Illegal asylum seekers from the Balkans under arrest in Greece.
* Professor of the history of ideas at the University of Bologna, author of L’Invenzione
delle Razze [The Invention of Races], I volumi (1998) and La Guerra
delle Razze [The Race Wars], (2001) |
Is
it possible to gauge the influence of globalization and mass migration on the future
of racist thought? Alberto Burgio*, a leading Italian analyst of racism, examines
the ethnic panorama
What do you believe are the fundamental sources of racism in the world?
The first thing we must be clear about is that racism as an ideology is a product
of the modern world. Obviously history has given us many examples of violence between
different human groups, but not until the modern era was this violence justified
by reference to racist thinking. In my opinion, the link is the following: modernity
is characterized by forces that are inclusive and universal, while in practice—in
political, social and military affairs—it is discriminatory. This contradiction is
partly resolved by a racist ideology which excludes groups of peoples who are defined
as essentially different.
In your opinion, has globalization accentuated racism or reduced it?
It’s difficult to give a very general answer, but I have the impression that at the
moment the main effect of the process is to increase racism. The reason for this
is fairly simple: globalization is a classic example of modernity. It’s clearly unifying
the world, but on a hierarchical and exclusive basis. Remember that when we talk
about globalization we are talking largely about the unification of money markets,
speculative financial flows, information and the organization of production. But
the same definitely does not go for the movement of people. Somehow this contradiction
between the free movement of money and the segmentation of the world must be justified,
and this is done by reference to supposed natural differences.
Do you believe that the outbreaks of racism observed in Africa, Asia and Europe
all stem from the same causes?
No two examples of racism are the same since their historical contexts are always
different. Having said that, I believe it is possible to say how racism functions
in general: namely, as a naturalization of identity that aims to legitimate the discriminatory
treatment of different groups, leading in extreme cases to those groups’ destruction
or genocide. But though we can make such a generalization, we are still obliged to
study each case for its particular historical origins. It’s clear that in Asia and
Africa there are racist phenomena that are strongly influenced by globalization,
and are thus similar to the racism characteristic of Europe and the Americas. But
there are also violent ethnic conflicts that stem from the specific histories of
those continents.
You have stressed the role, especially in European politics, of the “demographic
factor.” What exactly do you mean by this?
Racism can’t be understood as the simple consequences of demographic pressure—it’s
not a mechanical phenomenon. Large migratory fluxes have become a real problem for
the first time in 50 years. And though “south to south” migration barely makes the
news—being seen as a minor aspect of the “new world order”—the dismemberment of Yugoslavia
drew attention to supposed masses of refugees. This has transformed demographics
into a critical element on European governments’ political agendas.
In my recent work, I develop an analogy between Europe today and in the1930s. It’s
clear that we have been pushed back to one of the principle historical features of
that time, when the idea of mass deportation or social engineering was considered
a fundamental part of geopolitics.
Some experts would argue, however, that unlike the 1930s extremist parties in Europe
are on the decline: France’s National Front, for instance, is no longer so strong.
When you make a historical analogy, you obviously have to be aware that history does
not repeat itself. It’s a question instead of asking if there is a set of shared
phenomena which can help us find our way around contemporary politics. I point to
three such phenomena, which I believe were extremely important in the 1930s and continue
to be very heavily present in the first years of the new century.
Firstly, war has returned to the heart of Europe through the Balkans, and is once
again seen as a real political option by European and Western governments. Secondly,
as I mentioned earlier, demographics and frontier protection have become key parts
of government policy, especially for the European Union since the implementation
of the Schengen accords in 1995. Thirdly, racism has become once again an ideological
weapon, and the representation of social and political relations in ethnic terms
has become an ideological means of producing consensus in Western democratic societies.
Not only in Austria, Switzerland or Belgium, but also in Britain, Germany and France:
in March 2000, over 60 percent of French people admitted in a survey to holding racist
opinions.
In Italy and other countries there has been earnest debate over the issue of national
culture and its protection. Is this is just a cover for racist prejudices or a reflection
of wider concerns?
If an Italian like me compares myself with a French citizen, I can obviously talk
about my eating habits, my lifestyle, my tastes, indeed everything which distinguishes
an Italian from another nationality, without necessarily being racist. But there
is a point when the discussion becomes racist, and that is when one says these differences
are too large to be eliminated, they are too large to allow people to live together
as equals.
Turning to the Muslims and Arab peoples in Italy, it’s said that the culture of these
people is not only different from our own, but also prevents them from integrating.
Therefore assimilation in a democratic country where everyone is equal before the
law becomes impossible. The ambiguity of the racist stance is that it acknowledges
essential human characteristics—it talks of culture, of religion, of history, of
traditions—yet treats all of these as if they were only aspects of nature. It translates
what is historical into what is natural, and thus impossible to change.
Giacomo Biffi, the Archbishop of Bologna, has clearly stated that we must welcome
only immigrants who come from Christian countries, starting with Filipinos since
they are Catholics. And it’s not just Biffi. An important writer and political scientist
called Giovanni Sartori, who lived for several years in the United States and taught
at Columbia University, has written a book saying exactly the same thing.
Do you believe the coming years will see increased exploitation of racism at the
political level?
It’s difficult to make predictions. If the hawkish approach to governing globalization
wins—by which I mean that of a confrontation between poor and rich—I believe we will
see years of hard conflict, and amid this conflict there is sure to be a violent
rejection of the continuous flow of people coming to the richer parts of the world.
These conflicts will also be interpreted politically by the right, namely by the
political entrepreneurs of spontaneous racism.
But there is also the possibility, or rather the hope, that leaders of the richest
and most powerful countries try to govern these differences between the rich and
poor parts of the world in a less violent and more reasonable way. This is unfortunately
less likely than the first option, but if it occurs, we may see a progressive reduction
in the problem of racism.
Can anything be done to combat racism in individual countries rather than at the
global level?
Anti-racist campaigns must be rooted in the concrete reality of different countries
or regions, otherwise you can make only moral platitudes—and no-one needs those.
Instead we need to be able to make practical interventions in real situations. The
United Nations and other large organizations must continue to make governments aware
of this problem, as must world public opinion. |
