Seeing Like a Racial State: The Census and the Politics of Race in the United States, Great Britain and Canada By Debra Elizabeth Thompson A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science University of Toronto © Copyright by Debra Elizabeth Thompson, 2010 Seeing Like a Racial State: The Census and the Politics of Race in the United States, Great Britain and Canada Debra Elizabeth Thompson Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science University of Toronto 2010 Abstract This thesis compares the political development of racial categories employed by the United States, Canada and Great Britain on their national censuses, particularly focusing on the enumeration of mixed-race individuals in the late 20th century. Though literature on race and the U.S. census often stresses the causal influence of social mobilization, this analysis reveals that the common explanations for the development of racial classifications such as interest group mobilization, demography and civil rights legislation are not viable in comparative context. To explore and explain how the racial state sees, this thesis conceptualizes race as a system of power relations and develops a framework of the schematic state, which operates concurrently as both an actor responsible for putting the underlying organizational pattern of race into place, solidifying a particular set of racial meanings, and implementing a scheme for the racial configuration of society, and an arena in which policy alternatives are contested and where the state itself participates among other actors. This characterization demonstrates that the schematizing impetus of the census is not an exemplar of a dichotomous relationship between an all-powerful state and powerless racial subjects; instead, the power and meaning of race exist well beyond the control of the fragmented and sometimes contradictory schematic state, from the transnational realm to the level of the group or individual. ii Contrary to the majority of the literature on race, this thesis demonstrates that state institutions do not act for purely domestic reasons; rather, institutions mediate between national nuances and transnational ideas about race that exist in excess of national boundaries. Thus, while the decision to count mixed-race can be explained by a crystallization of transnational ideational trends that are mediated by national politics, the domestic arena of policy making – or the policy network itself – emerges as a key factor that determines the method of multiracial enumeration. However, these domestic political and policy outcomes are not contained by borders. Once a policy is in place, it has the potential to reinforce domestic policy and contribute to the global discourse of race itself – and in its travels among these levels of abstraction, race transforms. iii Acknowledgements You can never see the end from the beginning. And from the beginning through to the bitter end, this project was formed and shaped with the help of those whose mention here is really nothing compared to the footprints they’ve left in the pages that follow. I cannot begin to describe the enormous gratitude and respect I have for my committee. All scholars of the highest sort, interested in asking big, important questions and demanding complex answers from themselves as much as from me. Jenny Nedelsky agreed to be my supervisor – I suspect the reasons why are some combination of pity and potential, as I was (and remain) the only student in the department to write a dissertation on race. Jenny has been a shining light; at times narrowing to a flashlight, always listening carefully and then asking me important, pointed questions that were, of course, the point. Melissa Williams is nothing short of an intellectual force – indeed, a force to be reckoned with, but simultaneously a force of kindness, generosity, and strength of character. Many feelings of being overwhelmed were dispersed while sitting across from Joe Wong in his office, as he earnestly and honestly taught me the rules of the game, whether the game was comparative politics, public policy or the virtues of zone defence. Last but only least insofar as it aids in his self-deprecating humour, Richard Iton is, without a doubt, one of the most brilliant scholars around. Together, their encouragement, unwavering support and inexplicable confidence in my abilities were unmatched, sometimes unwarranted, and never unappreciated. A number of other scholars and the scholarly-minded provided much needed guidance at various points. I gratefully accept the valuable comments and criticisms from my external examiner, Rogers Smith, with much appreciation and even some awe. Second – a big electronic hug to John Sinclair, who used to revel in frightening policy analysts in 2047, his boardroom on the 20th floor of Terrasses de la Chaudière. John took an interest in my education throughout my M.A. while I, a no-name, know-nothing policy wonk, cowered from his demands that policy- makers think BIGGER and be better and he has remained one of my greatest supporters even in his so-called “retirement”. I also owe a debt of gratitude to Joe Carens. Joe’s influence bookends this degree, from the first day of orientation when he opened subfield doors and motioned I venture through to his detailed advice while negotiating my contract with my future employer. Much was learned from shared research interests with Phil Triadafilopoulos and arguments with Randall Hansen – I truly admire both. Ed Schatz, Linda White, Grace Skogstad, Ryan Hurl, Richard Simeon, and Neil Nevitte each helped me become a better scholar. One of my best moments was my mock job talk in October of 2009 when my students, peers and professors filled the department’s seminar room to capacity, demonstrating that though I sometimes thrive on being academically isolated, there has always been a constituency of supportive, interested, engaged and engaging faculty who challenged me to be it, do it, claim it. I am grateful that a number of academics outside of the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto took an interest in my project and sanity, though I am, in the words of Douglas Adams, Someone Else’s Problem. Thanks to Yasmeen Abu-Laban, Peter Aspinall, Abigail Bakan, Erik Bleich, Rita Dhamoon, Grace-Edward Galabuzi, Desmond King, Kiera Ladner, iv Minelle Mahtani, Charles Mills, my NCOBPS colleagues, Melissa Nobles, and Barrington Walker. Special thanks go out to three individuals. William “Nick” Nelson Jr. decided to take me under his formidable wing; I thank him for introducing me to so many in his network of scholars in the US and for arranging for me to be a visiting scholar at Ohio State University in February 2009. Dr. Cornel West’s intellect is paralleled perhaps only by his graciousness and I always look forward to our encounters. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the crucial contribution of Peggy Pascoe. Though we’ve only had a few correspondences via email over the years, when I asked to borrow the title of Chapter 5 of her fabulous book, What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America (Oxford University Press, 2009) for the title of this dissertation, she responded by saying she would be flattered. Truly it is I who am flattered and humbled by these mentors, who have taught me the parallels of sword and of pen. I have nothing to offer in return, except the promise to pay it forward. Mad props go out to those who made the past five years sparkle: Chris Alcantara, Maddie Bokowa and her excellent company on the rooftops of Londontown, Kim Carter, Chris Cochrane, Malcolm Cole, Gabe Eidelman (my favourite arch nemesis), Victor Gomez, Suzanne Hindmarch, the superstar Alanna Krolikowski, Erick Lachapelle, Melissa Levin, Nisha Nath, Marci Prescott, Mark Purdon, Vuk Radmilovic, Marie-Eve Reny, the ever-earnest Nick Ruderman, Reuven Schlozberg, and the laudable Zack Taylor. Shout-outs to Alex Livingston for my musical education and giving me a place to rest my head, Dungeon Dwellers Wayne Chu and Mike Painter-Main for desperately needed outdoor coffee-breaks, Sebastian Baglioni and Bill Flanik for keeping me well-fed and highly entertained, Ethel Tungohan for charm, wit, and three years of free parking, and all my students-turned-friends for making me love teaching. Big love to those from the dark days before my PhD who kept me grounded: Shama Ahmed, Sarah Browning, Court Curry, Leah Fleetwood, Careesa Gee, Jolene Harvey, Chris Lee, Brian Miller, Jamie Morin, Elaine Rouleau, Eileen Saunders, Andi Thompson, and Alicia Twining. Without my weekly soccer games with WFC/Red Choppa and baseball (it’s still not a real sport) with the Hazzards, I surely would have gone mad. I love you all more than I can say, especially those I forgot to mention. Special thanks to the Gang of Five. First, this dissertation really would not have come to pass without the help and friendship of Cheryl Auger, my first and best ally, who helped hammer out the details of this project on balconies, patios, sidewalks and beaches across three provinces and two countries. Second, I have nothing but admiration and respect for Arjun Tremblay, my adopted brother from the beginning, who keeps me laughing, keeps it real, and never backs down. Finally, I owe a great deal to Steve White, Luc Turgeon, and the irreplaceable, undeniable, incomparable Jenn Wallner, who together taught me more about the PhD and its afterlife than anyone else. Like Yeats, my glory is to have such friends. This project would not have been possible without the generous support of the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Department of Political Science, the School of Graduate Studies, and the Centre for the Study of the United States at the v University of Toronto.