Book Review: The Tyranny of Race

Abstract

in recent years a spate of academic texts has been published on the subject of race -both on its historical emergence and on its contemporary legacy. But the field is not new. Through the 1960s, not surprisingly given the racial tensions within the United States, a number of primarily American scholarly works on race history had already begun to demarcate a field of enquiry. However, the more recent publications (over the last 15 years) are not simply 'updates' on earlier works but, rather, signal a substantive theoretical and historical shift in the field. Unlike, for example, Thomas Gosset's classic 1963 textbook, Race: The History of an Idea in America, which posited racism as a universal phenomenon that could be traced back to the ancient Greeks, the Aztecs, the Middle Kingdom of China and the Ghanaian kingdom, the more recent scholarship appears to have arrived at something of a consensus in arguing that racial discourse is a product of the West and a product of the modern (though the temporal boundaries that demarcate 'the modern' remain a source of debate). Contrary to arguments such as those proffered by Gosset,

Is “Race” Modern?

“…If this is right-and I will make the case that it is-it further demonstrates the value of disambiguating the question "is 'race' modern?" While the work of continuity theorists is certainly taken seriously by many, others will dismiss it as presentist and anachronistic (Jordan 2001;Seth 2005). Yet if we interpret the continuity theorists as investigating the origins of the means and methods associated with racialization, rather than as discovering pre-modern "races," the relevance and value of their work should become clear.…”

“…Let us move on, then, to the fifth question: “are the means and methods associated with racialization modern?” Continuity theorists who are ostensibly answering the third question, “are ‘races’ themselves modern?” can be read as answering, among other questions, the fifth question. If this is right—and I will make the case that it is—it further demonstrates the value of disambiguating the question “is ‘race’ modern?” While the work of continuity theorists is certainly taken seriously by many, others will dismiss it as presentist and anachronistic (Jordan 2001; Seth 2005). Yet if we interpret the continuity theorists as investigating the origins of the means and methods associated with racialization, rather than as discovering pre-modern “races,” the relevance and value of their work should become clear.…”

“…2.For a similar argument concerning racism, when understood culturally rather than biologically, see Seth (2005). …”