Race scholarship on apartheid grew mainly after the regime’s defeat

Evidence

As always, the emergence of a new research agenda cannot be separated from the political moment: it seems no accident that the subject of race in apartheid should be more extensively researched in the wake of its defeat than during its ascendancy. But there are also theoretical factors at play here, deriving from the influence of theoretical critiques of Marxism, particularly postmodern and postcolonial modes of theorizing, closely attuned to issues of identity, discourse, and the intersections of the two. Even for those of us who remain sceptical about the overall merits of these bodies of theory, the controversies which they have generated have had a profound impact in foregrounding new sorts of questions and animating more diverse research areas. However in retrieving the subject of race, we should not throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater: whatever the economistic excesses of the past, the central concern should surely be to root racial discourses in their material contexts, so as to understand the complex and shifting interconnectedness of race and class, along with the other processes that crisscross our lives, such as gender and ethnicity. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 596

Categorization

  • XREF: The injunction to root racial discourse in material context speaks to the vault’s use of Omi & Winant’s racial formation — formation theory likewise insists racial projects are never purely discursive. — connects to: Race became a researched subject mainly after apartheid fell; Race scholarship on apartheid flourished only after apartheid’s fall.; Race-focused research on apartheid is recent and still early-stage — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 595

Broader Connections