46. Racism is an
68607
An English Defence League Supporter
47.
48. 2. Politics, power
“There is a plethora
of studies… which
are concerned with
‘attitudes’,
‘prejudice’ and
‘discrimination’…
What we need are
studies of the way
the race relations
issues enter into the
structures, strategies
and ideologies of
61. Being race
‘The physical bond is least
and the badge of colour
relatively unimportant save
as a badge; the real
essence of kinship is its
social heritage of slavery;
the discrimination and
insult.’
W.E.B. Du Bois (1940)
64. The Racial
"Institutional racism is
that which, covertly or
overtly, resides in the
policies, procedures,
operations and culture
of public or private
institutions -
reinforcing individual
Take a few minutes in buzz groups to think about what you think race is.\n\nAfter discussion reveal each of the four areas representing different things we think about in relation to race.\n\nThe point is that race comes to stand for other things beyond what is supposed to mean directly. \n
Take a few minutes in buzz groups to think about what you think race is.\n\nAfter discussion reveal each of the four areas representing different things we think about in relation to race.\n\nThe point is that race comes to stand for other things beyond what is supposed to mean directly. \n
Take a few minutes in buzz groups to think about what you think race is.\n\nAfter discussion reveal each of the four areas representing different things we think about in relation to race.\n\nThe point is that race comes to stand for other things beyond what is supposed to mean directly. \n
Take a few minutes in buzz groups to think about what you think race is.\n\nAfter discussion reveal each of the four areas representing different things we think about in relation to race.\n\nThe point is that race comes to stand for other things beyond what is supposed to mean directly. \n
Take a few minutes in buzz groups to think about what you think race is.\n\nAfter discussion reveal each of the four areas representing different things we think about in relation to race.\n\nThe point is that race comes to stand for other things beyond what is supposed to mean directly. \n
Take a few minutes in buzz groups to think about what you think race is.\n\nAfter discussion reveal each of the four areas representing different things we think about in relation to race.\n\nThe point is that race comes to stand for other things beyond what is supposed to mean directly. \n
Take a few minutes in buzz groups to think about what you think race is.\n\nAfter discussion reveal each of the four areas representing different things we think about in relation to race.\n\nThe point is that race comes to stand for other things beyond what is supposed to mean directly. \n
Take a few minutes in buzz groups to think about what you think race is.\n\nAfter discussion reveal each of the four areas representing different things we think about in relation to race.\n\nThe point is that race comes to stand for other things beyond what is supposed to mean directly. \n
Take a few minutes in buzz groups to think about what you think race is.\n\nAfter discussion reveal each of the four areas representing different things we think about in relation to race.\n\nThe point is that race comes to stand for other things beyond what is supposed to mean directly. \n
Is race not a thing of the past?\nSince the end of WW2 and the discovery of the Holocaust, many people have argued that race should be seen as a thing of the past. Scientists and anthropologists, as well as many political leaders argued that the idea of race is based on a bogus scientific concept – that the human species can be divided into a hierarchical system of different races.\n\nThis is wrong. Regimes such as Nazism based themselves on this dangerous idea. Therefore, we must do all we can to banish the idea of race altogether.\n\n2. But racism is still here\nOthers have argued that although races do not exist, racism – e.g. the belief that human beings are divisible into different racial groups – is still with us.\n\nSociologists have tended to argue that race is a social construct – there is no objective truth to the belief in the existence of different races, but people do believe them to exist.\nMoreover, many people are disadvantaged by this belief because the idea of racial difference has become a part of the way in which we organise society.\n\nAlthough approaches differ, many people therefore agree that although you can talk about race making no sense, racism still exists (and may even be getting worse) so we have to explain it.\n\nIn the next part of the lecture, I want to talk about some different ways of explaining race and racism. \n\nI will then go on to propose that the most helpful way of understanding racism is from what is called a race critical perspective. This view sees race and racism as intimately bound up with other factors such as capitalism and the history of colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade, modern state systems and nationalism, and contemporary politics of immigration.\n\nRace can never be looked at as a stand-alone.\n
Is race not a thing of the past?\nSince the end of WW2 and the discovery of the Holocaust, many people have argued that race should be seen as a thing of the past. Scientists and anthropologists, as well as many political leaders argued that the idea of race is based on a bogus scientific concept – that the human species can be divided into a hierarchical system of different races.\n\nThis is wrong. Regimes such as Nazism based themselves on this dangerous idea. Therefore, we must do all we can to banish the idea of race altogether.\n\n2. But racism is still here\nOthers have argued that although races do not exist, racism – e.g. the belief that human beings are divisible into different racial groups – is still with us.\n\nSociologists have tended to argue that race is a social construct – there is no objective truth to the belief in the existence of different races, but people do believe them to exist.\nMoreover, many people are disadvantaged by this belief because the idea of racial difference has become a part of the way in which we organise society.\n\nAlthough approaches differ, many people therefore agree that although you can talk about race making no sense, racism still exists (and may even be getting worse) so we have to explain it.\n\nIn the next part of the lecture, I want to talk about some different ways of explaining race and racism. \n\nI will then go on to propose that the most helpful way of understanding racism is from what is called a race critical perspective. This view sees race and racism as intimately bound up with other factors such as capitalism and the history of colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade, modern state systems and nationalism, and contemporary politics of immigration.\n\nRace can never be looked at as a stand-alone.\n
Is race not a thing of the past?\nSince the end of WW2 and the discovery of the Holocaust, many people have argued that race should be seen as a thing of the past. Scientists and anthropologists, as well as many political leaders argued that the idea of race is based on a bogus scientific concept – that the human species can be divided into a hierarchical system of different races.\n\nThis is wrong. Regimes such as Nazism based themselves on this dangerous idea. Therefore, we must do all we can to banish the idea of race altogether.\n\n2. But racism is still here\nOthers have argued that although races do not exist, racism – e.g. the belief that human beings are divisible into different racial groups – is still with us.\n\nSociologists have tended to argue that race is a social construct – there is no objective truth to the belief in the existence of different races, but people do believe them to exist.\nMoreover, many people are disadvantaged by this belief because the idea of racial difference has become a part of the way in which we organise society.\n\nAlthough approaches differ, many people therefore agree that although you can talk about race making no sense, racism still exists (and may even be getting worse) so we have to explain it.\n\nIn the next part of the lecture, I want to talk about some different ways of explaining race and racism. \n\nI will then go on to propose that the most helpful way of understanding racism is from what is called a race critical perspective. This view sees race and racism as intimately bound up with other factors such as capitalism and the history of colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade, modern state systems and nationalism, and contemporary politics of immigration.\n\nRace can never be looked at as a stand-alone.\n
Is race not a thing of the past?\nSince the end of WW2 and the discovery of the Holocaust, many people have argued that race should be seen as a thing of the past. Scientists and anthropologists, as well as many political leaders argued that the idea of race is based on a bogus scientific concept – that the human species can be divided into a hierarchical system of different races.\n\nThis is wrong. Regimes such as Nazism based themselves on this dangerous idea. Therefore, we must do all we can to banish the idea of race altogether.\n\n2. But racism is still here\nOthers have argued that although races do not exist, racism – e.g. the belief that human beings are divisible into different racial groups – is still with us.\n\nSociologists have tended to argue that race is a social construct – there is no objective truth to the belief in the existence of different races, but people do believe them to exist.\nMoreover, many people are disadvantaged by this belief because the idea of racial difference has become a part of the way in which we organise society.\n\nAlthough approaches differ, many people therefore agree that although you can talk about race making no sense, racism still exists (and may even be getting worse) so we have to explain it.\n\nIn the next part of the lecture, I want to talk about some different ways of explaining race and racism. \n\nI will then go on to propose that the most helpful way of understanding racism is from what is called a race critical perspective. This view sees race and racism as intimately bound up with other factors such as capitalism and the history of colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade, modern state systems and nationalism, and contemporary politics of immigration.\n\nRace can never be looked at as a stand-alone.\n
Before we go on to looking at some of the different ways in which racism has been theorised, let us propose a tentative definition of racism.\n\nIt is important to note that this definition sees racism - I.e. the outcome of the belief in significant differences that divide human beings physically, mentally and, therefore, in terms of their possibilities in society - as being more important to look at than race itself.\n\nIt also sees the role of power relations and the nation-state, as well as other institutions such as colonialism, capitalism as important for making full sense of racism historically and in the present day.\n
Before we go on to looking at some of the different ways in which racism has been theorised, let us propose a tentative definition of racism.\n\nIt is important to note that this definition sees racism - I.e. the outcome of the belief in significant differences that divide human beings physically, mentally and, therefore, in terms of their possibilities in society - as being more important to look at than race itself.\n\nIt also sees the role of power relations and the nation-state, as well as other institutions such as colonialism, capitalism as important for making full sense of racism historically and in the present day.\n
Before we go on to looking at some of the different ways in which racism has been theorised, let us propose a tentative definition of racism.\n\nIt is important to note that this definition sees racism - I.e. the outcome of the belief in significant differences that divide human beings physically, mentally and, therefore, in terms of their possibilities in society - as being more important to look at than race itself.\n\nIt also sees the role of power relations and the nation-state, as well as other institutions such as colonialism, capitalism as important for making full sense of racism historically and in the present day.\n
Before we go on to looking at some of the different ways in which racism has been theorised, let us propose a tentative definition of racism.\n\nIt is important to note that this definition sees racism - I.e. the outcome of the belief in significant differences that divide human beings physically, mentally and, therefore, in terms of their possibilities in society - as being more important to look at than race itself.\n\nIt also sees the role of power relations and the nation-state, as well as other institutions such as colonialism, capitalism as important for making full sense of racism historically and in the present day.\n
Before we go on to looking at some of the different ways in which racism has been theorised, let us propose a tentative definition of racism.\n\nIt is important to note that this definition sees racism - I.e. the outcome of the belief in significant differences that divide human beings physically, mentally and, therefore, in terms of their possibilities in society - as being more important to look at than race itself.\n\nIt also sees the role of power relations and the nation-state, as well as other institutions such as colonialism, capitalism as important for making full sense of racism historically and in the present day.\n
Before we go on to looking at some of the different ways in which racism has been theorised, let us propose a tentative definition of racism.\n\nIt is important to note that this definition sees racism - I.e. the outcome of the belief in significant differences that divide human beings physically, mentally and, therefore, in terms of their possibilities in society - as being more important to look at than race itself.\n\nIt also sees the role of power relations and the nation-state, as well as other institutions such as colonialism, capitalism as important for making full sense of racism historically and in the present day.\n
\n
Argument No. 1: Racism is just a fact of life.\n\nThis argument has three strands (to be followed up in the following slides).\n
Argument No. 1: Racism is just a fact of life.\n\nThis argument has three strands (to be followed up in the following slides).\n
Argument No. 1: Racism is just a fact of life.\n\nThis argument has three strands (to be followed up in the following slides).\n
Argument No. 1: Racism is just a fact of life.\n\nThis argument has three strands (to be followed up in the following slides).\n
Racism is age-old. (picture links to article about Greek racism)\nMany people believe that racism has been a feature of all societies since time immemorial. For example, people cite the Ancient Greeks’ division of Greek society into the members of the Polis (Greek men) and outsiders (Barbarians) as well as slaves and women.\n\nBut whereas, fear of strangers and even being prejudiced against them almost certainly IS a feature of all societies, is this the same as racism? [ask students]\n\nRacism is based on the belief that human beings can be divided into different races that are inherently biologically different to each other and that these races can be ordered hierarchically along a scale with white Europeans at the top and blacks at the bottom.\n\nThe idea of race is first used in 1684 and the science of racism takes about 200 years to develop.\n\nThe politics of racism are bound up with the growth of the European nation-state in the 18th and 19th centuries and are linked to the colonial project.\n\nTherefore, I want to propose that racism - the belief in the absolute and categorical difference between groups of human beings originating in different parts of the world - is a modern phenomenon.\n\nIt is not the same thing as fearing or even hating others/strangers because it is underpinned by a scientific idea that proposes that each race is absolutely different to each other and this can never change. Such an argument can be used to propose that it would be wrong for people from different races should mix as was the case in Sth Africa, the Southern States or the US until segregation or under Nazism). \n\nRacism is not the same as prejudice because if you fear a stranger now you may change your attitude once you get to know the person. The belief in racism implies that even if you get to know the person you will always remains incompatible strangers to each other because that is simply what nature dictates. \n
Racism is age-old. (picture links to article about Greek racism)\nMany people believe that racism has been a feature of all societies since time immemorial. For example, people cite the Ancient Greeks’ division of Greek society into the members of the Polis (Greek men) and outsiders (Barbarians) as well as slaves and women.\n\nBut whereas, fear of strangers and even being prejudiced against them almost certainly IS a feature of all societies, is this the same as racism? [ask students]\n\nRacism is based on the belief that human beings can be divided into different races that are inherently biologically different to each other and that these races can be ordered hierarchically along a scale with white Europeans at the top and blacks at the bottom.\n\nThe idea of race is first used in 1684 and the science of racism takes about 200 years to develop.\n\nThe politics of racism are bound up with the growth of the European nation-state in the 18th and 19th centuries and are linked to the colonial project.\n\nTherefore, I want to propose that racism - the belief in the absolute and categorical difference between groups of human beings originating in different parts of the world - is a modern phenomenon.\n\nIt is not the same thing as fearing or even hating others/strangers because it is underpinned by a scientific idea that proposes that each race is absolutely different to each other and this can never change. Such an argument can be used to propose that it would be wrong for people from different races should mix as was the case in Sth Africa, the Southern States or the US until segregation or under Nazism). \n\nRacism is not the same as prejudice because if you fear a stranger now you may change your attitude once you get to know the person. The belief in racism implies that even if you get to know the person you will always remains incompatible strangers to each other because that is simply what nature dictates. \n
Racism is age-old. (picture links to article about Greek racism)\nMany people believe that racism has been a feature of all societies since time immemorial. For example, people cite the Ancient Greeks’ division of Greek society into the members of the Polis (Greek men) and outsiders (Barbarians) as well as slaves and women.\n\nBut whereas, fear of strangers and even being prejudiced against them almost certainly IS a feature of all societies, is this the same as racism? [ask students]\n\nRacism is based on the belief that human beings can be divided into different races that are inherently biologically different to each other and that these races can be ordered hierarchically along a scale with white Europeans at the top and blacks at the bottom.\n\nThe idea of race is first used in 1684 and the science of racism takes about 200 years to develop.\n\nThe politics of racism are bound up with the growth of the European nation-state in the 18th and 19th centuries and are linked to the colonial project.\n\nTherefore, I want to propose that racism - the belief in the absolute and categorical difference between groups of human beings originating in different parts of the world - is a modern phenomenon.\n\nIt is not the same thing as fearing or even hating others/strangers because it is underpinned by a scientific idea that proposes that each race is absolutely different to each other and this can never change. Such an argument can be used to propose that it would be wrong for people from different races should mix as was the case in Sth Africa, the Southern States or the US until segregation or under Nazism). \n\nRacism is not the same as prejudice because if you fear a stranger now you may change your attitude once you get to know the person. The belief in racism implies that even if you get to know the person you will always remains incompatible strangers to each other because that is simply what nature dictates. \n
Racism is age-old. (picture links to article about Greek racism)\nMany people believe that racism has been a feature of all societies since time immemorial. For example, people cite the Ancient Greeks’ division of Greek society into the members of the Polis (Greek men) and outsiders (Barbarians) as well as slaves and women.\n\nBut whereas, fear of strangers and even being prejudiced against them almost certainly IS a feature of all societies, is this the same as racism? [ask students]\n\nRacism is based on the belief that human beings can be divided into different races that are inherently biologically different to each other and that these races can be ordered hierarchically along a scale with white Europeans at the top and blacks at the bottom.\n\nThe idea of race is first used in 1684 and the science of racism takes about 200 years to develop.\n\nThe politics of racism are bound up with the growth of the European nation-state in the 18th and 19th centuries and are linked to the colonial project.\n\nTherefore, I want to propose that racism - the belief in the absolute and categorical difference between groups of human beings originating in different parts of the world - is a modern phenomenon.\n\nIt is not the same thing as fearing or even hating others/strangers because it is underpinned by a scientific idea that proposes that each race is absolutely different to each other and this can never change. Such an argument can be used to propose that it would be wrong for people from different races should mix as was the case in Sth Africa, the Southern States or the US until segregation or under Nazism). \n\nRacism is not the same as prejudice because if you fear a stranger now you may change your attitude once you get to know the person. The belief in racism implies that even if you get to know the person you will always remains incompatible strangers to each other because that is simply what nature dictates. \n
Racism is age-old. (picture links to article about Greek racism)\nMany people believe that racism has been a feature of all societies since time immemorial. For example, people cite the Ancient Greeks’ division of Greek society into the members of the Polis (Greek men) and outsiders (Barbarians) as well as slaves and women.\n\nBut whereas, fear of strangers and even being prejudiced against them almost certainly IS a feature of all societies, is this the same as racism? [ask students]\n\nRacism is based on the belief that human beings can be divided into different races that are inherently biologically different to each other and that these races can be ordered hierarchically along a scale with white Europeans at the top and blacks at the bottom.\n\nThe idea of race is first used in 1684 and the science of racism takes about 200 years to develop.\n\nThe politics of racism are bound up with the growth of the European nation-state in the 18th and 19th centuries and are linked to the colonial project.\n\nTherefore, I want to propose that racism - the belief in the absolute and categorical difference between groups of human beings originating in different parts of the world - is a modern phenomenon.\n\nIt is not the same thing as fearing or even hating others/strangers because it is underpinned by a scientific idea that proposes that each race is absolutely different to each other and this can never change. Such an argument can be used to propose that it would be wrong for people from different races should mix as was the case in Sth Africa, the Southern States or the US until segregation or under Nazism). \n\nRacism is not the same as prejudice because if you fear a stranger now you may change your attitude once you get to know the person. The belief in racism implies that even if you get to know the person you will always remains incompatible strangers to each other because that is simply what nature dictates. \n
Racism is age-old. (picture links to article about Greek racism)\nMany people believe that racism has been a feature of all societies since time immemorial. For example, people cite the Ancient Greeks’ division of Greek society into the members of the Polis (Greek men) and outsiders (Barbarians) as well as slaves and women.\n\nBut whereas, fear of strangers and even being prejudiced against them almost certainly IS a feature of all societies, is this the same as racism? [ask students]\n\nRacism is based on the belief that human beings can be divided into different races that are inherently biologically different to each other and that these races can be ordered hierarchically along a scale with white Europeans at the top and blacks at the bottom.\n\nThe idea of race is first used in 1684 and the science of racism takes about 200 years to develop.\n\nThe politics of racism are bound up with the growth of the European nation-state in the 18th and 19th centuries and are linked to the colonial project.\n\nTherefore, I want to propose that racism - the belief in the absolute and categorical difference between groups of human beings originating in different parts of the world - is a modern phenomenon.\n\nIt is not the same thing as fearing or even hating others/strangers because it is underpinned by a scientific idea that proposes that each race is absolutely different to each other and this can never change. Such an argument can be used to propose that it would be wrong for people from different races should mix as was the case in Sth Africa, the Southern States or the US until segregation or under Nazism). \n\nRacism is not the same as prejudice because if you fear a stranger now you may change your attitude once you get to know the person. The belief in racism implies that even if you get to know the person you will always remains incompatible strangers to each other because that is simply what nature dictates. \n
2. Linked to the argument that racism is age-old is the argument that racism is inherent,\n\nMany people who see racism as being the same as fear of the strange or as prejudice believe that we are all a little bit racist.\n\nHow many people here believe this to be true?\n\nIn a way, it might be true to say that if we are honest with ourselves we might all be a little bit racist, but we need to look at where that comes from.\n\nSaying that racism is inherent turns it into a psychological state of mind or an attitude that some people have.\n\nOften when we say someone has racist attitudes we imply that this means that they are ignorant or have had a poor education.\n\nThis is a classist argument that assumes that racism is the preserve of the working class. Most middle class people do not like to think of themselves as racist because they see themselves as having superior knowledge.\n\nWhile, on an individual level it might be possible to argue that education does help to overcome racism, we cannot base the argument for anti-racist education on the idea that racism is inherent or a mere psychological attitude.\n\nThis approach formed the basis of Racism Awareness Training - a type of training used extensively in Britain in the 1980s. It involved getting people from work places to go to trainings to deal with their racism.\n\nRAT was based on the formula - racism=power+prejudice (click to reveal)\nIn other words: white people are prejudiced towards black people, they also have more power in society. This combination produces racism.\n\nRAT has been widely criticised because it fails to ask where this prejudice comes from. By seeing all white people as racist it turns racism into something banal, little more than an attitude that can be tamed with the right training. \n\nThis view of racism is highly apolitical because it fails to examine the structural reasons for why racism exists in society from historical, sociological and economic points of view.\n
2. Linked to the argument that racism is age-old is the argument that racism is inherent,\n\nMany people who see racism as being the same as fear of the strange or as prejudice believe that we are all a little bit racist.\n\nHow many people here believe this to be true?\n\nIn a way, it might be true to say that if we are honest with ourselves we might all be a little bit racist, but we need to look at where that comes from.\n\nSaying that racism is inherent turns it into a psychological state of mind or an attitude that some people have.\n\nOften when we say someone has racist attitudes we imply that this means that they are ignorant or have had a poor education.\n\nThis is a classist argument that assumes that racism is the preserve of the working class. Most middle class people do not like to think of themselves as racist because they see themselves as having superior knowledge.\n\nWhile, on an individual level it might be possible to argue that education does help to overcome racism, we cannot base the argument for anti-racist education on the idea that racism is inherent or a mere psychological attitude.\n\nThis approach formed the basis of Racism Awareness Training - a type of training used extensively in Britain in the 1980s. It involved getting people from work places to go to trainings to deal with their racism.\n\nRAT was based on the formula - racism=power+prejudice (click to reveal)\nIn other words: white people are prejudiced towards black people, they also have more power in society. This combination produces racism.\n\nRAT has been widely criticised because it fails to ask where this prejudice comes from. By seeing all white people as racist it turns racism into something banal, little more than an attitude that can be tamed with the right training. \n\nThis view of racism is highly apolitical because it fails to examine the structural reasons for why racism exists in society from historical, sociological and economic points of view.\n
The third component of the idea that racism is a fact of life proposes that, politically, racism is an aberration - or something that is completely abnormal, beyond the realm of ordinary mainstream politics and society.\n\nThis view sees racism as something that only extremists and mad people could ever really espouse.\n\nFrom a political point of view, according to this perspective, racism is the kind of thing that the far-right believe in, or people like those in this film (show film).\n\nFollowing the Second World War, many politicians were quick to show that Nazism and the Holocaust was completely alien from European politics. People painted the Nazi regime and its leaders as mad men intent on destroying the world. This was contrasted with the presumed rationality of the allied countries.\n\nHowever, as the sociologist Zygmunt Bauman (Modernity and the Holocaust, 1989) has shown, the Holocaust should not be seen as something that only Germans were capable of carrying out. Indeed, people from all over Europe collaborated and participated in the genocide. Bauman argues that the Holocaust is a product of the particular history of modernity in Europe.\n\nTherefore, racism should not be seen as something that is pathological, i.e. the preserve of mad people. Racism manifests itself in many ways: it is not just about the extreme violence of far-right Neo Nazis. \n\nIndeed, racism can be more dangerous when it is not overt, but more covert and implicit in our institutions and social relations. For example, while it is no longer legal to bar ethnic minorities from going to certain places or entering particular professions, it may implicitly be more difficult for them to do so because of racist social conventions.\n
In Britain in the 1960s and 1970s, a group of sociologists began to be interested in what was known as ‘race relations’.\n\nBut, by the early 1970s people like Zubaida started critiquing their work because it was felt that these studies tended to individualise the problems rather than looking at it from a more global - and especially a more political - perspective.\n\nStudies of race relations tended to look at specific problems to do with racism - e.g. discrimination in the job market - and look at that problem in isolation from its interconnection with the overarching context in which they occurred - such as capitalism in general.\n\nOne of the main groups who critiqued the race relations perspective were Marxists. \n
In Britain in the 1960s and 1970s, a group of sociologists began to be interested in what was known as ‘race relations’.\n\nBut, by the early 1970s people like Zubaida started critiquing their work because it was felt that these studies tended to individualise the problems rather than looking at it from a more global - and especially a more political - perspective.\n\nStudies of race relations tended to look at specific problems to do with racism - e.g. discrimination in the job market - and look at that problem in isolation from its interconnection with the overarching context in which they occurred - such as capitalism in general.\n\nOne of the main groups who critiqued the race relations perspective were Marxists. \n
The Marxist critique of the race relations approach centred on 3 main elements.\n\nThe failure of Marx and Engels to actually deal with racism.\n\nMarx and Engels mention slavery in the US in passing but fail to construct any meaningful theorisation of slavery or of the stratification of colonial societies according to racial hierarchies.\n\nTheir writing also contains racial stereotyping as well as some quite racist imagery (cf. Marx on the Jewish question). \nCritics have argued that Marx and Engels were so concerned with class that they were unable to see race or ethnicity as being important in their own right. Rather they became subsumed into wider social relations, becoming part of the superstructure.\n\n2. Marxist scholars of race and racism sought to redress the absence in Marx and Engels’s work.\n\nIn the US in the 1930s and 1940s, Oliver Cromwell Cox developed a class-based analysis of racism.\nCox saw class divisions as being the most significant reason for exploitation. He therefore believed that racial inequality was the result of the capitalist class’ interest to exploit the working class.\nCreating racial divisions among the working class operated as a strategy of divide and rule.\n\nTherefore, for Cox , racial exploitation was a special form of class exploitation. \n\nThis work had significant impact in the US and led to an analysis of the history of slavery from a Marxist perspective.\n\nSome of the debates that arose from this work included:\nwhether racism is autonomous from class relations\nThe impact of racism on working class struggle\nAnd how racist ideologies are produced and reproduced.\n\n3. Work by Marxist scholars in this direction had an affect on British sociologists, notably Robert Miles (interested in racism and migrant labour).\n\nMiles objected to the idea of a sociology of race and thought that the emphasis should be on racism alone.\n\nThis is because, for Miles, race is purely ideological. It is a human construct devised in order to regulate societies. Race has no objective truth, therefore, and should not be treated as such by talking about it. \n\nFor Miles, race is an ideology that serves to hide the way in which real economic relations work in society.\nThe belief that race exists makes real class consciousness difficult to achieve because workers believe that they are divided racially, they fail to see that the only thing that really counts is the economic imbalance of power that keeps white and black workers down.\n\nMiles sees the state as ultimately responsible for the production of racist ideology. Its purpose is to disunite and fragment the working class to ensure the maintenance of the power of the state and capital.\n\nMiles is therefore opposed to any anti-racist action that is based in the black community. He sees this as taking the movement away from class-based politics which is the only site where the fight against racism has any meaning in Miles’s view. \n
The Marxist critique of the race relations approach centred on 3 main elements.\n\nThe failure of Marx and Engels to actually deal with racism.\n\nMarx and Engels mention slavery in the US in passing but fail to construct any meaningful theorisation of slavery or of the stratification of colonial societies according to racial hierarchies.\n\nTheir writing also contains racial stereotyping as well as some quite racist imagery (cf. Marx on the Jewish question). \nCritics have argued that Marx and Engels were so concerned with class that they were unable to see race or ethnicity as being important in their own right. Rather they became subsumed into wider social relations, becoming part of the superstructure.\n\n2. Marxist scholars of race and racism sought to redress the absence in Marx and Engels’s work.\n\nIn the US in the 1930s and 1940s, Oliver Cromwell Cox developed a class-based analysis of racism.\nCox saw class divisions as being the most significant reason for exploitation. He therefore believed that racial inequality was the result of the capitalist class’ interest to exploit the working class.\nCreating racial divisions among the working class operated as a strategy of divide and rule.\n\nTherefore, for Cox , racial exploitation was a special form of class exploitation. \n\nThis work had significant impact in the US and led to an analysis of the history of slavery from a Marxist perspective.\n\nSome of the debates that arose from this work included:\nwhether racism is autonomous from class relations\nThe impact of racism on working class struggle\nAnd how racist ideologies are produced and reproduced.\n\n3. Work by Marxist scholars in this direction had an affect on British sociologists, notably Robert Miles (interested in racism and migrant labour).\n\nMiles objected to the idea of a sociology of race and thought that the emphasis should be on racism alone.\n\nThis is because, for Miles, race is purely ideological. It is a human construct devised in order to regulate societies. Race has no objective truth, therefore, and should not be treated as such by talking about it. \n\nFor Miles, race is an ideology that serves to hide the way in which real economic relations work in society.\nThe belief that race exists makes real class consciousness difficult to achieve because workers believe that they are divided racially, they fail to see that the only thing that really counts is the economic imbalance of power that keeps white and black workers down.\n\nMiles sees the state as ultimately responsible for the production of racist ideology. Its purpose is to disunite and fragment the working class to ensure the maintenance of the power of the state and capital.\n\nMiles is therefore opposed to any anti-racist action that is based in the black community. He sees this as taking the movement away from class-based politics which is the only site where the fight against racism has any meaning in Miles’s view. \n
The Marxist critique of the race relations approach centred on 3 main elements.\n\nThe failure of Marx and Engels to actually deal with racism.\n\nMarx and Engels mention slavery in the US in passing but fail to construct any meaningful theorisation of slavery or of the stratification of colonial societies according to racial hierarchies.\n\nTheir writing also contains racial stereotyping as well as some quite racist imagery (cf. Marx on the Jewish question). \nCritics have argued that Marx and Engels were so concerned with class that they were unable to see race or ethnicity as being important in their own right. Rather they became subsumed into wider social relations, becoming part of the superstructure.\n\n2. Marxist scholars of race and racism sought to redress the absence in Marx and Engels’s work.\n\nIn the US in the 1930s and 1940s, Oliver Cromwell Cox developed a class-based analysis of racism.\nCox saw class divisions as being the most significant reason for exploitation. He therefore believed that racial inequality was the result of the capitalist class’ interest to exploit the working class.\nCreating racial divisions among the working class operated as a strategy of divide and rule.\n\nTherefore, for Cox , racial exploitation was a special form of class exploitation. \n\nThis work had significant impact in the US and led to an analysis of the history of slavery from a Marxist perspective.\n\nSome of the debates that arose from this work included:\nwhether racism is autonomous from class relations\nThe impact of racism on working class struggle\nAnd how racist ideologies are produced and reproduced.\n\n3. Work by Marxist scholars in this direction had an affect on British sociologists, notably Robert Miles (interested in racism and migrant labour).\n\nMiles objected to the idea of a sociology of race and thought that the emphasis should be on racism alone.\n\nThis is because, for Miles, race is purely ideological. It is a human construct devised in order to regulate societies. Race has no objective truth, therefore, and should not be treated as such by talking about it. \n\nFor Miles, race is an ideology that serves to hide the way in which real economic relations work in society.\nThe belief that race exists makes real class consciousness difficult to achieve because workers believe that they are divided racially, they fail to see that the only thing that really counts is the economic imbalance of power that keeps white and black workers down.\n\nMiles sees the state as ultimately responsible for the production of racist ideology. Its purpose is to disunite and fragment the working class to ensure the maintenance of the power of the state and capital.\n\nMiles is therefore opposed to any anti-racist action that is based in the black community. He sees this as taking the movement away from class-based politics which is the only site where the fight against racism has any meaning in Miles’s view. \n
The Marxist critique of the race relations approach centred on 3 main elements.\n\nThe failure of Marx and Engels to actually deal with racism.\n\nMarx and Engels mention slavery in the US in passing but fail to construct any meaningful theorisation of slavery or of the stratification of colonial societies according to racial hierarchies.\n\nTheir writing also contains racial stereotyping as well as some quite racist imagery (cf. Marx on the Jewish question). \nCritics have argued that Marx and Engels were so concerned with class that they were unable to see race or ethnicity as being important in their own right. Rather they became subsumed into wider social relations, becoming part of the superstructure.\n\n2. Marxist scholars of race and racism sought to redress the absence in Marx and Engels’s work.\n\nIn the US in the 1930s and 1940s, Oliver Cromwell Cox developed a class-based analysis of racism.\nCox saw class divisions as being the most significant reason for exploitation. He therefore believed that racial inequality was the result of the capitalist class’ interest to exploit the working class.\nCreating racial divisions among the working class operated as a strategy of divide and rule.\n\nTherefore, for Cox , racial exploitation was a special form of class exploitation. \n\nThis work had significant impact in the US and led to an analysis of the history of slavery from a Marxist perspective.\n\nSome of the debates that arose from this work included:\nwhether racism is autonomous from class relations\nThe impact of racism on working class struggle\nAnd how racist ideologies are produced and reproduced.\n\n3. Work by Marxist scholars in this direction had an affect on British sociologists, notably Robert Miles (interested in racism and migrant labour).\n\nMiles objected to the idea of a sociology of race and thought that the emphasis should be on racism alone.\n\nThis is because, for Miles, race is purely ideological. It is a human construct devised in order to regulate societies. Race has no objective truth, therefore, and should not be treated as such by talking about it. \n\nFor Miles, race is an ideology that serves to hide the way in which real economic relations work in society.\nThe belief that race exists makes real class consciousness difficult to achieve because workers believe that they are divided racially, they fail to see that the only thing that really counts is the economic imbalance of power that keeps white and black workers down.\n\nMiles sees the state as ultimately responsible for the production of racist ideology. Its purpose is to disunite and fragment the working class to ensure the maintenance of the power of the state and capital.\n\nMiles is therefore opposed to any anti-racist action that is based in the black community. He sees this as taking the movement away from class-based politics which is the only site where the fight against racism has any meaning in Miles’s view. \n
In response to both the race relations and the Marxist approaches, in the early 1980s new work pioneered by black and Asian British theorists came on the scene.\n\nIt centred around the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at Birmingham and figures such as Stuart Hall and Paul Gilroy were prominent. The work of the Institute of Race Relations and the journal, Race and Class, was also central.\n\nThree points can be picked out.\n\nRace is not merely ideological as Miles claimed.\nRather, it is a complex construction. It is not merely imposed in a top-down fashion by the state in order to divide the working class.\nRather groups in society fight over the definition of race.\nThe experience of racism, for example during colonialism or in slave societies, leads those who face racism to reclaim race and use it as a means of strengthening their identity in order to counter racism.\n\n2. The work of these black and postcolonial scholars brought the experience of colonialism to the fore. Britain (and other European countries) could not be completely understood without looking centrally at their colonial pasts.\nBoth the identity of the formerly colonised peoples and of the former colonial powers (e.g. Britain) were shaped by this interrelationship between the colony and the metropolis - the Mother land.\nThis becomes even more important following mass immigration (post 1945) when these two populations come into contact with each other.\nBritain has been completely transformed by immigration - from everything from food, to culture and politics - but officially recognising this has been harder.\nBlack British scholars and activists claimed that the extent of the affect of colonialism and postcolonialism on European societies had to be taken fully into account.\n\n3. It was recognised also that the fight against racism was an important part of redefining the nature of a society like Britain post-immigration or the US post-civil rights.\nTheory was informed by the practice of anti-racist organisations who struggled for racism to be recognised by political institutions and the legal system.\nFor example, the ruling of institutional racism in 1999 - although in direct response to the murder of Stephen Lawrence - actually was the result of 20 years of campaigning by anti-racist organisations. \n
In response to both the race relations and the Marxist approaches, in the early 1980s new work pioneered by black and Asian British theorists came on the scene.\n\nIt centred around the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at Birmingham and figures such as Stuart Hall and Paul Gilroy were prominent. The work of the Institute of Race Relations and the journal, Race and Class, was also central.\n\nThree points can be picked out.\n\nRace is not merely ideological as Miles claimed.\nRather, it is a complex construction. It is not merely imposed in a top-down fashion by the state in order to divide the working class.\nRather groups in society fight over the definition of race.\nThe experience of racism, for example during colonialism or in slave societies, leads those who face racism to reclaim race and use it as a means of strengthening their identity in order to counter racism.\n\n2. The work of these black and postcolonial scholars brought the experience of colonialism to the fore. Britain (and other European countries) could not be completely understood without looking centrally at their colonial pasts.\nBoth the identity of the formerly colonised peoples and of the former colonial powers (e.g. Britain) were shaped by this interrelationship between the colony and the metropolis - the Mother land.\nThis becomes even more important following mass immigration (post 1945) when these two populations come into contact with each other.\nBritain has been completely transformed by immigration - from everything from food, to culture and politics - but officially recognising this has been harder.\nBlack British scholars and activists claimed that the extent of the affect of colonialism and postcolonialism on European societies had to be taken fully into account.\n\n3. It was recognised also that the fight against racism was an important part of redefining the nature of a society like Britain post-immigration or the US post-civil rights.\nTheory was informed by the practice of anti-racist organisations who struggled for racism to be recognised by political institutions and the legal system.\nFor example, the ruling of institutional racism in 1999 - although in direct response to the murder of Stephen Lawrence - actually was the result of 20 years of campaigning by anti-racist organisations. \n
In response to both the race relations and the Marxist approaches, in the early 1980s new work pioneered by black and Asian British theorists came on the scene.\n\nIt centred around the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at Birmingham and figures such as Stuart Hall and Paul Gilroy were prominent. The work of the Institute of Race Relations and the journal, Race and Class, was also central.\n\nThree points can be picked out.\n\nRace is not merely ideological as Miles claimed.\nRather, it is a complex construction. It is not merely imposed in a top-down fashion by the state in order to divide the working class.\nRather groups in society fight over the definition of race.\nThe experience of racism, for example during colonialism or in slave societies, leads those who face racism to reclaim race and use it as a means of strengthening their identity in order to counter racism.\n\n2. The work of these black and postcolonial scholars brought the experience of colonialism to the fore. Britain (and other European countries) could not be completely understood without looking centrally at their colonial pasts.\nBoth the identity of the formerly colonised peoples and of the former colonial powers (e.g. Britain) were shaped by this interrelationship between the colony and the metropolis - the Mother land.\nThis becomes even more important following mass immigration (post 1945) when these two populations come into contact with each other.\nBritain has been completely transformed by immigration - from everything from food, to culture and politics - but officially recognising this has been harder.\nBlack British scholars and activists claimed that the extent of the affect of colonialism and postcolonialism on European societies had to be taken fully into account.\n\n3. It was recognised also that the fight against racism was an important part of redefining the nature of a society like Britain post-immigration or the US post-civil rights.\nTheory was informed by the practice of anti-racist organisations who struggled for racism to be recognised by political institutions and the legal system.\nFor example, the ruling of institutional racism in 1999 - although in direct response to the murder of Stephen Lawrence - actually was the result of 20 years of campaigning by anti-racist organisations. \n
In response to both the race relations and the Marxist approaches, in the early 1980s new work pioneered by black and Asian British theorists came on the scene.\n\nIt centred around the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at Birmingham and figures such as Stuart Hall and Paul Gilroy were prominent. The work of the Institute of Race Relations and the journal, Race and Class, was also central.\n\nThree points can be picked out.\n\nRace is not merely ideological as Miles claimed.\nRather, it is a complex construction. It is not merely imposed in a top-down fashion by the state in order to divide the working class.\nRather groups in society fight over the definition of race.\nThe experience of racism, for example during colonialism or in slave societies, leads those who face racism to reclaim race and use it as a means of strengthening their identity in order to counter racism.\n\n2. The work of these black and postcolonial scholars brought the experience of colonialism to the fore. Britain (and other European countries) could not be completely understood without looking centrally at their colonial pasts.\nBoth the identity of the formerly colonised peoples and of the former colonial powers (e.g. Britain) were shaped by this interrelationship between the colony and the metropolis - the Mother land.\nThis becomes even more important following mass immigration (post 1945) when these two populations come into contact with each other.\nBritain has been completely transformed by immigration - from everything from food, to culture and politics - but officially recognising this has been harder.\nBlack British scholars and activists claimed that the extent of the affect of colonialism and postcolonialism on European societies had to be taken fully into account.\n\n3. It was recognised also that the fight against racism was an important part of redefining the nature of a society like Britain post-immigration or the US post-civil rights.\nTheory was informed by the practice of anti-racist organisations who struggled for racism to be recognised by political institutions and the legal system.\nFor example, the ruling of institutional racism in 1999 - although in direct response to the murder of Stephen Lawrence - actually was the result of 20 years of campaigning by anti-racist organisations. \n
Race Critical Studies start from a similar perspective to that of the Birmingham School. \n\nThere are two important elements of this approach that I want to stress.\n\nWhile Race critical scholars agree that race is a social construction and has no objective basis in scientific fact, the experience of racism continues to be significant.\n\n(Reveal quote) As this quote from WEB Du Bois shows, it is not the physical bond created by belonging to a group known as a race that is important. Rather it is a mental bond, or a historical one, based on the fact that people who have been thought of as a race share a common experience of “discrimination and insult”.\n\nDu Bois was speaking about the US and the experience of slavery in particular.\nFrom a race critical perspective, what this means is that societies founded on slavery such as the US, or which had a history of colonial exploitation, such as Britain, cannot just do away with race. The fact that the idea of race as a means of dividing among people has been so historically significant means that it goes on to have a profound impact on the life chances of future generations.\n\nWe can see this most clearly in the US where the average African-American has an income of $24,000 as opposed to $33,000 for whites (e.g. of Hurricane Katrina). \n\nSo, race critical scholars have to be alive to the lived experience of racism. Our theorisations of race and racism have to be based on what those who face racism tell us about it and go forward from there. This is why it is impossible to discard race as ideology, as Miles does, and to see race as completely subordinate to class. \n
Race Critical Studies start from a similar perspective to that of the Birmingham School. \n\nThere are two important elements of this approach that I want to stress.\n\nWhile Race critical scholars agree that race is a social construction and has no objective basis in scientific fact, the experience of racism continues to be significant.\n\n(Reveal quote) As this quote from WEB Du Bois shows, it is not the physical bond created by belonging to a group known as a race that is important. Rather it is a mental bond, or a historical one, based on the fact that people who have been thought of as a race share a common experience of “discrimination and insult”.\n\nDu Bois was speaking about the US and the experience of slavery in particular.\nFrom a race critical perspective, what this means is that societies founded on slavery such as the US, or which had a history of colonial exploitation, such as Britain, cannot just do away with race. The fact that the idea of race as a means of dividing among people has been so historically significant means that it goes on to have a profound impact on the life chances of future generations.\n\nWe can see this most clearly in the US where the average African-American has an income of $24,000 as opposed to $33,000 for whites (e.g. of Hurricane Katrina). \n\nSo, race critical scholars have to be alive to the lived experience of racism. Our theorisations of race and racism have to be based on what those who face racism tell us about it and go forward from there. This is why it is impossible to discard race as ideology, as Miles does, and to see race as completely subordinate to class. \n
The second part of a race critical approach which should be stressed is the emphasis that is placed on the state.\n\nUnlike the Marxist view that sees race as a mere ideological tool of the state, the Race critical approach sees ideas about race as becoming integral to the ways in which western states in the modern era have ruled. \n\nRace becomes a feature of governance (Foucault). We can see it in our legal instruments and in our institutions.\n\nThe concept of institutional racism has been a powerful means of denying the idea (we looked at at the start of the lecture) that race is purely psychological - a question of having a bad attitude or the result of poor education.\n\n(Reveal quote) The focus on institutional racism draws out the way in which racism enters into our political culture and comes to inform the way in which society is organised in less obvious ways.\n\nTherefore, although formally there are laws against racial discrimination, it often continues because racism has become a social convention.\n\nA focus on the state means that we understand that it is primarily through politics that racism becomes institutionalised. \n\nFor example, whereas it is comforting to take the view that it is mainly the readers of the Daily Mail and the Sun who are vehemently opposed to immigration today, we need to look at where these ideas come from. \n\nIt is because it has become commonsense that too many immigrants are bad for the country that many people believe this. These ideas are not natural. Rather, they are instilled in us in a number of ways - including through the discourse used by politicians and the way in which this is interpreted by the media. \n\nUnderstanding racism in this way does not excuse individual racists. But it helps us to see that racism is neither a mere attitude, nor is it something that should be seen as marginal to mainstream political, social and economic structures.\n\nRather, a focus on the relationship between race and the modern state will help us to understand both racism and the way in which our societies function better.\n\nA race critical approach sees race as one of the main ways in which western societies have been ordered - along with gender as well as capitalism. It is therefore necessary to look at it in relation to these other ordering systems. It should therefore be foremost in our minds as students of sociology interested in better understanding the ways in which our societies are stratified.\n\n
The second part of a race critical approach which should be stressed is the emphasis that is placed on the state.\n\nUnlike the Marxist view that sees race as a mere ideological tool of the state, the Race critical approach sees ideas about race as becoming integral to the ways in which western states in the modern era have ruled. \n\nRace becomes a feature of governance (Foucault). We can see it in our legal instruments and in our institutions.\n\nThe concept of institutional racism has been a powerful means of denying the idea (we looked at at the start of the lecture) that race is purely psychological - a question of having a bad attitude or the result of poor education.\n\n(Reveal quote) The focus on institutional racism draws out the way in which racism enters into our political culture and comes to inform the way in which society is organised in less obvious ways.\n\nTherefore, although formally there are laws against racial discrimination, it often continues because racism has become a social convention.\n\nA focus on the state means that we understand that it is primarily through politics that racism becomes institutionalised. \n\nFor example, whereas it is comforting to take the view that it is mainly the readers of the Daily Mail and the Sun who are vehemently opposed to immigration today, we need to look at where these ideas come from. \n\nIt is because it has become commonsense that too many immigrants are bad for the country that many people believe this. These ideas are not natural. Rather, they are instilled in us in a number of ways - including through the discourse used by politicians and the way in which this is interpreted by the media. \n\nUnderstanding racism in this way does not excuse individual racists. But it helps us to see that racism is neither a mere attitude, nor is it something that should be seen as marginal to mainstream political, social and economic structures.\n\nRather, a focus on the relationship between race and the modern state will help us to understand both racism and the way in which our societies function better.\n\nA race critical approach sees race as one of the main ways in which western societies have been ordered - along with gender as well as capitalism. It is therefore necessary to look at it in relation to these other ordering systems. It should therefore be foremost in our minds as students of sociology interested in better understanding the ways in which our societies are stratified.\n\n
