by Rima Saini 

A UK-based think tank has published a report claiming that the ‘racial self-interest’ of white majorities in the UK and US should be seen as distinct from racism

A report published this month by British centre-right think tank Policy Exchange, claims that people of all races in the UK believe that in seeking to reduce immigration to maintain population share, the white majority is displaying ‘racial self-interest’, not racism.

Speaking of racism as something which can be defined differently depending on political stance, of structural inequalities as ‘competing ethnic interests’, and through an irresponsible use of data, ‘the UK’s leading think tank’ has chosen the perfect moment for a clickbait report that will undoubtedly be used by some to legitimate the increasingly intolerant views that have flourished since the beginning of the Brexit campaign.

Headed by Eric Kaufmann, Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, and using findings from two YouGov surveys, one in the US and one in Britain, the publication seeks to bolster the argument that group partiality on the part on the part of the racial majority (racial self-interest), should be acknowledged as a legitimate expression of anxiety in the face of rapid change due to immigration, and not irrational fear of outgroups (racism).

Entitled ‘Racial Self-Interest’ is not Racism the report frequently cites David Goodhart, founder and former editor of current affairs magazine Prospect, who believes it is ‘simply wrong’ to conflate reasonable anxiety about the change in communities and the ‘human instinct to notice difference’ with racism. According to the writers, the work is not a response to the growth of right-wing populism but to what they call the subsequent ‘mission creep’ of the term racism into public debate which obscures frank and fair debate on issues such as immigration.

Why shouldn’t people say they don’t like being the only English person on the tram?

by Andrew Reid Wildman

The idea that the left is simply too quick to cry racism these days is a claim that has long been used by conservative elements in the public sphere to obscure, deny or whitewash the continuing presence of racism in plain sight. The report hinges its argument on what it posits as different definitions of racism across those on different sides of the political spectrum. This is further bolstered by the argument that political stance is a more significant factor than race when examining is someone is anti-immigration, according to the research used. To illustrate this, one of the findings states that 66% of White British pro-immigration voters say a White Briton who wants to reduce immigration to maintain her group’s share of the population is being racist, but just 3% of White British anti-immigration voters agree.

These findings suggest that what liberal voters see as racism, conservative voters see as legitimate ethnic preservation, which they feel ‘muzzled by political correctness’ as they are, they cannot express. The fear of being accused of racism, according to the authors, fosters a dishonest debate. People couch their concerns about immigration in economic terms – strains on housing, welfare and jobs – rather than the cultural issues that actually concern them. Using an example from one of their focus group discussions, why shouldn’t people say they don’t like being the only English person on the tram?

It is wholly irresponsible to gloss over the fact that ‘white’ or ‘majority’ identity politics or ‘self-interest’ is, and has largely been in the past formed overwhelmingly by racism and xenophobia, when ‘minority’ identity politics is informed in most part by responses to these oppressions. The honest debate the authors are seeking should deal with the realities of structural inequality which are indiscriminately damaging, rather than ‘competing ethnic interests’. This continuation of the tired attack on ‘political correctness’, and the again tired reframing of what is racist and what is not, are manifestations of white ideologies of race and racism designed to benefit whiteness.

White ‘self-interest’ is meaningless in a society organised by white supremacy

Nigel Farage and a controversial poster from the pro-Brexit campaign

There is a valid underlying point here in that there are many different arguments for and against immigration which cannot so easily be subsumed into two camps of ‘pro/liberal’ and ‘anti/racist’. Political discourse has harnessed immigration in such a way that it has become an incendiary topic. The political and media establishment are as much to blame here as what the authors call ‘pro-immigration forces’. As Chitra Nagarajan wrote in an Open Democracy response to the Home Offices’ ‘go home’ vans in 2013, “politicians and the press are locked in a cycle of ever-heightening anti-immigrant rhetoric that they present as ‘what people really think’. The current debate does not address how government and media have been instrumental in the creation of anti-immigrant narratives’”.

Ultimately, however, ‘group partiality’ or ‘ethno-demographic interest’ when you’re the majority population is meaningless. As David Aaronovitch wrote in his Times article about the report, “when they talk about legitimate white “racial self-interest” in a society where 86 per cent of the population is white, I struggle with their argument”. The crux of white supremacy is that the interests of the white majority have been rarely sidelined. The triumph the rhetoric around Brexit, Trump’s election, and the rise of the far right in Europe are recent evidence of this. Furthermore, history has taught us that white self-interest will always come at the expense of the minority. Again quoting Aaronovitch, “I find it very hard to imagine any “racial self-interest” that whites might have (in a country where they are, after all, in the majority) which wouldn’t have a negative impact on minorities”.

Claims of methodological purity

In a study which couches its conclusions in data, it is only prudent to question the research design. Survey research is problematic whenever you’re interested in the opinions of minorities and sub-groups due to issues of sample size. Ironically, the authors attack qualitative research – research based on observations or conversations with individuals or small groups of people – for not being generalisable to the population, as well as their view that critical race scholars conducting qualitative studies tend to be ideologically motivated to contest white privilege. Survey research that measures attitudes is just as much at risk of being misinterpreted as qualitative research. We must acknowledge the interpretive limitations of all structured survey indicators which require respondents to choose a ‘best fit’ answer to a complex politically charged question. Furthermore, this study itself uses qualitative data which can also be shoehorned in a top-down fashion into the authors’ pre-conceived dichotomies.

Despite methodological issues, the report lets itself down on its basic defence of majority self-interest. These types of findings will only gain traction as anger at the mobilisation of the liberal left grows. There are deeper implications in terms of the ethics of propagating such ideas, however. Studies such as these which seem to provide a legitimate, data-driven excuse for cultural hate amongst the populist right can prove incendiary in the current political climate. In an environment which sees those on the left unceremoniously told on a regular basis to ‘shut up’ in what Arwa Mahdawi has called the rise of ‘populist correctness’, how much more fuel to the fire do the reactionary right really need?

Rima Saini completed an MSc in Social Research Methods at City in 2014, following a BA in Politics from SOAS and an MA in Political Theory at the UCL School of Public Policy. She is a teaching assistant on social data analysis and production courses and her interests lie in the measurement of minority ethnic identity. Rima is currently completing her PhD focusing on the intersection between ethnicity and class.

If you enjoyed reading this article, help us continue to provide more! Media Diversified is 100% reader-funded – you can subscribe for as little as £5 per month here or via Patreon here

All work published on Media Diversified is the intellectual property of its writers. Please do not reproduce, republish or repost any content from this site without express written permission from Media Diversified. For further information, please see our reposting guidelines.

8 thoughts on “‘Racial self-interest’ is not racism: populist correctness gone mad?

  1. Well said. Its racism. Full stop. I expected better from birkbeck. But I guess it shows their underlying racism bubbling to the surface. Dangerous times when major universities are promoting racism so blatantly.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Guess what, humans are innately tribal and that isn’t going to change in your or my lifetime. And frankly changing the goalposts as to what is considered “racist” isn’t doing anyone any favours including those who are doing it.


    2. The root cause of the disagreement is that among left-thinking people a post-modernist neo-marxist idea have spread. This idea is “racism = power + privilege”. This is total BS, baseless, it ignores other facts like people gain power (economic and political) through NOT oppression but rather talent, merit, discipline and hard work. Also different demographic groups have different average IQ, that is scientifically proven. These facts are denied by leftists, as they undermine the concept of moral relativism and moral-demands for wealth redistribution. Simply is you accept these facts you cannot demand money from others any more, ie its blasphemy and counter-productive towards the goals of the movement. When Marxists started mixing class with race (distinct average IQs render different races into different economic classes), they had to justify claims of wealth/power/land transfer from more prosperous to less prosperous peoples. So in neo-marxism lie is built on lies, and after a few layers of lies people come up with total slander like “racism = power + privilege” that is against common sense. This also concludes that if your ethnic group is more prosperous, then you all are racists. It was slightly re-phrased for practical politics, giving a way out to those who surrender: If you are not willing to give up some of your stuff (wealth, land, nation, safety, any achieved goods) to less prosperous groups, then “racism = power + privilege” applies and you are a racist. That is why less prosperous wanting to take is not considered racist, while more prosperous wanting to keep is considered. This is false, and conservatives can see it.


  2. If we taught the REAL history of England in our schools – ie, that the ‘English’ are a mixture of the many peoples who have come to conquer/work/settle here, racial attitudes would surely change. How many know about the African regiment within the Roman military? About the African woman recently found by archaeologists buried c. 400AD with vast amounts of jewellery?


    1. >How many know about the African regiment within the Roman military?

      How historically significant is this that it required to be taught?

      >About the African woman recently found by archaeologists buried c. 400AD with vast amounts of jewellery?

      I ask the same question

      >the ‘English’ are a mixture of the many peoples who have come to conquer/work/settle here

      Yes the Saxons migrated from Germania to the British Isles and mixed to some extent with the Celtic peoples living here. But how would that change attitudes? Because 1500 years ago they too were “immigrants” [never mind the whole concept of an immigrant was entirely different then]


  3. This is an outward validation of racism by giving it a different name.

    What the hell is ‘racial self-interest’ other than whites in the UK reinforcing their racist stand? They seem to be forgetting that just decades ago they went around the world colonising and oppressing other nations and yet today they are being very territorial? This is emblematic of the British Empire tendencies whereby the English think they can still do whatever evil they want and get away with it via miseducating the world about their dastardly actions just as they wish to convince the world that colonialism was good for the colonised.

    White people were always racist and the issue of immigration just brought more to the fore, more like poking the bear. It is not surprising that the Brexit campaigners relied on anti-Muslim rhetoric to stoke the embers of racism.
    This so-called think-tank is nothing but hired guns who are doing the spin doctoring for Brexiteers who seeking to convince everyone that leaving the EU is the right thing to do.

    No, racism cannot be sugarcoated as ‘racial self-interest’.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.