assignment:
Date Received by
58117156 Name:Charles Brand
tutor:
Date Sent to
Oscail:
Overall Mark Obtained:
Summary of Performance*
Performance Bands
Excellen Very Good Fair Weak Poor Not
Components
t Good (H2.2) (H3) applicable
(H1) (H2.1)
Marks
70-100%
Attention to assignment
task
Analysis
Structure
Use of sources
References
Introduction
Conclusion
Spelling/Grammar
Presentation (Style)
* This table facilitates the assessment of your performance in selected components of your assignment, and is
designed to alert you to the general areas of strength and/ or in need of improvement in your work. Please note that
the components are not equal in terms of contribution to your overall mark. Attention to Assignment Task,
Analysis and Structure are the three most important criteria for assessment. Please note that the total mark
ANNOTATED FEEDBACK
1.
2.
What contribution do the theoretical perspectives on race and racism make to the understanding of
racism in Ireland?
Introduction
The inclusion of the words “race” and “racism” in the assignment title is salutary since their
validity as descriptors of particular groups of people within sociological discourse is a matter of debate,
and thus illustrates the case in point. Miles (1984) contends that despite the fact that these terms have
become commonplace and pedestrian in the public psyche they remain inadequate for the sociological
study of different populations. Gilroy (1987) asserts that use of these terms compel sociologists to adopt
an analytical approach to the study of tradition and collective identities. However, adopting the language
of racism in order to analyse it is at best paradoxical, as highlighted by Garner (2010) or at worst could
be viewed as endorsing the essentialist tenet that underpins common sense approaches to this subject.
Hence, the terminology itself is stricken to confound those within the very discipline that seek to pull into
Notwithstanding the lexical issues endemic within sociology as it attempts to deal with the “race”
question, there is general agreement about what the term does not mean. It is not a delineator of
physical characteristics by which groups can be categorised (Garner, 2010). This conclusion was not
arrived at vis á vis recent reflections on our historical evolution; to the contrary, it was a view expressed
in 1911 by eminent physicist and physical anthropologist Franz Boas who challenged the very idea of race
“‘differences between different types of man [races] are, on the whole, small as compared to
the range of variation within each type” (Boas cited in Caspari, 2009:11).
Anthropologically and biologically speaking then the term “race” has had no foundation for over a
hundred years. However, across the academic, political and cultural spectrum the determination to create
a hierarchy of “races” has been dogged, persistent and dedicated, so the question a sociologist must ask
is; why? In answer to this question the problem of definition must again by addressed, however it is
pertinent to alter the perspective slightly. To ask what is “race” is fraught with difficulty, as demonstrated
below, but to ask why must there be “races” is an altogether more sociologically probing query. This
assignment will trace the main theoretical perspectives to provide an overall summary of the sociological
viewpoints that contemplate questions of race and racism. It will then consider in detail the perspectives
of new racism and the racial state in order to superimpose these positions on the uniquely Irish situation.
While all sociological conceptualisations of racism are relevant to the Irish case, the central argument will
treat the process by which the language and mechanism of new racism became structurally incorporated
Sociology has benefited from psychological levels of analysis that attempt to explain prejudice
and racist attitudes in the individual, and the means by which these attitudes become incorporated into
the collective psyche of the population through conformity and normalisation (Garner, 2010). The
psychology of prejudice is developed from several inter-related elements; the emotional, the cognitive
and the behavioural, which give rise to prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination respectively (Aronson,
Wilson & Akert, 1999). These phenomena can be incorporated into sociological discourses and related to
various theoretical perspectives, for example how the racialisation of specific groups is justified and
supported through forms of social stratification. Psychological approaches seek to explain how people
internalise perceptions of inequality and project their frustration onto others in order to help create their
“imagined community” (Anderson, 1983). These approaches can also illuminate sociological perspectives
of the social construction of race and the role of the social “narrative” (Bhabha, 1990).
Race relations theory as proposed by Bryce (1902) posited that various races competed for
resources and that this process had a number of possible outcomes for both the “weaker” and “stronger”
races. Whereas Bryce attributed the competition between groups to natural differences, Park (1950)
posited that it was the perception of those apparent differences that was responsible for the various
social outcomes. Shortly thereafter, sociological definition of race emerges (Garner, 2010) as Park's fluid
view of race relations was further explored by Mac Griél (1977). Race relations were framed within a
sliding scale of stances or group postures towards each other. Ranging from genocide to pluralism, these
stances can be applied to many situations throughout recent history, e.g. the genocide of the Acholi and
Langi tribes during the reign of Idi Amin in Uganda during the 1970s, the expulsion (or ethnic cleansing)
of Croatians from Bosnia and Herzegovinia by the Serbian military during the mid 1990s and the
segregation (separation by law) of Blacks from Whites in the U.S.A. The race relations paradigm
influenced the language register used in related legal enactments e.g. the Race Relations Act of 1965 in
the U.K. and the Civil Rights Act 1964 in the U.S. Ironically, while sociologists were busily arguing over
the validity of the terms, the resultant discourse copper-fastened the term “race” within equality theory,
As opposed to traditional Marxists, neo-Weberians do not view issues of race and ethnicity as
distractions or states of false consciousness that allow the continued domination of workers through the
control of the means of production. For neo-Weberians such as Rex (1986), ethnicity and race are defined
by the structures of class and inter-group conflict which are inexorably connected to the means of
production and the political systems supporting them (Spencer, 2006). Race is viewed as part of the
system of social stratification where “racial” groups compete unequally (due to membership of a
particular race) for power and resources; this is similar to but distinct from the Marxist focus on economic
relationships. The markets, that is, the sites of competition between groups that Weber labelled “classes”,
“status groups” and “parties” (Weber, 1968), are located in structural institutions such as employment,
housing and education. Rex (1986) connected various groups' positions within the market situation to
Rex (1988) also demonstrates acute awareness of the connected nature of the historical and
social; he links capitalism in the colonial era and contemporary times, and highlights the lasting effect it
exerts upon people of different races. In summary, Rex (1988) states that in colonial times a rigid
interpretation of most societies with regard to Marxist economic classes was not strictly valid due to the
number of “functional” entities that lay between classes, that is, missionaries, freed slaves, poor whites,
etc. As a more modern and liberalised society evolved and social mobility became more commonplace
these functional groups developed into the more recognisable collectives within a traditional Marxist
interpretation of a class structure. However, the resultant class structure was “...profoundly affected by
the historical colonial legacy” (Rex, 1988:71) and this in turn had direct consequences for the formation
of groups involved in forms of social action e.g. trade unions or political parties that became formed along
racial and ethnic lines. Hence, despite someone experiencing substantial social mobility in a more modern
society, their rights and choice of social action groups was still defined by their ancestor's place in society,
as determined by colonialism. This is similar to the experience of individuals within groups which are
members in the U.S. Membership of such a group can be often associated with a certain biological
ancestral heritage, and perceived associated problematic behaviour, on occasion determined by historical
colonialism.
Marxism is a theoretical approach based in conflict and therefore could be viewed as uniquely
appropriate when attempting to explain racism. However, the major obstacle for neo-Marxist writers has
been the prevalence of racism throughout various societies and at different points in time while
simultaneously they contend that race is not a significant factor when analysing class. As Garner (2010)
highlights, neo-Marxist writers such as Miles (1984) and Hall et al (1978) have to explain the divisive
effects of racism in a society in which they deem class and not race as the defining factor of people's
identity. In response Miles (1989) argued that in the labour market, it is only when there is an over-
supply of labour that colour becomes a significant discriminating factor; before this scenario all workers
are exploited equally based on their class position. Other neo-Marxist scholars do not agree, however,
and for them it is the degree of emphasis attributable to race within a class level of analysis that should
be at the heart of the debate. This was the interpretation of Griffiths and Hope (2000) when they
expounded the perspectives of Hall (1980), and also that of Gabriel and Ben-Tovim (1979), who suggest
two autonomous models of race. Gabriel and Ben-Tovim (1979) see race as strictly autonomous i.e. as
arising from practices within political and historical processes and so independent of both social relations
and the class structure. Hall (1980) also posits that racism does emerge as a result of historical
consequences but affects social relationships, even though it may occur independently; therefore race
and class should be examined in conjunction with each other. However, Gilroy (1987) criticises the neo-
Marxist position on racism for failing to give adequate weight to other factors that de-emphasise class as
a separative element e.g. forms of solidarities that consolidate people regardless of class such as ex-pat
communities in the Middle East. It also ignores culture as a domain for conflict and cannot account for the
Neo-Marxism may have been considered colour-blind with regard to race and racism, but
according to the Black-feminist movement it was also gender-blind, or more specifically, it neglected
gender entirely. Hill-Collins (2000) does postulate on the role and position of minority female groups,
particularly black women within the U.S. “matrix of domination” (p. 230). Yuval-Davis (1997) delineates
women's issues within a framework of nationalist thinking, that is, motherhood, fertility and women as
symbols of nationality. Hill-Collins (2000) builds upon this to specify the role of women in U.S. Society in
general. The role being perceived as production of the next generation, instruction of that generation in
accepted American national values, and the acceptance of those values themselves. However, according
to Hill-Collins these processes have become completely racialised and occur in a class-specific domain.
This leads to a hierarchy of accepted “American values” the structure of which is race dependent i.e. the
values of white, middle-class women are more desirable than those of poor black women. This places all
women in different positions “...within gender, class, race and nation as intersecting systems of power”
(Hill-Collins, 2000:230). There are strong parallels between Hill-Collins' views on women's positions in
the U.S. and the role of women during the nation building exercise that took place in Ireland from the
1920s onwards. Religion (as opposed to a racially connected value system) was used in Ireland as part of
the dominant ideology to control women's fertility and ingrain into the Irish practical consciousness an
ideal stereotype for women, i.e. married, domiciled, hard-working and a producer of children. In the U.S.
“unsuitable” women were marginalised through coercive population policies designed to discourage
reproduction (Roberts, 1997). In contrast, the Irish Catholic church and government colluded to
physically remove unsuitable non-married mothers from the nation's population landscape altogether by
placing them in institutions where they worked and “...lived in prison-like conditions” (Nic Ghiolla
Phádraig, 1995:200).
In 1998 the American Anthropology Association issued a formal position paper on “Race”. In
“"Race" thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about
Unfortunately, the association appears to have missed a significant shift in racist ideology by
roughly twenty-five years. As Garner (2010) explains, as of the mid-1970s, arguments based on
racial differences have been conceived of as crude and thus unsuitable as a basis for political policy
within western liberal democracies. New racism re-coded “racial” differences as “cultural” ones,
thereby side-stepping the awkward associations with overt racist ideology. However, replacing
racist words with racist connotations does not remove the racism. Public reaction to Margaret
Thatcher's 1978 statement regarding immigration was negative, despite her references to cultural
“I think it means that people are really rather afraid that this country might be rather
swamped by people with a different culture and, you know, the British character has done so
much for democracy, for law and done so much throughout the world that if there is any fear
that it might be swamped people are going to react and be rather hostile to those coming in.”
In the Irish case, blatant references to “cultural” difference rarely find public approval. However,
the “cultural” differences question is one that plays on the mind of the public and this concern is
expressed in opinion polls (European Commission, 2007). This demonstrates that people in Irish
society seem to carry dual perceptions of the representation of new racism, and the appropriate
The last twenty years in Ireland has seen unprecedented levels of immigration. Although the Irish
government has set up various committees and introduced legislation intended to prevent discrimination
and racism (e.g. The National Consultative Committee on Racism and the Employment Equality act 1998)
a tacit association between asylum seekers, immigration and “black” or specifically African people has
been cemented into the Irish practical consciousness (Dywer & Bressy, 2008). New Racist rhetoric is
frequently employed by politicians e.g. Noel O'Flynn who referred to asylum seekers as “spongers,
freeloaders and people screwing the system” (Ruddock, 2002). Proponents are then accused of playing
the “race card” and are publicly reprimanded by party leaders. However, the entire scenario is
contradictory: the sentiments expressed by political leaders is antithetical to actual government policy, as
highlighted by Dwyer & Bressey (2008). Asylum has been the predominant method by which citizens of
countries with largely non-white populations can gain entry into Ireland, but during the beginning of the
1990s the Irish government issued work visas, permits and work authorisations to largely white countries
in order to meet its rocketing demand for workers. These actions thereby implicitly connected non-white
asylum seekers with immigration and so created a mainly “black” immigration problem. Irish government
policies such as the Immigration Bill of 1999 and the amended Refugee Act of 2000 served to lend
legislative weight to this New Racist stance in what was becoming an increasingly racialised State.
Goldberg (2001) argues that the West's relationship with the developing world is based on
centuries-old notions of race and racial naturalism. In addition, the universal freedoms enshrined in the
big liberal-democratic nation states are based on the three conditions of property-holding, gender and
race. This is evident in the government's policy on Irish Travellers and their place in our society. While not
strictly a culture from the third world in the vein of Goldberg (2001), traveller culture and travellers are
viewed by some local and national politicians as less civilised and so not deserving of the same rights as
non-travellers (Mac Laughlin, 1995). Traveller tradition has been presented in racialised discourses. Their
nomadic life-style (i.e. non-property holding) is presented as one of the main “problems” of traveller
culture (Fanning, 2002). At a local government level, the gravity of the situation for travellers and their
difficulties in finding accommodation suitable to their way of life can be gauged by the response of many
local councils to the 1998 Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act, i.e. the non-fulfilment of the many
local councils' statutory requirements to provide an agreed number of halting sites for travellers in their
counties. From a national political perspective, the response to problems between property-owning
residents in towns and cities and travellers was the introduction of section 24 of the Housing
(Miscellaneous provisions) Act 2002, better known as the Anti-Trespass Act, which made it illegal to park
caravans on the roadside. Implementing legislation to physically marginalise travellers in halting sites on
peripheral urban locations, however, could be viewed, after Mac Gréil, as segregative. Attempting to
“settle” travellers could also be seen as an attempt to assimilate them into the dominant settled view of
Irish society (Fanning, 2002). Hence, evaluating State Racism and its effects is not straightforward since
issues surrounding non-normative (but legal) behaviour and life-styles invariably become blended with
positions on individual rights (of the property owning settled community) and the recognition or
avoidance of issues pertinent to a collective minority and their right to self-determination.
Conclusion
Black people in American society, travellers in Ireland or some members of the large migrant
workforce around Europe all experience levels of discrimination because of their “out-group” status.
Particular to each group however is the basis on which their difference to the “in-group” is determined to
pose a risk. For Black-Americans, religion was contorted as a means to justify perceptions of laziness and
sexual predation. This was exploited in order to justify a down-grading of their status to that of “sub-
human”, thus permitting their exploitation to fill dwindling labour stocks in the newly discovered Americas
(Garner, 2010). For Travellers in Ireland, themes of “mess” and “cost” remain predominant in public
discourse regarding their situation. This serves to deflect attention from the issues surrounding their
adverse treatment (Richardson, 2006). For migrant workers all over Europe their perceived transitory
status undermines their basic human rights and denies them equality in terms of citizenship acquisition,
therefore undermining their position within the incumbent legal system (Mac Donald & Cholewinski,
2007).
As Garner (2004) states “..collective identities are multiple and political” (p. 8) and this is evident
in the multivariate, politically-charged elements within discourse that attempts to conceptualise race and
racism. However, the reified nature of race has facilitated a few in the control of “in-group” status. Race,
along with its positive connotations for those within the “in-group” and negative connotations for those in
the “out-group”, continues to assert itself at the interpersonal and the global level. The objective for
sociological discourse continues to be the achievement of clarity of thinking regarding an issue that is so
Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D., Akert, R.M. 1999. Social Psychology. (3rd ed). New York:Longman.
Bhabha, H.K. 1990. Narrating the Nation. In Bhabha, H.K. ed. Nation and Narration. London:Routledge.
Bryce, J. 1902. The Relations of the Advanced and Backward Races of Mankind. [e-book]
Relations_of_the_Advanced_and_the_Backward_Races_of_Mankind.djvu> [accessed
07/04/2011].
Caspari, R. 2009. 1918: Three perspectives on race and human variation. American Journal of Physical
Dwyer, C., Bressey, C. 2008. New Geographies of Race and Racism. London:Ashgate Publishing.
European Commission, 2007. Eurobarometer 66:Public Opinion in the European Union. [Online]. Available
through:<http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb66/eb66_en.pdf >[accessed
07/04/2011].
Fanning, B. 2002. Racism and Social Change in the Republic of Ireland. Manchester:Manchester
University Press.
Gabriel, J., Ben-Tovim, G. 1978. Marxism and the Concept of Racism. Economy and Society, 7,(2), pp.
118-154.
Garner, S. 2010. Prejudice and Intergroup Relations. In: Mc Keogh, K. & Graham, T. eds. Sociology 4
Griffiths, J., Hope, T. 2000. Access to Sociology: Stratification and Differentiation. London:Hodder and
Stoughton.
Hall, S. 1980. Race, articulation and societies structured in dominance in Sociological Theories: race and
Hill-Collins, P. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of
Empowerment. London:Routledge
Mac Donald, E., Cholewinski, R. 2007. The Migrant Workers Convention in Europe - Obstacles to the
Ratification of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers
Mac Laughlin, 1995. Travellers and Ireland: Whose Country, Whose History? Cork:Cork University Press.
Nic Ghiolla Phádraig, M. 1995. The Power of the Catholic Church in the Republic of Ireland. In: P. Clancy,
Rex, J. 1988. Theories of race and ethnic relations. Rex, J. & Mason, D. eds. Cambridge:Cambridge
University Press.
Richardson, J. 2006. The Gypsy Debate: Can Discourse Control? Exeter:Imprint Academic.
Roberts, D. 1997. Killing the Black Body:Race, Reproduction and the Meaning of Liberty. New
York:Pantheon Books.
Ruddock, A. 2002. Bertie must confont Noel O'Flynn's full-frontal defiance. Irish Independent. Sunday
Spencer, S. 2006. Race and ethnicity: culture, identity and representation. New York:Routledge.
Weber, M. 1968. Economy and Society. Roth, G. & Wittich, C. eds. New York:Bedminister.
World in Action. 1978. Granada Television [Television]. Friday January 30th, 20.30.