Theories of Race and Social Action

8/12/2019 Theories of Race and Social Action

1/28

I .

hapter

heories of r ce ndsoci l tionby Herbert Blumer and Troy Duster

The shifting world-wide developments in race relations since the Second WorldWar have set anew the challenging task of devising a theoretical scheme thatadequately covers this field of scholarly concern. I t is scarcely necessary to callattention to the critical significance of race as a shaping factor in human relationssince that war. One can observe its play in the eruption and intensification of important problems inside of the domestic boundaries of widely scattered nationsand peoples such as the United States the United Kingdom France SouthAfrica Caribbean countries and many technologically developing nationsespecially in Africa. In addition racial considerations have become ofobviouslygreater importance in the broaa area of interna.tional r e l a t i o l j ~ as is witnessed inpart by their role in the deliberations. and policies of the United Nations. Thereis little to suggest that racial considerations are likely to diminish their influenceon the world scene in the immediate future. On the contrary reasonable reflection points to a continuation of racial problems as serious domestic mattersin many countries. With increasing racial consciousness and a correspondingreadiness to push for social positions consonant with new images racial groupsin different parts of the world are likely to be strong influences for social change.Racial alignments on the international scene are likely to become more importantin the years ahead. If as many competent observers contend a major line ofworld struggle in the next w decades will be between the have and the havenot nations the racial factor will acquire extraordinary importance .because ofthe interesting coincidence of racial difference with the have-have not split.The few remarks here give only the barest glimpse of the variety the depth andthe intensity of racial factors in play on the domestic and international fronts. ut theremarks are sufficient to highlight the need of a theoretical unravellingofwhat takes place in the area of race relations.

In this e s ~ a y w p r o p o ~ e to review the more important contemporary

.

ill

,.

1

..


2/28

}.

212 Herber lumer and Troy Duster

~ . . . ~ ~ _ . _ ~ .

.

theories of race relations and to give special attel}tion to one of them that seesrace relations as products of a collective defining process. In carrying out theseobjectives we shall be concerned primarily withracial developments in the UnitedStates since the Second World War. These developments embrace not only theinteresting series ofhappenings on the domestic scene but also on the international scene as reflected in the views and actions of the United States. heparticular theoretical scheme that we propose to develop is closely tied to these twosets of developments.

The major theories of race relations that we propose to consider can begrouped under the following six headings: biological determinism; racial prejudice; structural-functionalism; assimilation; colonial exploitation; and collective definition. Some of these theories have been analysed thoroughly by othersnd do not require ny extensive tre tment where s some need to e ex mined tlength.Biological determinismThe oldest, most common, and most recurring theory of race relations is thatwhich attributes the relations to the innate biological make-up of the respectiveraces. Races are seen as distinctive biological groups and their relations areregarded as set by the differences in their biologiCal make-up. The major linesof biological difference that are asserted to fashion the relations are intelligence,temperament, and character. n recent decades intelligence is regarded by faras the most important of these innate components and hence can be used in thediscussibn as the easiest way of assessing theories of biological determinism.Fundamentally, the theory is that differences in innate intelligence determineand explain the positions of racial groups living in association with each other.The racial group witli the superior innate intelligence comes to occupy the highersocial positions in the society, directing its major institutions and fashioning ageneral mode of life that reflects its superior intelligence. Correspondingly, theracial group with the inferior innate intelligence comes to occupy the subordinatepositions in the society and to develop a texture oflife that is lacking in the marksof higher culture withinthe society. The fundamental framework of relationshipis seen, then, as springing from the difference in innate.biological make-up andas ultimately being forced to abide by that difference. _It is easy to identify the points of serious vulnerability in the effort toexplain race relations in terms of the biological make-up of the races. h ~ spoints of weakness are: i) the difficulty of identifying racial groupS as b i o l o ~ c ally distinct, Ii the dubious validity of the criteria used to establish innate raCIaldifferences, and iii) the irrelevance of supposed biological differences to whathappens in race relations. Let us now spell out briefly each of these three sourcesof weakness. .It is necessary to note and to underline the fact that racial groupS whosee one another in actual life as being racially different and who, accordingly,treat each other as being different are not the biologically separate groupS tbat


3/28

are presupposed by the theory of biological determinism. No lengthy discussionis needed to establish this fact. can be illustrated convincingly in the case ofblack-white relations in the United States. Undermost State laws and certainlyin common practice, persons are classed and treated as blacks if they have yblack ancestry; it makes no sense to refer to someone as being part black.The result is that multitudes of blacks have part white ancestry. Thus, to treatblacks and whites as comprising two distinctively different genetic groups forpurposes of theoretical analysis poses a fundamental contradiction. Races as seenby peoples in association and between whom relations are developed are not thedistinctive biological groups that are presupposed by theories ofbiological determ n smThe secondmajor weakness is the inadequacy of thecriteria used to ascertain and establish the alleged innate differences between racial groups. t is wellknown that the criteria used in the case of alleged racial differences in intelligenceare intelligence tests. There is legitimate controversy as to their suitability fordetermining something so fundamental as innate intelligence. The point at issuecan beput very simply. fintelligence is seen as the ability to copewith problems,its test should be cast in terms of the kinds of problems that have to be handled.Tests for military officers should be cast in terms ofmilitary problems, those forbankers in terms of banking, those for black children in the ghettos in terms ofthesituations withwhich they have to deal, and so on. Therecan be little questionthat intelligence tests in current use, irrespective of their variety, afe incapable ofaligning their content to the nature of the problems that are faced by the variousracial groups in their respective areas of life. Until this is done, accompanied bya valid way of making comparisons, intelligence tests are of very questionablevalue in determining innate differences between such racial groups.

The third, and inmany ways, the most grievous deficiency of theories thatendeavour to explain race relations in terms of the genetic make-up of racialgroups is that they do not begin to deal satisfactorily \vith the variety or r Olationsand the shifts that may take place in such relations. We are presented here withthe formidable logical problem of having to use a constant factor biologicalmake-up) to explain a host of divergent and varying happenings. The arena ofrace relations, as we will point out more fully later, is characterized by greatvariability and change. Let us point out here just a few of the lines of suchvariability and change. A subordinate racial group may at different times bequiescent, restless, militant, and rebellious in its relations with a dominant racialgroup. Great rivalry, struggle and strife may take place inside of a given racialgroup with profound impact on its relations with other racial groups. Somepathways ofinstitutional advancementmayopen and othersmay becomeblockedin response to the play of economic and political factors, affecting race relationsin a very tellingmanner. Events and courses of developmentmay pit racial groupSagainst one another in severe struggle at times and bring them into different relations at other times. should take only a slight reflection on these lines of relationship they are only a few among many) to make one realize the impotency oftheories of biological determinism to handle the topic of race relations.

heories race mtsoci a lion 2 3


4/28

l.- : ~ ~ t . ~ n : : t

. c _ ~214 erbert lumerlld roy ust r

The three fundamental weaknesses that have been designated compel usto set aside as unsuitable those theories which seek to explain race relations interms of the biological differences between the races.Racial prejudiceThe theory that race relations is to be accounted for in terms of prejudice isstill widespread and deeply rooted. It rests on the premise that racial groupsdraw lines of acceptance and exclusion between themselves, with these linesrepresenting the way in,which the racial groups are related to one another andthe way in which they act towards each other. These lines are regarded, in turn,as arising from feelings of prejudice which members of one racial group havetowards members of other racial groups. Scholars holding to this theory maydiffer with regard to the source of racial prejudice. Some see racial prejudice asarising from the simple awareness of biological differences between peoples;others consider it to be a product of the different social positions of raciil groupst hat have come i nt o being t hrough different historical lines of experience;others think of racial prejndice as being due to faulty and inaccurate informationwhich racial groups have of each other. Our concern here is not with suchdifferent explanations of racial prejudice, even thongh such differences maybe of great importance in determining the way in which scholars address theproblem of racial discrimination. Instead, our concern is with the question as towhether the make-up of race relations and the happenings that take place insideof that make-up can be accounted for adequately by the idea of prejudice. Ourjndgement is that prejudice does not explain these matters, for reasons which wewish now to brie1 lY explain.By now, it is widely recognized by scholars who work in the area thatmembers of different racial groups may encouhter one another in many differentsituations, a) where prejudice may be expressed in action but minimally felt, or b) where prejudice is strongly felt but minimally expressed.These simple observations place enormous limitations on the prejudice theory since they set up theneed to account for the innumerable exceptions to the theory and the need toexplain how prejudice works i n the light of the fact that itUlay not be ex-pressed. Any effort to explain these two matters automaticallyrequires the in-troduction of factors other than that of prejudice, thus reflecting the weaknessof the theory of prejudice. n addition to the two deficiencies noted-I.e., thatmany relations involve little if any prejudice or discrimination and that in otherrelations prejudice may be checked even though present attention needs to becalled to vast areas of discrimination against a race, without the exercise of t h ~ tdiscrimination arising from feelings of prejudice. It has become customary.10recent years to refer to this discrimination as institutional prejudicestitutional racism . Scholars differ as to the nature of such institutional prejudiceand as to how it is formed. Some regard it as a transformation of perso?aljudice in which personal feelings recede or disappear, while others f ~ l l tand operates completely outside the domain of personal feelings. This mark


5/28

+

..

o

Structuralism

uncertainty as to the relation between personal prejudice and so-called institutional racism casts further doubt on the suitability of the theory of racial prejudice to handle the topic of race relations. Finally we must note that the ideaof racial prejudice whether in t he f or m of personal prejudice or institutionalprejudice or a combination of both does not explain the shifts or variations inrace relations. does not begin to explain what racial groups may do in the faceof instances of prejudice whether consciously observed or unwittingly experienced. We are faced here again with th e historic fact that racial groupsin association with each other may shift in their relations particularly in terms o fho w they may act towards each other when such shifts are not due to changes infeelings of prejudice. The above reflections on the various crucial points of deficiency in the theory of racial prejudice indicate why we feel it to be inadequateto cover the field of race relations.

2 5heories r ce nd so i l ction

There is no one person monograph or theory that singly captures the essentialproperties of the structuralist approach to race relations. It is possible howeverto isolate a predominant point of view t ak en b y theorists as divergent as th eMarxists or those who adhere to the perspective of functional-structuralism.What is common to the structuralists is their premise that races are to be seenas occupying positions inside of a social structure. Their relations determinedby these positions and their activity consists of what these positions require.Thus explanations of race relations and of racial actions are to be sought in therequirements and the operation of t he social str uctu re in which th e races areembedded. Under this scheme of explanation racial groups become essentiallya type of epiphenomenon in t ha t i t is no t the groups but their social positionsthat tell what happens; the r i l character of th e groups disappears an d theracial groups take on a characterthat is given by those parts of the socialstructurethat they constitute. Structural interpretations at their best work effectively onlywhen the structure which is imputed is fixed or firmly established; such interpretations lose their applicability to the extent that the structure is muted ortransformed or to the extent that the given action falls outside of the structure.Let us illustrate this respectivelyin Marxism an d in Parsons s structural functionalism.

Th e Marxists point to the inherent structural features of capitalism thatrequire large masses of cheap labour at the base oCtile occupational structure.This formnlation posits a need fo r a supply of labour with high rates of unemployment an d worker insecurity an d instability. Th e evidence to be marshalledon behalfof this premise can be impressive e.g. the Irish and the British are bothwhite or within England so are both the middle-class an d working-class. Hereno t race bu t the aligmnents set by the capitalist structure are what counts. Yetth e persisten e of a given racial or ethnic group at the base of the structurelong after structural requirements for its persistence has passed as occurs in thecase of th e blacks in the United States cannot be explained by structural theory


6/28

216 Herbert lumer and Troy uster

f

li ;

alorie.It is.tWs problem which led some scholars who had been Marxists earlyin their careers to abandon the whole paradigm in favour of a more cnlturalemphasis. The blotting out of the racial factor under structural theory can beseen also in the Parsonianview that the social structure of a society is to beseenasa structure of social roles. Under this view the activity of the whites towardsblaeks and of the blacks towards whites in American society is to be explainediu terms of the roles that are set by the social positions of these two groups inthe social structure; the active factors twork are not the racial.gronps but theirsocial roles. Yet how is one to structurally account for shifting role require-ments?t shonld be apparent that structural theories of race relations breakdown precisely tthe points where the relations nd their accompanying actions

falI outside of the imputed structure. How are such theories to account for thefolIowing kinds of matters: the divergencies of views inside of a given racialgroup with regard to other racial groups; the divergencies between the ways inwhich members of a racial group may in turn see themselves; the .shifis in theways in which members of a racial group may act towards members of anotherracial group witWn a relatively short time period; the activities that emergewhen established sOcial roles between the races break down? These are only arew many kinds of operl}ting milieux that may arise outside of the alIeged esta-blished structure or as aresnlt of a breakdown of the structure. The currentworld scene on which races are so vigorously on the move is particularly unsuited to such encompassing structural interpretations. .AssimilationThe theory racial assimilation requires a lengthier treatment than the fore-going theories that we have considered. t is theory which has held a centralposition in the thought of American scholars of race relations. The theory wasdeveloped primarily by Robert E. Park who in addition to his eminence as anAmerican sociologist ranks as one of the foremost studeIits of race relations.The gist of the theory is that the relations of races who are brought together in acommon society go through a cycle of developmentth thas come to be labelledthe race relations cycle . This cycle consists of a sequence of four processes-competition conflict accommodati on nd assimilation. Thus rns coritendedth t the original basis of opposition between racial groups takes place in tbeform of competition between the racial groups a competition o which theracial groups are initiallylargely unaware. As the racial groups becomeaware. of .their competition conflict relations emerge between tbem; that is to say that tracial groups consciously struggle to achieve a position of status witb resar? .toeach other. The outcome of tWs struggle for position and for the OPP rtunues nd privileges which positions yield is the formation of workable d u s t m ~ n t swhich control nd contain the conflict. This is the process of accommodauon .marked essentialIy by expediency and workability. Over time the forms of commodation which prove to be workable nd suitable come to be seen by bo


7/28

.- ~ _

The figures in brackets refer to the References at the end this article

racial groups as natural and proper and thus take on the character of inherentparts of the prevailing social order; this constitutes the stage of assimilation.This cycle of social development was based largely on numerous studies of thehistorical experience of immigrant groups who had entered into American life.Park used it as the framework for handling the relations between racial groupsin the United States, man y of whom h ad come there as immigr ant groups.Since the terminal stage of the cycle is constituted by the assimilation of theracial. group into the society, we refer to the theory as a theory of assimilation.We should recognize that Park trained a large corps of eminent students of racerelations, including outstanding black sociologists e.g., E Franklin Frazier andCharles S Johnson), and largely through them his theory became deeply embeded in American scholarly thought.However captivating may be its logic and however neat its fit to the ex-perience ofmany immigrant groups in the United States, the assimilation theoryof Park is now known to be inadequate as an explantion of race relations. Theidea that such relations follow the designated four-stage sequence, with eachstage giving way inevitably to its successor, is just not borne out by the record ofhistorical happenings. Let us recite some of these happenings. With regard tothe long-run period of association between blacks and whites in the United Statesit is interesting to note the findings ofa study by Bloch [I]t of the occupationalrelations between those two racial groups in the City andthe State ofNewYorkover a period of several centuries. Bloch establishes that systematic barrierswere recurrently erected to prevent whites .and blacks from Qompeting in themarket place; trade unions, for example, simply closed off competition byexcluding blacks from membership. Whole trades that had been occupied byblacks in the late nineteenth century were cut off and reserved for white labourwith the immigration of the early part of this century [2] In terms of short-runhappenings that belie the assimilation theory, we can point to a series of eventsthat took place in recent years, events that are still very fresh in oUr memories.These deserve to be singled out for consideration.First, let us n ot e that despite s cores of years of presumed accommodation, a strong nationalist ideology marked by ethnic pride and a solid separatistbent developed among blacks during the 1960s. And this ideology was espousedby the black middle-class leadership. Even the most moderate and conservativeblack organization, the National Association for the Advancement of ColoredPeople NAACP), found that it had to deal with a section ofitsmembership thatwanted to press more militantly and with a stronger nationalistic orientation.This is strong evidence of the failure of the assimilation theory, for it should luivebeen the NAACP, of all the civil rights organizations, that would display adiminution of activist, separatist, militant sentiment v r tim Yet, for thefirst time in its history, theN P was faced with a revolt of the young Turkswithin its ranks. The militants within the organization did not succeed, but the

heories race and social act on 2 7


8/28

\

-:::-j , .-

218 Herbert lumer and y uster

I~ l l : :

I.

.11to-

UI1l:Illi I

i\

tlIlii- -

attack was unprecedented in its force and direction and given the time sequence,totally at odds with assimilation theory.Still another indication of .the failure of the assimilation theory is therecent emergence of black caucuses throughout the country, in institutionsyaryingJrom the House ofRepresentatives in Washington to local police forces,from telephone operators to middle management at Sears; Roebuck and Company, from school teachers to government employees. The increasing militancyof these caucuses in pressing black demands is another body of evidence that justdoes no t fit in with the assimilation theory.Another visible and dramatic illustration of the middle cl ss black shifttoward an anti-assimi ationist position was the development of black studiesprogrammes in colleges and universities from 1968 to 1973. Over five hundredsuch programmes surfaced, at the demand and insistence of scores of blackstudents on these campuses. These programmes clearly reflected.an increasingracial awareness by blacks not the decreasing racial awareness suggested bythe assimilation theory.

Indeed, most social theorists of race in the United States (and theysubscribed to the assimilation theory) were taken by surprise by such developments as the Blacj( Power Movement, the black revolts in the cities during themiddle 1960s, the


9/28

and committed to modernization. The colonial theorists also have a version ofneo-colonialism which serves to account for the diminishing militancy of thiselite once a narrowly-defined political national liberation is attained anotherparallel to the American ,scene. Even more telling was the striking similaritybetween the ideological splits to be noted in the colonial racial groups and inthe case of the American blacks. The ideological split was between those whoadvocated separation from theoutsidedominant colonial racial group and thosewho favoured the adoption of the institntions of the outside group. This kindof ideological split has been conspicuous in the ideology of the blacks in theUnited States for well over a century. I t is to be seen in the advocacy of separateblack institntions in the writings of such figures as Delaney, Washington,Garvey, the early Malcohn X and those espousing Black Power. The oppositeview envisioning an eventual merger of blacks into the centre ofAmerican life,is to be seen in the case of Douglass, White, Randolph, and the leaders of theearly Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the early Congress ofRacial Equality. We shall have occasion later to consider at greater length thisideological split. Here we merely wish to note the striking parallel between itscharacter in the case of a native colonial people and that of the Americanblacks. These parallel features had much to do in leading certain Americanscholars of race relations to Idoptand apply the colonial theory to the Americanscene of black-white relationS.. However, the colonial model as applied to black-white relations in theUnited States needs to be examined in terms of where it does ftot seem to fit.Such an examination suggests four significant differences, referring. to whatcoloni:ilizing powers seek from their colonies and to what they were preparedto offer to the colonies. In classical colonialism, the white European colonialpower .wanted something clear, visible, an.d tangible from the colony. I t mighthave been raw nuzterials such as minerals, ore, diamonds, and native crops. Orit might have beenhwnan reso rces such as a cheaplaboursupply Or it mighthave been that the colonial power wanted a m rket for its products, arid couldimpose this on the colony. Or, as a fourth possiblity, it could seek chiefly to pro-vide prote tion ndsovereigil rights for settlers and other citizens from the mothercountry. Butthe present situation of blacks inthe United States is quite differenton all of these counts. Since the blacks did not possess the land and its resources,the indigenouspopulation, the whites, cannot be said to havewanted their land.Thewhites took the landfromthe nativeAmerican Indians and thatwas classicalcoionialexploiiation. Fromthe seventeenth ceI\tllry until after the SecondWorldWar, the blacks did provide a cheap labour suppi:Y: So, historically, what thewhites wanted from the blacks was their slave labour. But with technologicaladvances and the transfer to an urban economy with tertiary occupations iI iascendancy, the desire and need for an unskilled labour sUpply have decreased.That is not to say that unskilled labour is unimportant, but that its importanceis lessening, a departUre from the colonial model. Finally, there is the colony as. a purchasing market. With American expansion of her markets around: theworld, reliance upon the iIitemal segment of the black one-tenth of the

. r'yf'; & ir,'-A,i< jd.:,':;;'f f 1 . : , l f , ; ; : . ( ~ ? k r ; . ~ ~ , ~ ,,' l\: v; : b r t

heories r ce nd soci l ction 219

Ii

:

i

. j ~


10/28

. .

220 Herbert lumer and } y uster

f-- ~ ~ . ~ ~

___ -J ; :.jj

.

IIIIll

UIII:1

population also decreases in importance. Moreover, since the black populationis internal, it is a captive market; businesses do not have to worryabout blacks.dealing with other countries.Above all, the application of the colonial analogy to black-white relationsin the United States breaks down with regard to the exercise of sovereignty overthe territoryoccupied by blacks, particularly in the cities. nclassical colonialism,when the colonized people became liberation-minded, nationalistic, and revolutionary, the white colonial power could see that it was ostin more to wagethe colonial war than i t was worth in extracted resources or in satisfaction ofthe allegiance demands of the colonists. Under these circumstances, the colonialpower could choose to end its rule, and grant independence. The white colonialpower could weigh the issue, the costs, the profits and the losses, and decidewhen to continue and when to pull out. While it is true that saving face was important to the rightists, the hard-headed economic interests put costs abOVe allelse; de Gaulle fo r exatnple, pulled out of Algeria despite right wing oppositionand the face problem. n so-called internal colonialism, e.g., the United States,it is far moredifficult to conduct such a hard-headed empiricalweighing ofpolicecosts versus resource exploitation. Indeed, this option does no t arise since theterritory occupied by the politically-subordinated race belongs to the sovereigndomain of the n a t i o n ~ T h u s in the case of the United States, there could be nosurrender of the areas populated by blacks; the dominant white group could notpull out of all the institu tions associated with sovereignty and abandon theterritory to the blacks. The absence of such an outcome highlights, above allthe inapplicability of the colonial model to critical black-white race relations inthe United States.

The distinction between race relations in the classical colonial situationand black-white race relations in the United States can and should be pushedfurther, Jiotoniy in the interests of clarifying the difference bu t in order to revealconsiderations that need to be incorporated into any effective theory of racerelations. As we compare more deeply the colonial situation with the Americanscene, we are forced to note the profound difference established by the factors ofland, occupation, and native culture. n classical colonialism, the land of thecolony originally belonged to the subjugated population. The white Europeanarmies, the missionaries, the merchants and the settlers invaded the landand superimposed the culture of the European mother country. White European political, judicial, and education systems were grafted onto t land. Theterm grafted Oil is important for it communicates the essential characterof thedifference between classical colonialism and the situation of the blacks in theUnited States. n the colony, the indigenous culture generally remainsfor the bulk of the population. It was usually only the elite among the colonizedwho destroyed their identificationwith this indigenous culture in the early stagesof colonization. The natives continue to speak the native language, eat the samefoods, retain the same customs and dances, and so forth. t was true that heChristianmissionaries often tried to destroy or transformcustoms so as. to bODe:them into closer harmony with Christianity, but their success was, agalD mu


11/28

~ : ~ ; ] ~ ~ . , : ~ ~ : ~ , ~ ? \ . ~ 1 [ ~ ~ t T ~ : i ~ . : ;,.,

CoIlective definitionAny theory of race relations which seeks to .gain scholarly creditability mustobviously be able to cover and explain the siguificant happenings that are to benoted in the empirical world of race relations. hismeans that the theory mustbe able to identify races and the relationsbetween races; it must be able to handlewhatever may be the diversity of relati0llsexisting between races; it must be ableto explain the variations and shifts that ocCur over time between any two racialgroups; and it must be able to II alysethe interplay of whatever may be racialfactors and other factors in actual ongoing group life. Prevailing schemes ofrace relations such as those which we have considered earlier fail in one way orthe other to meet this necessary empirical validation. Many of them iguore whatraces are and hence do not catch w hat is centraIly involved i n the relationsbetween races. Many of them fail to see or else treat too lightly the variationsthat are tobe found in the relations of racial groups. Almost all are incapable ofhandling the shifting career lines of relations to be noted over time between

greater with the elite among the colonized than with the whole population. Thefact that European culture could sink its rootsonly partially in the mass of thepopulation was important for the subsequent liberation struggle. With theindigenous culture of the population relatively intact liberation-minded nationalists could readily appeal to the resurrection of that culture as one of therallying cries of the liberation struggle. Both native territory as a base and nativeculture as a unifying framework made it possible for the colonized racial groupto move readily and relentlessly towards a goal of national liberation.The situation.of the American blacks is obviously different. Brought toan alien land as slaves and scattered in a way that never allowed them to developa sense of a homeland tribal group or nation American blacks have lacked thesense of attachment to a domain of their own. This absence of a land base hasbeen a source of continuous frustration for those blacks who have struggled atvarious times to move along the separatist path. Even more discouraging to such efforts has been the absence of a historic native culture shared by the Americanblacks. The slave owners consciously destroyed families and friendships amongmembers of the same African tribes for they feared the ability of these slaves tocommunicate in their own tongue. n so doing they destroyed the languagekinship structure and other institutional arrangements which had given unityand coherence to blacks in their native lands. Thus American blacks have had tooperate inside of the institutional framework imposed by the whites without theoption of resorting to a body of traditional institutions. As we will note morefully later the absence of a native land base and of a native cl lture has had aprofound influence on the direction and fate of race relations between the blacksand the whites in the United States. But for the time being we feel that enoughhas been said here to indicate the fragility of the colonial model as applied tothe American scene and hence its limitations as a n encompassing racialtheory. .

Theories olrace : a 1 J t l ~ s o c i a l ~ t i o 22

;

. .


12/28


different racial groups. And many of them are weak in covering the interplay ofracial and non-racial happenings in the developing life of societies, particularlycontemporary societies. n the following pages, we seek to outline a theoreticalscheme which will be faithful to the kinds of empirical events which have beennoted We have labelled this scheme collective definition in recognition of whatwe believe to be the basic process by which racial groups come to see each other nd themselves nd poise themselves to act towards each other; the procesSisone in which the racial groups are defining or interpreting their experiences andthe events that bring these experiences about. The outcome of this process ofdefinition is the aligning and realigning of relations and the development and reformation ofprospectiv e lines of action towards one another. t is this process ofdefinition that we wish to analyse.

A theoretical analysis of race relations should begin with a t r e a t m ~ t o fthe concept of race or of a racial group. is our belief th t the concept of racemust be faithful to the composition of the groups who see each other as racialgroups nd who ppro h each other as racial groups in their association. Thisimmediately establishes the need for distinguishing between groups who see. themselves as racial groups, nd groups who do not see themselves as such, eventhough identified by outside scholars as races; Whatever may be the scholarlyvalue of classifying people in racial categoriesin accordance withtechnical criteria as is done by geneticisd and physical anthropologists), such a perspective failsto catch the area of race relations in actual life unless the genetic categories coincide with the way in which the acting people classify one another racially. Peoplein actual life act towards one another on the basis of how they classify and.seeone another and not on the basis of how they may be seen by outside scholarsusing techniCal criteria. What is important is how people who are living witho ne ano ther classify o ne ano th er r acially i f t hey d o) ; wh at kind of pictlll Cthey form of one another in terms qualities, traits, intentions, etc.; and whatthey anticipate from one another in terms of such pictures. The actual orientationof racial groups in association derives from this process in which they classifyeach other nd themselves. Consequently, this simple point forces us to recognizethe operation and importance of a defining process through which given racialgroups categorizeone another ndform their pictures of one another. The area ofrace relationsis constituted bythis process of definitiiiii; The processof definitionconsists_of n interpretation of runs of experience, leading tQ_theJQlJIlation _judgements- ndimages. must be seen as a collective process in that membersofa racial group help to shape one another s interpretations and judgements. Wewish to discuss this process of collective definition as it takes place betweenracial groups. ~ ~ _ . . . . . _ . _ ~ c _ c . ~ _ . : ~ c . ~ ; : _. .

We t ak e as a truism th t relations between the races are always caught Inthe process of formation. A cross-sectional analysis of race relations t nyonepoint in time usually yields some form of a structural account, much as agraph directs attention to the momentary relations between elements. But if wwere to examine relations between the races t two points in time t ~ very l c a : ~we would lliscover differences not only in the collective conceptions of r g

i

n

i i

lI

t

Jii


13/28

h nt l

groups towards other racial groups, buftowards themselves as race. Indeed,inside the boundaries of racial and ethnic groups in technologically-advanced_an d technologically-developing societies), we-believe we can identify two dominant but conflicting organizing principles of interpretation. The conflict, ambival.ence and persistence of these two tendencies is such that, for the racial groupseen as a unit, th er e is a confounding dilemma which we have chosen to calldualism. -

One of the two elements is the concern for the racial or ethnic specialnessof the group. The other element is the concern for the group s relative social,economic, cultural, n political status. While some members maytr y to pressboth concerns simultaneously, racial and ethnic groups more frequently witnessa development of two factional camps, in which tension and interaction developaround one or the other emphasis. Nowhere is this more dramatically expressedthan in the situation of the blacks in the United States. While we will take severalexamples from the black situation, our purpose is to illustrate the kinds of problems confronted by any theory of race th t does not take sufficiently into accountthis general problem of dualism. In our view, an-analysis of this fundamentalproperty of race relations helps to explain the generation n ascendancy ofcertain theories t different historical moments. also helps to explain why andhow certain theories fit or fail to flt the empirical regularities of persistence andchange that characterize the relations between races n ethnic groups.

I

Theories race nd so i l action

,.

, - I


14/28

;,

. .

224 Herbert lumerand Troy uster

,;1j),jj,i IIij,J .an

t,,j . .1 dIllI ,

al l,Il l.ltu, ,

lllli, ,l Ill

ifmnII

The Santa themselves say that the diku big and knowing people andtheir demeanor as they interact with Hindus, particularly of high caste,confirms acceptance in fair measure of their inferior status, Even today,ina periodof renewed solidarity, theSantalare striving to raise themselvesto the level of the diku as they say. . , . 'To accept inferior status is to accept the attributes of rank of thesuperior society, and such acceptance produces a tendency to emulation.This emulation is an effect of rank concession, and evidence for it as wellThe many examples noted of Santal emulation of the dominant Hindusociety are to be understood as arising from the universal tendency ofsocieties which have conceded rank to emulate.' [II].Orans' basis for the discussion of emulation is therefore clear enough,

butwhat ofthenotionof solidarity and why is it sojuxtaposedagainst emulation?He quotes Durkheim:'Solidarity which comes from likenesses is at its maximum when thecollective conscience completely envelops our whole conscience andcoincides in allpointswith it. But, at that moment, our individuality is nil. can be born only if the community takes a smaller toll of us. There are,here, two contrary forces, one centripetal, the other centrifugal,whichcannot flourish a,tthe same time. We cannot, at one and the sametime, develop ourselves in two opposite senses. If our ideal is to presenta singular and personal appearance, we do lot want to resemble everybody else.' [12]We shall return to the Santal shortly but since both we and Orans intend

to draw a parallel to the American blacks, it is worth insertinghere W E B DuBois' eloquentand often-quoted passage on the dual identity of the Americanblack, first publishedat the turnofthe century(1903):Mter the Egyptian and Indian, the Greek and Roman, the Teuton andMongolian, the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil andgifted with second-sight in this American world- '-a world which yieldshim no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see 'himself through therevelation of the other world. is a peculiar sensation, this doubleconsciousness, this sense of always looking atQllc's self through theof others, ofmeasuring one's soul by the tape of a world that looks on II Iamused ,contempt and pity. One ever feels his twoness'=iin American;a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; twowarring ideals in one dark body.' [13]

And later, on the same page: _ ' . Here in America, in the few days since Emancipation, the black man sturning hither and thither in hesitant and doubtful striving has oftenmade his very strength to lose effectiveness, to seem like absen ce ofpower, like weakness. And yet it is not weakness-'-it is the c o n t r d i ~ l o nof double aims.' [14] Id ''Likeness' can take on an infinite number of substantive forms, from s ,ncolour to tribal heritage to class position to sex The solidarity that feels


15/28

.

The urakumin JapanAlthough there is no apparent racial distinction to be made between Burakuminand other Japanese, both seem to believe racial differences exist, and certainlyact as if they do. The Burakumin are descendants of a pariah caste who werehistorically restricted to such occupations as disposing of animal carcasses,assisting authorities in driving off thieves and beggars, and leather working[IS, 16 . They were forced to live in separate communities and wear distinctiveclothing, and endogamylawswere enforced. TheMeiji Government abolished thepariah statusof theBurakurnin in 1871. Japan was undergoing an economiccrisisduring this period, and the small farmers feared the possible competition fromthe newly-emancipated group. Like American whites (in relation to lynchings ofthe blacks) and European gentiles (in relation to pogroms against the Jews),the farmers began terror campaigns to intimidate the Burakumin. There wereE ta hunts' similar to the lynch mobs of the American Reconstruction period Eta is one of the several other names for the Burakurnin, a word that means'filth').A diffusion of socialist ideology began among the Burakumin from 1908

with those of 'likeness' or kind is a function of the power of the socio-culturalmeanings of that likeness, both external and internal to the,group. The contlictfor groups (and individuals.inside those groups) at the base of the social, economic, andpolitical structure, most simply put, is whether to celebrate and retaintheir 'likeness' (which some may come to feel consigns them to the base), orwhether to emulate and assimilate. Cultural pluralism and equality of diversegroups may be a theoretically possible alternative, but the history and experienceofmost ethnicand racial and sexual minorities quaminorities) has been that theachievement of equality comes through a bitter and protracted struggle againstthose who retain the privilege ascribed by birth and political-economicstructure.Thus is joined the basic ambivalence and contlict that confronts anysocial and cultural minority. Orans chose to call it emulation v solidarity. Thereis a direct relevance of his discussion of the Santal to our discussion. Beforeturning in greater detail to our own argument, it is worthwhile to pursueOrans' discussion to its major conclusion. While most Santa are still tillers of thesoil, indllstrialization came to this section of Iridia in the early twentieth century,and affected them quite directly. Indeed, the oldest and largest iron and steelcompany in India, Tata Iron and Steel, was carved out of the industrial town ofJamshedpur in 1908, right in the midst ofthe Santal people.With increasing industrialization,the tomobility for the Santal wasthrough the economic adjustments, or through the economic path. Court jurisdictional encroachment, health protection, the issuance of schblarships, and soforth, all served to indicate to the Santal that the 'betterment' of their lives werein the hands of the Hindus and the British. Emulation occurred when the Santalchose the economic path to individual betterment. Solidarity increased when theSantal moved towards a political strategy for redressing their grievances.

.'- . 1

;

.

225heories race and s ocial tion

_ ,


16/28

,

-, ,. : ~ l ; ; , ; , : ; i ) \ i , J Y : t . ' , \ \ ? \r ; ~ I ~


24/28

< : ; ) ~ : 2 : ~ ~ . , , ~, ~ . ~ : . ~ , , * J :; ; : ~ - . ... O: : _ , ~ h i ~ ' . - , . ; , , ' , , ~ i l

34 erbert lumer nd Troy uster

l ll

lll l r ~ , :

frequently noted. To round out the picture;we must now call attention to the,parallel kind of ambivalence present in the superordinate racial group.Wehavealready noted that the position, of the superordinate racial groupis one of distinct advantage because of monopolistic access to the superior posts

of the society and control of the major institutions. I t is easy to understand thedesire and intentionof itsmembers to retain theseposts and their advantages and;accordingly, to resist efforts which seem to threaten such possession and USeThe resistance may reqnire little more effort than to keep closed the doors ofaccess to the posts yielding the advantages. In addition to such protection of itsposition, the superordinate racial group (orparts of it) may be led intoaggressiveexpansion of its area ofadvantage, ifpropitious opportunities arise. Theconcernwith protecting its position and, on occasion, expanding its domain constitutesobviously a chief prol?elling interest of the dominant racial group. But we alsohave to note that there may be elements within the superordinate group whodo not feel themselves to be threatened by the demands or efforts of the subordinate racial group and who, indeed, may find it desirable to aid such effortS Thns,two opposing sets of propulsions are brought into play in the superordinategroup, giving rise to an inner political process and yielding uncertainty as to thedirections to be taken.Having sketched the stark features of the social setting or arrangementinside ofwhich race relations typically take place, we wish to trace some of themore important happenings and consequences. We haveprovided someempiricalillustrations of the general process of adjnstment of the racial groups insideof thesetting. must also be kept in mind that the setting provides for the play oftwo sets of antagonistic forces, one set operating in the subordinate racial groupand the other in the superordinate racial group. Obviously, each of the two setsis infiuenced by what is taking place in the other; thus the arena of race relationsis caught up in the play of four major forces or propulsions. The interaction ofthese fourforces through a process of definition constitutes what is happeningin the area of race relations. The antagonistic pair of forces on the side of thesubordinate group consists of intention and effort to gain adjustment inside ofestablished institutions (the assimilationist orientation) and of intention andeffort to develop a separate institutional world (the separatist orientation). Theantagonistic pair of forces on the side of the superordinate racial group consistsof the intention and effort to hold onto-and sometimes extend-social advantages (the exclusionary orientation) and the intention and effort to open thedoors to such advantages for subordinate group members (the gate-opening_orientation). The career ofrace relations is set by the play of these four forcesand takes different turns as one or another of them enters into a given period ofdominance. Thus, the dominance of the gate-opening orientation on the part ofthe superordinate racial group encourages the assimilationist orientationon thepart of the subordinate group; the dominance of the exclusionary orientationfosters the separatist orientation; the dominance of the assimilationist o r i ~ t tion onthepart of the subordinate group can arouse the exclusionaryorientati?non the part o f the superordinate group; and the dominance of the separatist


25/28

on lusionThesefew and brief accounts ofrace relations suffice to show the importance ofthe definingprocess in shaping and setting race relations. We repeat that the defining process must be seen as central in the career of race relations. When onespeaks of race relations, it is obvious that one must refer to the ways in whichpeople adjust to each other by virtue of l ssifying each other as members of thisor that racial group. This simple point calls attention to the need for seeing what

.

235heories r ce ndso i l tion

orientation in relative terms rare except in the case of colonial liberation) has,so far, an indeterminate record of consequences. The play of these four forcesintroduces instability into race relations, weakening the line of exclusion atdifferent points in time, and strengthening the line at other times, with advancesand retreats in the gaining of advantages. Let us consider some of the more important consequen-

0 -, _ , --:- , : > ' ~ ; . / : ' ~ ~ t ~ . t < , ; 1 1 ' : ; -_ . 1i , 1 :\


26/28


enters into this process of classification as it takes place in a society of divergentracial groups, The process is obviously a d e f i n i ~ g process, one in which.individuals and groups are using their runs of experience to form images and views ofone a nother as racial groups, a nd to mould images of their respective socialpositions. This defining process is a collective process in that participants, byvoicing their own views, help to define and shape the views of one another. Outof this defining process as it takes place in each racial group come the images ofothers an d of oneself that are used by racial groups in their association. Theseimages set the ways in which members of a racial group a re prepa red to ac t towards other racial groups.The process of collectivedefinition as it takes place in race relations is byno means a simple l i n ~ a r development, arising in response to a fixed causalfactor or a set of such factors and preordained to move in ordered sequence to agiven destiny.

Respect for empirical happenings requires us to see the changes andshifts that take place in the ongoing process of definition. In response to a)theplay of events, some ofwruch may be highly dramatic, b) the shifts in Objectivesocial positions. brought about by the economic and political p r o ~ e s s and cthe variations inside of the inner discussions that go on definitions can changeand shift, sometimes drastically.A racial group may become outraged and burst ou t into impulsive action,or it may smoulder with repressed resentment, or it may move into a state ofquiescence, o r i t may develop highhopes and enthusiasms, to mention just a fewof the positions it may adopt in the course of adjustment. Scholars of race.rela-tions cannot afford to ignorethe great variability that can take place in the processof collective definition. Yet, as we have sought to show, the defining process isrelentlessly brought inside of a common framework, a framework whichforcesthe definitions to deal with the basic orientations of the racial groups. Theframework is set by the fact that the racial groups fall into a dominant-subordin-ate relationship, with the inevitable drawingofa line of separation and exclusionbetween them. This fundameutal relationship brings logically into being thi: twosets of antagonistic forces which we believe to be so vital in the formation ofadjustments between the racial groups. The subordinate racial group is caughtin the recurring dilemma of whether to move in the assimilationist or the separa-tist direction or the dilemma of how to adjust these.l\Vo opposing orientations.The superordinate group, on its side, is caught in the contest between the ex-clusionary tendency and the gate-opening disposition, a c o n i e s f w l i i l 1 C l l n ~ - become profoundly political under certain sets of circumstances and in response. to certain kinds ofevents. The play of these sets ofantago nistic forces constitutesthe core happenings in race relations. In our judgement, they should form the _stuff of primary scholarly concern. - -- _ . _ _ .

W e m ay be allowed a few final observations in the light of our thesis ofthe central importance of the defining process. First, it seems reasonable to ex-pect an expansion an d intensification of racial relations in the present epochof world development. With their increasing sophistication and awareness of


27/28

References

the larger outside world, peoplewill be led increasingly to classify one another inracial categories and, correlatively, will be led to see real and imaginary lines.Of s e p a ~ a p o n a n ~ x c l \ l s i o n betweenthem. The direction and extent of this process of rllcial categorizationas it takes place in the years ahead around the worldmil be a matter deserving the closest 8Crutiny. Second, 8cholars of race relations~ h o u l e alert to the changes in the defining process thatmay occuras a resultof the powerplay betweennations on the international scene. Heretofore, eventsin the areas of racial relations were mostly confined to the play of domesticforces, or in colonialsituations weie limited to the interaction of the natives andthecolonialpower. Today, it would seem that these domesticand colonial arenasare becoming increasingly open to the intrusion of outside ponderable international influences. Thus, major nations may find it advisable, politically, touse their power to shape race relations in countries in whichtheyhave no sovereign rights. Further, there are increasing tendencies for subordinate racial groupsto solicit and use the influence of outside groups on the international scene.Finally, there is the growing alertness and responsiveness of international bodiesto racial alignments and racial happenings. The study of how these varied formsof international intrusion affect the defining process in areas of race relationsshould become a matter of great scholarly interest.

IBLOCH, H. The circle a/discrimination New York, New York University Press,1969.-. Ibid.CARMICHAEL S.; HAMILTON C. Black power New York, Vintage, 1967.CRUSE, H Crisis theNegro intellectual New York, Morrow, 1967.MEMMI A. Tire colonizer and the colonized Boston, Beacon, 1967.FANON. F. Wretched theearth New York, Grove, 1963.CLEAVER, E. oul on ice New York, Dell Publishing Co., 1968.BLAUNER, R. Internal colonialism and ghetto revolt. Social problems Notre Dame, In. ,vol. 16, no. 4, 1969. p. 393-408.ORANS, M. Race and class conflict in cross-cuItural perspective. Urban affairs annualreviews Beverley Hills , vol. S, 1971. p. 1-68.REDFIELD, R.; SINGER, M. The cultural role of cities. conomic development andcul-tural change Chicago , vol. 5, no. October 1954. p. 53-73.ORANS, M. op. cit. p. 7-8.DURKHEIM E On the division of l our in society New York, Macmillan, 1933. p. 130.Translated by G Simpson.DUBOIS W E. B he souls fbl rkf lk New York Fawcett, 1961. p 16-7.-. Ibid. p. 17.WAGATSUMA. a ; TOlTON G. Emancipation, growth and transformation of a politicalmovement. n DEVOS, G.; WAGATSUMA, H. eds. Japan s invisible race Berkeley,Unlversity of california Press, 1966. p. 33-67.WAGATSUMA, H. The pariah caste in Japan: history and present self-image. In:DEREuCK, A.; KNt iHT, J. eds. Caste and race: comparative approaches London,Churchill, 1967. p. 118-40.WAGATSUMA, H.;, TOlTON, G. op. cit.ORANS M. op. cit. p. 38.

, .

IIII;lllY: 1

li I jIII iIII jII .

,J 11L 1IillII< t~ l : I 1 Hitlli

Iilill i0111,,11111 11I q

237heories of race and social action

I.23456789101112131415

16

1718


28/28

\.

1Ii

38 Herbert Blumer and Troy Duster

19. WAGATSUMA H TOTION G o p. c it . p. 43.20 ORANS -M. o p. ci t. p . 57.21 BELL P. OR and the s/rategyo non-vio ence. New York Random House 196822. GORDON M. M . Assimilation in American life New York. Oxford University Press 196423 MYRDAL G _ et al. An American dilemma New York Harper 1944.24. BELL I P. op. cit.

Documents

Theories of Race and Social Action