Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 66, No. 2, 2010, pp. 387--400 Contact Theory: Too Timid for “Race” and Racism Zimitri Erasmus ∗ University of Cape Town This article extends critiques of contact theory. It notes four deeper limitations: (1) what I call a “psychometric imaginary”; (2) an assumption that “race” is given, homogeneous and stable; (3) contact/noncontact dualism; and (4) inat- tention to whiteness. These limitations locate contact theory within raciological thought, making contact a reformist, rather than transformative antiracist strat- egy. I suggest an alternative: a critical literacy for the use of “race.” Contrary to Pettigrew’s (1998) call for conceptual economy, I argue that conceptual expansion better serves understanding the tenacity of “race” and complexities of racism(s). Contrary to the psychometric imaginary of contact theory, I suggest that we need a visionary political imaginary for an antiracist world. I conclude that the key question for transforming intergroup relations in South Africa is not “which con- ditions,” and “what kinds of” contact are necessary, but “what kinds of politics, knowing, seeing and belonging” are necessary for critical antiracist praxis. [T]he only appropriate response ... is to demand liberation not from white supremacy alone, however urgently that is required, but from all racializing and raciological thought, from racialized seeing, racialized thinking, and racialized thinking about thinking. (Gilroy, 2000, p. 40) This article departs from most in the present volume of Journal of Social Issues (in press). I argue that the contact hypothesis is not a transformative antiracist strategy. Even its revised forms remain trapped in raciological thought—various discourses that animate the idea of race (Ware, 2002a, p. 20). This calls for a “critical literacy” (Lee & Lutz, 2005, p. 4) for the use of “race” in order to disrupt and invent alternatives to this mode of thinking. (I put the word “race” in quotation ∗ Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Zimitri Erasmus Department of Sociology, University of Cape Town, Private Bag Rondebosch, Cape Town, South Africa [e-mail: Zimitri.Erasmus@uct.ac.za]. Funding from the Thuthuka Programme, supported by the National Research Foundation, and the University of Cape Town enabled writing this article. Thanks to Don Foster, R´ ejane Williams, and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. 387 C  2010 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues