Interview with Professor Ariane Chebel D’Appollonia

Some people have become accustomed, and indeed comfortable, accepting dogmatic truisms from fringe political groups offering narratives about our shared history, our identities and the current malaise that afflict societies. The purpose of this course is to confront those conventions by analyzing the evolution of racism and the varied assumptions about diversity from a global perspective. Ethno-racial categorizations, as well as forms of racism, have varied over time and space – from the pseudo-scientific biological classifications of “races” of the 19thcentury to the differential racism (based on cultural differences) and institutional racism (as source of socio-economic discrimination) that we encounter today. The comparative perspective we will adopt in the course will provide a better understanding of the complexity of group relations today, especially in increasingly multicultural and multiracial (western and non-western) societies.

Furthermore, we will examine the application of fragmented meanings of “diversity,” a notion that now includes contrasting conceptions of differences, based not only on race and ethnicity, but also on gender, sexuality, religion, national origin, and many other identity markers. They can engender tolerance, empathy and assuage ethno-racial relationship. Yet, in other contexts, they can also fuel intolerance and violence, eroding trust between and among ethno-racial groups.

Against this background, we need to identify the multiple aspects of prejudice in both discourse and practice. A critical, nuanced approach is crucial in order to avoid two common pitfalls: an overestimation of how much differences matter and an underestimation of the challenges raised by the growing number of diversities. The main objective is therefore to find a balance between the recognition and respect of differences, and the identification of common values and principles that transcend ascribed or self-proclaimed differences.

In this course we will discuss both the contributions and limitations of the main anti-racist approaches. The fight against racism, based on a “biological” conception of race, has demonstrated the inane character of racial categories. However, proponents of traditional forms of racism are still influential in many countries (such as the white supremacists in the United States), circumventing anti-racist legislation by claiming their right to free speech.

Problems persist in countering these tactics. “Cultural racism,” which is based on a supposedly biologically defined culturalism, has expanded to justify many forms of exclusion (such as xenophobia, sexism, antisemitism, and Islamophobia). Viewed from a global perspective, however, anti-racist organizations are often divided by the prejudicial sentiments expressed by those minorities who are themselves victim of discrimination. Furthermore, anti-racism today is also characterized by a tension between proponents of a universalist anti-racism who focus on universal values and equality before the law, and proponents of a differential anti-racism who stress the ‘right to be different’ and claim an access to different rights. Both contribute to the fight for dignity. Yet, advocates of the first group are often accused of being too abstract, detached from socio-economic realities, and leading to the dismissal of issues raised by the “color line” divide. Members of the second group, by contrast, are suspected of fueling separatism and societal fragmentation, if not outright tribalism.

We will discuss all these forms of racism and anti-racism, taking into account the specific context that various minorities face around the world. Unfortunately, there is no definite prescription against prejudice. But in-class debate and discussion will give us the opportunity to identify and evaluate anti-racist initiatives from a comparative perspective, and the impact of identity politics in terms of inclusion (by providing access to symbolic and material resources) and exclusion (by fueling competition among victimized groups). 

In my experience, it is a definite strength of the class. National, racial, religious, gender, sexual and academic diversity among the student body provides invaluable insights and enhances our mutual understanding. We will all benefit from it in our discussions, as well as in the final oral presentations by students. The last week of this course is devoted to these presentations, affording students the opportunity to select one case study related to their personal interest and experience.

I will provide students with a selection of conceptual tools (key notions, theories, perspectives, and forms of debate) that they can use to analyze racism and diversity in various contexts. But my approach is a pluralist one: It is not to decide for them what is right or wrong, which perspective is better or worse, or which kind of diversity is more or less legitimate. Class participants will often have to agree to disagree with each other, but to nonetheless listen each other, and to converge towards the mutual respect that is the hallmark of liberal values.