State racism ranges from passive tolerance to explicit state project
Evidence
We might usefully bear in mind here the distinction Etienne Balibar insists upon between “(official) State racism” and “racism within the State,” between what Balibar characterizes as the “exceptional state” and “exceptional moments” of the normal state (Balibar and Wallerstein, 1991:39; Balibar’s emphasis). A state may license racist expression within its jurisdiction simply by turning a blind eye, by doing nothing or little to prevent or contest it, by having no restricting rules or codes or failing to enforce those on the books. By contrast, a state like Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa, or Jim Crow Louisiana may assume racism as a state project, definitive of state formation, articulation, in a word, (national) state identity. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1702
Categorization
Category: Definitional Content
- DEFINE: Balibar’s distinction between licensed racism within a state and full state racism as a defining project.
Related
- States differ between those tolerating racism and those founded on it (similarity 0.94)
- State racism operates pragmatically rather than from coherent durable ideology. (similarity 0.79)
- The racial state is normal, not exceptional, to modernity (similarity 0.78)