What do you think?
Rate this book
Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities
Forty years after the defeat of Nazism, and twenty years after the great wave of decolonization, how is it that racism remains a growing phenomenon? What are the special characteristics of contemporary racism? How can it be related to class divisions and to the contradictions of the nation-state? And how far, in turn, does racism today compel us to rethink the relationship between class struggles and nationalism?
This book attempts to answer these fundamental questions through a remarkable dialogue between the French philosopher Etienne Balibar and the American historian and sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein. Each brings to the debate the fruits of over two decades of analytical work, greatly inspired, respectively, by Louis Althusser and Fernand Braudel.
Both authors challenge the commonly held notion of racism as a continuation of, or throwback to, the xenophobias of past societies and communities. They analyse it instead as a social relation indissolubly tied to present social structures—the nation-state, the division of labour, and the division between core and periphery—which are themselves constantly being reconstructed. Despite their productive disagreements, Balibar and Wallerstein both emphasize the modernity of racism and the need to understand its relation to contemporary capitalism and class struggle. Above all, their dialogue reveals the forms of present and future social conflict, in a world where the crisis of the nation-state is accompanied by an alarming rise of nationalism and chauvinism.
This book attempts to answer these fundamental questions through a remarkable dialogue between the French philosopher Etienne Balibar and the American historian and sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein. Each brings to the debate the fruits of over two decades of analytical work, greatly inspired, respectively, by Louis Althusser and Fernand Braudel.
Both authors challenge the commonly held notion of racism as a continuation of, or throwback to, the xenophobias of past societies and communities. They analyse it instead as a social relation indissolubly tied to present social structures—the nation-state, the division of labour, and the division between core and periphery—which are themselves constantly being reconstructed. Despite their productive disagreements, Balibar and Wallerstein both emphasize the modernity of racism and the need to understand its relation to contemporary capitalism and class struggle. Above all, their dialogue reveals the forms of present and future social conflict, in a world where the crisis of the nation-state is accompanied by an alarming rise of nationalism and chauvinism.
242 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1988
44 people are currently reading
1324 people want to read
About the author
Étienne Balibar
156 books110 followersÉtienne Balibar is emeritus professor of philosophy at Paris X Nanterre and emeritus professor of comparative literature at the University of California, Irvine. He is also professor of modern European philosophy at Kingston University, London, and professor of French and comparative literature at Columbia University. His books include Violence and Civility: On the Limits of Political Philosophy (Columbia, 2015).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
November 24, 2021
I would have given it 3 stars if I was reviewing the separate essays only, but the dialogue between them makes it more worthwile to read. Balibar's style is at times way too rationalist/structuralist, he goes for on and on with speculations on the semiotics of race, nationality and class, with only now and then refering to empirical reality. Yet, when I read it, it kind of starts making sense. It's an acquired taste. Wallerstein is, on the other hand, much more concrete but way too deterministic, and as set to explain everything through economic processes. More enjoyable, but very easy to disagree with.
But the preface (by Balibar) and the postscript (by Wallerstein) give the book a nice framework (I suggest reading both before engaging in the articles) and it rounds up nicely the debate on the capitalist modes of production in the post-1945 world and how they affect national, class and race relationships.
But the preface (by Balibar) and the postscript (by Wallerstein) give the book a nice framework (I suggest reading both before engaging in the articles) and it rounds up nicely the debate on the capitalist modes of production in the post-1945 world and how they affect national, class and race relationships.
March 20, 2019
Good collection of essays on the subject. Wallerstein is cool, someone please teach Balibar how to formulate a coherent argument.
January 3, 2019
“A practical humanism can only be achieved today if it is, first of all, an effective anti-racism. This, admittedly, means pitting one idea of man against another, but, indissociably from that, it means setting an international politics of citizenship against a nationalist one.” -Etienne Balibar
After reading the first 2 parts of the book, I had to tune-out Wallerstein's essays and only read Balibar’s sections. Wallerstein was simply too orthodox for me. I agree with Balibar who accuses Wallerstein for 'rigid economism'. For me, reading Wallerstein was like a situation where you are sitting in the psychotherapist's bed and listening to the diagnosis while your foot is broken. Both Balibar and Wallerstein probably have never experienced racism in their lives. For them, racism is an exterior phenomenon, a predicate of anti-semitism, and the examination of the phenomenon stays in the realm of economics.
They are trying to analyze a minoritarian issue with a majoritarian lens. Reading Wallerstein’s essays in this book is going to be very painful for most non-white readers in the west. However, it was very joyful for me to read Balibar, especially on topics such as nationalism, political ideology, and citizenship in relation to class.
For the most part, Balibar is reducing racism (structural, institutional and social) to economic inequalities. This can be due to the classic problem of the left with the notion of ‘racism’. For the traditional or orthodox left, racism is always bound to be ‘structural’, a phenomenon resulted from the capitalist mode of production. From this view, one will inevitably dismiss all other sorts of racism such as ‘social racism’ and ‘academic/theoretical racism’.
There is a continuous dilemma with the notion of ‘individualism’ (classically read as opposite of communalism or even communism) and its critique without defining or dissecting it.
Balibar privileges himself with hijacking concepts from decolonialism struggles with all their achievements (Malcolm X, MLK, WEB Du Bois, Fanon etc.) to invent a meaningless term 'class racism' in order to re-homogenize the discourse to a unified struggle of the working class regardless of race (by itself a colonial act). This representation of the 'race of workers' is something he later criticizes. He is blaming the intellectuals (himself included) for creating this type of categorization. He also invents the term 'Acting-out-of Racism' where exclusion or discrimination becomes institutionalized. However, from the perspective of those who were systematically oppressed, marginalized or racialized, racism and discrimination has always been institutionalized or at least it has been manifested through governmental and institutional forces.
If we look at the issue from the perspective of the racialized minorities, we can see that homogenizing discourses which prioritize other categories, will inevitably result in situations where (at their best) the racial and sexual minorities will be only 'tolerated' within the homogeneous masses while still remain the 'others' of the society. The national identity or what we collectively understand as nation-ness will remain a natural (or normal to put it bluntly) way of referring to a group of people. Finally, Balibar's understanding of the concept of immigration, and multiculturalism with its difficulties does not go outside of Europe if it goes outside of France.
https://insideanairport.tumblr.com/po...
After reading the first 2 parts of the book, I had to tune-out Wallerstein's essays and only read Balibar’s sections. Wallerstein was simply too orthodox for me. I agree with Balibar who accuses Wallerstein for 'rigid economism'. For me, reading Wallerstein was like a situation where you are sitting in the psychotherapist's bed and listening to the diagnosis while your foot is broken. Both Balibar and Wallerstein probably have never experienced racism in their lives. For them, racism is an exterior phenomenon, a predicate of anti-semitism, and the examination of the phenomenon stays in the realm of economics.
They are trying to analyze a minoritarian issue with a majoritarian lens. Reading Wallerstein’s essays in this book is going to be very painful for most non-white readers in the west. However, it was very joyful for me to read Balibar, especially on topics such as nationalism, political ideology, and citizenship in relation to class.
For the most part, Balibar is reducing racism (structural, institutional and social) to economic inequalities. This can be due to the classic problem of the left with the notion of ‘racism’. For the traditional or orthodox left, racism is always bound to be ‘structural’, a phenomenon resulted from the capitalist mode of production. From this view, one will inevitably dismiss all other sorts of racism such as ‘social racism’ and ‘academic/theoretical racism’.
There is a continuous dilemma with the notion of ‘individualism’ (classically read as opposite of communalism or even communism) and its critique without defining or dissecting it.
Balibar privileges himself with hijacking concepts from decolonialism struggles with all their achievements (Malcolm X, MLK, WEB Du Bois, Fanon etc.) to invent a meaningless term 'class racism' in order to re-homogenize the discourse to a unified struggle of the working class regardless of race (by itself a colonial act). This representation of the 'race of workers' is something he later criticizes. He is blaming the intellectuals (himself included) for creating this type of categorization. He also invents the term 'Acting-out-of Racism' where exclusion or discrimination becomes institutionalized. However, from the perspective of those who were systematically oppressed, marginalized or racialized, racism and discrimination has always been institutionalized or at least it has been manifested through governmental and institutional forces.
If we look at the issue from the perspective of the racialized minorities, we can see that homogenizing discourses which prioritize other categories, will inevitably result in situations where (at their best) the racial and sexual minorities will be only 'tolerated' within the homogeneous masses while still remain the 'others' of the society. The national identity or what we collectively understand as nation-ness will remain a natural (or normal to put it bluntly) way of referring to a group of people. Finally, Balibar's understanding of the concept of immigration, and multiculturalism with its difficulties does not go outside of Europe if it goes outside of France.
https://insideanairport.tumblr.com/po...
August 23, 2010
i think i read this at just the right time, as many of the theoretical insights struck like thunder, especially in balibar's essay 'racism and nationalism'.
March 21, 2021
Part virtue signaling, part intentional stupidity, the book is a form of entertainment on its way out: the sort of navel gazing so common in the 19th century Russian belletristic production.
It is virtue signaling in the sense that the whole action is made to mark the refinement and education of the people involved.
It is intentional stupidity in the sense the authors know there will be no consequences of their act of tree destruction beyond a few sales to Governmental libraries. The terms have been muddled over the decades to mean anything the speaker wants. And this is precisely what Balibar and Wallerstein do: just bring more noise. If clarity was the goal, they would have come with different terms.
It is virtue signaling in the sense that the whole action is made to mark the refinement and education of the people involved.
It is intentional stupidity in the sense the authors know there will be no consequences of their act of tree destruction beyond a few sales to Governmental libraries. The terms have been muddled over the decades to mean anything the speaker wants. And this is precisely what Balibar and Wallerstein do: just bring more noise. If clarity was the goal, they would have come with different terms.
April 6, 2024
I only read Balibar’s part and boy (!) did it shake me to the core.
Let’s just say that I am not sure of anything anymore. My value system is currently collapsed.
Let’s just say that I am not sure of anything anymore. My value system is currently collapsed.
Read
October 28, 2009i have learned nothing because i have just started to read.
November 18, 2011
Interesting perspectives on what world-systems analysis has to offer the study of identities. The chapters written by Wallerstein were easy to read and flowed quite well for a sociological text.
Read
December 4, 2025I’m currently taking a class about Islam in Spain, which focuses a lot on racism since Islam has been racialized in our muddled and messy heads, and my professor lifts his nose at class analysis (in general) and any arguments about the relationship between class and racism (in particular). I feel like I’m being chided all the time, like he thinks I haven’t read the postmodernists, or the decolonial theories, that I’m an old-fashioned musty Marxist. I have, I’m not, they don’t convince me, and Marxism is still one of the best ways around to do sociological (not to mention political) analysis, sorrynotsorry. No closets here. The younger contingent in my class, though, is making it hard to get into the fun weeds on the topic since the baseline can be exemplified by a real question in class, which I will repeat verbatim: “Is Islamophobia the same as Islamophilia?” Frustration with the younger generation, typical of all older generations since forever, though, is an entirely different issue.
I thoroughly enjoyed having my previously held beliefs –that “ethnicity” is used as just a stand-in for “race,” that “tribe” is just what we call African/Arab Weberian “status” groups, that the terms are all used with “incredible inconsistency” (Wallerstein 77, Verso edition of 1991)– confirmed and discussed at length by such skillful and nuanced thinkers. I am not of the opinion, as polemicists (or maybe poorly trained critical thinkers) are, that you have to read people who don’t agree with you and that reading people who do is a sign of intellectual weakness or closed-mindedness. Asking me to read people who don’t agree with me (when you don’t) is just enlisting people who are better at it to fight your battles for you. I don’t need to read the nazis to know they were bad (and, what’s more, wrong). So this book was more like adding better ammunition to my old cache of weapons, not just adding different weapons or expanding my field of action. All necessary and appreciated on the intellectual battlefield.
So much of discussion about racism in class and in the literature I’ve read is stand-point theory heavy, is frankly superficially anecdotal, makes me feel like I’m observing a group therapy session. The tone is moralizing and tsk-tsky. It’s overly “empirical” like racism were a thing you could touch. It’s kind of intellectually cringy to me. It was so nice to read these essays with real theoretical teeth. Anti-racism is obviously part and parcel of my political ideology but not because of the vibes: “though the working class can claim no privileged role in the invention of anti-racism, that class forms an irreplaceable base for its development and efficacity, whether by its resistance to racist propaganda or [and here I start applauding] by its commitment to political programmes incompatible [hard underline] in practice with racist politics” (224).
One thing our professor argues that I agree with is that racism is structural (or, as he says, “institutional”), it’s not about personal prejudices. Balibar doesn’t abandon personal ideas, he’s a philosopher of course, but he doubles down in a way I love: “anti-racism too often falls prey to the illusion that racism is an absence of thought, […] and that it simply would be enough to make people think or reflect for it to subside. Whereas in fact it is a question of changing people’s modes of thought, which is the most difficult thing in the world” (222).
I’ll admit I have a special affection for French philosophers’ writing. That intricate and woven and complicated expression just gets me going. Can it be taken to absurd lengths like in the case of Spivak? Yes. Does that mean that it’s always nonsense? No. Balibar drags you into the dark and scary woods and thickets and there is absolutely no reason to think you’ll get out unscathed, but you like adventure. Wallerstein is like a big wooden bucket of cool clear water in the middle of a well-lit field when you’re thirsty. The combination of both is just fabulous and I’m so glad they did this collection together. I think we’re getting somewhere (even though it was written in the early 90s).
I thoroughly enjoyed having my previously held beliefs –that “ethnicity” is used as just a stand-in for “race,” that “tribe” is just what we call African/Arab Weberian “status” groups, that the terms are all used with “incredible inconsistency” (Wallerstein 77, Verso edition of 1991)– confirmed and discussed at length by such skillful and nuanced thinkers. I am not of the opinion, as polemicists (or maybe poorly trained critical thinkers) are, that you have to read people who don’t agree with you and that reading people who do is a sign of intellectual weakness or closed-mindedness. Asking me to read people who don’t agree with me (when you don’t) is just enlisting people who are better at it to fight your battles for you. I don’t need to read the nazis to know they were bad (and, what’s more, wrong). So this book was more like adding better ammunition to my old cache of weapons, not just adding different weapons or expanding my field of action. All necessary and appreciated on the intellectual battlefield.
So much of discussion about racism in class and in the literature I’ve read is stand-point theory heavy, is frankly superficially anecdotal, makes me feel like I’m observing a group therapy session. The tone is moralizing and tsk-tsky. It’s overly “empirical” like racism were a thing you could touch. It’s kind of intellectually cringy to me. It was so nice to read these essays with real theoretical teeth. Anti-racism is obviously part and parcel of my political ideology but not because of the vibes: “though the working class can claim no privileged role in the invention of anti-racism, that class forms an irreplaceable base for its development and efficacity, whether by its resistance to racist propaganda or [and here I start applauding] by its commitment to political programmes incompatible [hard underline] in practice with racist politics” (224).
One thing our professor argues that I agree with is that racism is structural (or, as he says, “institutional”), it’s not about personal prejudices. Balibar doesn’t abandon personal ideas, he’s a philosopher of course, but he doubles down in a way I love: “anti-racism too often falls prey to the illusion that racism is an absence of thought, […] and that it simply would be enough to make people think or reflect for it to subside. Whereas in fact it is a question of changing people’s modes of thought, which is the most difficult thing in the world” (222).
I’ll admit I have a special affection for French philosophers’ writing. That intricate and woven and complicated expression just gets me going. Can it be taken to absurd lengths like in the case of Spivak? Yes. Does that mean that it’s always nonsense? No. Balibar drags you into the dark and scary woods and thickets and there is absolutely no reason to think you’ll get out unscathed, but you like adventure. Wallerstein is like a big wooden bucket of cool clear water in the middle of a well-lit field when you’re thirsty. The combination of both is just fabulous and I’m so glad they did this collection together. I think we’re getting somewhere (even though it was written in the early 90s).
March 26, 2025
Ein eigenartiges Buch. Wallerstein fällt durch seinen Ökonomismus, Balibar durch seinen Eklektizismus und Skeptizismus auf. Beide kommen schließlich zu keinen befriedigenden, kohärenten Begriffen. Wallerstein sagt selbst am Ende, dass sie vor allem herkömmliche Begriffe dekonstruiert haben (stimmt so auch nicht ganz).
Balibar ist insofern interessant, als er deutlich durch den historischen Moment seiner Politisierung und deren Enttäuschungen geprägt ist. 68er mit utopistischen Hoffnungen, Intellektueller unter dem verrückt gewordenen Meister Althusser. Nach der großen Enttäuschung folgt die große Verwirrung, die sich in seiner weltanschaulichen Haltlosigkeit äußert. Liest man seine Texte genauer, fällt die Inkohärenz und Beliebigkeit der Argumentation auf. Eigentlich konstruiert er kaum Argumente, sondern reiht Thesen aneinander. So ist er wesentlich Philosoph, der an Begriffen herumwerkelt, aber auch das nicht gerade gründlich macht. Die Momente der Wahrheit, die man finden kann, muss man sich dann aus diesem Brei herausheben.
Wallersteins grundlegende Argumente sind dagegen klar, aber auch im wesentlichen sehr simpel. Er kann eher durch die Fülle seines historischen Wissens und seinen Internationalismus Interesse erregen.
Balibar ist insofern interessant, als er deutlich durch den historischen Moment seiner Politisierung und deren Enttäuschungen geprägt ist. 68er mit utopistischen Hoffnungen, Intellektueller unter dem verrückt gewordenen Meister Althusser. Nach der großen Enttäuschung folgt die große Verwirrung, die sich in seiner weltanschaulichen Haltlosigkeit äußert. Liest man seine Texte genauer, fällt die Inkohärenz und Beliebigkeit der Argumentation auf. Eigentlich konstruiert er kaum Argumente, sondern reiht Thesen aneinander. So ist er wesentlich Philosoph, der an Begriffen herumwerkelt, aber auch das nicht gerade gründlich macht. Die Momente der Wahrheit, die man finden kann, muss man sich dann aus diesem Brei herausheben.
Wallersteins grundlegende Argumente sind dagegen klar, aber auch im wesentlichen sehr simpel. Er kann eher durch die Fülle seines historischen Wissens und seinen Internationalismus Interesse erregen.
Read
June 5, 2020Fransız Filozof Etienne Balibar ile Amerikalı Sosyolog Wallerstein'ın hazırladıkları "Irk Ulus Sınıf: Belirsiz Kimlikler" kitabı Metis Yayınları'nda 1990'lı yıllarda yayınlanmıştı! "Irk Ulus Sınıf: Belirsiz Kimlikler" kitabı bugün de "güncel" bir kitap! Bir yandan "global" bir "salgın" varken, öbür yandan da, "ırkçılık", "ulusçuluk", "sınıf ayrımcılığı" tartışmaları yeniden başladı. Balibar, daha çok "sınıflar" açısından dünyayı tartışırken, Wallerstein, "ırk" ve "ulus" kavramları açısından dünyayı tartışıyor, başka filozoflarla, sosyologlarla "ırk", "ulus" ve "sınıf" tartışmalarını yeniden inceliyorlar. "Irk Ulus Sınıf: Belirsiz Kimlikler" kitabı yayınlandığında bir çok ülkelerde yankı yaratmıştı, hatta bir süre sonra, Portekiz'de "Gulbenkian Komisyonu" tarafından "Sosyal Bilimleri Açın!" başlıklı uluslararası bir sempozyum yapıldı, sosyal bilimlerin dünyadaki gelişmesi ile ilgili ayrıntılı tartışmalar yapıldı.
June 17, 2018
Not very interesting or compelling. Suffers from unclear ontology of nation/ethnicity/race. Balibar's popular piece for example ("The Nation Form: Theory and History") only offers some very basic constructivist takes on 20th century European ethnogenesis as a result.
Most worthwhile part (concerned with nationalism) is Wallerstein's "The Construction of Peoplehood", which includes a long and informative discussion on political boundaries in apartheid-era South Africa.
Most worthwhile part (concerned with nationalism) is Wallerstein's "The Construction of Peoplehood", which includes a long and informative discussion on political boundaries in apartheid-era South Africa.
July 15, 2024
« Ainsi la catégorie d’immigration structure des discours et des comportements mais aussi, ce qui n’est pas moins important, elle fournit au raciste, à l’individu et au groupe en tant que racistes, l’illusion d’une pensée, d’un « objet », à connaître et à explorer, ce qui est un ressort fondamental de la « conscience de soi ». Ayant écrit cette phrase, je me rends compte qu’elle est équivoque. Car il n’y a pas ici d’illusion de penser, mais plutôt la pensée effective d’un objet illusoire. »
April 13, 2020
Quite interestingly, this is basically a theory-based book none the less not boring or unpalatable. I recommend this book of Balibar and Wellerstein to anyone who wants to be indulged in the subtleties of the connection between marxism, class conflicts, race, and decolonization. The overall setting is predicated on European post-colonialization with a touch of slavery annexed to the States.
August 20, 2025
I like the analysis and application of Althusser to nationalism - relevant in modern times etc. Minus 2 stars because the authors (Wallerstein in particular) reduce racism (a problem neither of them have faced) to a class issue. Orthodox Marxists who want to skirt around the minefield that is post colonial theory, because it doesn’t neatly square with their postmodernism
September 21, 2025
J’ai particulièrement apprécié la section dans laquelle l’auteur évoque la relation entre la nation et le peuple. Laquelle de ces notions précède l’autre ? Cette réflexion était captivante. Dans l’ensemble, il s’agit d’un ouvrage de qualité.
November 27, 2024
Linguagem meio chatinha mas reflexões muito sólidas sobre o racismo contemporâneo.
September 18, 2025
Wallerstein is such a goat and some of his essays here are genius, balibar has some really interesting points here and there but mostly makes me realize how brilliant his counterpart is in comparison
to-keep-reference
October 18, 2016En este punto podemos ver tanto la proximidad como la diferencia específica entre los conceptos de Estado patrimonial y Estado nacional. El último reproduce fielmente la identidad totalizante del primero entre territorio y población, pero la nación y el Estado nacional proponen nuevos medios para superar la precariedad de la soberanía moderna. Estos conceptos reifican la soberanía del modo más rígido; transforman en un objeto a la relación de soberanía (a menudo naturalizándola) y esto elimina todo residuo de antagonismo social. La Nación es una especie de cortocircuito que intenta liberar al concepto de soberanía y modernidad del antagonismo y la crisis que los define. La soberanía nacional suspende los orígenes conflictivos de la modernidad (cuando ya no están definitivamente destruidos), y cierra los caminos alternativos dentro de la modernidad, que rehusaron concederle sus poderes a la autoridad estatal.
Imperio Pág.76-77
Imperio Pág.76-77
May 17, 2013
Bu tip kitapları okumak güç ister,wallerstein bu durumu daha da zorlaştırmış ve inanın ki wallerstein sizi okumadan soğutup kitaptan uzaklaştırıyor;ama etienne balibar'ın üslubu,onun kolay okunulabilirliği sizi kitaba yeniden çekiyor.İki yazarın da olaylara,olgulara ilginç bir perspektiften bakması kitabın etkileyici olmasını sağlıyor.Politikaya ilgili olanlar bu kitabı kaçırmamalı.
February 18, 2008
Wow...this text is incredibly dense, but valuable nonetheless. Requires lots of patience, rereading, discussion, and guidance! Definitely one I will read again once May is here...
February 8, 2013
Read so far: "Is there a 'Neo-Racism'?" and "The Construction of Peoplehood: Racism, Nationalism and Ethnicity."
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews