On white normativity, racial habituation, and cracks in racial teams
01:22:43 Share

Welcome to the LSE Events podcast by the London School of Economics and Political Science. Get ready to hear from some of the most influential international figures in the social sciences.

Let's get started. Good evening everyone. Welcome to you all. On behalf of the Department of Sociology and the other editors of the journal, Sam Friedman, Rebecca Elliott and Ali Meji, it's my great pleasure to welcome you to the British Journal of Sociology's annual lecture this evening. Ali is going to formally introduce our very eminent speaker in just a moment, but before he does that, let me say a few words about the journal just very briefly. First,

I think we as editors spend a lot of time with the papers that people send us, but we get to do that because of the help that we receive. And we're just incredibly grateful for the support that we get from Wiley, but in particular, Louisa and Maddy and others, Yadna, who made this evening possible. We're really grateful to everyone that's involved. And if I didn't say anyone, I really apologize, but we are really appreciative.

Second, just over a year ago we held the first academic conference linked to the journal and we think it was pretty successful and we're planning on holding another one in 2026 and we would love people to be able to submit their papers to that again. So the call for papers hasn't come out just yet but it's on your radars so that you can be ready to submit something for us.

Third, the journal now offers two prizes annually, and we'd like to make an announcement for both of those this evening, two really excellent papers, one for the best article published in the previous 12 months, I believe, and the other for the best paper by an early career researcher. So let me start with this year's winner of the early career prize. It was "Saving One's Face While Saving One's Soul: The Refraction of Tactical Approaches to Penance

as a disciplinary device in counter-reformation Italy by Giovanni Zampieri, who's here with us this evening.

I think of this paper as sort of taking on Foucault by doing the kind of work that Foucault would do. It spends time tracking the development of power and disciplinary infrastructures through texts on sacramental penance or confession in Counter-Reformation Italy, but by applying a kind of Goffmanian lens to the encounter of the confession,

Zampieri wants to explore how the subjects of this disciplinary practice navigated a backstage confessional box that was not pure backstage. Confessors might believe that their confessions might not remain private. This paper is methodologically innovative in that it seeks to excavate a kind of Goffmanian impression management as it is being refracted through historical texts.

but it presumes this innovation in order to make a bigger argument. For Zampieri, these texts help us understand how the design of disciplinary infrastructures in this period can illuminate power dynamics. It's a fascinating piece. Please go out and read it. This year's winner of the BJS Prize is The Revolution Next Door by David Kalnitsky and Caitlin Wanamaker. Caitlin's here, so thank you. Oh, Caitlin, sorry, I've heard us. APPLAUSE

I made a terrible assumption, Caitlin. We'd never met. Their paper explores the cascading influence of revolutionary moments on democracy and inequality, not at home, but across borders. No doubt such revolutions make elites in neighboring countries anxious, but how do they respond to the possibility of growing dissatisfaction in their own context? But

perhaps they respond to this kind of anxiety by suppressing or they might expand suffrage, implement increased social welfare. In fact, the paper looks back over 120 years and finds the latter, that these moments of regime change produce or they deepen democracy and they reduce inequality. It's the kind of historical work that has clear contemporary

Relevance is theoretically and empirically rich, and it's the kind of work that spans subfields. It is really, both of them are exceptional pieces of scholarship. So congratulations to our winners. Please go read their papers.

If you'd like to join in the debate this evening on social media, the hashtag for today's events is #LSEevents, I think. And this event is being recorded and will hopefully be made available if the podcast isn't subject to any technical difficulties. And as usual, there'll be a chance for you to put your questions at the end, so please do that to us as we discuss this together. We'll also have a reception outside after the meeting, but let me hand over to Ali, who's going to introduce our speaker.

Thanks, Aaron. So Aaron said that we have an eminent guest. We actually have a distinguished guest because Eduardo Bonilla-Silva is the James B. Duke Distinguished Professor of Sociology at Duke University and is also the current Pitt Professor, visiting Pitt Professor at the University of Cambridge for this academic year.

I expect most of you are familiar with his work, but just as a brief introduction, Eduardo was trained in class analysis, political sociology, and the sociology of development, but his work in the past 30 years now, even though it says 20 on your staff profile, 30 years has been in the area of race.

He has published on racial theory, race and methodology, colorblind racism, the Latin Americanization of race, racial grammar, historically white cottages and universities, race and human rights, race and citizenship, whiteness, the Obama phenomenon, the Trump phenomenon, COVID,

The return of the Trump phenomenon. That's coming. And in all of his work, he contends that racism is fundamentally about racial domination and hence racism is a collective and structural phenomenon in society. This was an argument outlined in his 1997 ASR piece, Rethinking Racism, which I'm sure many of us have read.

Eduardo was also the 2018 president of the American Sociological Society Association, sorry. You're not the first president of the ASA to do a BJS annual lecture. It's a really keen commitment of ours to have this international network. And indeed, it started all the way back in 1953 when Franklin Frazier, the first black president of the ASA, came to give an annual BJS address. So

It's one of my favorite anecdotes and I had the platform so I was just like, I need to say that. On a personal level, Racism Without Racists, your book published in 2003, was one of the books that really inspired me to go into graduate school in sociology. I've spoken to so many people that have said the same thing. It's going to make you feel really old.

but you've now inspired successive generations of academics to go into sociology and adjacent fields. Am I your academic grandfather or something like that? Perhaps great-grandfather. So let's see. So it's a great pleasure to be able to welcome you here to London to give the BJS lecture where you'll be presenting your talk on white normativity, racial habituation, and cracks in racial teams. Please could everyone join me in welcoming Eduardo.

I don't know if this is going to work, but let me see. First, I want to thank you for clapping for me. When I finish, probably half of you will be like, I should not have clapped. So getting invited to give this talk is a distinct honor. However, I must confess that the only time I submitted a paper to BJS, it was rejected.

quickly, as I recall in less than two weeks. But that is water under the bridge. I don't hold grudges. Joke aside, I am truly happy to share with you my version of what this day is called critical race theory. I'm old enough, I'm your great-great-great granddaddy, so I remember

doing critical race theory before it was called critical race theory. As some of you know, my theory section on structural racism appeared in a 1997 article in the American Sociological Review titled "Rethinking Racism Toward Structural Interpretation."

Although I never fancied myself, and this is true as a theory person, and believe my body of work reveals my interest in empirical, methodological, and epistemological matters, once you do any meaningful work on theory, you are forced to follow through. Often because people like what you have to say, and the paper has been cited,

4,257 times, but it's counting, yeah? But sometimes you have to follow through because people criticize your work, which was the case with Professor Mara Lovman, 1999 ASR comment on my article. Her critique, which represented the anti-race, she published this as a graduate student so we can have a discussion. How many of you ever get the chance of reading

publication in the top journals. So he represented the anti-race style of many of our mentors in the what I call the ethnicity paradigm. People like, I name them because that's what they do, Roger Wildinger, Luis Guacal, Andreas Diemer, Rogers Brubaker, etc., etc., etc., etc. Her comment afforded me the space for a strong reply and as you see size matters.

Now, as Professor Ali Melgi has written a book and an article on my racialized social system approach, and he has been peddling his products out there, I will spend most of my time discussing updates to my theorization, particularly my recent theory work.

For those of you who don't know my work, I'll be quick. The essence of my structural racism theory, which I call immediately racialized social system, if I had to do it again, I would call it something else, but that was 30-some years ago. So first, I argue that races are historical concepts, nothing new under the sun, social scientists know that that's what we say. But I also add strongly, but they are socially real as they thicken and soften in the ebb and flow of everyday life.

Race, like all social categories, is always a process, it's always something in the making. Second, I contend that racial regimes exist because dominant actors benefit from them in diverse ways and with varied degrees of intensity. This material foundation accounts for why whites defend keeping things as they are, free right or exhibit racial apathy,

or do very little to remedy race inequalities. So defense of the racial order is not a one-way street. There are many ways of doing the defense. And lastly, I claim that deep change in racial regimes occurs through the process of racial contestation between the races. Given that my argument is materialist,

Not in the Marxist sense, although I came from the, anyone who knows my work and my history, I come from the structural Marxist tradition and came to the U.S. as a vulgar Marxist who then saw the light and like, wow, race matters, and gender too, etc.,

So because of my material stance, which in the case of race means that people have divergent interests based on their racial location, I urge analysts to focus most of their attention on covering the practices and mechanisms that support the system. And this is quite different to what most social scientists do, which is hunting for the races.

And they usually do this with survey questions. And the first one actually is a real question using surveys. If a black family with about your same income moves into your neighborhood, do you mind that a little, a lot, or not at all? Come on, folks. This is a stupid question. It's a multiple choice. The answer is a lot of

Not at all. Except we have data showing that they do, man, yeah? And they do know one. As soon as they become 7% folks of color, they started moving on. So why mess with a theory that has been quite successful? Because only idiots believe their theorizations are perfect and complete. Social analysts must respond to new ideas, data, and theoretical developments.

In my case, even though I believed, and I still do, that my theory was solid compared to the alternatives, I knew it was incomplete and that in some areas it needed further development and refinement. Hard to do everything in 10,000 words, yeah? Hence today I will discuss the work I've done on racial ideology, race grammar, racialized emotions,

But I will spend most of my time talking on my new work on white normativity and racial habituation, and I'm still working, so it's the first cut of the material. Racial subjectivation, that line is a little bit off, yeah? So RWF, which means regular white folks, and these are

Regular white folks like some of the other, yeah? And lastly, the input of variance or what I call in the title cracks in racial teams. Ali mentioned in the discussion today, white teams. And it's because all racial groups have cracks, yeah? It's not just whites. Also, folks of color have cracks. Okay, so in the 1997 paper, I discussed this idea of racial ideology, but realized quickly that it wasn't enough, yeah?

Hence, I labored quite hard, honestly, for some of you who do theory. Any theory teacher in the house? Come on, some of you are. Okay, so you theory, you know that you end up reading, reading, reading, reading, reading a lot, and then two years later you have a paper, yeah?

even though you read probably more than your colleagues, yeah? So, and sometimes you're lucky and people like the word, sometimes it's like, "Uh, ah, next," yeah? So I leveled quite hard to produce what I thought was a more robust and conceptually specific theorization of racial ideology in a paper I titled "Racial Attitudes or Racial Ideology: An Alternative Paradigm for Examining Actors' Racial Views." I defined racial ideology there as

the racially based frameworks actors used to explain and justify or challenge the racial status quo. I also discussed the elements that comprise any racial ideology. Those familiar with my work, my great book, "Racing Without Racism," know that I mostly think about frames,

and racial stories. It's an argument that can be used, I think. So I developed this skeleton for race, but I think it travels well for other groups. It can be used for gender and perhaps even for class. Anyway, I also talk about the various functions of ideology. But as my time is limited, I ask those interested in the details to read and cite aloud the original paper. This theorization was a conceptual anchor

for my analysis of colorblind racism or the dominant race ideology of post-civil rights America, which is the subject of a great book. I need some water. As I'm drinking my water, you are being subjected to a subliminal influence. Well, I'm black and Puerto Rican. I don't have time to be subliminal, so I'll leave you faith, yeah?

Unlike Jim Crow racism, Colombian racism uses ideas and tropes associated with liberal discourse in an abstract and decontextualized way which allow whites to justify racial affairs without relying on direct or overt racial language. I think we have been at this for now 50 years in the US and in other places.

For instance, when opposing policies that benefit people of color such as affirmative action, remember we used to have affirmative action in the U.S.? Now it's gone. Forget about diversity, equality, they're gone too. So whites can say things such as, I'm all for equal opportunity, which is why I oppose affirmative action, because affirmative action is discrimination in the river. You're like, what? Run that by me again.

So only because you believe discrimination ended, you can say such a stupid thing. The beauty of saying it this way is that it does the job without sounding racist. And you already have the plausible explanation of telling you, I'm not bad. I'm just a principled person defending equality. Now, a good question to ponder is whether colorblind racism is a US-based or a well-systemic racial ideology.

In the paper for this lecture, I suggest colorblind racing is well-systemmed. I think the available data is compelling for the Western world as well as for Latin America and the Caribbean. Those of you with Latin American or Caribbean roots, as I have, know that we invented this thing we call colorblind racing.

We call it racial democracy, we are mestizo societies, therefore we are better, we are all one people, etc. So before Americans were talking the colorblind nonsense, we have been doing this since the 1930s or so. I hope to tighten my claim in the future. If I claim this, if you do well system, you have to know everything.

So if I want to tighten my claim, I will need to then add texture by bringing societies that are somewhat obscure in the world system, where the brush of race doesn't touch them as deeply as European nations or Latin America, and explain how is that full of blindness and race formation affects those other countries.

Countries such as the claim, we don't have that like in Japan or in China. And of course, now we have a research showing that it does raise matters in places that seemingly are racially homogeneous like Japan or China or Haiti. Some people run outside and assume Haiti is a racially homogeneous country. That's not the case.

So I hope to do that in the future. Maybe, just maybe, if my publisher is nice to me, we can do a seventh edition and then be all happy. And that will be the last edition of my book. Although today we're talking that maybe I need to do a few more until I can retire and be like, okay, I'm safe now. But if you're a person of color, you're never safe. So that's part of the drama, yeah?

This argument about colorblind racism being well systemic is not new for me because about 25 years ago, I argued that a racial ideological convergence was happening among the Western nations of the world. The convergence actually began in the 1950s as the previously mostly white Western nations of the world in desperate need for labor imported into their midst

some of their colonial subjects, yeah? Or other laborers from countries in their periphery, such as Poland, Romania, Latvia, Estonia. Much like you guys did in the UK, yeah? This is perfectly fitting to the UK.

Interestingly, when I wrote about what, at the time, I had not even labeled colorblind racism. So I had the beginnings of my argument, but I had not sort of coined the term and come up with the structure of the beast. I added that in my original thinking that the version in other Western nations included, and I quote myself in the abstract, a celebration of nationalism that at times includes ethno-nationalism.

And guess what happened now 30 years later? This proved accurate and has become normative in the world. Isn't that what we're experiencing these days? We're not racist, but we have the right to defend our civilization. Ooh, civilization, that kind of language is problematic, no? Okay. Oh, I'm missing one page. Let me illustrate how Coral Band Resin works in the UK with the case of 12-year-old

Chakisi Flanders, a black student at Furman Boys School in London. He was penalized for having dreadlocks and the headmaster justified the action as follows: "We're a strict academic boys school and have a strict uniform and appearance policy. I would stress that everyone is welcome to the school." We're not racist, yeah? We're not racist school in any way! They always come with that line, yeah?

shape or form. But we have a distinct culture and when boys come to the school we expect them to respect that culture. We are strict and no nonsense. So why defend standards and rules as if they were universal, failing to recognize how these standards benefit them racially and help keep racial others at bay? Accordingly,

Contemporary world systemic colorblind normativity is formidable as it preserves white racial domination without shouting or calling people names, thus protecting white self-image as non-racist actors. And this is what I titled my book, Racism Without Races. Maybe in the question and answer we can have a discussion. Dear Professor Bonilla-Silva, now we have racism with races. So what about that?

I think I have an answer, and it comes from Latin America. Okay. So my work on racial grammar is an extension of my work on race ideology. The notion of race grammar comes from the work of British sociologist Caroline Knowles, who works here, I think, now at King's College. Am I right? Anyone know, sir?

Nevertheless, the idea for how I retooled the concept emerged from a conversation I had with a former graduate student, now professor at University of Illinois Chicago, Tyrone Foreman. A bunch of folks are going to a movie, and he tells us, I don't go to white movies. And my response to him was like, he's like crazy. He's being hypersensitive.

The notion of hypersensitivity is sort of a white term used to deny race stuff when we claim it. So the race ideology was affecting even me, which is not a surprise because ideology affects everybody. And in truth, I was wrong and he was right. There are white movies and black movies, and now we have Latino movies, Asian-oriented and teen movies.

But we only recognize Black Oriente's movies as racial. This is because racial ideology sediments to the point that, like air pollution, it affects us in an invisible way. Without much thinking, we label things done by folks of color as racial, but swallow things done by whites, whether it's a movie or a TV show, social theory,

awards and publications, et cetera, as objective universal non-racial development. When this happens, ideology is race grammar, which as argued in my 2011 annual lecture for Ethnic and Racial Studies, reproduces racial order by shaping in significant ways how we see or don't see race in social phenomena, how we frame matters as racial or not race related, and even how we feel about race matters.

racial drama, I argue, is a distillate of race ideology and hence of white supremacy. So what kind of things can analysts, I think, understand better through this notion? In the article I examined the whiteness of movies and TV shows, school shootings in black and white cases, the curious case of HWCUs, Historically White Courts and Universities,

And a few other things that will illustrate race grammar today with the case of missing people, as it is a matter literally of life and death. Data from the U.S. shows that while missing people of color get little attention from the authorities and media, despite their own representation among the missing, the opposite is the case for whites. Whites are underrepresented, yet all the stories in the TV shows seem to be about white folks.

And I pondered, is this the case for the UK too? So I did the sociological thing. This is Google is our friend. Let's check. And I found that this is the case also for the UK. So whites are also underrepresented among the missing people here. And they're also overrepresented among media stories. Again, similar to the USA.

This happens particularly if the story involves a missing white woman. We even have a name for that. It's called the missing white woman syndrome. A case that clearly illustrates the import of race grammar in the UK is a story that was appearing in 2023 in ITVX, a report they did on missing people.

The study highlighted the data I mentioned already about overrepresentation of people of color among the missing on the representation of white folks, etc. And it profiled the work of a sociology professor called Shaliv Green, who emphasized the race, if this doesn't fall, the race-gender nexus on all of this. Yet, the study did not include a single

a single case dealing with people of color or even a picture. The race grammar is so powerful that it even shapes stories dealing with race and the missing persons crisis. Okay, so let me move quickly and talk about race emotions, another subject that I confess I didn't do much with it in my '97 piece.

And this is not surprising because as an old structuralist, we structuralists don't believe in the subject. Subject is not part of history and emotions are irrational and we laser focus on the ta-da-da-da rational. However, as a person of color who has been feeling raised in childhood, I should have at least made a gesture towards emotions. And I didn't.

Thankfully, I sealed this gap in my 2018 American Sociological Association presidential address, Feeling Race, theorizing the political economy of racialized emotions. I argue that racialized emotions are socially real and have concrete effects in our bodies. Nevertheless, and this is important, they are not natural. It's not like a fight and flight instinct, but are structured by the existence of racial origins.

We only react emotionally to racial others when we perceive them as racial others. If we could see one another as fellow humans, our cognitive emotional apparatus would not react at all. So here you have the cartoon. Hey, how you doing? We're just humans. We're friends. Yeah, race doesn't affect our interaction. That's the ideal type. That's the expectation. That's the hope. But that's not what happens. Once you racialize populations, then we see one another as different.

I am dangerous, I am the black ontology walking in Cambridge or going to a pub and being like, "You don't belong here!" That's a joke, folks. You guys are tight. This country is tight. These emotions then work relationally and correspond to the position of racial actors in society.

For example, whites feel comfortable in white spaces such as colleges, white neighborhoods, and even in their pubs. My wife and I are doing a systematic study of pubs and racial comfort in Cambridge. Okay, we're not doing that. White scholar Robert Jensen explains white comfort beautifully. So he says,

Perhaps most important, when I seek admission to a university, apply for a job, or home for an apartment, I don't look threatening. Almost all the people evaluating me for those things look like me. They are white. They see in me a reflection of themselves. And in a racist world, that is an advantage. I smile. I am white. I am one of them. I am not dangerous.

Even when I voice critical opinions, I am caught some slack. After all, I am white. Whereas most whites experience comfort and a sense of belonging in white spaces, people of color experience the opposite. Kehinde Andrews, just by chance this morning I got an email from him,

The first professor of black studies in the UK wrote about this in his The Psychosis of Quietness. If you haven't checked that book, it's worth checking it. He said this, "Although I am probably the best known person on my campus, I can walk around almost anonymously because other members of staff look down, away, or through the black man coming to them in

The Corridor. Those of us, folks of color in this room know that feeling, yeah? We experience it all the time. Sometimes in our own departments. Excuse me, remember I'm your professor? Give me some respect. The lack of acceptance of people of color as equal members of the club in white-dominated spaces is not a new thing. And it's actually very well documented. My point is recognizing the tremendous power

of racialized emotions and the role in keeping the racialized subaltern alienated and stressed, helping maintain white supremacy. For more on this, read and cite that beautiful paper. Okay, now let me talk about my new work and talk about specifically white normativity. After racial regimes were established in the 15th and 16th centuries through brutal settler

colonial practices, race domination congealed and coercion, although always present, is still with us, morphed into white normativity. This happened not as part of a master plan, so it wasn't a white folk satellite. We're going to do that. That was funny. Okay. But as an almost natural extension of whites domination.

whiteness became the unacknowledged yardstick for judging, processing, and thinking out almost everything. I'm using race, but is there also a male normativity that becomes also dominant in society? I think that won't make the same argument. White normativity today means, as I suggested, that our hair and style are not regarded as normal. It also means that when we walk into many places,

we are deemed suspicious and dangerous, or that white authorities, police, teachers, social workers, doctors, or therapists, do not relate to us as equals, and therefore see and treat us differently. If you missed the cartoon, let me translate my horrific cartoons. So here you have the police, as a police, as a copper, yeah? As he called it, with the white girl, really nice, and then the same copper with the black girl and...

She's crying because he's arresting her. Was that clear in the cartoon or not? Thank you. Thank you. By the way, I'm selling the cartoons. So thankfully, social media departments are not ruled by white normativity, providing respite for people of color. Isn't that funny? Yes. If you believe that, I'm selling a bridge in Cambridge. In a forthcoming article, I illustrate how quickly whites became

accustomed to not seeing or experiencing their domination as something inhuman and unfair. Dominants don't want to think they are SOBs. They want to think they are good people. For example, during slavery, children were trained about their superior location and how others were lesser people. The child of an overseer, for example, told his black friend, "Come on," I'm going to use the language he used, "Come on, end person."

I have to clarify, there was a socialization between white and black kids until puberty. The plantation was an isolated, young kids are like, "I need a friend, okay, buy me a friend, okay, good." And after puberty, no friends. The black child told his white friend, "I am not an in-person." Without hesitation, the white child replied, "Hmm."

Okay, this is not here. It should say, yes, you is. My pa paid 200 for you. He bought you to play with me. And reading that in a book by Gene Genovese, who has his own race drama, that's a different story. And I was thinking, how many times have I been treated like a pet by some colleagues or so-called white friends? I remember my first experience

month in Wisconsin. We have some Wisconsin colleagues in the room. And a certain person that some of you may know told me, introduced me to another friend of hers, asked, here is Eduardo. He is my Puerto Rican black friend. And I'm like, hey, wait a second. Why do you have to

Do I go and say, "Hey, here is this person. You are my white lesbian friend?" I don't do that. "You are my friend?" That's it. If people ask later, "Are you Puerto Rican?" That's a different question. But I'm not your pet, yeah? So how is white normativity produced? I argue that normativity happens through the process of racial habituation,

which I define as, and this definition will be later cleaned up, I am at the first stage, I confess, of theoretical sort of distillation. The learned race practices that have become meaningful embody ways of being in the world as a result of repetition, ritualization, based on models we have at our disposal. And those models come from parents, relatives, bus drivers, teachers, religious leaders, and so on.

These habits operate in the hazy space between conscious and non-conscious. By the way, I think I have done some theory. That's an area. Young scholars, if you can explain what part of the race stuff is conscious, semi-conscious, or subconscious. Wow. That's an accomplishment. Anyway, let me see. And I got... Okay, where was I? Okay. So habituation then makes whites into whites.

And it's why they develop what the late Charles Mills called the epistemology of ignorance that prevents them from fully understanding the racial system that benefits them. I must emphasize that the habits of whiteness are mostly acquired informally, so through mundane, repetitive experiences and practices, rather than formally through books at home or in schools. Although, so yeah, we don't have whiteness schools.

How do you like my Picasso-like rendition of the white kids? Yet, I also have to tell you, some formal and semi-formal racial training happens too. So it's not just informal. So during slavery, there were mamas. How to be a good planter? If a slave does this, you--

with them 20 times. If he does that, only 10. Rules and regulations on how to keep order. And today, white families preach they are colorblind, but they clearly do racialized training. So race training does happen. So informal and semi-formal training transpired during the Jim Crow period as written and unwritten rules regulated social interaction between blacks and whites. For example, this is Jim Crow. This is between 1860 and 96 years old.

If on a sidewalk at the same time, the black person had to give way to the white person. So we had to move so the white person could pass. Blacks had to salute whites as sir or miss. But whites did not have to reciprocate regardless of state. And now, I've been everywhere in the US. I usually had a, like the old companies, a five-year plan. I was kicked out of there. I've been now 20 years in the South.

and I still see a lot of black, initially I call it accommodation to white supremacy. Now I know it's deeper than that. The sound is still different, yeah? And therefore part of the so-called difference is survival, yeah?

So they still do the miss and sir, and I, as a person who lives in the Midwest and from Puerto Rico, I'm like, don't give them any freaking respect or title unless they give you equally respect and title. But now I know there is a history and there is also this more violent system of maintaining domination. So you do have to survive after all. So accordingly, white normativity produced through racial habituation is the key

to understand how race order is manufactured in plain sight. No need for racists or conspiracies, as whites enacting the white script reproduce race order. So let me address now race subjectivation and the matter of regular white folks. To be habituated into something, the something must either exist or you must believe that the something exists. Before Foucault wrote on subjectivation, we must remember, I'm dating myself,

John, you remember this. We must remember the work of Louis Althusser, who coined the notion of the interpolation of the subject. This is the foundation for Foucault's notion of subjectivation, which he defines as a form of power that applies itself to everyday life and makes individuals subjectives.

In terms of race, as philosophy Nancy Fraser has suggested, once the citizen worker category was created and given to whites, you are a citizen worker, I'm going to explode you, but you are a citizen, you are a member of the white club. At the same time, they created a degraded position of slave indigenous order for Africans and indigenous peoples.

So race objectivation then developed from the beginning relationally. Race and class in modernity, unlike what many Marxists contend, emerged simultaneously. Race and class, much like race and beans in Puerto Rican cuisine. No Puerto Ricans in the room? Zero? Viva Puerto Rico for you! Anyway, so in Puerto Rico we love rice and beans. That combination is always together.

As an aside, like the work of Nancy Fraser, she suffers from what I have called in my work, deep whiteness. She thinks she's discovering something new. But those of us who know the work of Stuart Hall know that he wrote in 1978 that, and I quote, race is the modality in which class is lived.

So she's not discovering you. And in reading and preparing for this note, I realized that the same claim about her not seeing the race plus thing as other people have done it was also brought to her when he wrote on Capitalism and Patriarchy. And the black feminists were telling her, hey girl, guess what? We have done this before you, so respect, yeah?

The race subjectivation of whites and people of color continues today. We're still subjectivated on forming two subjects, race subjects. So for example, immigrants of color move to nations where they believe they will do better. They come to the UK and, oh, I'm going to improve my law. And they quickly realize that they will experience downward racialization. The black Swiss immigrant expressed awareness of her new status in the following way.

Every day when I leave the house I realize that I have a different skin color and that this fact does not simplify my life here. So this immigrant's clarity about what Fanon labeled a long, long time ago the fact of blackness goes side by side with how the system shapes all of us subordinated racial actors, psychologically and emotionally. Not surprisingly, many of the immigrants in the same story

talk about their experience of pain, anguish, shame, etc. And one of them said that he did not leave his house, he did not leave his house for a month. Think about that. And explained that as follows: "When I go out, I should be prepared to be stopped by the police." So I read that, I prepared the note, and I was thinking, and we were talking about that this morning in the conversation,

I'm still, so I'm a great scholar and known in many circles as a strong person, but I confess I am as vulnerable as the next person. And it hurts like hell when people minimize my work and usually behind my back say things

facing me and telling me, I disagree with you, okay, let's debate. But they do it in an underhanded way, or I get an award, or I'm invited to be the Peetz Professor of History and Studies at Cambridge, and they're like, wow, this diversity thing is going crazy. Eduardo got that stuff. He's not really qualified yet. So it's tough, and this way,

One of the most important social analysts of the last hundred years, Dr. Professor Bob Marley, was so right when he said that we need to accomplish mental emancipation. It's not enough to accomplish the other emancipation. We have to free our minds.

So my concern with how actors become racial subjects led me to theorize something I've been saying for a long, long time. I haven't even mentioned it in public, but I've not written and formalized it theoretically. The argument that race domination does not depend on extreme actors, but on ordinary, nice, good whites. Racialized social systems work because of the actions of regular white folks. By the way, I type, I type.

Regular white folks, that's the face. So that's how they are like, "Congratulations, regular white folks! You made it!" Think, for instance, about how race order was maintained during slavery. Although bad masters existed, we did have those horrible masters that we read about, normative masters of different tonalities were more numerous.

And enslaved African Americans knew and used their differences to pit one against the other. You could say, hey, either you do this or I move to another plantation, I escape, and whatever. Of course, normative masters, let's be clear, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, saw themselves as benevolent because they fed, clothed, and did not punish too much and severely their properties.

They're enslaved Africans. Not as I'm saying enslaved Africans. I don't like the word slave. I'm not a slave. No, someone enslaved you. Nevertheless, the fact remained that they owned humans and treated them as property. They did with them as they pleased, which in Jefferson's case included sexual predation. All of us know what happened to Sally Hemings. Nevertheless, most wives were not master, did not own slaves, had very little property.

They were common whites, which has led some historians to a revisionist tradition that sees fraternity between poor whites and enslaved Africans and free blacks, which actually did happen.

However, and the reason why this is important is because that revisionist tradition is being used by contemporary sociologists of whiteness who see the same deal about, hey, today we have the same thing. Poor whites and black folks, they are almost in the same position. And I'm like, really? Come on.

Anyway, overall the data suggests that, and I quote a historian, "Hawaiianists confer upon even poor whites certain social privileges, including the expectation of respect and deference from slaves." So yes, fraternization occurred, standing mattered, and it matters today. So many of the benefits of Hawaiianism that I claim applied during slavery continue to apply to whites today.

The pattern can be seen in the hierarchical and superficial nature of contemporary relations between whites and non-whites. On the hierarchical side, regular white folks of all classes maintain social distance from brown folks, mostly through residential segregation. However, they enforce the racial standard and social distance from us, people of color, in many various areas of life. They police us, people of color, in jobs,

stores, streets, neighborhoods, etc. etc. etc. The black participant in his story described the surveillance he experienced in a neighborhood from a white woman. The lady was walking her baby and her dog. I drove by and she just turned around and took a picture. And then another neighbor as I was driving by was in their yard. I could see in my rearview mirror them making out of my license plate.

The superficiality of interactions is shaped by what I call in my early work the white habit. Whites do not learn much about us people of color, hence they feel uncomfortable with us. You know how many times I've been with a colleague and he's like, "Hello Eduardo, did you play basketball?" And I'm like, "No, I don't play basketball. I'm a socialist like you." "Okay, see I have to go."

However, I must underscore that race power also events life in seemingly integrated spaces. Thus, when we are together in churches, jobs, neighborhoods, or social departments, whites still rule and for the most part do not genuinely mingle with us. White colleagues, talk to your black and brown colleagues.

and be ready for prime time. Be ready to be told, hopefully we tell them the truth, I'm like, yep, I don't feel the same as you feel here. I don't feel you guys appreciate my work. I feel that you're always thinking that you are like the best thing in the world and that our work is secondary. And you're always thinking that we're not qualified. I have an answer to that. I think that all of us run the gamut of some of us are really good, some of us are really, really problematic, and most of us are just right in the middle.

That's the standard we should use. Realize that and you'll be free. So long as you don't think that all white people are superior, then we're good. If you're interested in what happens in technically integrated spaces, let me present the work of one of my former students. See the book by Sara Mayorga, Behind the White Picket Fence, where she examines race interactions in a multi-ethnic neighborhood somewhere in the south, Durham.

She documents how whites try to control everything in this neighborhood. Sidewalks, how dogs are treated, who can walk their dog on this side or that side, neighborhood associations, community gardens, and even how you, the color you choose to paint your house, or how you decorate your house, particularly the exterior.

To repeat, white supremacy cannot function unless regular white folks buy in and participate consciously, unconsciously, and through habituation in reproducing race order. So my last point is on change, how to effect change in racial and social systems. Although I still hold that deep change occurs through race concentration, and we the wretched of the earth must mobilize large-scale movements, I recognize today what I did not

recognized in '97, which is the other avenue. And as an old head, now with what I thought was going to be salt and pepper ended up being mostly salt, not pepper, that revolutions are scarce historical occurrences, and their effectiveness is not guaranteed. They do produce, as the paper you guys wrote, changes and pushes, but again, no guarantees.

Having a sense of white anti-racist possibilities is therefore politically important. However, the elements I mention in the paper can also produce the opposite outcome, a deepening of race domination. So first, as races are always in the making state, actors can move somewhat up or down the racial ladder.

For example, in the U.S., I have argued that segments of the Latino and Asian community have created a space and labor honorary white. And it's a segment given to them. It's not a segment that is sort of, hey, congratulations. You have agency, but white is still rude. And some of the people in that segment have moved out of the honorary white status to whiteness altogether. Again, for us as race scholars, nothing new under the sun.

When I wrote this, I didn't say what I should have said, which is also some black people have been moving out of the system and being black and now can claim a number of alternative positions such I'm multiracial, I'm biracial, I'm just American, don't call me anything, I'm beyond, beyond. And so post-post, post, post, post, okay?

And I wanted to give you the example of people who, in the Latino community, who have sort of moved to whiteness altogether. And it's the case of Cameron Diaz. Some of you know she's of Cuban descent. The second person, I guess, is not familiar to most of you here. He was a very important TV personality, handyman. And his name on TV was Bob Villa. His name in Spanish is Roberto Villa. And they both white passed through their careers.

This is an example of racial agency can be used to join in the racial system. Not all agency is progressive. Agency can be on the other side of the aisle. Those of you in Latin America know that a lot of our agency is to, how can I escape blackness or Indianness? How can it be on the other side? On race transitions, and this is another example of people deepening racial domination or participating in the racial domination game,

Research have studies how many of the white have done studies, how many of the people we call white in Latin America, descend from indigenous and black people. I'm going to give you a specific example from Nicaragua. The Somoza family, which has produced so far three presidents, you have them there standing like they're somebody.

Real murder, yeah? So that family has roots in black and indigenous people in Nicaragua in the 18th century. This should not surprise any of us, as race is a historical political construct. And for the Samosa family, like for so many families in the Americas, mejorar la raza, efforts to improve your race, did race magic.

And there is a racist painting from Modesto Brocos, a Brazilian painter in 1895, that sort of signifies this notion of mejorar la raza. All of you know that in Latin America we say, oh, we're mixed, so we're good. The mestizaje has one direction, from black

to something close to white, if not white altogether. They never say, for example, OK, we're going to mix to have more black. No. We bring more white folks, as they did in Brazil, Uruguay, et cetera, to improve the race. You don't say, let's bring more Africans or indigenous people so that the mixing is-- no. It's a one-directional sense of .

A second sort of change is through subjectivation, a process that happens on many axes, creating fractures. So you are not just a racial subject, you're also a gender subject, sexual orientation subject, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So do whites who are gay, differently abled, or working class bite into whiteness in the same way as whites in dominant subject locations? The bulk of the data suggests they do, but at a lesser rate.

And here, percentages matter. Those of you who are still doing politics know that you need to have percentages matter because, OK, if you are 10% less likely or more likely or something, you can develop a strategy. So knowing all of these fractious matters as it allows us to think of potential political intervention and actions. So lastly, we have studied other factors I have no time to cover, such as education, socialization, anti-raising, religiosity. All these factors affect potentially

our subjectivity. And I say more about these matters in the paper, but it's time for me to conclude and wrap up. First, although my paper was not perfect, it hit hard the previous ethnicity and cultural approaches to racism. You don't like the cartoon? Too aggressive? Okay.

Second, my elaboration on racial ideology and my analysis of colorblind racism has influenced, modesty aside, race scholars all over the world. Many now interpret actors' ideas as expressive of their racial interests. This is very different from when I started, where everything was about attitudes. Attitudes and interests are related but are not the same. Third, my work on race grammar

demonstrate that when racial ideology sediments, even us, victims of domination, accepted the race. Same as I confess, I believe that my friend Tyrone was being hypersensitive. I accepted the race ideology that says, you crazy man, it's a movie, a movie is just a movie. And he was right, it was not just a movie, it was a white movie.

Third, fourth, my work on racialized emotions shows that racial edifice of domination cannot be built without emotions. Racialized emotions matter deeply. That's a word from Donald Trump. He has improved our vocabulary, our lexicon has become so complex. He's such a, how do you call himself? He called himself a genius, but he had a qualification that was, that's great. Anyway, Chris.

A highly stable genus, yeah. Unlike an unstable genus, yeah? Okay. The last three points I discussed, why normativity, race habituation, race subjectivation, et cetera, and cracks in racial teams, are essential to understand what the structure is and how it works. And here is what I'm going to sort of be pushing the next few years.

The structure must be explained rather than assumed or suggested. We structuralists, we who talk about systemic racism cannot just keep telling people, "You know, it's systemic." And people are like, "By that you mean what?" "You know, systemic is everywhere." I'm like, "Okay, can you elaborate?" I'm like, "It's structural." Which means, you know, it's the structure of the structure and it's structural. You have to explain.

And I think that I'm sort of cracking that note by saying that race domination works relatively smoothly because whites habituated into white norms perform the racial roles without even thinking they are doing race work. They believe they are just being John, sorry John, Catherine or Vernon. Who is Vernon here? No Vernon? Okay. If someone is Vernon, I'm going to say I'm Vernon.

But they are all, adapting the work of Karl Marx to race, they are all unconscious representations of the race system. Hence, based on their collective nature, we can reasonably predict that Catherine will cross the street when she sees a black man approaching her on the sidewalk. Oh my goodness, black man is going to attack me, eh? That John will raise the issue of qualifications,

when a black candidate is up for a job in his sociology department, or that Vernon will be furious if he learns that a black colleague makes more money than him. Happened to me many, many times. "Do you know that you make more money than me?" I'm like, "Yeah, I'm better than you." I think it's because of race. I'm like, "Actually, I went and checked Harvard, Princeton, Yale. It's mostly white people. Why don't you apply to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, or Stanford?" I don't have what they want. I'm like, "Apparently, they like white people, so you have that."

Maybe, just maybe, you are not as good as you and your mama think you are. So thankfully, race subjects are not manufactured in similar fashion. Whites do not come out of the faucet of, there should be a faucet of whiteness, it's not there, as variants and cracks occur in the making of white. For some of the reasons I alluded today, some whites become fighters for racial justice.

such as John Brown during slavery, the many whites who fought segregation during the Civil Rights Movement, risking their lives, and of course, all of us recall recently how many whites joined us in the 2020 movement against police brutality and against systemic racism. But variance in race subjectivity works for everyone and in all directions. So we also have, during slavery, some blacks who were masters,

during the Jim Crow period some blacks who passed as white including two of the kids from Thomas Jefferson who moved to Cincinnati and they became white. And today more than a few blacks support Trump. And some think of him as he's my black president. So what I want to do in realistic fashion

And I believe that we must exploit these fractures that are in the white team. But our priority still is organizing social movements against race domination. Race structures are resilient because most whites follow the path of least resistance and are content receiving the wages of whiteness. Most whites are not members of white supremacy or nationalist groups or behave in overly racist ways. That is not needed to maintain domination.

But most are regular white folks who reproduce white supremacy in the everyday without much noise. They are the cause of the system. Accordingly, our agitation and anger are absolutely necessary for change to happen. This is why Frederick Douglass, said by Steele, used, "Power concedes nothing without a demand." It never did, and it never will. Thank you.

okay thanks so much for that talk we have now around 20 minutes for a q a at eight o'clock we'll move just to that just outside just outside for for a reception um i'm competing against the drinks free drinks competing against free drinks

So perhaps what we'll do is we'll take a couple of questions at a time and Aaron's also gonna check questions coming in online. Do you wanna go first and then you afterwards?

Hi, I'm interrupting this event to tell you about another awesome LSE podcast that we think you'd enjoy. LSE IQ asks social scientists and other experts to answer one intelligent question. Like, why do people believe in conspiracy theories? Or, can we afford the super rich? Come check us out. Just search for LSE IQ wherever you get your podcasts.

Now, back to the event. Hello, thank you very much for this talk. It was amazing. I'm a student at King's College and I wanted to ask that racial ideology seems to be primarily a Western problem and primarily an experience of...

non-white people in the Americas and in other parts of the West. How do you think, does it translate easily in non-Western contexts? So, for example, in a country, for example, in South Asia, if there's, you know, an ethnic...

domination of another group or some religious persecution or Islamophobia, those kind of things that are not very close to the black experience. Does racial ideology easily translate to that and if so, what is the racial aspect of it and why would it not be religious discrimination or ethnic discrimination? And one last question, I'm studying racial capitalism at the moment, how does your work relate to that theoretical framework?

We'll take two questions. Do you want to go next? And that was really good because I forgot to say, if you can't put a question mark at the end of these statements, then rephrase them so they are a question. That was good. You got us started well. Well, thank you, Eduardo, Latin American fellow here.

So yeah, I have a question about the concept of racialized emotions. I would like to ask if you could elaborate on that, particularly because, well, I specialize in the sociology of emotions, and we know that in the last 20, 30 years, it's been quite acknowledged that emotions are social dispositions, right? And in that sense, I wonder, how do you think that racialized emotions

distinguished from other social constructs like class or gender, right? We have a perception of the other based also on visual aspects, like how clothes manifest class, gender, of course. So what distinguishes racialized emotions? Okay, good. So briefly on question one, I do think that race ideology is well-systemic. I made that claim. But I did acknowledge that in the societies that we usually don't

sort of a study as part of the racial conversation like India, Pakistan, China, Japan, we have to do more work. Interestingly, a few months ago I was invited to be in a panel on caste and race. And the interesting part was the conversation that has been, there has been no conversation, but in truth,

Caste and race have these similarities, yeah? And the conversation needs to continue and deepen. I read papers suggesting how after the British Empire in India, that sort of shaped the new thinking on caste. Caste becomes sort of racialized. But I confess I'm not an expert in the case of India or Pakistan.

I do know a little bit more in Japan, and in Japan, again, even though you talk to Japanese and they're like, oh, no, we don't have anything. We're just Japanese. And you tell them, what about class? Oh, we don't have class division. Oh, gender. Not gender. We're perfect. We are like a Honda. It's a Toyota. Good. We're good. And I'm like, you guys are crazy. You are a society and you're fractured like everybody else. And again, in the case of Japan, there is a little bit more work on the various aspects

ethnic groups as well as those groups that you don't see or we don't see as ethnic groups such as Japanese with Brazilian background or Koreans in Japan, etc., and their experience of racialization. So on that we have what we think is, again, the blindness that we experience in the Americas about, well, we don't have racism here because we are

democracia racial, and we are mixed, therefore we don't have anything. That blindness that I thought was Latin America exclusive is not. It is actually most, and it's a pity that race theory began in the U.S.

Because race formations did not begin in the US. They began in our societies. Had we extracted race theorizations from the Americas and all societies, I think we would have deeper theories. So on race capitalism, that's a deeper story maybe when we're drinking. Okay, the second question, first, good, we need to have more weight on emotions. People have claimed that we are being in the African

term or the emotion term for 30 years, I still don't see it. People talk about it, but in sociology and psychology in general, not as much work as we should. And if I am right in my argument that you cannot maintain domination without emotions, how the heck can we not be talking about this in a more systematic way and doing more empirical work? So I'll leave it on that and again we can continue the discussion later on.

Yeah, do you want to ask your question now? We'll take another few. Do you have any questions?

There are two questions. Gracias. Thank you so much for your participation. I am thinking more because, you know, I am part of the Latin American community and basically the majority of us, we are living in the diaspora. So I am working in the charity sector, especially in the violence against women and girls sector. And always when I was working in the Latin American community, especially with organizations,

was so interesting having this conversation when I have another colleague that they are white Latinas and when they come to this country they say, ah, we are a migrant and I say, no, you are not a migrant because we don't share the same experience with the police and the hostile environment because they have this, you know, this Europassport. So, and basically there is

discussions and the tensions with the race and class because basically the Latin American, the white Latinos, they don't recognize the privilege of the class to come to live and study and have this passport. The point is that always they try to have this bridge about intersectionality. Always is about, everything is about intersectionality in terms what they want to...

justification yeah when they want to justify hair origin there is trouble they say you know because all we have these common oppressions and this kind of side because we are living upside this West culture now we are living here and we are together in this struggle and I say hold on that's not

For this reason, my question is what do you think about this intersectionality concept in terms of jurist studies? I'm going to separate it. I do believe the intersectionality concept on apparatus is an important one. That said, I share 100% your experience about how white Latinos from our countries come here or come to the US.

they sort of take over, they deny our racialized experiences, they treat us as second class. I mean, if you, I remember the first time I told a Puerto Rican, a white Puerto Rican, that I'm a black Puerto Rican, she's like,

No, you're Puerto Rican. I'm like, I think I know what I am. I'm a black Puerto Rican. I experienced racism not just in the US, but also in Puerto Rico. We don't have that in Puerto Rico. I'm like, yes, we do. And people like you are part of the problem, because this blindness is what allows white normativity in Puerto Rico to keep us excluded. And then you come here, join hands with whites from the new nation, and then deny my experiences.

On the second point, I'm not cognizant of the specificity of how the articulation is in the UK, but I do agree that they freaking deny our experience, our savings, and the participation in the race game back in our societies of origin as well as here. You had a question, yeah? Yes, you.

Sorry. No, you got it. Okay, thank you so much. So I studied political theory at LSE last year. And my question is, you talked about how whites habituate into the system and how they maintain the system. I'm just wondering the extent...

to which non-white people can be habituated into this system and they follow the system and exacerbate beautiful questions and obviously how if that's the question yes yeah okay i was instructed to ask any more questions i need one more if not yeah we need more questions yeah there's another no no come on

Do you want to finish asking the second part? Did you have a second part? No, no, but that's good. I thought Olivia was saying... Sorry. It's just like if we have those as non-white people we have habituated feeling, how do we contest that? Thank you. That was the second part. Thanks, Olivia. First of all, thank you so much for your work. It has shaped the way that you see reality. My goodness, that's what I knew.

Kind of tying to your question as well, so I'm from Eastern Europe where you do have whites but different Western whites. And Baraks, which is also a sociologist, kind of has this category of dirty whites, kind of explain our social reality and how dirty whites are competing in this race regime.

And specifically in Britain, for example, they're using their whiteness in order to suppress other categories. And within homogenous countries like Romania, you do have an extreme marginalization and discrimination against the Roma community. So yes, it does happen a lot in Europe and a lot in homogenous countries.

places. And I was just wondering if you have thought of kind of integrating that within your theory with the Latin Americanization of the

racial stratification thesis because it simply matches so well with the Eastern European experience. And there are so many ties with different race regimes. So now that Trump is president, if any of you gave me a job here, I stay here doing work here. I just don't want to go back. But anyway, you are right. Habituation is a two-way street. It's not just... We're all habituated to the race game. And in the case of...

people of color, but also from slavery onward, habituated in our position. We fight. It's not that you are like, I'm a happy slave, but you are sort of coerced into at least accepting elements. Move forward 300 years, that habituation has led to possibilities that we didn't foresee back in the day, such as what I call provocatively false positives. People of color that have the color but not the flavor.

Increasingly in universities, in corporations, etc., you can incorporate a person of color who then sort of follows the white strategy. And we don't have the language or politics to fight them. Really hard when it's like, you know, and they don't have to be Clarence Thomas. They can be Obama-like people who are very sophisticated. And they even can claim, you know, I'm with you guys.

and then behind do dirty work, yeah? So dirty whites, you also have dirty people of color doing this sort of a dance with whiteness, yeah?

And it pays to do so. So there are reasons for why this happens. Some of it is habituation. Some people are habituated in a different kind of space. I don't have time to explain, but you can be habituated into a version of blackness or Asian-ness or Latino experience that is different. You can be white Latino. Therefore, your Latino affectation is different from my affectation. But it also pays, literally.

to do the work. If I am a, how do you call here the provost? You have always this-- - VCs, vice chancellors. - You have this super, you're not a college, it's the royal college of the everything, royal here. King's college or whatever, you're not just a college. So all these big titles pay.

So you accept the position in part because you are habituated and okay with the position, but it also, even if you are not totally convinced, at some point the money convinces you that it pays. It pays a lot to do the work.

We have five minutes left, so we'll probably take the last round. So do you want to start us off? I don't know if we have enough for more than one. I just wanted to ask about sort of liminal cases of whiteness. The what? About liminal cases. I'm thinking of one kind of weird episode I came across when I was living in Mexico. There was this girl who was banging at the streetlights who was...

blonde, blue-eyed and everything. And it became this scandal. I wish I could source you the exact time and date and everything. Why? Why is she there? What's happening? And her parents, the people were both like gypsies. I'm sure it's not the right word. Roma people who had moved to Mexico years before. So it became this scandal and they were

people the authorities performed genetic tests on her and her parents to find out whether she was really their child and they would talk about rescuing her and so on and so on but when when they found out that she really was their child she stopped being white and they just put her back at the streetlight where she was before so i i wonder about cases like that where you know this person has

a certain level of privilege in that people are willing to intervene with her sometimes, but when they discover that she's quote-unquote not really white, they're happy for her to go back to being white. Well, and that is sociology 101. We know that it's a construction, and that construction includes obviously elements of phenotype, but includes other things, and in this particular case, Ancestry.com is like, guess what? You are not truly white because you are of this particular group, therefore...

you don't come so back to your close to minority position in your country. There is a paper titled Marginal Whiteness that I think is an interesting paper that addresses the possibilities of whites at the

sort of bottom of whiteness. Whiteness also has gradations. Not everybody gets the same level of benefits, although all whites by category get advantages compared to non-whites in the same location. But marginal whiteness provides possibilities, and our job to change the world is looking at fractures and possibilities. So politically, I remember someone you know, Reverend Barber in the U.S., he's a

activist reverend who has this movement trying to do the race class nexus and he invited me to give a talk and I was telling him that because he has an entourage and he was trying to tell me let's go to Alabama, Mississippi and organize. I'm like, Reverend, love you to death. You're a big guy, you have like your entourage.

I'm a regular black looking person with this accent. I'm not going to go to Alabama, Mississippi to do nothing. Absolutely nothing. So don't count me, I support you from outside, but I don't want to be doing that work. You know who should be doing that? Progressive ones. That is their job, not mine. It doesn't mean I'm not going to do solidarity, but there are people that don't do a lot of food solidarity.

And he was like, "But I go and nothing happens to me." I'm like, "Come on, you are a celebrity. You go and there are cameras." I go to the pub in Cambridge expecting, you know, I watch all these TV shows that shows the pubs, and these are great places of solidarity. I go to the pub and he's like, and I'm totally ignored. "What do you want?" "Half a pint of estrella." Okay. And then I'm ignored. Finish my, "Can I have some chips?" And I'm like, "Yeah."

But I saw the movie. You're supposed to be like, you know. No, nothing for me. Okay, maybe you should go to the Wetherspoons. You might get a different perception. I need more barriers in my pop selection. Okay, so I think that brings us to the end of this Q&A. So let's give another round of applause for Eduardo.

Thank you for listening. You can subscribe to the LSE Events podcast on your favourite podcast app and help other listeners discover us by leaving a review. Visit lse.ac.uk forward slash events to find out what's on next. We hope you join us at another LSE Events soon.