don't answer (・∀・)
differentiate between passion and racism.
Answers
Answer:
Difference between passion and racism are explained below
Explanation:
• Passion can be related to an individual but racism to a whole community.
• Passion is related toone's needs but racism is to one's reputation in society.
• A passion is to follow one's dreams but racism is to destroy one's dreams by disrupting him/her.
please mark brainliest.
Answer:
“Il serait peut-être temps de réorienter la pensée et le combat contre une théorie et une pratique de stigmatisation, de précarisation et d’exclusion qui constituent aujourd’hui un racisme d’en-haut: une logique d’Etat et une passion de l’intelligentsia”
– Jacques Rancière, 11 September 2010
This is a thought-provoking piece by Jacques Rancière, based on a talk he gave during the conference ‘Les Roms, et qui d’autre?‘ (“The Romas, and Who Else?”. Montreuil, 11.09.2010), which was organised in response to the French government’s expulsions of Romas from its territories, as well as the broader processes of ethnicisation, racialisation and securitization enforced by the French political administration. Both this translated version and the original French text (“Racisme, une passion d’en haut”) were published by Mediapart.
“I would like to propose a few thoughts concerning the notion of “state racism,” which is on the agenda for our meeting today. These thoughts counter a very widespread interpretation of the measures recently taken by our government, including the law [of 2004] banning the Islamic headscarf in public schools and the deportations of Romas in summer 2010. That interpretation sees in these measures an opportunistic exploitation of racist and xenophobic themes for electoral purposes. This purportedly critical attitude thus clings to the premise that racism is a popular passion – the frightened and irrational reaction of the reactionary strata of the population, which is unable to adapt to the new mobile and cosmopolitan world. The state is accused of betraying its principles by indulging those populations. Its position as the representative of rationality in the face of popular irrationality is thereby consolidated.
Now, this view of the game adopted by supposedly leftist critics is exactly the same one the right has used to implement certain racist laws and decrees over the last 20 years. All these measure have been taken in the name of the same rationale: there are problems of delinquency and other threats because of immigrants, including illegal immigrants, and these are in danger of unleashing racism unless measures to restore order are taken. Consequently, this delinquency and these threats must be subject to the law’s universality so that they do not create racist disturbances.
That’s the game that has been played out on the left as well as the right ever since the Pasqua-Méhaignerie laws of 1993. It consists of counterposing the universalist logic of the rational state to popular passions, that is, giving racist state policies anti-racist credentials. It’s high time to turn the argument around and note the close correspondence between state “rationality” used to justify these measures and the convenient “other” or complicit adversary the state proposes as a foil: popular passion. What we see in fact is not the government acting under the pressure of populist racism and in reaction to the so-called populist or far-right passions. Rather, it’s state policy that fosters the image of this “other” to which it confides imaginary responsibility for its real legislation.
Fifteen years ago, I proposed the term “cold racism” to designate this process. The racism we are dealing with today is a deliberate racism, an intellectual construction. It is primarily a creation of the state. In this gathering, we’ve discussed the relationship between the rule of law and the police state. But it’s in the very nature of the state itself to be a police state, that is, an institution that determines and controls identities, space and movements – an institution in permanent struggle against any surplus of identities beyond those it creates, and thus, as well, against the surplus of identity logics affirmed through the action of political subjects. The global economic order only makes the state’s labors in this area more insistent. Our states are ever less able to counter the destructive impact of the free circulation of capital on the communities for which they are responsible. They are all the more unable in that they have no desire whatsoever to do so. They, therefore, fall back on what is within their power: the circulation of persons. They make the control of this other circulation their specific object, and define as their objective the security of their nationals threatened by these migrants. In more precise terms, they are engaged in the production and administration of insecurity, this work becoming more and more their raison d’être and the means of their legitimation.