Juliet Hooker, Race and the Politics of Solidarity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 240 pages, ISBN 978-0-195-33536-1. Paper, $39.95.

Stanley R. Bailey, Legacies of Race: Identities, Attitudes, and Politics in Brazil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009, 304 pages, ISBN 978-0-804-76277-9. Cloth, $70.00.

Juliet Hooker's Race and the Politics of Solidarity and Stanley R. Bailey's Legacies of Race both tackle the crucial question of what kinds of policies states with diverse populations and histories of social inequality should enact in the effort to move towards racial justice. Hooker bases her claims on a case study of multicultural reforms in Nicaragua. Bailey uses survey data to analyze racial attitudes and race-based policies in Brazil. Both Hooker and Bailey critique prior efforts to make generalizations about racial boundaries and multicultural politics on the basis of the U.S. case, and both contend that their arguments will apply beyond the particular case they analyze.

Bailey and Hooker start from divergent vantage points, use distinct methodologies, and engage different literatures. Moreover, the central claims of these two authors are at odds. Bailey puts forth the idea that racial “groupness” cannot be taken for granted in racially diverse societies. He argues that we cannot presume that shared racial identification will lead to racial solidarity. In contrast, Hooker contends that in racially diverse polities, individuals will be prone to seeing themselves as aligned with others of their racial group. Reading these two books together renders evident the complexity of racial and cultural identities in Latin America and beyond. Specifically, Bailey's analyses point to the symbiotic relationship between race and class, while Hooker's arguments highlight the need for an explicit discussion of racism and White privilege.

Juliet Hooker draws from two fields—solidarity in political theory and race in political philosophy—to develop a solid critique of prevailing theories of multiculturalism. Her critical analysis revolves around the absence of an explicit discussion of racism and the invisible privileges associated with Whiteness in multicultural societies. Hooker argues that theories of multiculturalism must contend with the ways that political solidarity is racialized. She posits that, in racially diverse societies, individuals see themselves as being in solidarity with others of their same race. Multicultural theorists often recognize racialized solidarity in the case of non-Whites, yet rarely mention it with regard to Whites.

Hooker contends that racialized solidarity becomes especially important when dealing with issues of redress for racial discrimination. Most Whites resent the dismantling of their race-based privilege, even as they deny that they have privileges. In contrast, non-Whites are likely to perceive this resistance to dismantling privilege as yet another example of Whites' unwillingness to relinquish unearned benefits. Hooker argues that an important step towards overcoming racialized solidarity involves making Whiteness visible, thereby unveiling the racial polity. Highlighting Whiteness, it turns out, is at odds with the traditional aim of liberal multiculturalists in the United States. U.S. multiculturalists advocate for measures that reduce the salience and importance of racial and ethnic identities. Of course, the unspoken idea here is that those for whom ethnic identity is salient are non-Whites. Hooker instead proposes that a more viable solution is to make evident the fact that Whites too have a race-based identity, benefit from White privilege, and act in solidarity with other Whites.

Juliet Hooker takes on the literature on multiculturalism by pointing to a central contradiction that has emerged from the bifurcation of this literature into two groups: those who study race and those who study culture. On the one hand, we have a group whose primary concern is racial discrimination and who advocate for temporary group rights for minorities. For these thinkers, the ultimate goal is the dissolution of temporary group rights through the full integration of minorities into society. On the other hand, we have advocates of permanent group rights who are concerned with cultural accommodation and who advocate for the protection of minority groups. Here, the goal is not integration, but preservation.

Hooker points out that both sides of the debate—the integrationists and the accommodationists—have failed to consider the possibility that national minority ethnic groups who require cultural accommodation could also confront racial discrimination. Moreover, neither branch considers race to be an organizing principle of society and both fail to make Whiteness visible. Hooker critiques the prevailing literature on multiculturalism in terms of its inability to promote principles that simultaneously accommodate ethnocultural diversity, rectify racialized oppression, and foster political solidarity.

The overlap between cultural difference and a history of racial oppression can be found in societies around the world; it is, however, particularly evident in Latin America. Furthermore, although Latin American polities have taken a multicultural turn over the past few decades, these countries have received remarkably little attention in the multiculturalism literature. To address these shortcomings, Hooker uses the case of Nicaragua, a polity characterized by racialized solidarity as well as both Afro-descendant and indigenous groups which make claims both to racialized oppression and the accommodation of cultural difference. When Nicaragua implemented multicultural reforms, it granted equal cultural recognition to Afro-descendant and indigenous groups in the Atlantic coastal region. This strategy succeeded in fostering solidarity between these two minority groups. However, the failure to tackle racialized oppression meant that the measures did not create solidarity between these two groups and the dominant mestizo group.

Hooker contends that the multicultural reforms implemented in Nicaragua did not recognize the racialized nature of the state and did not address racial hierarchies. By failing to tackle racism head on, these reforms did little to ameliorate racial oppression or to promote solidarity between dominant and nondominant groups. Multicultural reforms which only address cultural differences and do not confront the racialization of solidarity, society, and the state are unlikely to ameliorate racial inequality or foster solidarity between dominant and minority groups.

I commend Hooker for her eloquent, well-argued, and critical analysis of the need to make racism and White privilege part and parcel of multicultural theory and practice. Conceiving of racism and cultural rights as simply the problem of the “other” and not a fundamental part of society and the state serves both to make White privilege invisible and to gloss over the fact that the dominant group already has full recognition of its cultural rights. I find particularly appealing Hooker's contention that the racial solidarity of non-Whites is often recognized and discussed, whereas the racial solidarity of Whites is rarely made explicit.

It seems that Juliet Hooker's insistence upon making Whiteness visible and recognizing the racialization of society and the state is at odds with Stanley Bailey's argument that in Brazil, antiracialism prevails. In Legacies of Race, Stanley Bailey points out that in the United States, most people believe in the existence of races—the idea that people can be divided into groups on the basis of their skin color and ancestry. He calls this worldview “racialism,” and contrasts it with Brazil's “anti-racialism,” which “entails a rejection of viewing race as dividing the Brazilian population into discrete subgroups of the national population at the same time that it recognizes color variation” (p. 23). Through the use of the concepts of racialism and antiracialism, Bailey points to a fundamental difference between the United States and Brazil and argues that color distinctions can exist in an antiracialist worldview. In other words, seeing and talking about color differences do not mean that people have adopted a racialist standpoint.

Stanley Bailey's keen analyses of survey data demonstrate the prevalence of racial prejudice and discrimination in Brazil. He makes an important contribution to the field by showing that most Brazilians recognize the existence of societal racism, and that Black, White, and Brown Brazilians are all supportive of antiracist organizing and race-specific policies such as affirmative action. In the United States, most Blacks recognize the prevalence of racism, whereas most Whites deny it. In contrast, in Brazil, Whites, Browns, and Blacks all recognize the pervasiveness of racism in fairly similar proportions. In Rio de Janeiro, for example, only 7% of Whites and 3% of Blacks reported that there was no racial prejudice in Brazil. A study in São Paulo revealed that 67% of Whites and 67% of Blacks agreed that there was discrimination against non-Whites in Brazil.

Bailey's careful analyses render it evident that Brazilian census terms—White, Brown, and Black—do not represent racial groups in Brazil, and, further, that the people in these categories do not share specific group-based interests. Bailey explains that color categories are descriptive of people's skin color, whereas racialized social groups involve recognition of groupness. This groupness must be recognized by oneself as well as by others. For example, in the United States, most people agree about who is Black and who is White. Moreover, most people in the United States express affinity for their own racial group. Bailey would agree with Hooker that racialized solidarity is prevalent in the United States. However, he questions the extent to which it prevails in Brazil. Bailey contends that in Brazil, White, Brown, and Black “may in fact represent primarily color categories rather than robust racial groups” (p. 60). This finding is similar to what I found in my work in Peru. In Yo Soy Negro, Blackness in Peru (Golash-Boza Reference Golash-Boza2011), I argue that Peruvians who self-identify as Black often see this identification as primarily a description of their skin color, and not as indicative of their membership in a Black group that shares African ancestry and Black cultural traditions.

Bailey joins with other scholars of Brazil such as Robin Sheriff (Reference Sheriff2001) and Donna Goldstein (Reference Goldstein2003) who contend that the ideal of racial democracy in Brazil is a utopian ideal to which Brazilians aspire. Racial democracy—a society in which color and ethnic differences do not affect life chances—is akin to what the proponents of temporary group rights in the United States as described by Hooker aspire to. For Bailey, the racial democracy discourse can be used in the battle against racism because it is an ideal that Brazilians of all colors share, and because it underscores the value of all human beings, regardless of color. Bailey cautions against promoting the salience of racial identities in Brazil, as this could work against the struggle for racial equality. This runs counter to Hooker's contention that, in order for multicultural reforms to be able to eradicate racism, Whiteness must be made visible and the racialized nature of society and the state must be confronted. Hooker argues that racially diverse societies tend to have racialized solidarity—where Whites do not regard non-Whites as fellow citizens. Bailey's findings indicate that Brazil is not currently a racial democracy, and that most Brazilians do not see it as such. However, he does not find much evidence of racialized solidarity, or of a strong feeling of racial groupness. Hooker presumes that race-based solidarity exists, and thus advocates for confronting it directly. In contrast, Bailey suggests that we first question the extent to which race-based solidarity is present.

Reading Hooker's and Bailey's arguments together, it becomes apparent that they each have an important critique of the other. Bailey's work shows that you cannot presume racial groupness even in racially diverse and unequal societies. Hooker's scholarship points to the importance of taking into consideration the extent to which Whites will act in racial solidarity with one another. One question Hooker might pose to Bailey is the extent to which White Brazilians would permit the dismantling of their own privilege. In Brazil, Blacks and Whites agree on the prevalence of racial discrimination, but how amenable would Whites be to state actions that deny them the privileges to which they have become accustomed? Hooker's arguments imply that Bailey should pay closer attention to White privilege and White racial solidarity in Brazil.

Bailey does find that Brazilians of all colors support race-targeted policies designed to remedy inequalities. However, he also finds that there are differences in the level of support: 46% of White Brazilians support university quotas, as compared to 63% of non-Whites. This difference is much less than in the United States, where 30% of Whites as compared to 80% of Blacks support university quotas that favor the admission of Black applicants. Bailey also finds that only 23% of highly educated Whites support these quotas. The low level of support among highly educated Brazilians is indicative of the extent to which White Brazilians may be unlikely to support policies that directly affect privileges to which they have historically been accustomed. It is quite different for a person who has no chance of going to college to support affirmative action in college admissions than for a person who has been to college, and who hopes for her or his children to be able to attend to support such policies. In Brazil's highly stratified society, it is reasonable to presume that Brazilians with little education may be unlikely to see higher education as a prospect for their own children. Bailey recognizes this and points to the salience of class-based identifications in Brazil.

Bailey's data elucidate how racialized solidarity in Brazil is drawn along class lines. White Brazilians of varying class statuses benefit from White privilege in different ways. Lower-class White Brazilians who have little hope of attaining a university education are much less likely to be opposed to affirmative action measures that give preference to Blacks in university admission, as they are less likely to see these measures as directly affecting their privilege. Poor White Brazilians do experience some benefits associated with their white skin, but these benefits will be different and less extreme than middle-class or wealthy White Brazilians. Thus, Bailey's data point to the complexity of racialized solidarity in Brazil by acknowledging the salience of class-based identifications. Insofar as Bailey's work renders evident the role of class in race-based interests, his work raises a crucial question for Hooker: what is the role of class in the politics of solidarity? Hooker's argument about the racial solidarity of Whites is compelling; however, it is evident that Whites benefit in different ways from their White privilege, depending on their class status.

Hooker and Bailey also have divergent views on the question of culture. Hooker contends that temporary group rights advocates are unable to deal with situations where racial oppression and the need for cultural accommodation overlap. Bailey has an answer for this. He contends that there are no cultural forms in Brazil associated exclusively with Blackness. Whites, Browns, and Blacks were generally equally likely to claim that axé, pagode, samba, orixá, capoeira, and carnaval were important to them, leading Bailey to argue that Black Brazilians do not have a shared culture. According to Bailey's data, the need for cultural accommodation and racial oppression do not overlap. Had Bailey studied indigenous groups in Brazil, or specific Black cultural communities in northeastern Brazil, he may have arrived at a different conclusion. There, Hooker's arguments may have been more relevant.

Stanley Bailey and Juliet Hooker have both done an excellent job of pointing to new ideas that enhance their respective fields. Read together, these two works are illuminating in the ways they complement and contradict one another. They are both laudable insofar as they share the goal of developing policies that ameliorate racial inequality and urge readers to consider local particularities in the struggle for racial justice.