I have thought long and hard about writing this article. Where is the right place for discourse on anti-racism, difference, representation, and the political Left? I decided to publish it here, hoping this is the right platform to spark discussion. My analysis focuses on two distinct areas where I have observed a lack of attention and deeper reflection is essential: representation, difference and racialization. There are two “think tanks” that ought to act as intellectual leaders influencing society: (German) universities and the political Left, where anti-racist debates take place.
In this article, I do not intend to oppose every existing anti-racist analysis or practice. Rather, I want to explore how anti-racist discourses have managed—or failed—to move beyond binary thinking based on (ethnic) origin, and how they open up or close off new spaces for (self-)identification. I will argue that discussing categories such as whiteness and blackness—regardless of how they are structured runs the risk of reproducing inequality. Therefore, the logical step forth would be to transcend these categories.
This discussion is more urgent than ever, given current policies of the Trump administration in the US, the (international) Black Lives Matter movement and the rise of New Right and far-right parties in Europe. This prompts me to ask: why has so little changed at universities in recent years? Why are leftists so hesitant to act now, at a time when they are needed more than ever? To begin, I do not dispute taking an interest in anti-racism and questioning one’s own position. However, I wish to focus on the dangers and risks associated with such discussion and highlight what must be considered to ensure that anti-racism does not miss its mark and devolve into a mere formality—a tokenistic exercise.
I hold the view that understanding racism, inclusion and justice—despite all the necessary debates—is primarily about the societal participation of all so-called structural minorities in public discourse and, crucially, in the resources of the majority society. It is about pluralism (of interests) and the diversity that defines our society—and ultimately holds it together: it is about social and political participation and the exercise of rights (in the dual sense: legal and political).
(Anti-)Racist discourse at the university – a politics of appropriation
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, it was almost impossible to talk about difference, racialization, or even representation at the university. Students and staff were largely unaware of these discussions—even though I was studying social anthropology, a discipline known for engaging with topics such as identity, race, and cultural studies in the broader sense. I found that necessary discussions were often nipped in the bud.
For instance, I wrote a paper on the topic of “othering” for my intermediate exam. At the time, my focus was on describing the dangers of being cast as the other and the consequent marginalization by existing power relations. Another student pressured me to give her my paper so she could use it for her final exam. When I hesitantly handed it over, I assumed she would at least make some valuable contributions of her own to the work. However, a few weeks after she had taken her exam, she came up to me and said:
“Thanks for your text. I did, however, agree with my professor that othering people is necessary in order to describe foreign cultures. By the way, I passed your text on to several other students—they all used it for their exams, and all of them got good grades. Thanks a lot for that!” I was completely shocked and didn’t know what to say. That student later went on to write a doctoral thesis and became a member of the teaching staff.
I do not wish to generalize this example to all university experiences; however, when I later decided to join a group of Black students at the same university, issues regarding authorship, copyright, appropriation and the distortion or falsification of original arguments became significant concerns. Sometimes it was teaching staff who removed texts, knowledge and ideas—for instance, regarding the topic of slavery—and the original content was often altered, leaving students feeling powerless and voiceless, with no idea how to resist other than by joining a group of like-minded individuals.
Then “Critical Whiteness” came into vogue. Translated into German as “Kritische Weißseinsforschung” (critical whiteness studies), it represents a new academic category. Since the advent of constructivism, at the very least, we have learned that whiteness and blackness are constructed categories. So many people are grouped under the label “white” that we risk falling for right-wing rhetoric if we simply adopt the term—even if we use quotation marks.
People from Eastern and Southeastern Europe, for example, do not exactly have an easy time in Germany. They are classified as white yet face a specific form of racism that is often overlooked in discussions contrasting “white” versus “black”—a point highlighted by Mark Terkessidis (2023). This form of racism must be explicitly included in discussions about anti-racist practices. Racism operates precisely on the principle of “divide and rule,” and thus the most effective antidote is a unified approach that encompasses various forms of discrimination. Yet, this approach is considered far too rarely.
Instead of addressing social exclusion in terms of the withholding of economic and financial resources and marginal positions within the social landscape, the emphasis is often placed on cultural or even ethnic differences. Cultural conflicts are frequently perceived where, in reality, the issues are more akin to social struggles. The term “culture” is often used when concepts such as ethnicity or even race are actually meant. Culturalizing or ethnicizing phenomena of exclusion is wrong, regardless of who engages in the practice.
People who do not fit the “cityscape” (“Stadtbild”—a term used by Friedrich Merz) are perceived as culturally different; according to Frank-Olaf Radtke (1991), German academics play a role in fostering this perception. However, the projection of cultural differences is not always easily identified, as it often appears covertly in both academic and journalistic discourse—manifesting in talk about the “absence of a specific tradition, experience, or background,” in the imputation of a “struggle for recognition,” or in the construction of conflicts between groups of differing “cultural origins.”
(Anti-)Racial discourse and the Left: who speaks, who gets to speak?
During the time I was involved in political discussions surrounding the party “Die Linke” (The Left) in Germany, my impression was that anti-racist debates mostly took place within the context of broader discussions opposing the far right. Elected officials themselves were predominantly white, and this was not openly viewed as a problem. The focus of political work was primarily directed outward at external power dynamics, while internal questions of representation received less attention.
That was several years ago, and some things may have changed since then—for instance, due to debates regarding sexism. However, those experiences led me, among others, to leave those groups and focus on my own work instead.
The problem is that—even in other anti-racist contexts—people who frequently speak about racism have not personally experienced it. As I learned while working for a left-leaning newspaper focused on issues concerning the Global South, the arguments put forward by self-proclaimed anti-racists can sometimes be difficult to accept, and their interventions can take on paternalistic overtones. Comparing experiences of brutal, every day, and structural racism with discrimination based on one’s chosen subculture, for example, trivializes racism.
Self-proclaimed white anti-racists all too often forget how hard People of Color—especially in Germany—have fought just to be heard, and that it is not their place to deny these individuals the validity of their own experiences. This ties into the question of who actually speaks. Trivializing experiences of racism is part of this dynamic and can result in those marginalized by racism feeling unable to voice their opinions, even within ostensibly leftist circles.
However, it is equally wrong to view this solely as a “social issue” and to attempt to dictate the terms of the topic to black people—something that, for instance, some white leftists try to do. In Marxist theory, the category of race is often regarded merely as implicit to the question of class; this may well be the root of the problem. Ultimately, this amounts to an attempt to talk black people out of the validity of their own experiences with racism—even when dealing with white German “anti-racists.”
The problem lies not in the categories themselves, but in the rigid and hierarchical way they are applied. Because identities are fluid and individual, one cannot deny an individual’s experience without inviting conflict. In this context, the concept of “respect” is relevant, even though there remains debate over who should—or is permitted to—use it and how. And precisely here lies the problem that has persisted for thirty years in both right-wing and left-wing (dominated by white) discourses. Even if leftists dislike hearing it, this is exactly where they need to learn.
Furthermore, we must not overlook the fact that existing structures of representation repeatedly reproduce a dynamic in which those who do not face discrimination based on race dictate to those who do face it whether—and how—they may speak about racism. This, too, constitutes a form of “top-down” imposition. I can understand the dissatisfaction felt by some black people regarding a discourse in which they are sometimes unheard or excluded from participation, even though the conversation ought to center them.
The challenge of being heard within existing structures of representation
According to Stuart Hall (1991), the response to racism is one of the catalysts for the “Black experience,” which can become a significant factor in the self-identification of black people. For Hall, then, racism is fundamentally about an experience—rather than skin color per se—and black people possess an advantage over white anti-racists in their ability to make this experience visible and tangible. It is possible to share the experience of racism, even if not with just anyone.
Thus, there is scope for learning from and with one another. Putting this into practice is, of course, challenging; it requires thinking beyond commonly used categories. Black people are diverse—they do not constitute a homogeneous group—yet they may have shared similar experiences and wish to articulate them. Experiences of racism are not merely individual problems or isolated fates.
At this point, I would like to return to the subject of the racism faced by people from Russia, Belarus, and—for instance—China. While this racism appears to me to be primarily politically motivated today, it does have historical roots based on ethnicity. This form of political racism also encompasses the economic component that Stuart Hall identified in racism against black people—the struggle for resources—an aspect often overlooked in analyses of racist structures but openly acknowledged here. Yet this form of economic and political racism is rarely addressed within the German Left.
People from these countries are faced with a choice: either you side with us—in which case you are considered “one of the good ones,” regardless of anything else you might do (like Alexei Navalny)—or you side with your government, in which case you are excluded and ostracized by us, and we may even actively oppose you.
The failure to situate the speaker within public discourse
I am not suggesting that there are no differences in experience; indeed, I have used this very argument myself regarding experiences of racism. My point is that—whether at universities or in journalistic articles—divergent experiences are often framed in binary terms (this is us, that is you), with a collective experience—and thus an identity—attributed primarily to “the Other” (e.g., “you come from that background, so you’ve had such-and-such experiences, and that makes you a certain way—‘shaped differently’…”).
At the same time, there is a persistent silence regarding one’s own identification with another (hegemonic) group—an identification often viewed as problematic, particularly in Germany due to the history of National Socialism. It is frequently overlooked that white Germans, too, are engaged in a struggle for recognition—a fact that applies to the anti-racists involved in the aforementioned discussions. Furthermore, individuals belonging to a different culture are denied the right to be anything other than part of that homogenized group of “others”; a homogenized group identity is effectively imposed upon them.
In my view, it is necessary to emphasize differences first in order to discover common ground. That is why I believe it is important to consider the category of race in conjunction with class, gender, and other forms of discrimination. For several decades, new concepts—such as intersectionality—have attempted to account for these forms of dual or multiple marginalization.
At the same time, our society is currently facing an immense threat from the political right. In such a climate, the fight for democracy and human rights—and specifically for the free development of the personality—is of paramount importance; Black people can and wish to contribute to this effort. After all, Western industrialized nations pride themselves on belonging to a so-called “community of values” in which every human being is considered equal. They even export their values to poorer countries and regions of the world—sometimes in a brutal manner—without asking whether they are actually welcome there.
Overall, it is a positive development when white people in Germany reflect on their role in discussions about racism and ask themselves whether—and how—they benefit from these discourses, whether consciously or unconsciously. However, this must not result in an attitude of “we are now being self-critical” that serves merely as an excuse or a pretext for once again failing to listen to those who are the primary targets of New Right and far-right rhetoric.
Focusing on rigid differences leads us in the wrong direction; it results in minorities retreating into a supposedly distinct culture or identity. We should speak of the commonalities that bind us together rather than the differences that divide us. The success of the New Right in Europe, the USA, and Latin America makes it more necessary than ever to reflect on anti-racism collectively. This is precisely how the American civil rights movement achieved its successes. Only when left-wing and anti-racist actors—regardless of skin color—act in unison can they mount serious resistance against the Right.
