emergence into educational theory, the tension
between CRT and Marxism, including their critique
that CRT reified his and centralises race]
In CRT, white supremacy means both the process and
a state of affairs. White-identified people are
given precedence over other groups through various
political and cultural structures and practices
that are reproduced by structures and individuals,
both consciously and unconsciously. They are taken
for granted and invisible. It is broader than just
the attitudes and actions of extreme racist white
groups. It is the most fundamental and widely
accepted concept in CRT, and shared with other
black theorists [Gilroy is cited --old Brit Cult
Studs hand]. It is essential because it emphasises
racism as a structural element and as something
that appears in individual and group actions and
beliefs. It also shows the nature of power
relationships, the way in which detriment and
privilege is distributed in a one-way flow of
power. It reveals forms of domination by one group
over another, part of a process that is constantly
re-established within the social frameworks, on an
everyday basis, even by people who are ' "lovers
of diversity… believers in justice"' (81) [quoting
Leonardo], so all white people are complicit,
'sometimes knowingly, sometimes unknowingly'.
Walton wants to emphasise this notion of process,
domination rather than dominance, the role the
actors play, not just the way in which dominance
manifests itself, the way dominance is reproduced
and sustained and persists, not just remains from
history, how it becomes normal.
Marxists have repeatedly criticised this concept.
It diverts attention from modes of production;
homogenises all white people; cannot explain
'non-colour-coded racism'; cannot explain
'hybridist racism', like Islamophobia where skin
colour is combined with religious intolerance;
cannot explain racism between nonwhite actors;
does not refer to everyday racism but overdoes
historical usage and thus merges with past forms
like fascism; does not help motivate action
against racism especially in involving white
people. Cole has done the most to develop these
[2017 seems to be the main source New
Developments in Critical Race Theory and
Education: Revisiting Racialized Capitalism and
Socialism in Austerity. New York:
Palgrave.]
So, for Cole, a better concept would be
racialisation, 'the categorisation of people
(falsely) into distinct "races"' (84) arising from
particular historical economic and political
forces, including patterns of migration. It is
fundamentally an ideological process to produce a
racialised labour force and divide the working
class. Social relations have often been structured
according to biological and cultural
characteristics. These have often been accompanied
by all sorts of attitudes to racial minorities
often with racist implications, dominative racism,
aggressive racism, overt as well as covert racism
[ISA's and RSA's]. The modes of production are
crucial. Class antagonisms are at the bottom of
it, because the extraction of surplus value is
still required [fits nicely with Fanon].
Social class is the main factor dividing privilege
and material resources and a focus on race tends
to lose sight of the life chances of working class
white people. The white working class share 'to a
large degree' their identity with black and other
racialised minority groups (85) and this is not
recognised by narratives of white supremacy.
Indeed poor whites can be seen as a cause of
racial and economic inequalities. Class
exploitation and oppression is masked. White
supremacy is counter-productive as a unifier.
There was further criticism of a 'race traitor'
movement that urges white people to dis-identify
with whiteness, 'at best only a partial solution'
(85).
Everyone agrees that racialisation is a real
phenomenon and that attempts are still made to
categorise people into different races. Even
genetic theories are still being advanced, as
Gillborn notes [even in 2018], and even though
proponents of these ideas 'rarely if ever
[mention] race directly' (86). However, there are
no other processes described, and Gillborn sees
these as a consequence of white supremacy.
Contemporary black radicals take a different tack
and show that 'a more nuanced, colour sensitive
Marxism needs to be developed' and that white
supremacy could be incorporated into it. Marxism
is a predominantly white endeavour and should be
modified if it is to capture the experiences of
black workers. It is primarily designed to
emancipate the white working class. Marxists have
historically ignored or downplayed Western
imperialism and its effects on the different
relationships producing white and black workers
currently: this might be a comment on scholars
rather than Marxism as such, and Cole might be an
exception.
However, nonwhite groups do not identify with the
struggles of the white working class. Trade
unions, for example have often been '"a bastion of
racism and exclusion"' (88) [quoting Andrews — but
what's that got to do with Marxism?]. Black
workers have had to found their own associations,
and it is not surprising that they see white
workers as relatively privileged.
Marxism may still be infected by the '"psychosis
of whiteness", a feature of virtually all of
Western thought' [our old friend epistemic
whiteness?]. This is like Orientalism, a
fundamental otherness sustained by a tradition of
academic writing, but focused on black people,
infecting academic discourse but also all areas of
public pedagogy. This denies the responsibility of
white people for the horrors of imperialism. It
does not imply that this is essential to Marxist
thought, however — and again Cole might well be
exempt [I think Marx is exempt!]. Whiteness may
well be 'all pervasive and invisible… deeply
embedded and fundamental' however [but is it
fundamental? What is its role in reproduction?].
Andrews refers to historical examples where it is
functional for slavery and colonialism and has
shaped the modern world.
Many Marxist thinkers have fallen 'prey to the
psychosis of whiteness' and not recognised its
fundamental role in the development of capitalism
and the role it continues to play in the
impoverishment of the developing world or modes of
production within capitalism. In this sense, for
Andrews, 'whiteness and white supremacy are
ontologically prior to capitalism' in creating the
conditions in which black people can be exploited
(89) and it is this that has created the Western
system including its modes of production: '"racism
actually predates class in a Marxist sense"' [but
feudalism predate capitalism, and the social
relations there were not based on race] . White
supremacy is intrinsic to a proper understanding
of capitalism how it is created and how it
evolves. Racism is not just a product of modes of
production. Modes of production [modern ones,
colonialism or US slavery?] are not explicable
without white supremacy — they are 'already the
products of and infected with white supremacy'. If
we do not recognise this, we simply have to
operate with an abstract and homogeneous notion of
'people' affected by capitalism [no -- classes] :
in practice, white people are 'simply not at the
same risk of being racialised' [but are they at
the same risk of being exploited?].
Incorporating white supremacy does add a layer of
complexity to politics and it may be tough for
white working class radicals, but omitting it
means we might find it hard to involve black
radicals. It might have to be explained to both
sides. A proper theory has to be 'explicit about
all the variables' (90)
So there are 'potential synergies between' CRT and
neo-Marxism, and a more nuanced Marxist analysis
[back to Althusser and Gramsci?] is possible.
Doubts and scepticism remain. Non-colour-coded
racism remains, although we might be able to treat
whiteness as a shifting signifier, or to separate
racism and xenophobia [a linguistic trick?].
Black/White distinctions might still be taken as
'the fundamental form of racism' while accepting
that racism is multifaceted. (91)
|
|