It has become customary to say that racism has no place in something – in sport, in our organisation, in 2020, in society. The expression has been much repeated in the global response to the killing of George Floyd, but it was already current in the UK as a result of the travails of the Corbyn‐led Labour Party; people often prefaced their interventions in the debate on anti‐Semitism by declaring that racism of any kind has no place in the Labour Movement; and indeed the official Labour leaflet on the subject is entitled No Place For Antisemitism. The formula has something irresistible about it; when anyone wants to make their abhorrence of racism publicly clear, these are the words that are likely to spring to their lips.

What is its force? Most obviously, it is a claim to complete thoroughness, rather like the expression ‘zero tolerance', which had an analogous vogue a few years ago. ‘Place' adds a faint territorial metaphor, as if the organisation is a landscape where racism, like an escaped criminal, is seeking refuge in vain. He will not elude us; we will look behind every bush! This hyperbolic assurance is amplified, too, by the impersonal form of the statement: the speaker does not promise to deny racism a place, but states absolutely that it does not have one. Intention assumes the authority of fact: Carthago delenda est. The speaker is adopting, as if for the camera, an expression of implacable determination.

That is what it looks like from a rhetorical point of view, but if instead we think about it formally, the same gesture of conspicuous objectivity appears as an equivocation about what kind of speech act this is. There is no place for racism in football – the existential clause suggests a simple constative utterance, analogous to There is no basis for life on Mars. It looks as if what is being advanced is a factual proposition which could be confirmed or questioned by reference to empirical evidence. But actually no one takes it in that sense. To retort, for example, that racism observably does have a place in most professional football grounds, would show a wilful misunderstanding of the original utterance. It only sounds constative: it is really a performative, spoken not to describe the absence it enunciates, but to decree it.

This tension has implications for its politics. After all, it is not just that racism is present as a matter of fact in sport, society, business, and all the other fields of activity where it is said to have no place. It is also that this fact is precisely what the speaker is insisting on. The whole point of the declaration is to focus attention on the racism that is, or at the very least may be, inherent in the organisation, and to promise redoubled efforts to combat it. If a particular organisation were literally and totally free of racism, it would be vacuous for its representative to declare that racism had no place in it: well, of course not. In effect, then, to say that there is no place for racism is to say that it is present. In this sense the two levels of the utterance – its epistemic and deontic modes, so to speak – do not so much coexist as collide.

The effect of the collision is to make the political gesture a maximal one. It undertakes to extirpate racism entirely, so that there will be nothing left of it, but in the same breath it represents it as endemic. So the stated aim appears as utopian: it proposes not a change in policy or law, but a different world. This is not an accidental implication: it is an explicit theme of BLM polemic that the racism of Western societies is structural, and that overcoming it therefore entails revolutionary transformation, not just liberal adjustment. The formula does bear the traces of that politics in its imagery of root‐and‐branch change; but the more it is repeated by mainstream speakers, the fainter this radical intonation inevitably becomes. An elementary Google search shows that there is, officially, no place for racism in the media multinational Bertelsmann, in the English Premier League, in the US armed forces, in the international community of birdwatchers, or in society as it is perceived by Boris Johnson. It is hard to see this list as a coalition for revolutionary change.

However, there is another way of hearing the absoluteness of the expression, its solemn refusal of all compromise: namely, as piety. The declaration that racism has no place in our society, repeated by a great variety of spokespersons in almost identical words, has a ritual character which suggests that the underlying speech genre is religious. Racism is, after all, well equipped to occupy the conceptual place traditionally occupied by sin. Like sin, it is axiomatically bad; unlike, say, war, or inequality, whose value in certain circumstances can be defended, it has nothing to be said for it; even racists usually say they are against it. Like sin, it is polymorphous. It can't be reduced to a kind of politics (like Fascism), or a kind of action (like violence), or a kind of feeling (like phobia), or a kind of injustice (like unequal pay), or a kind of historical institution (like slavery); rather, it is all those things and more. Laws, states, people, narratives, images, jokes, blindnesses, impulses, practices, and omissions can all be racist, and racism doesn't inhere in any one of these forms, but is the malign principle that underlies them all and constitutes their essence. Like sin, too, it is at once an original fatality and an individual responsibility: it afflicts its inheritors through the ineluctable logic of centuries, but in such a way that each of them is nonetheless personally guilty. It is thus the accusation against which there is no defence: ‘If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.' (1 John 1: 8). It is striking that for the current generation there is only one word that is really taboo, and that word is not either blasphemous or indecent like the banned words of the past, it is racist. This confirms, I think, that racism is approaching the status of a (negatively) sacred object. Hence the air of constrained propriety with which CEOs and social media managers queue up to testify that racism has no place in their organisations. They are not being insincere or cynical – or at least, there is no need to suppose so. Rather, they are people in church, reciting the General Confession.

It can certainly be argued that for practical purposes this is no bad thing. If high‐profile people and powerful institutions are genuflecting to an anti‐racist imperative, they are to that extent not ignoring or marginalising it as they were before. But the formula is not altogether a happy one, even so. Its comprehensive grandeur has a homogenising effect: if there is no place for any kind of racism, anywhere, then all kinds of racism are equivalent. All‐white reading lists and murderous attacks, a rigged electoral system and an insensitive turn of phrase – it is all alike racist, there is no place for any of it: as in the Calvinist account of human depravity, sinfulness is a condition with no gradations. And as with Calvinism, the trouble with such a structure of belief is that its monotonous negativity produces despair, or, as a more palatable alternative to despair, incredulity. The project of an immaculately non‐racist society, in which the legacy of every past empire and nationalism has been transcended, and every human group enjoys its own collectivity without the need to construct negative ‘others', is not plausible: it is, to pursue the analogy, the Kingdom of Heaven, from which the sins of the world have been divinely removed. Short of that apocalypse, politics must operate in a secular sphere, where ‘racism' is not a singular devil that can be cast out like a statue being thrown off a quayside, but a protean, interactive, historically actual dimension of our living together, which cannot be eradicated, though it can be opposed, understood, blocked, outflanked, weakened. Rather than having no place in our society, it has many, and they are sites of difficult conversation, not easy anathema.

PS

This sentence coopts the formula of anti‐racist piety to reinforce a direct attack on anti‐racist practice. No doubt Vought was attracted by its gravitas, its air of commanding the moral high ground. But even more than that, his misappropriation of the phrase is enabled by its rhetoric of implacability. As we saw, it enacts an absolute refusal to admit any exceptions to the prohibition it announces; it is in that sense an authoritarian locution. It is not so surprising, then, that it fits so frictionlessly into the discourse of racist bullying. This adaptability suggests in turn what the trouble is with the language of anti‐racist zero tolerance. It reduces the conversation to a matter of which side can force the other to comply – a game in which the victims of discrimination do not usually have the advantage.

习惯上，种族主义在任何事物中都没有立足之地–在体育，在我们的组织中，在2020年在社会中。这种表达在全球对乔治·弗洛伊德（George Floyd）遇害的反应中已经重复了很多，但是由于科尔比领导的工党的辛苦，这种表达在英国已经很流行。人们常常在反犹太主义辩论中以发言为干预，宣称任何形式的种族主义在劳工运动中都没有地位。的确，有关该主题的官方劳工传单的标题是“无反犹太主义的地方”。该公式不可抗拒。当任何人想公开表明他们对种族主义的憎恶时，这些话就很可能浮出水面。

它的力量是什么？最明显的是，它声称是彻底的彻底性，就像几年前类似的流行语“零容忍”那样。“地方”添加了一个模糊的领土隐喻，好像该组织是一个景观，种族主义像逃脱的罪犯一样，徒劳地寻求庇护。他不会逃避我们。我们将看着每一个灌木丛！该陈述的非个人化形式也放大了这种双曲线的保证：讲话者不承诺否认种族主义，而是绝对声明没有种族主义。意图承担事实的权威：Carthago delenda est。说话者正在像照相机一样采用含蓄的表达。

从修辞学的角度来看，这是什么样子，但是如果我们以正式的方式考虑它，那么明显的客观性的相同姿态就似乎是对这种言语行为的一种模棱两可的表现。足球中没有种族主义的存在-存在条款表明一种简单的构想性话语，类似于“火星上没有生命的基础”。似乎提出的是一个事实命题，可以通过参考经验证据予以确认或质疑。但实际上，没有人从这种意义上理解它。为了反驳，例如，种族主义显然可以做到在大多数职业足球场上占有一席之地，会对原始话语表现出故意的误解。它只是听起来具有说服力：它确实是一种表演，说的不是描述它所表达的缺席，而是命令它。

这种紧张关系对其政治产生了影响。毕竟，种族主义不仅存在于体育，社会，商业以及所有其他活动领域中，而事实却并非如此。同样，这个事实正是发言人所坚持的。宣言的全部重点是将注意力集中在该组织固有的或至少是固有的种族主义上，并承诺加倍努力与该组织作斗争。如果一个特定的组织在字面上完全没有种族主义，那它的代表就宣布种族主义在其中没有地位是空虚的：当然，没有。因此，实际上，说没有种族主义的地方就是说种族主义的存在。从这个意义上说，话语的两个层次-认知和言语表达方式，

冲突的后果是使政治姿态成为最大姿态。它承诺彻底消灭种族主义，以使种族主义一无所有，但在同一口气中，它将种族主义视为地方性的。因此，既定的目标似乎是乌托邦式的：它不是在提议改变政策或法律，而是在提议一个不同的世界。这不是偶然的含义：西方社会的种族主义是结构性的，是BLM争论的一个明确主题，因此，克服种族主义需要进行革命性的转变，而不仅仅是自由主义的调整。该公式在其分支机构变革的意象中确实体现了该政治的痕迹。但是主流演讲者重复的次数越多，这种激进的语调就不可避免地变得越来越模糊。Google进行的初步搜索显示，正式没有种族主义的存在媒体跨国公司贝塔斯曼（Bertelsmann），英超联赛，美军，观鸟者国际社会或鲍里斯·约翰逊（Boris Johnson）所认为的社会。很难将此清单视为革命性变革的联盟。

但是，还有另一种方式可以理解表达的绝对性，即郑重拒绝一切妥协：即虔诚。种族主义在我们的社会中没有地位的宣言，由各种各样的发言人以几乎相同的词重复，具有仪式性，表明潜在的言语体裁是宗教性的。毕竟，种族主义已经做好了准备，可以占据传统上被罪占据的概念位置。像罪一样，这在公理上是有害的。与战争或不平等在某些情况下可以捍卫其价值不同，它无话可说；甚至种族主义者通常也表示反对。像罪一样，它是多态的。它不能归结为某种政治（例如法西斯主义），某种行动（例如暴力），某种感觉（例如恐惧症）或某种不公正（例如不平等报酬），或某种历史制度（如奴隶制）；而是所有这些以及更多。法律，州，人，叙述，图像，笑话，盲目性，冲动，习俗和疏忽都可能是种族主义，种族主义并非以任何一种形式存在，而是构成它们全部并构成其根源的恶性原则。本质。就像罪一样，它既是一种原始的死亡，又是一种个人的责任：它通过几个世纪不可避免的逻辑折磨其继承者，但以这样的方式，每个继承者个人都是有罪的。因此，这就是没有辩护的指责：“如果我们说自己没有罪，我们就会欺骗自己，真理就不在我们里面了。” （约翰一书1：8）。令人惊讶的是，对于这一代人来说，只有一个词是真正的禁忌，而且该词不像过去的禁令那样亵渎或亵渎，而是种族主义。我认为，这证实了种族主义正在接近（负面）神圣事物的地位。因此，首席执行官和社交媒体经理排队时受到约束的礼节的气氛证明了种族主义在他们的组织中没有地位。他们不是在真诚或愤世嫉俗–至少没有必要这样假设。相反，他们是教堂里的人，背诵了自白。他们不是在真诚或愤世嫉俗–至少没有必要这样假设。相反，他们是教堂里的人，背诵了自白。他们不是在真诚或愤世嫉俗–至少没有必要这样假设。相反，他们是教堂里的人，背诵了自白。

可以肯定地说，出于实际目的，这并不是一件坏事。如果知名人士和有实力的机构屈从于反种族主义势在必行，那么他们在某种程度上就不会像以前那样无视或边缘化它。但是，即使这样，这个公式也不是一件容易的事。它的全面宏大具有同质化的效果：如果在任何地方都没有任何种族主义的地方，那么所有种族主义都是同等的。全白的阅读清单和谋杀性的袭击，严格的选举制度以及措辞不灵通–都是种族主义者，没有任何地方可言：在加尔文主义者关于人类堕落的论述中，罪恶是一个没有条件的条件渐变。与加尔文主义一样，这种信仰结构的麻烦在于其单调的否定性会产生绝望，或者 作为绝望，怀疑的一种更可口的选择。一个完美无种族主义社会的项目是不合理的，在这个项目中，过去的每个帝国和民族主义的遗产都已被超越，每个人类群体都享有自己的集体，而无需构建消极的“其他”，这是不合理的：追求一个比喻，天国，从世界上的罪恶被神圣地清除了。除了这一末日，政治必须在世俗领域内运作，在这里“种族主义”不是像被扔下码头般被抛弃的单身魔鬼，而是我们生活在一起的千变万化，互动的，历史上真实的维度，尽管它可以被反对，理解，阻止，包围，削弱，但它不能被根除。而不是拥有 一个完美无种族主义社会的项目是不合理的，在这个项目中，过去的每个帝国和民族主义的遗产都已被超越，每个人类群体都享有自己的集体，而无需构建消极的“其他”，这是不合理的：追求一个比喻，天国，从世界上的罪恶被神圣地清除了。除了这一末日，政治必须在世俗领域内运作，在这里“种族主义”不是像被扔下码头般被抛弃的单身魔鬼，而是我们生活在一起的千变万化，互动的，历史上真实的维度，尽管它可以被反对，理解，阻止，包围，削弱，但它不能被根除。而不是拥有 一个完美无种族主义社会的项目是不合理的，在这个项目中，过去的每个帝国和民族主义的遗产都已被超越，每个人类群体都享有自己的集体，而无需构建消极的“其他”，这是不合理的：追求一个比喻，天国，从世界上的罪恶被神圣地清除了。除了这一末日，政治必须在世俗领域内运作，在这里“种族主义”不是像被扔下码头般被抛弃的单身魔鬼，而是我们生活在一起的千变万化，互动的，历史上真实的维度，尽管它可以被反对，理解，阻止，包围，削弱，但它不能被根除。而不是拥有 每个人的群体都拥有自己的集体而不需要建立消极的“其他”，这是不合理的：以类推的方式，就是天国，从天上除去了世界上的罪过。除了这一末日，政治必须在世俗领域内运作，在这里“种族主义”不是像被扔下码头般被抛弃的单身魔鬼，而是我们生活在一起的千变万化，互动的，历史上真实的维度，尽管它可以被反对，理解，阻止，包围，削弱，但它不能被根除。而不是拥有 每个人类群体都享有自己的集体，而无需构建消极的“其他”，这是不合理的：以类推的方式，就是天国，从天上除去了世界上的罪过。除了这一末日，政治必须在世俗领域内运作，在这里“种族主义”不是像被扔下码头般被抛弃的单身魔鬼，而是我们生活在一起的千变万化，互动的，历史上真实的维度，尽管它可以被反对，理解，阻止，包围，削弱，但它不能被根除。而不是拥有 政治必须在世俗领域内运作，在这里，“种族主义”不是像被扔下码头的雕像那样被抛弃的奇异恶魔，而是我们生活在一起的，千变万化，互动的，历史上真实的面目，这是无法消除的，尽管它可以被反对，被理解，被阻止，被包围，被削弱。而不是拥有 政治必须在世俗领域内运作，在这里，“种族主义”不是像被扔下码头的雕像那样被抛弃的奇异恶魔，而是我们生活在一起的，千变万化，互动的，历史上真实的面目，这是无法消除的，尽管它可以被反对，被理解，被阻止，被包围，被削弱。而不是拥有在我们的社会中没有一个地方，它有很多地方，而且它们是交谈困难而不是容易厌恶的场所。

聚苯乙烯

这句话采用了反种族主义虔诚的措辞，以加强对反种族主义实践的直接攻击。毫无疑问，沃特（Vought）被它的引人注目的魅力，指挥道德高地的气息所吸引。但更重要的是，他对短语的不当使用是因为它的含蓄性。正如我们所看到的，它绝对拒绝承认它宣布的禁令的任何例外；从这个意义上讲，它是一个专制主义者讨价还价。因此，毫不费力地将它毫不费力地融入种族主义欺凌行为的话就不足为奇了。这种适应性反过来提示了反种族主义零容忍语言的问题所在。它将对话减少到哪一方可以强迫另一方遵守的问题上，在这种游戏中，歧视的受害者通常没有优势。