If the idea of race is socially constructed, it nonetheless has a real existence: it is therefore necessary, for Magali Bessone, to take into account the concept of race itself in the fight against racism. But what positive content can be given to the “ critical republicanism » that she calls for ?
On a subject that may seem hackneyed, race and racism, Magali Bessone presents a hard-hitting work, brilliant with intelligence and culture. She intends to deconstruct a concept that has become taboo in France, even though it is commonly used by English-speaking researchers and statisticians. With great virtuosity in argumentation, she offers analyzes that can be summarized by simplifying them, but sticking to the essentials, by a certain number of propositions.
1. Biologists have today demonstrated that racial categorizations – to be distinguished from racism, but with complex links with it – which were systematized from the encounter with the Other following the Great Discoveries and the species classification effort XVIIIe century do not exist. There are no population groups defined once and for all, homogeneous, which would be different from others and unequal. The color of the skin which has long made it possible to distinguish human races (4, 5, 7 according to the authors, which shows that this is not self-evident) is only one of the markers of a geographical or historical among others. The essentialist way of thinking that attributes specific and definitive characteristics to certain population groups has no biological basis. The differences between individuals are stronger than the differences between groups, the boundaries between human groups are porous. “ There is no essence of ‘race’ whose definition would be coherent from a biological point of view » (p. 71)
2. Given the weight of the horrors which were committed in the name of the superiority of certain races, in France the term “ breed » by that of “ ethnic group » or “ culture “. Researchers fear being accused of believing in the existence of races by using a term that biologists have shown to be scientifically unfounded and historians that it had been used to justify colonizations and genocides. But, as P.-A. Taguieff had already shown, these terms do not escape the criticism that can be leveled at that of race since we characterize the ethnicity or culture by fixity and transmission. of its characters, we therefore do not eliminate the essentialist mode of thought which defines thought in racial terms. This is also the reason why I proposed going beyond the debates of American sociologists on the validity of the concepts of “ racial group » and “ ethnic group » to propose that of “ historic community “.
3. To escape essentialist thinking, we must therefore understand racism from the analysis of the social construction of “ breed “. If the idea of race is socially constructed, it nonetheless has a real existence. We must therefore deconstruct the concept to understand a reality which, if it is socially constructed, nevertheless has very real effects since they result in discrimination, stigmatization and inferiorization of certain populations. “ Races are real because racial categorization exists and leads to stigmatization, domination and perpetuation of social, political and economic inequalities to the disadvantage of racial minorities in our contemporary societies. » (p. 186). If we refuse to take its existence into account, we limit the understanding of the racist phenomenon and the possibility of waging an effective anti-racist fight. You have to have the courage to talk about race to fight against racism.
4. It is necessary to underline the limits of the anti-racist policies carried out to date. The politics of the typeaffirmative action or “ multiculturalism » (or quotas) has the perverse effect of sanctioning the way of thinking and behavior that is precisely to be fought. The universalist type of politics which is said and intended to be “ blind to differences ” Or “ race blind » (“ colorblind ») in the name of the very principles of the Republic, by denying the existence of the problem, has the perverse effect of objectively legitimizing the fact of racial stigmatization and preventing it from being uncovered and combatting it. It is therefore necessary to develop a critical republicanism » which, while referring to the universalist principles of the Republic, takes into account the reality of the race thus redefined and can effectively fight against the social effects of the idea of race by taking into account the processes of domination.
The reader admires the virtuosity of the philosopher and follows her throughout her critical demonstration, even if this or that point of history or interpretation can be discussed. The positive part is, as Magali Besone herself explains in her introduction, still only “ exploratory “, the author contenting himself with “ to indicate some avenues » (p. 24), However, the “ critical republicanism », echoing that theorized by Cécile Laborde, is a formula on which all researchers can agree, especially since true republicanism is by definition critical. But the difficulty begins precisely when we want to give it concrete content. How does it differ from a tolerant republicanism or a republicanism which adapts to political traditions which differ from one country to another? ? In other words, how promote recognition policies that are not identity policies » (p. 199) ? It is from analyzes and concrete proposals – which Magali Bessone announces will be the subject of future reflection – that we will be able to assess whether the “ critical republicanism “is a more ambitious and fairer project than republicanism” traditional ” by which we strive to empirically resolve the tensions or contradictions inherent in democracies, by adopting “ reasonable accommodations » with the best principles, to use the formula of our Quebec friends. Politics is an art entirely of application.
The difficulty of giving concrete content to this formula does not only reflect the difficulties in “ apply » republican principles in social life, to move from the ideal to concrete reality, it also reveals contradictions inherent in the democratic project. How to make room for the individual equality of citizens while recognizing the particular conditions of certain populations ? To what extent do policies colorblind or the policies affirmative action don’t they also have a performative effect? ? Don’t controlled and provisional positive discrimination policies make it possible to “ unblock » particular historical situations, and which situations ? Can they be temporary? ? All these questions and many others touch on contradictions specific to democracy. Louis Dumont already wrote: “ “ If the advocates of difference demand for it both equality and difference, they demand the impossible “. Politics consists of empirically managing logically contradictory social situations. We expect from the author of such a brilliant book published in a collection of “ concrete philosophy » the answers to these questions. We can only wish to see her concretely analyze what the “ critical republicanism » which she calls for. It should not be content to mobilize the concept, which has become a universal reading instrument, therefore providing little intelligibility, of “ domination » to characterize all the asymmetrical social relations of democratic society.