What Happens to Anti-Racism When We Are Post Race?

Alana Lentin
Department of Sociology, University of Sussex, Falmer, UK e-mail: A.Lentin@sussex.ac.uk Abstract Despite the resistance from radical antiracist formations, autonomously organised by racialized minorities and migrants themselves, that can be witnessed in many spaces, the success with which antiracism has been both appropriated and relativized by the state as well as hegemonic activist voices poses a significant threat. The politics of diversity and the consensus around the notion that western societies are post-race contribute to portraying the critique of racism from people of colour as inaccurate, alienating and counter-productive to the achievement of social cohesion. The necessity of dismantling the idea of race as suggested by antiracist activists and scholars has been subverted in the deconstruction of the experience of racism by an antiracialist rather than a more radical antiracistagenda intent on relativizing the struggle against racism as one among many. The consequence of this in the context of postracialism is for racism itself to be departicularized and dissociated from its historical roots. Antiracism needs to reclaim the risk, that Goldberg argues is inherent to it, and rescue it from being universalised into meaninglessness. Keywords Antiracism _ Antiracialism _ Multiculturalism _ Diversity Introduction In his 1997 lecture, Racethe floating signifier, Stuart Hall talks about a politics without guarantees. In the interview that precedes the lecture he says that, like race, anti-race is confounded by the need for certainties such as those provided by the idea of race. In anti-racism this means. a certain kind of politics that defends the race, tries to protect us against discrimination, etc. in which all black people will be figured as people who are holding the correct position and when you ask what positions do they hold what you will respond is not the normal political argument: well they believe in the following things which I think are viable and progressive things for black people to vie for now in order to change their circumstances. You will say well theyre like that, they think like that because thats how black people think, its right that black people should So its right that these functions act as a kind of guarantee that the work of art will be good because its black and will be politically progressive because its black (Media Education Foundation 1997). For Hall, the guarantees of the genetic code damage both those fixed by themstraitjacketed into races, genders, sexualitiesand those who nonetheless use the certainties that these categorizations provide to resist the discrimination they cause. Hall invites us to plunge headlong into the politics of the end of the biological definition of race. Taking his argument seriously, I argue that the problematisation of race put forward by anti-racist activists and scholars has been hampered by a post-racial agenda that participates in relativizing the experience of racism, consequently assisting in perpetuating it.

This appropriation takes on particular significance today when the call for multiculturalism to be killed, continuously heard from political leaders and liberal commentators alike, belongs to a postracial agenda that insists on the need to get beyond race. The portrayal of a permissive multiculturalism as responsible for the toleration of illiberal minorities unable or unwilling to integrate into their host societies and singularly responsible for gender discrimination and homophobic attitudes is discursively accompanied by a proclamation of anti-racist credentials that seeks to create distance between what is presented as a rational liberal critique of the excesses of multiculturalism and the crude intolerance of the far right. The declared commitment to racial equality acts as a means of shutting down anti-racist critique. Furthermore, in a post-racial logic according to which racism has been admitted and thus largely overcome, racismif it existsis presented as the preserve of fundamentalist minorities against an increasingly cowed, because overly tolerant and insufficiently muscular, liberal (white) majority (Cameron 2011). Against this context, I critique the way in which the lived experience of racism is often stifled today within the context of what Davina Cooper calls the politics of diversity (Cooper 2004) and discuss the effects this has upon doing anti-racism. The assimilation of certain critiques of essentialisation, of the type that Stuart Hall recommends, that emerged from self-defined and autonomously led anti-racisms, with parallels in feminist and queer movements, has led to an appropriation, not only of the antiracist label, but also of the experience of racism itself: racism becomes generalized and thus ownable. The space of diversity incorporates not only a diversity of identities, but a diversity of equally pitted racisms that are made to jostle with each other for recognition. The resultant silencing of racialised experience is most pernicious in that it often comes from self-declared antiracists and thus ostensible allies. Anti-Racism Versus Anti-Racialism Anti-racism has proved itself a significantly malleable, polyvalent and politically useful discourse. Nevertheless, it is impossible to speak of a unitary anti-racist movement, a fact which has hampered the cause of anti-racism in many locations (Lentin 2004). This lack of unity has, however, contributed to the political utility of anti-racism as a stance which protects those who espouse it from the very charge of racism. The political expediency of anti-racism has been enabled because the label anti-racist has in fact been applied to two different practices usefully conceptualized by David Theo Goldberg as anti-racism and anti-racialism. The latter, while going under the name of antiracism, has become hegemonic while posing less or no political risk. Anti-racialism can be traced back to the aftermath of the Holocaust and involved the repudiation of the regressiveness of the idea of race, in particular its claim to scientific status. Despite the political significance of the rejection of racial science, taking this position did not imply either understanding or being able to articulate the extent to which race thinking had come to undergird the political culture of the western nation-state (Arendt 1966; Bauman 1989; Balibar 1991; Hannaford 1996; Foucault 1997). Rather, taking a formal stance against race was to consider its insidious effects as a pathology originating elsewhere that, under a particular political constellation, had come to inflict itself on the body politic. Here the reference point was mainly Nazism and the Jews; colonialism and slavery being externalized and rarely considered in terms of the resultant racialised relationship between Europe and (its) colonial others that was produced both in the colonies and en metropole. Anti-racialism, for Goldberg, does not entail the risk inherent to profoundly challenging racism. It is to take a stand [] against a concept, a name, a category, categorizing [which] does not itself involve standing (up) against (a set of) conditions of being or living Anti-racism in contrast does mean standing up to those conditions. In extreme circumstances, it is the risk of death in the name

of refusing the imposition and constraint, [] the devaluation and attendant humiliation (ibid.) caused by being raced. For Goldberg, there is clearly no evidence of anti-racialism ever commanding that sort of risk (Goldberg 2008, 10). This distinction helps understand how official commitments to ending racism have coexisted with state policies that have undoubtedly contributed to its perpetuation. Whether or not race is named, refusing the language of race does not mean avoiding acting in ways that produce racialised inequalities. It is also a useful means of conceptualising anti-racism, as a practice of diverse social movements and institutional bodies, which appear to be at political odds despite sharing an official commitment to challenging racism. However, the nuances of the distinction Goldberg proposes can be lost in the blanket label anti-racism under which these diverse instances are grouped (none of these call themselves an anti-racialist organisation). The proliferation of initiatives that should properly be named antiracialist and the comparative paucity of anti-racists worthy of the name in Goldbergs terms, appears at least in part to explain the internally conflicted history of anti-racist practice. While progress on racial discrimination has been made to be sure, the stickiness of racism can at least partly be explained by the success of antiracialism in curtailing serious and profound discussion of the embeddedness of race in culture and politics and effectively, although paradoxically marching under its banner, silencing the potential radicality of anti-racism. The seepage of anti-racialism into anti-racism can be seen most clearly at moments of surge in the autonomous anti-racist movement when, following the successful mobilisation of people of colour against racism on their own terms, a co-optation, whitewashing, or indeed a total clampdown follows. At moments like these what we are witnessing is effectively a swallowing up of anti-racism by antiracialism. These moments have included the launch of SOS Racisme in France, heavily backed by the ruling Socialist Party, on the back of the Marche pour lgalite, organised in 1983 by young people of North African origin from Marseille, that instigated the autonomous Mouvement beur. As documented by Serge Malik in The Secret History of SOS Racisme (Malik 1990), as well as by activists of the Mouvement de limmigration et des banlieues among others, far from being the grassroots phenomenon it claimed to be, the organisation boiled down to nothing but political, media and musical spectacles under the cheerful symbol of the yellow hand with its patronising slogan: hands off my mate. It was a front for the political aspirations of careerist youth politicians, most prominently those of its founder, Julien Dray, the youthful darling of an aging President, Francois Mitterand, in need of real left-wingers and young people whose presence at the Court would demonstrate his humanism and the extent to which he was in touch with ordinary people and social problems (Den13 2005). SOS Racisme has consistently resisted what it calls communitarian activism, or the self-organised anti-racism of people of colour, preferring what it terms a majoritarian approach that would not, as its spokespersons see it, alienate the bulk of its potential supporters. As a consequence, the organisation rejects the foregrounding of race as a tool for making sense of the persistence of racism, seeing it instead as a source of further division. Rather than critiquing the ways in which race tacitly persists as a source of discrimination, the organisation aims to contribute to creating a nation loyal to its republican traditions, refusing communitarianism and respecting all those who live and make our country live. French or foreigner, black, white or Beur, the value of a woman or a man is not judged by their appearance but by their qualities (SOS Racisme leaflet, cited in Lentin 2004, 207). Similar forms of majoritarian anti-racism may be found in a variety of other contexts. For example, in the British case, Paul Gilroy (Gilroy 1987) examined the emergence of the municipal anti-racism of the Greater London Council. He showed how it participated in portraying racism as an

exogenous force thus circumventing the centrality of race to British history and contemporary public culture. By creating a body of race relations professionals in the 1980s, institutionally endorsed antiracism in the UK contributed to dismantling the autonomous anti-racisms that had developed in the 1960s and 1970s from the shared experience of black immigration. In the US and Latin American contexts, George Ydice documents the incorporation of potentially liberatory identity politics into a range of governmental (in the Foucauldian sense) mechanisms (Ydice 2003, 48); he describes the extension of Foucauldian biopower into what he calls cultural powerthe entry of the state into the realm of culture and identity and its harnessing to state institutions and media and market projections that shape, respectively, clients and consumers. This process causes a radical identity politics, developing out of the civil rights movement in the United States, with a potential not only to profoundly question racialised, gendered and heterosexist norms but also to create solidarities between groups involved in those intersected struggles, to descend into competitiveness in a fight for both limited resources and political recognition (cf. Duggan 2003). Post-Racialism and the Politics of Diversity The instrumentalisation of anti-racism has hampered, and in some cases shut down, the activism of autonomously organised people of colour, especially where that activism has involved a visible, street presence, and, in particular, coalitions built through shared experiences of struggle. Antiracialism can usefully be read as a precursor to the post-racial agenda which can be said to characterise mainstream approaches to race and racism in western societies with significant levels of immigration.1 The relativisation of the experience of racism which characterizes post-racialism is accompanied by a focus on diversity that blurs the specificity of a variety of marginalised experiences by collectively labelling them diverse. As Davina Cooper (Cooper 2004) has described, the growth of the politics of diversity out of diversity politics serves to conceal the productive histories of antagonism and struggle that were central to shaping the critical space of diversity politics (Ahmed 2008, 96). Diversity politics offered a space, albeit problematic, to negotiate potential alliances between individuals and groups for whom a commitment to anti-racism was a red thread that ran through their particular struggle either or/and as racialised, queer, poor It was cognisant of the multiplicity inherent, not only in class-based, racialised and gendered societal arrangements, but also in individual lives. The politics of diversity, especially in todays era of post-racial anti-multiculturalism (Lentin and Titley 2011) reduces these complex and possibly conflictual, yet fertile, multiplicities to the jostling for space of a multitude of equal but different identities that all can share in and whose engagement with poses no risk. It is as a consequence of this history that anti-racism has become a label which, when worn, becomes a shield, protecting the wearer from being questioned as to the true nature of her political intentions. What we have witnessed is the hollowing out of the radical spaces that have been created at different moments and in a variety of contexts as spaces of inclusion for diverse, yet potentially unifiable, standpoints. What remains is a language of inclusion and shared struggle, which lingers while being stripped of content and meaningful action. So, the
1

This is not to say that the politics of diversity emerged exclusively from an anti-racialist logic. It is important to note that the mainstreaming of critical race and gender critiques, intersectionality in particular (Crenshaw 1989), has also played a significant role in facilitating the generalised focus on diversity consequently, although not purposefully, often removing attention from the specificity of individual discriminations.

label anti-racist continues to be used by and applied to the actors of the politics of diversity, be they state institutions, nongovernmental organisations, or individuals. However, the qualitative distinction between anti-racialism and anti-racism is lost, as is the standing (up) against (a set of) conditions of being or living in a way which is potentially personally and profoundly unsettling which, according to Goldberg, is integral to anti-racism. The process whereby the truth of the experience of racism is increasingly questioned and placed in competition with the experiences of other marginalized subjects can be understood only by contextualizing it within the general slide into post-racialism. In other words, the silencing of racialised experience from within what I am calling the space of diversity is part of, but not reducible to, the more widely accepted consensus that western postcolonial and/or immigration societies are beyond race, and hence over racism. While the post-racial stance is far from unitary and has different manifestations in different national contexts, ranging from the crude racism of the US American shock jocks to the integrationism of European liberals (Kundnani 2007), one element of it defines the process I am describing. The relativizing, questioning or outright rejection of racialised experience that post-racialism entails, at least in part, borrows from and subverts the radical antiracist critique of race on which Stuart Hall urges us to embark. Opposition to racism requires that the objective status of the concept of race be debunked. However, it is in the shared space of diluted diversities that the radicality of these deconstructions has been subverted. Anti-racialists took from this, not that race requires questioning because of racism, but that we should do away with race because of racisms ultimate irrelevance. The postracial agenda is intimately related to the rise of diversity as a less discomfiting way of admitting that full equality has not yet been secured. This is evident in the recalibration of problems once overtly specified as racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ablism, etc., under the generalised and multivalent label of discrimination. Institutional arrangements such as the so-called mainstreaming of diversity concerns in EU campaigns such as For Diversity, Against Discrimination and the dissolution of the UK Commission for Racial Equality and its inclusion in the Equality and Human Rights Commission are evidence of this. By euphemistically characterizing what are in essence problematic differences as diversity, the post-racial agenda lays the ground for a universalisation of experience which belies the specificity of discrimination. By equating the experience of being black with that of being disabled or of being queer, there is not only a denial of the possibility of being all three, but there is an even more alarming erasure of the histories of how these categories are constructed and made socially and politically problematic. For anti-racism, this is significant because the collapsing of particularisms has resulted not in a greater affinity between marginalised minorities and more fruitful collective action to redress shared experiences of inequality. On the contrary, it has enabled a relativization of experience that not only pits identities against each other, but allows self-legitimated spokespersons to emerge to speak on behalf of any and/or all of the subjects of diversity. So, for example a 2006 publicly-funded European Youth Campaign for diversity, human rights and participation, with the slogan All Different-All Equal, styled itself as the updated version of a 1995-6 Council of Europe campaign against racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and intolerance. The change in the formulation from against to for is instructive because in so doing and in the stated aims of the organisers of the more recent campaign, (Community Builders 2006) a positive message is more inclusive and less alienating than a negative one. Not only does being for diversity permit a greater number of people, not confined to those affected by the particular discrimination, to identify with the campaigns aim, but failing to specifically name what we are against, as was the case for the 1995-6 campaign,

legitimises anyone who supports the nebulous aims of diversity to speak on its behalf without having to explicitly be implicated in the kind of risk that Goldberg reminds us anti-racism entails. Therefore, the main aim identified by the campaign was to encourage and enable young people to participate in building peaceful societies based on diversity and inclusion, in a spirit of respect, tolerance, and mutual understanding. Who is able to intervene publicly in order to achieve this aimmeaning who has the power to do soremains unquestioned. Furthermore, nowhere is the question raised of who should be licensed to speak descriptively of what stands in the way of achieving these laudable aims. The assumption that we are all beneficiaries and subjects of diversity in its myriad forms is taken as sufficient for allowing a privileged group of youth politicians (the European Youth Forum in this instance) to speak on behalf of minoritised youth. The equalizing of diversities and discriminations within a post-racial context results in the relativization of experience. In that hegemonic voices within the space of diversity gain legitimacy to speak on behalf of silenced others, they are also able to reinterpret their experience, evaluating it with respect to a wider political agenda. It is undoubtedly the case, as Haritaworn et al. point out (Haritaworn 2008), that the politics that they name gay imperialism or which others, following Jasbir Puar (Puar 2007), have termed homonationalism, defines a particular interpretation of the legitimacy of some racialised minoritiesMuslims in particular todayto speak out against racism and discrimination. Within this context, not only is the deconstruction of race used to discount the legitimacy of speaking in terms of racism as a particular and qualitatively different form of discrimination, but Muslims (and other racialised groups) are portrayed as the new racists according to a logic which equates racism with all other forms of discrimination and departicularises its experience. In other words, racism comes to mean both nothing and everything. On the one hand it loses what is considered by post-racialists to be its special status, one which according to this vision leads to the neglect of all other forms of exclusion; on the other, it becomes generalized to the extent that all marginalisations become racisms. Moreover, the real racism is now said to be that of a hegemonic minority among the subjects of diversitynamely the racialisedwho are portrayed as having received excessive attention at the expense of other, neglected subjects. Under this postracial vision, a false opposition is established between, for example, gays and blacks or women and Muslims, according to which the racialised are always involved in the domination, not only of all women and queers, but of a political agenda which would see the further neglect of the latters concerns especially when they are, as several critics have illustrated, brown queers and brown women. According to this vision, anti-racists need to admit the existence of reverse racism and universalize the struggle against racism in a way that takes this into account. This post-racial insistence on the perennial universality of racism chimes perfectly with a particular variant of human rights activism that puts primacy on freedom of speech as a means of enabling racisms universality to be made clear. In the context of the current crisis of multiculturalismwhich as we argue (Lentin and Titley 2011) is an attack, not on prescriptive multiculturalist policy but, as David Goodhart (Goodhart 2004) put it, on too much diversitythe construction of an opposition between human rights and multiculturalism pits sophisticated universalism against primitive particularism. Multiculturalism, according to this widespread and hegemonic interpretation, is a segregationist, anti-cosmopolitan force imposed on an overly tolerant, guilt-ridden liberal society by illiberal minorities (Bruckner 2010). A misplaced respect for the cultural demands of selfsegregating, minority ethnic groups is said, according to this view, to trump the vision of a cohesive, integrated society based on the respect for equal rights (fictitious as that may be in the context of neoliberal capitalism). Racism, it is argued, has been used as a fig leaf to conceal the danger posed to womens and gay rights by

facilitating the inherent illiberalism of unassimilable minorities, particularly in the current context, Muslims. This type of argument allows for a burgeoning post-racialism to become further entrenched and enter the space of diversity to create the type of polarizations I am describing. Attaching itself to the ubiquitous critique of multiculturalism, hegemonic actors within this space can use the opposition between liberal and illiberal which has come to define the multicultural problem to argue that theyrather than the racialisedare both the true anti-racists, and more radically, the real victims of racism. Only a human rights-based universalism, it is argued, can be truly anti-racist because the belief in the generalizability of racism (everyone is capable of racism) necessitates a universalist response. The apparent resistance to this coming from the racialised is taken as proof of their lack of solidarity with the wider cause of human rights, and is extrapolated, for example in the discourse of the gay rights activist Peter Tatchell, to propose that an anti-racism that is critical of universalist human rights is opposed to struggles around gender and sexuality. The appeal to freedom of speech, portrayed as integral to human rights, makes it incumbent upon those who see themselves as opponents of the dangerous illiberalism of minorities to speak out against the latters racism. As Tatchell expresses it (Tatchell 2009). All peoples possess a culture. But this does not mean that all cultures are equally virtuous. There are certain laws, art forms, political systems and technologies that are inferior. That are inferior. And we must not be afraid to say so. We have to have the confidence to say that some things are better than others. In particular we have to sayand we believe itthat some values and ideas are better than others We should never let the good principle of respect for diversity in other cultures stray into a situation where we end up colluding with human rights abuses. The fact that this civilizational language ultimately rejects the argument for the internal hybridity within cultures that this particular variant of anti-racialism surely depends upon, becomes irrelevant in the rush to define the contours of a new, bold, universalist anti-racism that speaks out against all racisms. Because the remitof this anti-racism is also to save the internal victims of illiberalism from the darkness of their own culture, it can barely conceal, nor does it wish to, its civilizing mission. The political consensus that underlies the type of rhetoric displayed in Tatchells speech is that multiculturalism, if not yet dead, should be killed off, a view endorsed by Europes leaders and compounded in recent high profile speeches by bothmBritains David Cameron and German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. Just as Tatchell is careful to claim that the principle of respect for diversity in other cultures is good, Cameron, in his February 2011 speech on the failure of multiculturalism, paid lip service to the importance of racial equality while stating that we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism in dealing with illiberal minorities. What the lip service paid to racial equality does is to negate the anti-racist critique of persistent racism; if racism continues it cannot be said to be the fault of those who have openly declared themselves against it or who have even taken active steps to resist it, for example by joining anti-racist causes or allocating budgets to anti-racist initiatives. Indeed, according to this post-racial logic, those responsible for any residual racism are in fact minorities who resist integration and who, as David Cameron later claimed, have created discomfort and disjointedness in society (Porter 2011). The success with which anti-racism has been both appropriated and relativized by both the state and

hegemonic activist voices poses a significant threat. This is true despite the resistance from radical anti-racist formations, autonomously organized by racialised minorities and migrants themselves, such as the Committee of Immigrants in Italy or the French Parti des indignes de la Rpublique. The comfort derived from post-racialism combined with the apparent inclusiveness afforded by diversity conspires to portray the critique of racism as alienating and negative, and thus unproductive. The necessity of dismantling race as an idea made by anti-racist activists and scholars has been subverted in the deconstruction of the experience of racism by an anti-racialist agenda intent on relativizing the struggle against racism as one among many. The consequence of this in the context of post-racialism is for racism itself to be departicularised and dissociated from its historical roots. The effects this has upon activism by the racialised against the persistence of the racial state (Goldberg 2002) is to increase the challenge for an intersectional politics already hampered by the pitting of diversities against each other. References Ahmed, Sara. 2008. Liberal multiculturalism is the hegemony: Its an Empirical FactA response to iek, Slavoj. Darkmatter: In the ruins of imperial culture, 19 February 2008. Arendt, H. 1966. The origins of totalitarianism, new edition. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Bauman, Zygmunt. 1989. Modernity and the holocaust. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bruckner, Pascal. 2010. The tyranny of guilt: An essay on western masochism. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Cameron, David. 2011. PMs speech at munich security conference. http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/ speeches-and-transcripts/2011/02/pms-speech-at-munich-security-conference-60293. Accessed 20 May 2011. Community Builders. 2006. All differentAll equal European youth campaigns for diversity, human rights and participation. http://www.communitybuilders.ro/all-different-all-equal-europeanyouthcampaigns-for-diversity-human-rights-and-participation/. Accessed 20 May 2011. Cooper, Davina. 2004. Challenging diversity: Rethinking equality and the value of difference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Crenshaw, Kimberl. 1989. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and anti-racist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139167. Den13. 2005. Histoire secre`te de SOS-Racisme. http://www.oulala.net/Portail/spip.php?article1697. Accessed 5 Feb, 2011. Duggan, Lisa. 2003. The twilight of equality? Neoliberalism cultural politics, and the attack on democracy. Boston: Beacon Press. Etienne, Balibar. 1991. Is there a neo-racism? In Race, nation, class ambiguous identities, ed. Etienne, Balibar, and Wallerstein, Immanuel, 3767. London: Verso. Foucault, Michel. 1997. Il faut defendre la societe: Cours au Collge de France, 1976. Paris: Gallimard Seuil. Gilroy, Paul. 1987. There aint no black in the union jack: The cultural politics of race and nation. London: Unwin Hyman. Goldberg, David Theo. 2002. The racial state. Oxford: Blackwell. Goldberg, David Theo. 2008. The threat of race: Reflections on racial neoliberalism. Oxford: WileyBlackwell. Goodhart, David. 2004. Too diverse? Prospect 95, February. Hall, Stuart. 1997. Race, the floating signifier. Media education foundation film. Hannaford, Ivan. 1996. Race: The history of an idea in the west. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press. Haritaworn, Jin, Esra Erdem, and Tamsila Tauqir. 2008. Gay imperialism: The role of gender and sexuality discourses in the War on Terror. In Out of place: Silences in Queerness/Raciality, ed. Miyake, Esperanza and Kuntsman, Adi, 933. York: Raw Nerve Books. Kundnani, Arun. 2007. The end of tolerance: Racism in twenty-first century Britain. London: Pluto Press. Lentin, Alana. 2004. Racism and anti-racism in Europe. London: Pluto Press. Lentin, Alana., and Gavan Titley. 2011. The crises of multiculturalism: Racism in a neoliberal age. London: Zed Books. Malik, Serge. 1990. Histoire Secre`te de SOS Racisme. Paris: Albin Michel. Media Education Foundation. 1997. Race, the floating signifier: Featuring stuart hall. http://www. mediaed.org/assets/products/407/transcript_407.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2011. Porter, Andrew. 2011. David cameron: Migration threatens our way of life. The Telegraph, 14 April. Puar, Jasbir. 2007. Terrorist assemblages: Homonationalism in queer times. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Tatchell, Peter. 2009. Speech at the centre for local policy studies summer school. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJQK5el5J48&feature=related. Accessed 20 May 2011. Yudice, George. 2003. The expediency of culture: Uses of culture in the global era. Durham and London: Duke University Press.