Introduction to Sociology: Ethnicity and ‘Race’

 

We shall examine how ethnicity and ‘race’ are socially constructed.

 

Introduction

a) Discuss the meaning of the following statements:

- Knowledge is power (Francis Bacon)

- Victors write world history (anon)

- Ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class (Marx)

b) We will argue that ‘race’ is a social division (e.g., Caucasian, Africans and Asians), which requires labour, effort and work to manufacture and maintain the distinctive ways of ‘seeing’ others. Vision, power and expertise are inter-connected. ‘Seeing’ is not neutral or natural, but socially constructed.

Although ‘race’ appears to be one of the clearest things about an individual, written on their body as a mark or sign, we will question how visible ‘race’ really is. We will suggest that ‘race’ is connected with power relations in which the dominant group uses statistics, surveys and censuses to racialise the world. The notion of ‘race’, which seems to be obvious and transparent, turns out to be rather unstable and questionable.

c) Commonly, an ethnic group has a shared culture that includes language, customs and religion. Ethnicity refers to culturally distinctive groups, and it is relatively fluid and chosen, and because of this it has positive connotations.

‘Race’, by contrast, is imposed upon us by others, and is supposedly fixed and unchanging feature of the body. ‘Race’ has negative connotations because ‘race relations’ are hierarchical and exploitative (e.g., ‘whites’ versus ‘blacks’). Science is employed to define distinctive racial ‘types’.

However, this distinction between ethnicity as chosen and ‘race’ as an involuntary identity is not so clear-cut.

e.g., ‘Black is beautiful’ and ‘black power’ slogans.

      Minority ethnic categories can be imposed upon us, such as in questionnaires.

 

Identifying ‘Races’

- Stuart Hall and Frantz Fanon

a) Is it apparent that we see ‘races’?

- how visible are ‘races’?

- how are ‘races’ categorised?

- who does the ‘seeing’?

b) It is suggested that ‘race’ is identified by phenotypes and genotypes. Phenotype refers to outer and observable differences (such as skin colour, facial features, body size, skull size, shape of the nose and hair type). Genotype refers to genetic inheritance such as DNA and genes.

It is common to use phenotype for marking ‘race’, yet it is very selective. The relationship between phenotype and ‘race’ is not clear-cut, there are observable differences within ‘races’. Also the nature of observable differences is selective – why use skin colour and not feet size!

What people see is selective, and socially constructed (it is a fiction). We are ‘made’ to pick out certain features as being distinctive. Our observations are organised and managed through our racialised culture.

c) There is a dangerous obsession with colour of skin. First, it falsely suggests internal and underlying features of the individual:

e.g., black skin (and smaller skull size and larger body frame) shows weaker mental intelligence.

Second, the skin obsession reduces individual behaviour and attitudes to phenotypes:

e.g., sexual prowess and physical strength of black people.

Third, skin colour and other physical features are not neutral but have severe implications in terms of hierarchical classifications.

d) Expert knowledge (science) produces a system of differentiation and inequality. This means grouping humans on the basis of ‘racial’ commonality and differences, though this remains chaotic. Association is made between ‘white’ with mind and intelligence, and ‘black’ with body and strength.

 

‘Racial’ Governmentality

- Michel Foucault and Nikolas Rose

a) Vision, observation and categorisation are linked to a notion of the ‘gaze’. This is organised perception through which individuals are made visible, classified and hierarchised. It is an exercise of power through bureaucratic procedures; e.g., censuses and surveys. The gaze constructs and categorises social divisions, such as categories of ‘white’, ‘mixed’ and ‘black, but they are not neutral but ideological.

b) According to Foucault, power creates knowledge for the purpose of control. Expert knowledge helps to define what is to be counted, and justifies a particular way of counting rather than another form of counting. This is not merely a technical issue, but one of ideological control. In effect, the census is a way of knowing and a way of counting. It organises information in a particular way to reinforce power and ideology; thus, the link between ‘race’, power and knowledge.

Foucault suggests that government involves not only physical control and violence, but new technologies of governance, including using census so that people see themselves in a way that maintains social order and existing power relationships. He also argues that procedures, calculations, rules and reflections help to shape the social world, and makes political interventions by regulating and managing the population. The government’s power occurs not only through physical violence (police and army), but also through mental framings – i.e., governmentality.