I have just finished reading David Aaronovitch’s book on conspiracy theories. There is much of interest in the book and, especially in the present climate, it is very thought provoking. What is perhaps most interesting is that Aaronovitch takes the discussion back to the end of the nineteenth century and shows that the conspiracy theory is not something new or a product of the internet, let alone social media.
The element that stood out most, for me, however, was the recognition of just how deep rooted and how consistent the level of antisemitism has been for the last hundred and fifty years. What also struck me, was the way in which antisemitism has been constructed and, on reflection, just how different this is from the kind of racism that we see aimed at Black, African, Caribbean, or Afro-American communities.
One thing that is clearly common to all racisms is the construction of the other as less than human and the use of animalistic and crude naturalistic comparisons to dehumanise the members of a particular community. The names, the slurs, the hatred, is common to all kinds of racism and no one can be highlighted as ‘more’ or ‘less’ than any other. The differences that I saw in the way Aaronovitch constructed antisemitism are what I would describe as ‘social’ or ‘structural’ differences, the place of the ostracised group within society or the expectations of that place on the part of the racist speaker.
If I start with antisemitism, this has always had a fundamental contradiction at its heart. At one level the Jews are constructed as a despised and inferior people, the product of the ghetto or of peasant communities. On the other side they are constructed as wealthy, powerful, and plotting to take over society. The wealth or power may be ill-gotten, the product of magic and supernatural power, including the blood of babies etc. but the core document, which Aaronovitch skilfully unmasks and deconstructs, talks of a global plot among super rich and super powerful Jews to take over the world. Structurally, antisemitism is built on the idea of the enemy within, a group within society who, when not clearly distinct (and their perceived lack of assimilation in the ghetto/peasant form is transferred to the wealthy and powerful even where it patently does not exist in reality), then still placing loyalty to the group, the different, above that of society as a whole and, in extremis, intent on undermining everything that society (democracy/capitalism, call it what you like) stands for, again despite often being the greatest advocates of the values underpinning our western society.
The racism against the African, on the other hand, has its roots in slavery, but is also, undoubtedly, among the causes of slavery. Structurally it sees the other, the black in this case, as naturally inferior and subservient, reaching back in Christian terms to the story of Noah and his sons, and seeing the black races as born to be slaves of the white. There is no discourse in racism against the black that constructs the African or other diaspora peoples as superior, as wealthy, powerful or out to undermine Western society from within. Racism against those with African heritage is one of the powerful in society, the privileged, assuming (and constructing) a natural superiority that defines all black peoples as naturally lesser. This works even when those of African heritage take on positions of power. The only real exception could, arguably, be sport, but this is, in practice, simply an extension of the discourse of inferiority. Power, prestige, and superiority are all understood in all Western constructions as being intellectual, the power of the mind. When power is seen in brute physicality, it is equated with the animalistic and, once again, seen as inferior, lesser, naturally subservient, the beast of burden, when seen in relation to the intellectually superior white peoples.
The Jew, of course, is often constructed as being an intellectual, often too much so, using their natural cunning and superior, if twisted, intellect to dominate others. Once again there is an inherent contradiction in our structures of racism. The other can be either too intelligent or not intelligent enough. Both are barbs. Both can be used demean the other.
Islamophobia sits in an interesting position when understood in terms of the structures of racism. There are elements that place the Arab, the archetypal Muslim, alongside the peoples of Africa, perhaps a little higher, but equally inferior to the European, and on the same basis. More significant, however, is another structural type, not the enemy within, or the downtrodden masses brought in from outside, but the dirty foreigner. There is part of our construction of Islamophobia that is equivalent to the English ‘hatred’ of the French, or other Europeans (or even the Welsh or the Scots) and the American distrust of the Canadian, they are simply, and excessively, other. However, as Islam has become more embedded in our society, we can see elements of the structures of antisemitism creeping into our constructions of Islamophobia. The Muslims, we hear, are plotting to take over our society, to undermine our values, they are becoming a home grown other, a danger from amongst us, knowing us too well and using that knowledge, their intelligence, their cunning, their commitment to a greater Other that is not of us, to take over and to destroy us from within.
To understand, and I guess to challenge, racism, we need both to understand the history and the roots – these almost all go back into the middle of the nineteenth century, if not before – and to understand the structures and forms that underpin it. However, we must recognise that the many forms of racism that exist in our society have different roots, and very different structures, and we cannot simply compare one with another, or tackle all of them through the same methods and policies. Things are so much more complicated than many, particularly those at the extreme of politics – left or right, woke or extremist – would care to admit.
Martin Stringer Quartet 