|
|
|
|
| Last Updated: Nov 3, 2008 - 11:09:50 PM |
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
UK: Reviewing the main theories of racism
11 Oct 11, 2008 - 6:05:26 PM
|
In response to Donald Kipkorirs racist slurs I was compelled to review and write a short essay on the main theories of racism.
Introduction
In this short essay I will in brief attempt to define the terms race and racism. Secondly I will review different theories about racism, since there is a wide range of different theories that one might operate with: for example Post World War II or recent theories, Functionalist, Feminist, Postmodernist, Poststructuralists and Neo- Marxist, New Right depending on one’s perspectives. Furthermore I will try to explore what the overall function of racism is. The source of my information will be from books, websites and lecture notes.
A historical journey is not only necessary but it might also shed some light on how the idea of racism started. Let me in brief define the terms “race and “racism.”
Speaking from a Marxist point of view, race is a human construct, with a regulatory power within society. Race is thus an ideological effect; a mask which hides real economic relationship (Miles, 1984) cited on John Solomos & Les Back (1996:8).
In comparison Guillaumin’s definition brings us nearer to Mile’s definition because they both define race as means for states to achieve their goals of domination, exploitation and extermination (Bulmer & Solomos ,1999: 355). There is no doubt that race is based upon on some sort of false consciousness because no one can prove it biologically. Race exists only in our heads as imagined category. It’s the opposite of what Benedict Anderson (1983) termed as imagined communities, since race here is used for totally another different purpose which is to separate, discriminate instead of uniting. This quote explains it all: Like “nations”, “races” too are imagined, in the dual sense that they have no real biological foundation and that all those included by the signification can never know each other, and are imagined as communities in the sense of common feeling of fellowship. Moreover, they are also imagined as limited in the sense that a boundary is perceived, beyond which lie other “races”, ( Miles 1987c:26-7)
However, in our society some people use race to divide humans into categories. These people think that, these categories are natural and biological facts. The question is, in what sense do racial theories prove the existence of race and how do we use our imagination of race. There is no racism without or at least before some allusion to the concept of race.
According to Goldberg, cited on (Bulmer & Solomos ,1999: 363) we shouldn’t focus on the definition of “race” but rather, on a different set of concerns regarding how the term has been used at different times, what has it signified, how has it served to articulate a conception for its users of self- and group- identity, of self and other? Racism can in its simplest form be defined as an ideological assumption that, due to “race” some people are fundamentally different from others in character and ability, and some races are “naturally” better than others.
Race is a matter of politics rather than objective reality (Guillaumin ,1999: 356).
And when some people start to operate with such assumptions in their ideological baggage the term racism can be easily used to legitimize actions that exclude, and in some extreme cases used to kill other people simply because of imaginary racial categories in peoples heads. To illustrate this let me use this example, during Apartheid era in South Africa Chinese people were being categorized to belong to one race and Japanese to another. This example proves that “race” doesn’t exist biologically, but as something which was politically motivated and invented to serve a certain purpose.
The question is does “race” exist? Some racism researchers argue that “race” doesn’t exist but it kills people” (Guillaumin ,1999:362). After the Second World War in 1945 the United Nations asked a group of biologists to analyse the phenomenon of racism. These biologists were able to answer the question, in what sense does biological science distinguish between races and other genetically based groups? – a question that itself requires a highly technical answer. They were unable to answer the separate question. “Why are groups of men between of whom political differences exist sometimes called races? All they could say was that such groups bore no relation to “races” in their biological sense; see Bulmer & Solomos (1999: 335).Of course there are biological differences that have social significance. For example men and women are biologically different, and most women generally live longer than men.
For quite some time the notion of “race” has been a taboo after it had been used to legitimize the mass killings of Jews during World War II. But more recently debates about it have been appearing for example Herrnstein & Murray wrote their controversial book titled The Bell Curve (1994). They tried to prove the connection between race and intelligence. This book was widely criticized because it was seen as a way of promoting scientific racism.
Historically speaking, scientific theories of “race” arose in the late eighteen and nineteen century, and the aim was to justify the emerging social order of the emerging imperial powers in Europe. Gobineau ( 1816-82) who was referred to by some people as the father of modern racism proposed the existence of three races; white (Caucasian), black (Negroid) and yellow ( Mongoloid) (Giddens ,2006: 485).Gobineau argued that, the white race possessed superior intelligence, morality and will power, whereas blacks were least capable, marked by animal nature, lack of morality and emotional instability. Houston Stewart Chamberlain inherited Gobineau’s theories. Adolf Hitler was impressed by Chamberlain’s work; and what Hitler did was a history. In 1859 Charles Darwin developed his theories about natural selection (Banton ,1997: 81).Herbert Spencer used later on Darwin idea about “survival for the fittest.” In the 1930s racists in Europe claimed that race was a biological category; see John Rex (1983).
I will start my discussion in regard to different theories about racism with two modern sociologists, and each one has a different approach to racism. The first is Robert Miles. Miles has contributed to the separation of “race” as socially constructed, and racism as the process that produces race. The other theorist is Zygmungt Bauman, who is some sort of specialist in the fields of modern and post modern society. They have both different inspiration sources to racism. Mile’s theories are based on the experience of colonialism and Bauman’s theories are based on holocaust –racism. Both do differentiate between racism on one side and xenophobia on the other side. In Mile’s book titled Racism (Miles 1989: 69-98). He is arguing that, the term racism is often used in relation to all other discourses about the other.
Contrary to Miles definition, Banton says that, race is socially constructed just like any other given category such as ethnicity, nationalism among other categories (Banton 1998).
However, Miles insists on the notion that racism is a totally different type or species. He says that this term is all about, imagined biological differences. He is theorising these differences. In his arguments there are two selection principals, the first one being the biological traits to categorization, and after that these traits are used to characterize differences between humans. The end product of this selection process is what is known as “races”. The races are then given a certain cultural trait, whereby groups get ascribed bio-cultural profile, so that all groups with biological profile are given the same cultural traits and vice- verse. According to this process race is socially imagined but not a biological one. Miles says that it’s important that we focus on racialisation but not race. What is important for Miles is the ideology, because racism is representational form, which has a function of inclusion – and exclusion. At the same time it has an evaluative element.
Bauman in his book “Modernity, racism, extermination II” and Modernity and Holocaust (Bauman 1994: 87-111) highlights the Aryans racism paradox. On one side this racism mobilized anti modernity feelings, which is why it was effective. The Jew represented modernity in a society that was not modern. The Jew could be therefore used as a frightening picture in building up the imagined future Aryan society that Hitler had in mind. On one side this form of racism is unthinkable without the advancement of modern science, modern technology and modern forms of state- power. For him modernity made racism possible and it created demand for racism. Furthermore Bauman just- like Miles says that racism is something different from heterophobia which many researchers mix together. He means racism is different from xenophobia. For him racism means a practice that indicates that some people are seen to be in possession of some elements that do not fit in the rational order, because of defects and shortages which cannot be cured. Once some people are being categorized like this they are seen as cancer cells, which should be either deported or totally exterminated. What is happening is classification of humans into two groups, a group which is deemed to be superior and another group which is inferior. One might in other words call it objectification of humans, just like goods. I personally agree with him, as soon as biology is being applied to some members of any given society extermination or mass deportation will always follow suit. History is littered with horrible events, such as the Bosnian war, the massacres of innocent Tutsis in Rwanda and Albanians in Kosovo. All these ethnic groups were being viewed as sub-humans before their exterminations started.
For criticism of Bauman’s argument one could refer to Kenan Malik, but instead I will be using another argument written by Kennedy Yeboah.
Contrary to Bauman, Yeboah in his book The Ideology of Racism (1997) is challenging the writers on race relations in general and furthermore he is arguing that the problems of racial discrimination in UK didn’t start in 1950s and early 1960s. That is why I want to use this to challenge Bauman’s argument of modernity. According to Yeboah the black presence in Britain and white negative attitude towards black people goes back four centuries. Black slaves appeared in Britain at the end of 16th century; see Fiddes (1934: 500). In a way one might argue that this ideology started long before the period Bauman has mentioned. Blaming modernity can be challenged too.
Another exponent in the field of racism who is worth mentioning is Banton. According to Banton, race is socially constructed just like any other given category such as ethnicity, nationalism among other categories; see ( Banton 1998). Banton confines himself to the concept of race through biological variety, in what he termed as “racial typology” and since race cannot be biologically proven it’s no longer valid or useful.
Another area one might look at race is racism is gender. The strong interplay between race, class, and gender needs also to be explored through for example the use of the term feminism. Feminism itself is so diverse since it may embrace different professions and colours. In the field of welfare for example some Scandinavian feminists stressed the way in which women had become the employees of the state on a huge scale, but found themselves for the most part doing the same kind of jobs that they had traditionally done at home; for example childcare, see Pete Alcock Angus Erskine ((2003:105). However the kind of feminism that is relevant to this essay is the “Black” feminist thought. Feminism in general is widely used and rarely defined. There are concerns as to who can be a Black feminist. One current response explicit in Patricia Bell Scott’s (1982) selected bibliography on Black Feminism, classifies all African American regardless of the content of our ideas, as Black feminists; see Patricia Hill cited on Bulmer & Solomos (1999: 377).The peculiar thing about labeling all Black women in this way simultaneously conflates the terms woman and feminist. Since being African itself is a questionable biological category. Writers such as Cheryl Clarke criticized some of the women Scott cited as “Black feminist” who were not clearly feminist at the time they wrote their books and still are not to this day” (1983:94).
Black feminism is defined as a multiple level of engagement (King: 1988) cited in Stanlie M. James & Abena P. Busia (1993: 15). They are further saying that sexism and racism is intersected in the lives of African- American Women. Beverly Guy – Sheftall (1986) contends that both male and female can be “Black feminists”. But one thing all feminists do agree and share is resistance to crude forms of biological determinism. Black men and women suffer racism differently.
Black women experience racism differently from black men since the reconceptualizating of race, class and gender as an interlocking system of oppression affects the black women differently than black men. Barbara Smith argues that, Black feminist thought fosters a fundamental paradigmatic shift which rejects additive approaches to oppression. Instead of starting with gender and then adding other variables such as age, sexual orientation, race, social class, and religion, Black feminist thought sees these distinctive systems of oppression as being part of one overcharging structure of domination.
I would argue that Black women, on top of common racism they face as an ethnic group, they face sexism. The counter argument for this will be men also suffer. There is a racism that men face and with its own prejudices.
In concluding I personally feel that, racism is a matter of behaviour, usually a manifestation of hatred or contempt for individuals who have well- defined physical characteristics different from our own. Racism like other- isms is an ideology, and this ideology will be meaningless without practice. It’s all about the notion of “us and them”; Barth (1969) Ethnic groups and boundaries. The main hidden and obvious purpose of racism is to secure privileges and to exploit. And when economic factors are not in place it’s used for creation of categories and making hierarchies and use of biology in order to deport exterminate those who do not fit in the socially constructed norms in the heads of racists. Speaking of categories let me use this quote cited in Michael Pickering’s book titled The Politics of Representation.
The ultimate aim does not consist of attempting to prevent the categorization of human beings into distinct groups- this would be impossible and not even desirable- but of helping to create “neutral” categories, within which each human being is evaluated in terms of specific information about him, and not in terms of a powerful evaluative frame of reference applying to the category of which he happens to be a member. Henri Tajfel (1963:14).
We are all the same and different at the same time. The below mentioned quote is my own translation from Danish. ”Differences can exist or not. Our differences are not good or bad. One might not be a racist or anti-racist by pointing to our differences that exist or deny them, but one quailifies to be a racist if the differences are used for own advantage”. (Memmi 1992:164).
Racism should be confronted, challenged, and eradicated in our society through education in a serious and comprehensive manner. But what we do often witness from time to time is a culture of denial, arrogance, and ignorance of our past and present deeds. Racism will never disappear as long as we are not ready to handle the truth about its existence. Our society should come out of it’s us and them shell, which we all happen to be hiding behind. At the same we should be careful not to overplay the notion of racism, since overplaying might backfire.
Bibliography
Barth, Fredrik. (1996
): Ethnic groups and boundaries
: Macmillan.
Banton, Michael (1998):
Racial Theories
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Bauman, Zygmunt (1989, 1994): ”Modernity
racism, mass extermination
II
”. I:
Modernity and Holocaust.
Hans Reitzels : 87-111.
Bulmer, Martin og John Solomos, red.
(1999):
Racism.
Oxford
:
Oxford
University
Press: 116-130 and 344-377.
Fenton, Steve. ( 2003):
Ethnicity
: Polity press.
Giddens, A. (2006)
Sociology 5th edition Polity Press.
James, M. Stanlie and Busia, P.A Abena (1993):
Theorising black feminism
: Routledge.
Miles, Robert (1989):
"On signification". I
Racism.
London
: Routledge: 69-98.
Krag, Helen (2007)
Mangfoldighed, magt og minoriteter
: Forlaget Samfundslitteratur
.
Rex, John. (1970, 1983):
Race relations in sociological theory
: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Solomos, John
and
Les Back, red. (
1996,
2000):
Racism and society
&
Theories of Race and Racism: A Reader.
London
: Routledge.
Yeboah, Samuel Kennedy (1988):
The Ideology of Racism.
London
: Hansib Publications:
29-60.
By:
Yasincade
Community Sector Management Student at
London
Metropolitan Univiersity
London
UK
yasincade@hotmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
