Fractured Identities by Harriet Bradley

Author:Harriet Bradley
Language: eng
Format: mobi, epub
Publisher: Wiley
Published: 2015-12-21T04:30:00+00:00

Defining Terms: ‘Race’, Ethnicity and Nationality

Discussion of racial inequality has often become bogged down in debates about the appropriate usage of the key concepts of ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ and related terms such as racism, racialism and racialization. Disputes also relate to what terms should be used to describe various ethnic groups. Terms like ‘coloured’ (now thoroughly discredited) or ‘Black’ can be attacked as being themselves racist, or alternatively as being essentialist and covering up real differences among groups so categorized. By and large, sociologists have tried to use the terms which are preferred by members of the various groups themselves. In Britain, the term ‘Black’ was adopted by Black Caribbean and Asian activists as a chosen political identity. The term ‘of colour’ was used in the same way in America. But it can be claimed that such umbrella terms conceal the distinct situations of the different groups involved (Modood 1992); Modood has argued that the specific experience of British Asian groups has been subsumed into ‘Black’ writings that chiefly express the viewpoint of those of African origin. In this book, I have used ‘Black’ and ‘of colour’ where it seemed appropriate to refer to political alliances across ethnic minorities or because these terms are used by authors whose work is under discussion. Otherwise, I specify which particular ethnic groups are concerned.

These debates have been amply explored elsewhere (for example, Miles 1989; Mason 1992). Here I merely indicate how the terms are used in this book. I have drawn particularly on the usages proposed by Floya Anthias and Nira Yuval-Davis, whose approach seems to me analytically coherent and useful.

‘Race’

‘Race’ as a common-sense usage refers to the idea that human beings can be divided into sub-groups which have different origins and are distinguished by biological differences. Such differences can be seen as ‘phenotypical’ (relating to physical appearances such as skin colour or hair type) or ‘genotypical’ (relating to underlying genetic differences). These ideas were given backing in the nineteenth century by scientists who extended the systems of classification developed for the study of plants and animals to distinguish different sub-species of Homo sapiens: a popular taxonomy distinguished Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid races. Modern genetic science tends to reject the concept of race as invalid (although this is still disputed). Even if originally distinct racial types could be distinguished, centuries of migration and interbreeding make the idea that each individual has a specific racial make-up extremely problematic.

Within sociology, ‘race’ is considered a non-scientific category, and for that reason Miles has consistently argued (1982, 1989) that we should reject the concept altogether. He states that it is an ideological construct: its use only serves to give respectability to discredited racist ideas. But other sociologists have pointed out that all forms of social category (such as class and gender) are constructs. Since such constructs inform the way people think and act in relation to others, the effects of ‘race’ are very real (Cashmore and Troyna 1983; Gilroy 1987). ‘Race’ can be viewed as a form of social relationship to which racial meanings are attached by the participants (Mason 1992).

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.