Nov 14, 2015 - in Comparative Literature, edited by David Damrosch, Natalie Melas, and Mbon- giseni Buthelezi, 125â38. Princeton: .... Lucassen, Leo. 2001.
Chapter 1
European Racial Triangulation Anca Parvulescu
Two directions have become discernible in postcolonial theory in the last decade, both of which are reflective of attempts to reorient a field perceived to be in crisis. On the one hand, some scholars have called for the field’s reconfiguration. As this argument goes, postcolonial theory has run its course in relation to the historical moment of decolonization, and it proves inadequate or insufficient in relation to our global moment. On the other hand, scholars have called for an expansion of postcolonial theory’s reach, beyond its original (and much-debated) anchoring in the postcoloniality of South Asia, into Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, China, the Caucasus, and Europe. This chapter constitutes a reflection on this second impulse. What happens to postcolonial theory when it accepts its status as “traveling theory,” to borrow Edward Said’s phrase? Particularly, what happens to postcolonial theory when the “postcolonial” is conjoined with that which it was initially supposed to decenter, “Europe”? How does postcolonial theory look like once it travels not to the postcolonies in East Europe, where it should have traveled a long time ago, but to the former colonial West European metropolis? If the word “postcolonial” designates various forms of resistance and agentive transformation in the aftermath of colonialism and neocolonialism and if “Europe” is almost synonymous with colonialism, is “postcolonial Europe” an oxymoronic formulation, with potentially regressive overtones? On its journeys to Europe, as Said might wonder, does postcolonial theory risk ossification and domestication or is it likely to be reinvigorated? John McLeod acknowledges that “in speaking of postcolonial London I am in danger of recentralizing the Western metropolis” (2004, 14). He is responding to other postcolonial theorists, like Gayatri C. Spivak, who consider the study of postcolonial migration, on which the idea of “postcolonial London” is premised, to be Eurocentric.1 McLeod warns, however, that the 25
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 25
14-11-2015 14:52:46
26
Anca Parvulescu
postcoloniality of London is not commensurate with that of a former colony. What the term “postcolonial London” names, for McLeod, is the effect decolonization had and continues to have on the former colonial metropolis. Both colony and colonial metropolis have been transformed by decolonization, albeit in radically different ways. The two are postcolonial, therefore, in radically different ways. McLeod proposes that the task for the postcolonial critic who acknowledges that the European metropolis has never been immune to the cultural exchanges that shadowed colonial capitalist exploitation is to trace various sites of ensuing transculturation (McLeod 2014). In case one might be tempted to consider such transculturation to be a recent development, one would do well to revisit the globalizing rhetoric of Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto: [The bourgeoisie] draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what is called civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. (Marx and Engels 1986, 228)
As the “most barbarian nations” are compelled to enter the empire of capitalism, they “adopt” cultural forms traveling from colonial centers. Aamir Mufti reads these statements for their unacknowledged underside: “What they [Marx and Engels] could not fully conceive of, but a conception of which is nevertheless compatible with the contingency that they ascribe to modern ‘civilization’, is the possibility that this attempt to create ‘a world after its own image’ transforms the original itself” (1998, 113). Capitalist colonial exchange impacted not only “the most barbarian nations” but also “what is called civilization.” Today, in addition to the study of decolonization in its longue durée, in the former colony and in the former colonial metropolis, postcolonial theory needs to identify and analyze the neocolonial dimensions of neoliberalism, flexible capitalism writ global. Neoliberalism’s global reach does not render the postcolonial core/periphery distinction anachronistic, as it is often argued, only insufficient. In addition to focusing on the ex-colonies of former empires, European as well as non-European, today postcolonial theory also attends to peripheries and semi-peripheries of neocolonial centers that do not coincide with (nor function in the same way as) the old colonial metropolises. The challenge for the field is thus to bring into focus the workings of two closely knit but not always overlapping international divisions of labor (Cheah 2010, 189). In this framework, “Europe” (a colonial and neocolonial space with old and new, external and internal peripheries) becomes one object (certainly not a privileged object) of postcolonial analysis.
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 26
14-11-2015 14:52:46
27
European Racial Triangulation
In the following, I propose that one way to bring the “postcolonial” and “Europe” together, in relation to both non-European and East European postcolonialities, is to become more attentive to the operations of race in contemporary Europe. One of the projects of postcolonial theory should be to attend to the racialization of the “new subalterns” (more on this category later) in Europe. We cannot speak of a “post” in relation to Europe’s colonial past as long as we continue to deny (or exceptionalize) the existence of a European racial field. I offer a brief reflection on postcoloniality and race, insisting on the centrality of race and racialization to postcolonial intervention. Against a particular genealogy of resistance to race as a category of analysis, I argue, with Said (2007), in favor of the critical translation of “traveling theory,” in this case critical race theory. In particular, I retool the concept of “racial triangulation” (Kim 2000), which emerged in the United States, and propose its translation to the European context, as a lens through which to understand some of the complexities of the contemporary European racial field. As a case study, I read a scene from Michael Haneke’s film Code Unknown: Incomplete Tales of Several Journeys (2000), which offers an occasion to analyze a contemporary postcolonial encounter in a Parisian street.
POSTCOLONIALITY AND RACE In an essay that attempts to redefine and expand the scope of postcolonial studies, Dipesh Chakrabarty declares: European intellectuals, whether discussing refugees from outside Europe or internal migrants from the ex-colonies and the question of “Eastern Europe,” are increasingly debating postcolonial theory and are even producing their own readers and translations of postcolonial writings. Europe today is clearly a new frontier of postcolonial studies—and not because the classical peasant-subaltern subject can be found in Europe. No, it is because the new subalterns of the global economy—refugees, asylum seekers, illegal workers—can be found all over Europe. (Chakrabarty 2012, 8)
The “classical” subaltern subject in fact can be found in Europe.2 The countries considered to belong to East Europe have a history as colonial subjects to Russian, Ottoman, German, Austro-Hungarian, Polish, and Lithuanian empires. This history carries into the present and translates into hierarchies and stratifications along the lines of “modernization” and “structural adjustment.” Many East Europeans thus find themselves on the unenviable side of the international division of labor and its attendant forms of mobility. The rub when it comes to East Europe is to acknowledge the presence of multiple
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 27
14-11-2015 14:52:46
28
Anca Parvulescu
colonial and postcolonial histories in any given geography. It is not unusual for an East European locale to find itself in a postcolonial relation to the Ottoman Empire or Russia (sometimes both) and, following different postcolonial temporalities, in a semi-colonial relation to parts of West Europe and, today, the European Union. It is not unusual for the same East European locale to have a colonial history itself, in relation to one or more of its neighbors. Add to this already multi-nodulous formation the quasi-postcolonial “postcommunist condition,” the aftermath of half a century of Soviet hegemony, and the critical task becomes quite challenging, but ever more necessary. Chakrabarty is thus right in pointing out that the existence of “the new subalterns” at the heart of the West European metropolis imposes the need to think of “Europe” as an object of postcolonial inquiry. It is paramount, however, to acknowledge that the new subalterns come from former West European colonies, as well as newer peripheries and semi-peripheries, including East Europe. Let us then return to Chakrabarty and bring out one of the consequences of his argument: “It cannot be without significance that what brought Stuart Hall, Homi Bhabha, and Isaac Julien together to read Fanon in the London of the late 1980s and the 1990s was the struggle against racism in a postimperial Britain” (2012, 2). Too often postcolonial theory is divorced from a study of race, racism, and racialization—in Europe and elsewhere. Too often, in the European context, the resistance to postcolonial theory takes the form of a rejection of race as a category of analysis. My goal is to bring these categories to bear on the conversation on “postcolonial Europe,” so that they can help us elucidate the condition of its “new subalterns.” In a highly polemical essay, Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc Wacquant (1999) argued, with a passion that raises the question of its own economy, that race is an American particularism, not translatable into other contexts, such as Brazil or Europe. To invoke race as a category of analysis, the two sociologists contended, is to participate in the globalization of an “American problem,” leading to the “homogenization and submission to fashions coming from America” (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1999, 46–47). At work in such analyses is, according to them, nothing less than “imperial reason”: The recent as well as unexpected discovery of the “globalization of race” (Winant, 1994, 1995) results, not from a sudden convergence of forms of ethnoracial domination in the various countries, but from the quasi-universalization of the US folk-concept of “race” as a result of the worldwide export of US scholarly categories. (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1999, 48)
Readers of Bourdieu are familiar with his long-standing engagement with the institutional conditions of knowledge production. In the global moment, Bourdieu and Wacquant argued, it is US-based scholars (including US-based
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 28
14-11-2015 14:52:46
European Racial Triangulation
29
postcolonial scholars and theorists of race), who, in tacit complicity with major institutions of publishing, impose their particularisms on French academics, who come to occupy the position of the colonized and marginalized. In the course of their argument, Bourdieu and Wacquant effect a distinction between European colonialism and one of colonialism’s most pernicious and enduring effects: racialism. In an effort to fight what they perceive as the dangers of globalization in the scholarly world, they bracket off the fact that colonialism was already a form of globalization and that one of the forms it took was that of the globalization of racial thought. Today we are witnessing, in the context of renewed globalization, the legacies of such old patterns of globalization. Bourdieu and Wacquant’s argument has been refuted on many fronts, but critical race theory—and, to some extent, postcolonial theory—continues to be perceived, especially in France, as “American.”3 David Theo Goldberg (2006), among others, has offered an implicit rejoinder to Bourdieu and Wacquant by coining the phrase “racial europeanization.” Race is not an American problem: European colonialism produced modern race, not only “out there” in the colony (including the United States), but in Europe as well. Race, in turn, made Europe; race is one modality in which Europeanization has unfolded and continues to unfold. This remains the case when the European hegemonic approach to race is one of denial.4 For Goldberg, denial is in fact the European relation to race, most often taking the form of an automatic relegation of race to a strictly anti-Semitic European past. We know that contemporary critical discourses on race have two major, interrelated genealogies: postcolonial theory and critical race theory (the latter having emerged out of African-American studies and American studies more generally). Bourdieu and Wacquant want to limit the relevance of race to the United States, to African-American studies in particular. Goldberg, on the other hand, draws out postcolonial theory’s engagement with race, tracing its emergence and endurance throughout European “civilizational modernity.” While I agree with Goldberg on the importance of analyzing “regionally registered racisms” (he isolates the Americanization, Palestinianization, Latin Americanization, and South Africanization of racism), I want to argue that, methodologically, critics of the European racial field can and should borrow from both genealogies—postcolonial theory as well as critical race theory.5 It is true that not all aspects of US-based critical race theory travel well; not all resonate in Europe. But some of its major tenets—the social constructedness of race, racialization as process, the critique of spatial segregation, the deep intersectionality of race and class—can and should be translated so they can serve as conceptual tools in the European conversation.6 The concept of “racial triangulation” (Kim 2000), which asks us to move beyond a white/
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 29
14-11-2015 14:52:46
30
Anca Parvulescu
black binary and acknowledge a multiple and complex contemporary racial field, is one such tool in need of critical translation. Such translation entails a case-by-case analysis of what Shu-mei Shih, in a programmatic essay titled “Comparative Racialization,” calls “the chronotope of a given instance of racialization” (2008, 1358). Racial thinking has a global dimension, but processes of racialization are specific to particular time-place coordinates. In what follows, I explore one such chronotope of racialization in the opening scene of Michael Haneke’s film Code Unknown, whose extended contemporaneity (2000–2015) I engage through the lens of current debates on European precarity. I will argue for the need for a comparativist analysis of European racialized precarity in a postcolonial framework, in relation to two of Europe’s ex-colonial and semi-colonial sites, Africa and East Europe.7 EVERYDAY EUROPE Code Unknown opens with a nine-minute long take which tracks an accidental encounter on a Parisian boulevard. Three characters are involved: Jean, a French farm boy without a future (Alexandre Hamidi); Amadou, a young French teacher and the son of Malian immigrant parents (Ona Lu Yenke); and Maria, a middle-aged Romanian migrant who is begging in the street (Lumini a Gheorghiu). As Jean carelessly discards a piece of wrapping paper on Maria’s lap, Amadou demands that he apologize to her. The ensuing scuffle leads to the intervention of two policemen, who arrest Amadou and deport Maria. In my reading, the encounter between the three characters illuminates the tense imbrication of three conflicting European precarities.8 The three characters never meet again, prompting film critic Scott Durham to describe Haneke’s aesthetics as “serial divergent realism” (2010, 253). The three characters’ stories, opportunities, and politics are divergent; through its modernist form, the film struggles to capture this divergence. Haneke’s film follows five characters. Besides the three whose encounter inaugurates the narration and whose triangulation this chapter is concerned with, there is a couple formed by Anne (Juliette Binoche), an actress, and Georges (Thierry Neuvic), a photojournalist working in war-torn Kosovo (acting and photography serve as foils to Haneke’s aesthetic choices).9 The opening scene of the encounter between Jean, Amadou, and Maria is filmed on Boulevard Saint-Germain, where Anne lives—the only character in the film who properly “belongs” to the space. She is most thoroughly “French” and “European,” Binoche’s star persona assuring the legibility of her position. And yet the Parisian street Anne inhabits exceeds Binoche’s Frenchness: visually, “Detroit” is written in huge letters on a truck that dominates the frame for a few seconds in the opening scene; aurally, the soundscape is dominated by street music produced by a multiethnic band. As if in an effort
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 30
14-11-2015 14:52:46
European Racial Triangulation
31
Figure 1.1 Three frames from Michael Haneke’s Code Unknown: Incomplete Tales of Several Journeys (2000). Source: © 2000 MK2 Productions/Cinemanuel/France 2 Cinema/Arte
France Cinema/Les Films Alain Sarde/Bavaria Films
to protect itself from the perceived dangers associated with this multicultural cityscape, Anne’s bohemian apartment in St Germain (equipped with the necessary accouterments of cosmopolitanism) is a fortress of sorts. One needs a password to open the door—the titular code. None of the characters have this code, but they are situated differentially in relation to
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 31
14-11-2015 14:52:47
32
Anca Parvulescu
it. Georges lives with Anne but by the end of the film the two break up and he cannot enter the building anymore. Provincial Jean is invited to stay for a couple of days but is warned that he has to leave soon. Amadou and Maria are considered intruders in the neighborhood; neither can dream of being welcome, even as guests. I focus exclusively on the triangulation of Jean, Amadou, and Maria, graphically rendered in the opening encounter; Jean, specifically, because while Anne and Georges are solidly bourgeois, he, white and “properly French,” is nonetheless part of the millennial precarious generation. My goal is to place his precarity in relation to Amadou and Maria. The triangulation of these characters results in the image of an equilateral triangle, calling upon a tripartite distribution of the critic’s attention. When we read and hear about precarity in the European media, we read and hear about Jean. He has run away from home and is attempting to find refuge with his brother in Paris. His home is a decrepit farm. Gone is the romanticized French province, which Haneke replaces with a desolate, gray, thoroughly unattractive and seemingly dysfunctional farm. Jean’s father (Josef Bierbichler) imagines a future in which Jean takes over the farm, but the latter does not share this dream. In an endless long shot, father and son eat a depressing dinner in oppressive silence. Eventually, the father kills the animals on the farm. Without Jean, there is no future for the French farm. This suicidal act comes across as tragic and yet the film’s sympathies remain with Jean, whom it does not encourage to pursue the father’s anachronistic rural dream. Without economic or social perspectives, Jean is the embodiment of one form of European precarity. He is on the move, riding his new motorcycle, but there is nowhere to go. The second vertex on Haneke’s triangle is occupied by Amadou. He, too, leads a precarious existence, but his precarity needs to be understood in a different key. The son of Malian immigrants, he was raised and educated in France and is, in many ways, the embodiment of French republican ideals. He is a teacher in a school for deaf children, which grants him the security other European youths, including Jean, can only aspire to. On account of his blackness, however, he is perceived as a perpetual immigrant, an intruder, and a potential troublemaker. Haneke’s film shows Amadou navigating the racialized space between his family, his workplace, and his romantic life. His anger when faced with everyday racism fuels his activism and his ethics. In the opening scene, he attempts, with disastrous results, to help Maria, who stands in for the new wave of migration from East Europe and with whom he feels an experiential affinity. The third vertex of the triangle is taken up by Maria. Hers is a form of precarity we hear little about. She is Romanian, although in this opening scene she does not say anything; she is a new migrant, from somewhere in the East. In Romania, in order to cover the shame of begging, she claims to have a job in a Parisian school, presumably as a cleaning lady. She claims, in
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 32
14-11-2015 14:52:47
European Racial Triangulation
33
other words, to be part of the feminized wave of migration from East Europe: women, often mothers, who commute across the continent to work in the “care industry,” a symptom of what Cheah calls “the new international division of reproductive labor” (2010, 189).10 They are joining and often competing for jobs with women from former West European colonies, like the Surinamese women in the Netherlands who Sabrina Marchetti interviews in her essay in this volume. They work as domestic workers, nannies, nurses, caretakers for the elderly, sex workers, wives, and combinations thereof. In Romania, they participate in a remittance economy, sending or bringing home their paychecks to sustain a failing, forever transitioning economy. Maria, however, no longer works in a school and has started begging on a Parisian street corner. The money she makes helps build a house in the Romanian village, so that one of her daughters can marry. There are entire new streets lined with such houses in the Romanian village, architectural symptoms of the remittance economy. Haneke plays with the viewer’s racialized expectations: Maria could be Roma, but she is not.11 In fact, Maria’s greatest fear is that passers-by might think she is Roma. It is a widespread Romanian racist worry not to be mistaken for a Roma. Later in the film, Maria confesses to having once humiliated a Roma woman begging in a Romanian street, throwing some money at her in disgust. She knows that she is now occupying that woman’s position in Paris. In a brilliant twist, Haneke has Maria pass for Roma (for the other characters and for at least some viewers) in order to access a most precarious economic activity: begging.12 With no physical markers distinguishing Maria from a “real” Roma, she can perform “Roma.” In the process, she becomes familiar with the racialization of the Roma in Europe, especially in France. She is deported; handcuffed and escorted to a plane bound for Romania. It is 2000, seven years before Romania joined the European Union, but, retrospectively, the film seems to uncannily anticipate the fact that EU citizenship sometimes matters little: Romanian and other East European Roma are illegally deported from France as EU citizens as well. Since begging is a racialized economic activity associated with the Roma, Maria’s economic precarity serves as the base for her racialization. The figure of the Roma woman is that of the subaltern; she makes it into Haneke’s film only in passing, as a shadowing foil to Maria, but her speech is otherwise occluded. Rather than attempt the problematic project of giving a Roma woman a voice, Haneke’s film frames her structural occlusion. The fact that Haneke’s scene is one long take might suggest that the Europe dramatized through the encounter between Jean, Amadou, and Maria is one, formally graspable as such. And yet the fact that the paths of the characters intersect only once suggests, if one follows the lead of Durham, a realism hinging on disjunction. There is no “idea of Europe” here beyond the fragmentary and the disjunctive. Glossing another possible understanding of the film’s title, there is no “code,” no key to the European puzzle. If any promise
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 33
14-11-2015 14:52:47
34
Anca Parvulescu
of Europe is to be traced in the film, it could potentially be recuperated at the level of affect: a messy, muddy, and equally divergent affect, in which the viewer partakes in unsettling ways. As Durham puts it, “Displaced affect thus has a contradictory meaning in Code Unknown, where it is not only a psychological and social ‘theme’ but also a formal device that brings its disparate series into relation” (2010, 258). I want to suggest that the three divergent series are brought into a racialized affective relation, a function of a muchdenied European racial field. COSMOPOLITAN COMPLICITY Code Unknown is clearly a film about Europe. What does it “say” about it? Rosalid Gald writes: “As the film of Haneke’s that most directly speaks ‘about’ Europe, it may also be the least successful in analyzing it. . . . The overt narrative on immigration and race actively resists the film’s more radical impulses” (2010, 228). She submits that the film’s failure is at least in part a function of its conditions of production: [Haneke] is a cosmopolitan traveler, able to inhabit many European spaces at once. . . . This cosmopolitan European figure contrasts markedly with the lowermost and the excluded that his films represent. Indeed, we might read these figures as mutually constitutive, two sides of the coin of transnational European identity today: the displaced person who loses his original identity and has no access to another versus the cosmopolitan who transcends the national and can be at home anywhere. (Gald 2010, 231)
For Gald, the structural position occupied by the filmmaker vis-à-vis the subjects he is attempting to portray is one of complicit compromise: “[Haneke] continues to position himself as a white, west European artist, laying claim to the seriousness and depth of subjectivity that this speaking position grants him (and denies others)” (237). Ironically, the problem, aside from a damning suspicion of anti-modernist didacticism, seems to rest with Haneke’s cosmopolitanism, the intellectual position often celebrated as the European self-critical response to both postcolonialism and globalization. One is certainly troubled by the film’s representation of Maria as a speechless, helpless victim. She does not say anything in the opening sequence; later, she does not resist arrest or deportation. The Romania to which she is deported is a foggy obscure place, where Maria silently and awkwardly reconnects with her husband (Bob Nicolescu). We know from a vast interdisciplinary literature on migration that women who return from abroad usually find themselves in a position of power in their families; the money they make grant them rights to decision making.13 This is not the case for Maria,
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 34
14-11-2015 14:52:47
European Racial Triangulation
35
who remains humble, if not subservient, both abroad and at home. It is difficult to see in Maria a cosmopolitan traveler, a position that seems to remain reserved for the European filmmaker, Juliette Binoche, the cinephile viewer interpellated by the film’s modernist aesthetics, and the diasporic scholar. If cosmopolitanism is not to remain vulnerable to legitimate charges of Eurocentrism and elitism, it, too, needs to embrace comparativism, allowing for a relational account of the cleft between the two cosmopolitanisms put forth by the film: Haneke’s and Maria’s. What would cosmopolitanism be if it forgot its obsession with inducting, integrating, or folding its others into an already constituted cosmopolis, an obsession Feyzi Baban analyzes in his essay in this volume, and celebrated “the other Europe” (or no Europe at all) as the source of its dreams of mobility, hospitality, and cultural exchange? What would cosmopolitanism be if it relaxed its idealist muscle in order to become a theory of the gender- and race-inflected political economy of global contemporary mobility?14 I thus share Gald’s concerns, especially her critique of the West European auteur who takes up the task of dramatizing “Europe” and of representing some if its marginal subjects on a combination of European funds—where representation functions both as portrait and proxy, in Spivak’s terms (2010, 10).15 I would like, however, to recover the force of the film’s opening shot, precisely as an opening, a beginning in the sense put forward by Erich Auerbach: “There is confidence that in any random fragment plucked from the course of life the totality of its fate is contained and can be portrayed” (2009, 547). I take this everyday “random moment” to be always already tainted, messy; and Haneke always already caught in a network of cosmopolitan complicity. However, I believe Haneke cannot be accused of didacticism since, fifteen years after the release of his film, the triangulation of Jean, Amadou, and Maria is still in need of thorough analysis. TRIANGULAR EUROPE Unlike other Haneke films, which tend to be imbued with hyperbolic physical violence, the opening sequence of Code Unknown dramatizes a subtler form of violence. Jean’s act of humiliation is an ordinary, everyday form of racism—so ordinary that it easily goes unnoticed. The viewer herself might not notice it, were it not for Amadou’s protest. Jean throws his garbage in Maria’s lap because Maria figures on this Parisian street corner as an abject, garbage-like being. Much as we would like to live in a world in which race has lost its weight in the sorting of Europeans, much as we would like to join Paul Gilroy (2001) in his call for a “liberation from race,” we are missing something crucial in this scene if we do not invoke race and racialization as
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 35
14-11-2015 14:52:47
36
Anca Parvulescu
analytical categories.16 Amadou, Jean, and Maria do not claim racial identities, but the space of this Parisian encounter is saturated with race as an operative device. The concept of “racial triangulation” is usually deployed to describe a US racial field that goes beyond a white/black binary and includes a third figure, often that of the “Asian-American.” Shu-mei Shih describes what is at stake in Claire Jean Kim’s (2000) use of the term: In this triangulation, Asian Americans are granted “relative valorization” over blacks but suffer “civic ostracism” by the dominant white society. Kim argues that racialization does not take the form of a single hierarchy or of separate trajectories for different peoples of color but occurs in a “field of racial positions” and that these positions are also produced in relation to each other. . . . Racial triangulation, in this usage, is an effective heuristic device to bring into view relationalities that conventional binary models obscure or displace. If one places three related terms under the pressure of triangulation, new insights emerge. (Shih 2008, 1351)
The notion of racial triangulation proves useful in the European context because, while there certainly is a “racial ordering” (Kim 2000, 10) at work in Europe today, it is not enough to speak of white versus black, just as it is not enough to speak of West versus East Europe. Multiple hierarchies are at work in any given situation, operating along multiple axes and producing complex nodes of racialization, involving multiple terms. On the margins of Haneke’s scene, one can observe the production of one European racial triangulation, formed by white Europeans, black Europeans, and East Europeans. This triangle allows us to discern and analyze a skeletal relational logic in what Durham diagnoses as “divergent series.” There is no doubt that Jean, the young white Frenchman, leads an economically and socially precarious life. When faced with the police, however, he is, comparatively, in the least precarious situation, because he comes across as self-evidently “French.” Although Amadou is, like Jean, a French citizen and the ethical voice in Haneke’s scene (the voice of the much-celebrated French universalism as well as French hospitality), Jean is the only one who does not get arrested. Amadou is arrested because he is perceived as a “hooligan.” Maria is deported because she is not-yet-in-Schengen, the wrong kind of East European, and potentially Roma. Vulnerability to police violence and the possibility of arrest and/or deportation are signs of one racialized hierarchy of precarity, with Jean at the top and Maria at the bottom. Maria is likewise at the bottom of a racialized, economic hierarchy. Amadou has a job as a teacher and a source of income; he is in the least precarious situation, economically. He is also educated and therefore, at least theoretically, he can entertain dreams of further social mobility. Jean has
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 36
14-11-2015 14:52:47
European Racial Triangulation
37
some comfort at home with his father, where, affectively, he does not want to be. He does not seem to be able to secure a job and therefore his social mobility is occluded. As for Maria, it is highly important to underscore that she is upwardly mobile. Counterintuitive as it might be, begging is her path to social mobility (or, rather, her daughter’s social mobility). And yet, though socially mobile, her situation is economically more precarious than either that of the white or black Frenchman. While this comparativist exercise allows us to foreground the asymmetrical distribution of European precarity, the scope of thinking through triangles instead of binaries is precisely not to reproduce the impulse to hierarchize inherent to binary thinking. We cannot allow comparison to congeal into a ranking of oppressions, because these oppressions are constituted in relation. Maria is at the bottom of the legal and economic hierarchies described above, but she can also pass for white, possibly leading to what Kim (2000) calls “relative valorization.” Additionally, in 2015, Maria might or might not be deported from France, but she has EU citizenship, which theoretically should yield comparatively reduced precarity. In other words, Maria can flicker in and out of various processes of racialization. By comparison, Amadou cannot. Our theories of the constructedness of race thus need to concomitantly account for the enduring visuality of race within this particular racial field. Haneke does not pursue this possibility, but, given Maria’s racism vis-à-vis the Roma, one might well presume that she imagines herself as superior to Amadou as well. The oppressed can easily become oppressors. The critical purchase of the idea of triangulation rests with the fact that, rather than produce a neat hierarchy of oppressors and oppressed, the three terms of the triangle coproduce each other—they are mutually constitutive—in multidirectional ways, with multiple, often contradictory and unstable effects. For many years, postcolonial theory taught us little about the conflicting postcolonialities of East Europe, a symptom, as Shih argues, of its perverse Eurocentrism (whereby postcolonial theory prioritizes the study of West European empires) (2011, 709).17 Even recent calls to expand the purview of postcolonial studies rarely take such expansion in the direction of East Europe. Although a number of scholars, situated in academic institutions in the West and in East Europe, have done valuable work on the postcoloniality of this region, the Anglophone “core” of postcolonial theory has paid little attention to this work.18 And yet, to stay with Maria, various parts of Romania have historically been colonial territory, subject to Ottoman, Russian, AustroHungarian, and Soviet rule.19 When not under direct colonial rule, these regions have been in a state of semi-colonialism vis-à-vis West Europe, where semi-colonialism signals cultural and economic (non-military and nonjudicial) forms of dependence. Bucharest prides itself of being “little Paris.”
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 37
14-11-2015 14:52:47
38
Anca Parvulescu
Romanian culture has a long history of importing, imitating and adopting (and often resisting) cultural trends, fashions, and institutions from both Paris and Vienna.20 Maria and Amadou do not know it (although Amadou seems to intuit it), but they are fellow postcolonial travelers.21 Maria’s postcolonial condition does not trigger her racialization in all instances of her life, as Anikó Imre, in her reading of the film in this volume, also emphasizes, pointing to Maria’s ongoing negotiation of her racial position within both the Romanian and European racial fields. Indeed, Maria is not racialized throughout most of Haneke’s film. But she is racialized in situations when she is smuggled across the Schengen border, when she is begging in the street, when she is arrested or deported, and when she lives in inhuman conditions in a dilapidated building in Paris. Hers is a textbook example of how the concept of racialization is deployed in contemporary critical race theory to emphasize that certain occupations or economic activities, religious markers, spatial positionings, and debates acquire racial meanings, which are variable and contradictory, and may be legible in some situations but not in others (Murji and Solomos 2005, 16). Maria’s racialization is produced in relation to both Amadou and Jean: Maria is not black, like Amadou, and she is not white, like Jean.22 She can pass for Roma because she inhabits this not black/not white racial position. The chronotope of her racialization is produced through multiple and sometimes conflicting frameworks: the long history of European racialism (East Europeans as “Slavs”), anti-Semitism (the “Eastern European Jew” was both “Eastern European” and “Jew”), Europe’s relation to the Balkans (Maria is styled as a Balkan woman), the history of the Roma in Europe (Maria’s worry that Romanians might be mistaken for Roma), postcommunism (the Cold War orientalism attached to East Europeans), and Fortress Europe (the European divisions imposed through the Schengen Agreement). The placing in triangulation of Jean, Amadou, and Maria should complicate our understanding of Jean’s positioning within the European racial field as well. The triangulation makes visible a relational chronotope of European whiteness.23 Jean’s whiteness is not a given; it is produced through the encounter on the Saint-Germain boulevard and permutations thereof. It is only in relation to Amadou and Maria that Jean “is” white. He does not intend to humiliate Maria; he does so mindlessly, through an automatism of his body, the routine blindness of his field of vision. Once the scuffle is underway, he accepts the help of Anne, the interfering white shop owner who calls Amadou a “hooligan,” and the white policemen—all as matter of course. He feels entitled to their assistance; they, on the other hand, feel automatically solidary with him. Challenged to apologize, Jean refuses vehemently; he cannot conceive that his passivity can wrong anybody. Although seemingly aware of the injustice underway, he does not protest Amadou’s and Maria’s
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 38
14-11-2015 14:52:47
European Racial Triangulation
39
arrest. So-called “unwitting” racism thus becomes racial injustice. In more general terms, Jean perceives his own precarity (and the precarity of the French farm), as tragic; he takes other, racialized precarities at face value. Whiteness sediments, it becomes body, over time, in situations like this, subtly and quietly. In a world of European austerity, it becomes a claim not so much to privilege (“white privilege”) but to comparatively reduced precarity. POSTCOLONIAL SOLIDARITY “Immigrants, today’s proletarians,” writes Étienne Balibar (2002, 50). He is not alone in suggesting that the contemporary political task might be to imagine forms of solidarity between the various European migrant and immigrant groups (today’s equivalent to the old proletariat). Balibar’s underlying assumption is that the would-be political subject of our time is formed in the European underground, the racialized, immigrant precariat. “Black is black,” declares a London-based Chinese immigrant to his African immigrant friend in Stephen Frears’ Dirty Pretty Things (2002). The challenge for this coalition (which in Frears’ film also includes a Turkish asylum seeker and a British sex worker) is to learn from its Marxist precedents, but also from postcolonial and critical race theories and practices. Since we seem unable to give up on cosmopolitanism—cosmopolitan fatigue notwithstanding, “after cosmopolitanism” we get renewed attempts to revive, rescue, or resuscitate cosmopolitanism (see Braidotti, Hanafin, and Blaagaard 2013)—perhaps we could rewrite it as the affective gel of this coalition, a bag of “mixed feelings” with conflicting political investments.24 As of now, however, the thought of such a cosmopolitanism rings with utopian overtones. A reading of Haneke’s opening scene crystalizes the difficulty to conceive of modes of solidarity between Amadou and Maria, let alone between Amadou, Maria, and Jean. Amadou is outraged by Jean’s gesture of everyday racism, but his attempt to bring Maria into visibility and recognizability gets them both arrested and Maria deported. The scene suggests the structural foreclosure of the possibility of alliance between the two characters but also, perhaps more generally, between differently racialized segments of the European precariat. The vertexes of the triangle, produced as they are in relation to each other, cannot easily realign in the service of solidarity. One might even venture that one of the reasons for the poverty of imagination when it comes to proposing new forms of leftist politics in contemporary Europe stems from a collective inability to grasp and challenge the workings of such triangles. We cannot summon a “Europe from below” without a thorough assessment of the relationalities that constitute the “below.”
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 39
14-11-2015 14:52:47
40
Anca Parvulescu
NOTES 1. Spivak draws attention to the fact that all roads seem to lead to Europe, for migrants and scholars alike, at the expense of an interest in the rural postcolonial South. Spivak writes: “We see the postcolonial migrant become the norm, thus occluding the native once again” (Spivak 2010, 28). Spivak’s own focus is on the less mobile postcolonial poor, critical of “modernization” and “development” and thus potentially severed from the fantasy of European migration (Spivak 2009, 290). 2. For a critique of Chakrabarty’s nod to East Europe in Provincializing Europe (2007), see Parvulescu (2014, 149). 3. For one response to Bourdieu and Wacquant, see French (2000). On the development of Francophone postcolonial studies, see Forsdick and Murphy (2003). 4. Didier Fassin (2014) undertakes a Freudian analysis of European racial denial, pointing to the multiple forms both disavowal and negation of racial discrimination take. 5. Said (2007, 211) reminds us in “Traveling Theory,” anticipating this concern: “It is the critic’s job to provide resistances to theory, to open it up toward historical reality, toward society, toward human needs and interests, to point up those concrete instances drawn from everyday reality.” 6. On translation as an act of transculturation and interpretation, see Liu’s critique of Said’s “Traveling Theory” (1995, 21). On the terms racialization and racialized, see Murji and Solomos (2005). 7. The word “chronotope” should signal that my reading of Haneke’s scene reveals only one European racial configuration. The encounter in Paris that I analyze here is not exemplary of “Europe” (or of Paris, for that matter). In other European locales and situations, one would have to identify other chronotopes of racialization, leading to other triangulations, tracing other histories and involving other figures (the Jew, the Middle Eastern refugee, the Muslim woman, the Chinese tourist, the Roma, and so forth). In other situations, one would also have to revise the triangle I propose (white Europeans, black Europeans, East Europeans) in order to account for the figure of the black East European. 8. The term “precarity” was coined by Italian neo-Marxists in an effort to capture the economic vulnerability of post-Fordist workers. In its initial context, the concept captured part-time and otherwise flexible forms of employment in the new economy, often with few benefits and little job security. In this chapter, I use the term more broadly, to draw attention to the intricate braiding of economic, social, and legal forms of contemporary European vulnerability. 9. Following the brief encounter between Jean, Amadou, and Maria in the street, Haneke follows the five characters in a series of vignettes, each filmed in long take. He explains: “As in all of my films, Code Inconnu deals with the question of whether it’s possible at all to reproduce reality in a film or whether the intention of presenting reality as truth isn’t a lie from the very beginning. Excluding montage removes at least part of the manipulation” (Schiefer 2000). Haneke attempted thirty-two takes of the opening scene, he shot eight or nine complete takes, out of which he chose the first one. Like in modernist photography, with which Haneke is in dialogue, the result is a carefully staged spontaneity.
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 40
14-11-2015 14:52:47
European Racial Triangulation
41
10. For an introduction to the debate on the “care industry,” see Zimmerman, Litt, and Bose (2006). 11. Catherine Wheatley assumes that what she calls “socio-political” readings of cinema do not engage with the film’s formal interpellation of its spectator. She writes: “Code inconnu is aimed not at the recreation of reality, but at the creation of a space between film and filmic interpellation in which the viewer can make a cognitive analysis of what they are seeing” (Wheatley 2009, 120). According to this view, critics interested in the sociopolitical dimensions of the film would see racial discrimination at the level of the film’s narrative and disregard the structural positioning of the viewer, the object of a properly theoretically engaged reading. Racialization, however, works both intra- and extra-diegetically; it is thematized narratively but it also imbues the space between film and spectator. 12. Beggars have a special place in the history of European mobility. Retracing the emergence of the modern passport, John Torpey (1999) emphasizes that the mobility of beggars (often racialized as “Gypsies”) has been invoked in the service of legitimizing the need for the restriction of mobility through the passport system. On the racialization of begging, see Lucassen (2001). 13. See, comparatively, a film like Nilita Vachani’s When Mother Comes Home for Christmas (1996). 14. Objections to the politics of cosmopolitanism have shadowed cosmopolitan discourse for a few decades. For an early review of such objections, see Robbins and Cheah (1998). For postcolonial critiques of cosmopolitanism, see Gikandi (2010), Shih (2005), and Bhambra (2010). The temptation to imagine a “postcolonial cosmopolitanism” would have to attend to the fact that while postcolonialism can be instrumentalized to give cosmopolitanism yet another lifeline (for what purpose? in whose interest?), the reverse question should also be asked: what can cosmopolitanism offer to postcolonialism? 15. Haneke’s first film after his move from Austria to France, Code Unknown was funded by German, French, and Romanian institutions: Arté France Cinéma, France 2 Cinéma, Canal +, Bavaria Film, Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen, Filmex, and the Romanian Culture Ministry. 16. See Gikandi’s response to Gilroy in “Race and Cosmopolitanism” (2002). 17. In “Can the Subaltern Speak?” Spivak has emphasized the “accident” of her personal knowledge of India, refusing to consider India as the exemplary postcolony. Her work has, however, been understood as an exemplary model for postcolonial criticism, leading to a de facto institutionalization of one critic’s “accident-of-birth” (Spivak 2010, 36). And yet, Spivak is one of the few influential postcolonial critics to have pointed to the postcoloniality of East Europe. In the revised version of “Can the Subaltern Speak?” Spivak writes: “A comparable account in the case(s) of Central and Eastern Europe is soon to be launched” (2010, 36). Elsewhere, she has observed: “Bulgaria, 500 years under Ottoman rule and, strictly speaking, 41 years under Soviet hegemony, is negotiating postcoloniality as postcommunism” (Butler and Spivak 2007, 72). 18. For a short, syllabus-like list, see Adamovsky (2005), Baki -Hayden (1995), Boatc (2007), Bracewell and Drace-Francis (2008), Cavanagh (2004), Cooke (2005),
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 41
14-11-2015 14:52:47
42
Anca Parvulescu
Kopp (2012), Kova evi (2008), Kuus (2004), Moore (2001), Norkus (2007), Todorova (2009), Verdery (1996), and Zarycki (2014). 19. Péter Easterházy (2005, 74) describes another East European locale: “It’s like someone who has always lived in Munkács, and has never left Munkács in his entire life, but who has been, nevertheless, a one-time Hungarian, one-time Czech, onetime citizen of the Soviet Union, then a citizen of the Ukraine. In our town, this is how we become cosmopolitans.” 20. On postcolonial resistance, see Boatc ’s (2007) reading of Romanian poet Mihai Eminescu’s journalism. 21. In a sense, Amadou and Maria (or, rather, Amadou’s parents and Maria) are also postsocialist fellow travelers. Amadou’s parents presumably left Mali, a former French colony, in the aftermath of decolonization. In Mali, like in a number of other African countries, decolonization was hoped to happen through a form of African socialism, delinked from both capitalism and “real existing socialism,” and anchored in African realities. Léopold Sédar Senghor gave voice to this ideal in his 1959 “African Socialism,” in which, glossing the formation of the Mali Federation under the leadership of Modibo Keita, he called for a development plan that would lead to a “quasi-nation” modeled on Yugoslavia (Senghor 1996, 345). He also warned that African nations’ dependence on aid could amount to “changing guardians” (349), and thus a new form of colonialism. Alongside the aid coming from France, it also started coming through interested “development” programs in the Soviet Union and a number of East European countries, which sent engineers, teachers, doctors, and architects to Africa. Many Africans seeking an education, including Malians, in turn studied in East Europe, including Romania. This history constitutes an often-neglected relationality between Amadou and Maria, who can both be said to be postsocialist, once we wrestle the term postsocialism away from a Soviet- and Russia-centered perspective and understand it as a global condition with multiple temporalities. On postsocialism, see Hann (2002); on postsocialism in Africa, see Pitcher and Askew (2006). 22. A number of critics describe East Europeans under West European eyes as “not quite white” and aspiring to move up on the whiteness spectrum. See Braidotti (2007), Ponzanesi (2011), and Parvulescu (2014). 23. The literature on whiteness is extensive. See, in particular, accounts of relational, situated whiteness in Jacobson (1999), Hartigan (1999), and Ware and Black (2002). 24. On “mixed feelings,” see Clifford (1998).
REFERENCES Adamovsky, Ezequiel. 2005. “Euro-Orientalism and the Making of the Concept of Eastern Europe in France, 1810–1880.” Journal of Modern History 77(3): 591–628. Auerbach, Erich. 2009. “Philology and Weltliteratur.” In The Princeton Sourcebook in Comparative Literature, edited by David Damrosch, Natalie Melas, and Mbongiseni Buthelezi, 125–38. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 42
14-11-2015 14:52:47
European Racial Triangulation
43
Baki -Hayden, Milica. 1995. “Nesting Orientalisms: The Case of Former Yugoslavia.” Slavic Review 54(4): 917–31. Balibar, Étienne. 2002. We the People of Europe: Reflections on Transnational Citizenship. Translated by James Swenson. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bhambra, Gurminder K. 2010. “Sociology after Postcolonialism: Provincialized Cosmopolitanism and Connected Sociologies.” In Decolonizing European Sociology: Trans-disciplinary Approaches, edited by Manuela Boatc , Sérgio Costa, and Encarnación Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, 33–47. Aldershot: Ashgate. Boatc , Manuela. 2007. “The Eastern Margins of Empire.” Cultural Studies 21(2): 368–84. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loïc Wacquant. 1999. “On the Cunning of Imperialist Reason.” Theory, Culture and Society 16(1): 41–58. Bracewell, Wendy, and Alex Drace-Francis, eds. 2008. Under Eastern Eyes: A Comparative Introduction to East European Travel Writing on Europe. Budapest: Central European University Press. Braidotti, Rosi. 2007. “On Becoming European.” In Women Migrants from East to West: Gender, Mobility and Belonging in Contemporary Europe, edited by Luisa Passerini, Enrica Capussotti, Dawn Lyon, and Ioanna Laliotou, 23–44. New York: Berghahn. Braidotti, Rosi, Patrick Hanafin, and Bolette B. Blaagaard, eds. 2012. After Cosmopolitanism. Abington and New York: Routledge. Butler, Judith, and Gayatri C. Spivak. 2007. Who Sings the Nation State? Language, Politics, Belonging. London and New York: Seagull Books. Cavanagh, Claire. “Postcolonial Poland.” Common Knowledge 10(1): 82–92. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2007. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2012. “Postcolonial Theory and the Challenge of Climate Change.” New Literary History 43(1): 1–18. Cheah, Pheng. 2010. “Biopower and the New International Division of Reproductive Labor.” In Can the Subaltern Speak? Reflections on the History of an Idea, edited by Rosalind C. Morris, 179–212. New York: Columbia University Press. Clifford, James. 1998. “Mixed Feelings.” In Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling Beyond the Nation, edited by Pheng Cheah and Bruce Robbins, 362–70. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press. Code Unknown. 2000. Directed by Michael Haneke. France: Arte France Cinéma, Bavaria Film, Canal+, Filmex, France 2 Cinéma, Les Films Alain Sarde, MK2 Productions, Romanian Culture Ministry, and Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen. Cooke, Paul. 2005. From Colonization to Nostalgia: Representing East Germany since Unification. Oxford: Berg. Dirty Pretty Things. 2002. Directed by Stephen Frears. United kingdom: BBC Films. Durham, Scott. 2010. “Code Unknown: Haneke’s Serial Realism.” In On Haneke, edited by Brian Price and John David Rhodes, 245–65. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Easterházy, Péter. 2005. “How Big is the European Dwarf?” In Old Europe, New Europe, Core Europe: Transatlantic Relations After the Iraq War, edited by Daniel Levy, Max Pensky, and John Torpey, 74–79. London: Verso.
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 43
14-11-2015 14:52:47
44
Anca Parvulescu
Fassin, Didier. 2013. “Annual Distinguished Lecture on Europe: The Denial of Racial Discrimination.” YouTube video, 1:08, posted by “umeurope,” March 6, 2013. Accessed May 16, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIyiGPEhbUQ. French, John D. 2000. “The Missteps of Anti-Imperialist Reason: Bourdieu, Wacquant and Hanchard’s Orpheus and Power.” Theory, Culture & Society 17(1): 107–28. Forsdick, Charles, and David Murphy, eds. 2003. Francophone Postcolonial Studies: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge. Gald, Rosalid. 2007. “The Functionary of Mankind: Haneke and Europe.” In On Haneke, edited by Brian Price and John David Rhodes, 221–44. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Gikandi, Simon. 2010. “Between Roots and Routes: Cosmopolitanism and the Claims of Locality.” In Rerouting the Postcolonial: New Directions for the New Millennium, edited by Janet Wilson, Cristina andru, and Sarah Lawson Welsh. London: Routledge. Gikandi, Simon. 2002. “Race and Cosmopolitanism.” American Literary History 14(3): 593–615. Gilroy, Paul. 2000. Against Race: Imagining Political Culture Beyond the Color Line. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Goldberg, David Theo. 2006. “Racial Europeanization.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 29(2): 331–64. Hann, Chris M., ed. 2002. Postsocialism: Ideals, Ideologies and Practices in Eurasia. London: Routledge. Hartigan, John. 1999. Racial Situations: Class Predicaments of Whiteness in Detroit. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Jacobson, Matthew Frye. 1999. Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kim, Claire Jean. 2000. Bitter Fruit: The Politics of Black-Korean Conflict in New York City. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kopp, Kristin. 2012. Germany’s Wild West: Constructing Poland as Colonial Space. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Kova evi , Nataša. 2008. Narrating Post/Communism: Colonial Discourse and Europe’s Borderline Civilization. New York: Routledge. Kuus, Merje. 2004. “Europe’s Eastern Expansion and the Reinscription of Otherness in East-Central Europe.” Progress in Human Geography 28(4): 472–89. Liu, Lydia. 1995. Translingual Practice: Literature, National Culture, and Translated Modernity, China 1900–1937. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Lucassen, Leo. 2001. “A Many-Headed Monster: The Evolution of the Passport System in the Netherlands and Germany in the Long Nineteenth Century.” In Documenting Individual Identity: The Development of State Practices in the Modern World, edited by Jane Caplan and John Torpey, 235–55. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1986. “The Communist Manifesto.” In Karl Marx: A Reader, edited by Jon Elster, 225–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McLeod, John. 2004. Postcolonial London. London: Routledge.
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 44
AQ: Please provide the page number(s) for reference "Gikandi (2010)."
14-11-2015 14:52:47
European Racial Triangulation
45
McLeod, John. 2014. “Working with Transculturalism.” Lecture at Washington University in St. Louis. April 4. Moore, David Chioni. 2001. “Is the Post in Postcolonial the Post in Post-Soviet? Toward a Global Postcolonial Critique.” PMLA 116(1): 111–28. Mufti, Aamir R. 1998. “Auerbach in Istanbul: Edward Said, Secular Criticism, and the Question of Minority Culture.” Critical Inquiry 25(1): 95–125. Murji, Karim, and John Solomos, eds. 2005. Racialization: Studies in Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Norkus, Zenonas. 2007. “The Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Retrospective of Comparative Historical Sociology of Empires.” World Political Science Review 3(4): 1–44. Parvulescu, Anca. 2014. The Traffic in Women’s Work: East European Migration and the Making of Europe. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Pitcher, M. Anne, and Kelly M. Askew. 2006. “African Socialisms and Postsocialisms.” Africa: Journal of the International African Institute 76(1): 1–14. Ponzanesi, Sandra. 2011. “Europe in Motion: Migrant Cinema and the Politics of Encounter.” Social Identities 17(1): 73–92. Robbins, Bruce, and Pheng Cheah, eds. 1998. Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling beyond the Nation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Said, Edward. 2007. “Traveling Theory.” In The Edward Said Reader, edited by AQ: Please Moustafa Bayoum and Andrew Rubin. New York: Vintage. provide Schiefer, Karin. 2000. “Interview with Michael Haneke.” Austrian Film Commis- the page sion. Accessed February 2, 2015. http://www.afc.at/jart/prj3/afc/main.jart?rel=de& number(s) reserve-mode=active&content-id=1164272180506&print_mode=yes&artikel_ for reference "Said id=13295. (2007)." Senghor, Léopold Sédar. 1996. “African Socialism.” In African Intellectual Heritage: A Book of Sources, edited by Molefi Kete Asante and Abu S. Abarry, 342–53. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Shih, Shu-mei. 2005. “Towards an Ethic of Transnational Encounter or, ‘When’ Does a ‘Chinese’ Woman Become a ‘Feminist’?” In Minor Transnationalism, edited by François Lionnet and Shu-mei Shih, 73–108. Durham: Duke University Press. Shih, Shu-mei. 2008. “Comparative Racialization.” PMLA 123(5): 1347–62. Shih, Shu-mei. 2011. “The Concept of the Sinophone.” PMLA 126(3): 709–18. Spivak, Gayatri C. 2009. Outside in the Teaching Machine. New York: Routledge. Spivak, Gayatri C. 2010. “Can the Subaltern Speak? Revised Edition.” In Can the Subaltern Speak? Reflections on the History of an Idea, edited by Rosalind C. Morris, 21–78. New York: Columbia University Press. Todorova, Maria. 2009. Imagining the Balkans. New York: Oxford University Press. Torpey, John. 1999. The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship and the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Verdery, Katherine. 1996. “Nationalism, Postsocialism, and Space in Eastern Europe.” Social Research 63(1): 77–95. Ware, Vron, and Les Black. 2002. Out of Whiteness: Color, Politics, and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 45
14-11-2015 14:52:47
46
Anca Parvulescu
Wheatley, Catherine. 2009. Michael Haneke’s Cinema: The Ethic of the Image. New York: Berghahn. When Mother Comes Home for Christmas. 1996. Directed by Nilita Vachani. New York. Zarycki, Tomasz. 2014. Ideologies of Eastness in Central and Eastern Europe. New York: Routledge. Zimmerman, Mark K., Jacquelyn S. Litt, and Christine E. Bose, eds. 2006. Global Dimensions of Gender and Carework. Stanford: Stanford Social Sciences.
Ponzanesi & Colpani _9781783484454.indb 46
14-11-2015 14:52:47
