The state and race are not conceptually discrete phenomena

Evidence

One notable exception to the prevailing contemporary oversight may be Omi and Winant’s book on racial formation in the United States which includes a chapter explicitly entitled “The Racial State” (Omi and Winant 1986:70-86, revised in 1994). In light of the wide citation of that book in both its editions it is notable therefore that there is virtually no reference to their chapter on the state. Omi and Winant at least raise the question sociologically and outline a theory regarding the racial forming of states. Their chapter is helpful in posing the problem, in drawing attention to the central implication of the state in racial definition and management, and in outlining a theory about how the state assumes racially conceived and racially expressive projects. The structure of their proposed theory nevertheless presumes a conceptual discreteness about the state and race that I am concerned here to challenge. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1650

Categorization

  • XREF: Core to the reader’s purpose: ties directly to Omi & Winant’s racial-formation theory already used across the vault; flags that even its canonical state chapter presumes a discreteness the chapter author rejects. — connects to: Race is a political and social construct, not a scientific category; Race is constitutive of the modern nation-state, not incidental to it. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1651; Race is constitutive of the modern nation-state from its emergence
  • QUESTION: The specific line of challenge to Omi and Winant’s conceptual discreteness is staked but not resolved here — worth reading onward.
  • SEED: Angle: the ‘Racial State’ chapter is the most-cited part of Omi & Winant yet least engaged — what the vault’s own Omi & Winant references may be flattening.

Broader Connections