The convivial turn emerged against the pessimism of both policy debates and ethnicity scholarship.

Evidence

The convivial turn took shape at over a period where ‘public and policy debate’ in many diversifying democracies was dominated by ‘notions of ethnic segregation, cultural withdrawal, and multicultural crisis’ (Neal et al. 2013, 319). Simultaneously, scholars were beginning to feel confined by ‘a tradition of scholarship on race and ethnicity that has always taken friction and racism as the problem and starting point, and the reproduction of relations of social power as the end point’ (Wise and Noble 2016, 425). Where both these perspectives, in different ways, saw intergroup tensions as inevitable, scholars sought to counter this pessimism by giving the ‘creative and intuitive capacity among ordinary people, who manage those tensions, some sort of significance.’ (Gilroy 2006a, 6). — Farhan Samanani, Conviviality and its others, 75

Categorization

• DEFINE: Situates what the ‘convivial turn’ is a response to and what it claims to offer.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Farhan Samanani, Conviviality and its others: for a…, 75

Related

• Conviviality matters only as care against racist structures. (similarity 0.79)
• Gilroy’s conviviality concept is contested by critics who doubt race can be transcended. (similarity 0.78)