identities

The Durban review process is often portrayed as involving "states" and "NGOs", as if these were fixed, unchangeable identities. In fact, of course, things are more complicated. In the registration and security lines, delegates identify themselves by saying "I'm a country" or "I'm an NGO" (actual quotes), and sometimes they are not sure. In front of me in the registration line, an elderly American man, in conversation with a friend in the next line, was wondering if he could cross over. He finally decided against it: "It's not the same line, cause this is international institutions, and this is NGOs."

People wear different hats: some, especially those "representing" a point of view, clearly identify themselves as "representing" NGOs (often NGOs in general, rather than a specific one), some are clearly representatives of "states." But many wear different hats at different times: they are academics, NGO representatives, and also voice what they say is the point of view of a specific country of ethnic group. This seems to be especially widespread among "Jewish" NGOs, where academic authority is frequently used to lend weight to strong normative assessments of the Durban process.

Interestingly, very few academics appear to be interested in taking a "neutral" stance (not that this is an easy option, but at least it is a clear ideal) on this issue. Most of the few studies of antiracist organizations that I know start with a very clear commitment to praising the protagonists of the study and extolling their heroic feats. The problem, then, becomes to decide "which strategy is right" or how to prevent certain people from "hijacking the issues," rather than to apply tools of historical/organizational/social movement analysis to what is sometimes called "the antiracist movement." Which might IMHO be the best thing we academics could do for that movement (if that's what it is).