Cultural and biological racisms cannot be sharply separated discursively

Evidence

Modood (1997), however, in my opinion goes too far in attempting to distinguish “cultural racism” from any connection with fixity or the biological and draws, too, a sharp opposition between “biological racism” and “cultural differentialism.” I think this misreading comes from not taking the discursive character of racism sufficiently into account. Modood is therefore misled into taking the biological referent in “biological racism” too literally. — Stuart Hall, Essential Essays, Volume 2, 395

Categorization

  • XREF: This distinction between biological and cultural/differentialist racism (Balibar, Wieviorka, Taguieff) is exactly the conceptual toolkit the Islamophobia field needs — the ‘new racism’ debates premised on culture rather than biology. — connects to: Biological racism and cultural differentialism are racism’s two registers, not separate systems; The biological referent is never fully absent from discourses of ethnicity; Racism operates through biological and cultural registers that reinforce each other (+9 more)
  • DEEPTHINKING: The argument is dense: that treating ‘biological’ in biological racism literally is itself a category error, because racism as a discourse always operates through the cultural inscription of difference — the biological/cultural opposition is a false one.
  • corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Stuart Hall, Essential Essays, Volume 2: Identity…, 395

Broader Connections