Peter Ratcliffe
Introduction
This chapter will argue that, although many researchers of “race” issues in Britain pay lip service to the need to integrate theory, methods and substantive findings in a coherent fashion, few in fact do so. As with sociological work in other areas, it is all too often the case that reports of empirical work take the form of an “obligatory” (and sometimes perfunctory) theory chapter (s) followed by
“the findings”; giving the impression that “theorizing” and “collecting and interpreting data” are two distinct and separable enterprises. Wrongly, in my view, sociologists often institutionalize these divisions in the delegation of duties within a research team. Thus, for example, survey methodologists are not seen as having anything to contribute to the “real task” of theorizing and similarly the task of analysis is one to be solely entrusted to the “number-crunchers”. In this way the needs of the data analyst can be ignored in early fieldwork. Consequently, theoretical questions may remain unanswerable because of decisions taken quite independently of the initial (theorizing) phase. I would go as far as to argue that most major projects fail in some respects to come to terms effectively with the imperative of a holistic approach.
“Empirical” research will be taken to mean, essentially, instances of conscious
“enquiry-driven” data collection whether this be quantitative or qualitative in focus, survey-based or ethnographic in style. Mainly for reasons of space, historical and library research will be de-emphasized as will, for example, that based on letters, diaries and life histories. This being said, the analysis and use of certain documentary materials such as census (and other official statistical) data cannot be ignored both because of their cen trality to much of the literature and because of the issues they raise in ethical/political, as well as theoretical, terms.
Indeed, in the latter context, they generate some of the same sorts of queries as explicitly “sociological” enquiries, by raising points which require theoretical explication.
The chapter is organized in three parts. First, it attempts to outline some of the major theoretical issues and approaches which dominate the British literature.
Then, given that one cannot do sociological research, especially in a sensitive
area such as “race”, without confronting major ethical and political dilemmas, the second section addresses these concerns. Becker’s (1970) question “Whose side are we on?” is clearly one element of this. But the problems go much deeper in that, even if we are unambiguously committed to one “side” (some would argue a major problem in itself, being an explicit rejection of value-free research), we have to be aware that the other side, or sides, may exploit our work for their own ends. They are raised here largely because they also provoke an interesting series of questions rarely recognized by sociologists, concerning the theoretical insights which these political and ethical dilemmas expose. I would wish to argue in any case that it is totally unacceptable to divorce the activity of research, whether predominantly theoretical or empirical, from its socio-political context.
The third section looks at research styles and, in particular, at the way theoretical issues have been tackled (or evaded?) in recent empirical work. In arguing that fundamental theoretical, methodological (and ethical/political) problems are not confined to one particular research approach but are endemic to all, it takes a critical look at the various paradigms and ask what (if anything) they have contributed to our theoretical knowledge. The chapter then concludes with a brief overview of the major themes and suggests some strategies for further work.
Theoretical issues
Before launching into theoretical debates it is as well to pause for a moment to consider what is meant by “theory”. With the exception of the discussion of overarching paradigms linked, for example, to the work of Weber and Marx, for the purpose of the present chapter it will refer to collections of ideas or propositions about the world which, though possibly not strictly testable in a scientific sense, are nonetheless amenable to empirical investigation. I am essentially dealing, therefore, with the world of what Merton, and others, termed
“middle-range” theories. In Britain the central focus of research has been on structural inequality, and in particular the way in which “racism” in its various guises impinges on the “black” population; especially those of (South) Asian and African-Caribbean origin.
Having said this it is as well to start with some critical observations about the research area as a whole. Far too many writers use terms such as “race”, “class”
and “ethnicity” without any clear appreciation of their underlying meaning (or, in the case of “race”, lack of meaning), or the absence of consensus surrounding their use and interpretation. Thus “race” is equated with a delineation of the population into (say) “white”/“black” or “Asian”/“ZAfrican-Caribben”/“White”.
“Class” is reduced to surrogate indicators such as “working class”/“middle class”
or more commonly perhaps Socio-Economic Group (SEG). “Ethnicity”, despite its conceptual complexity, tends to be seen as virtually coterminous with
THE SALIENCE OF “RACE” 93
“religion” and/ or national identity (see, for example, Bulmer 1986). And
“gender” is often ignored altogether.
There is also considerable dispute (or perhaps more accurately, confusion) among researchers about the use of the terms “immigrant” and “migrant”. Neither adequately describes the collectivities of British residents of non-indigenous origin. Given that approaching 50 per cent of the latter are now British or UK- born, the term “immigrant” is both inappropriate and insulting to those concerned.1
The use of “migrant” and “migrant labour”, for example by Phizacklea &
Miles (1980), Miles (1982) and Phizacklea (1983) is also problematic as a description of those who are British citizens, have settled here and who harbour no “myth of return” (Anwar 1979) to their countries of origin. What the term
“migrant labour” does achieve, however, is a certain theoretical sharpness, in the sense that it provides a broader processual focus. It serves as a reminder that one is talking both about a system of migration, conceptualized by some in terms of an “international division of labour” (cf. Froebel et al. 1980) and also a situation where even “black settlers” are seen by some on the political Right as
“gastarbeiter” who have outstayed their welcome. In other words, it reflects a form of oppressive, and repressive, ideology which is viewed by many social theorists as central to an understanding of the dynamics of contemporary racism.
It should perhaps be stressed at this point, however, that I am not simply talking about the need for greater conceptual clarification as part of an
“objectifying” process aimed at generating more precise indicators. The situation is far more complex. Not only are there major differences in the ways researchers have conceptualized basic social indicators, there are also a variety of paradigms underlying the construction of the middle-range theorizations which concern us here. And, not surprisingly, these issues are at times intimately related. To see this one need look no further than the first concept discussed in this section, namely “race”.
Given the already massive literature on the topic there is no need to add significantly to it here (see, for example, Montagu 1964, Banton 1977, 1987, 1988, van den Berghe 1978, Miles 1982, 1989 and Karn et al. forthcoming).
Suffice it to say that these authors are agreed that there is no scientific justification for the term’s use based as it is on a fallacious biological distinction linked to genotype and phenotype (Montagu op. cit). Some researchers such as Miles (1982) have preferred to see the term as a “mirage”; a socially determined ideological construct. Thus, invidious distinctions are made between groups of individuals, and are ascriptive in nature. In addition, the term is seen to have a reflexive property which contributes to its reification.
The major debate in Britain, however, concerns radically different theoretical and epistemological paradigms. This is seen most clearly in the conflicting approach of scholars such as Rex and Miles; a conflict grounded at one level in the fundamental division between Weberian and Marxian forms of analysis. But this very clear delineation of academic battle lines should not be allowed to
94 “RACE” IN BRITAIN: THEORY, METHODS AND SUBSTANCE
conceal major internal divisions within these “camps” or to obscure the work of those who are aligned to neither. There is no space here to pursue a detailed appraisal of the various streams of thought. On the other hand, this has already been done in a recent volume (Rex & Mason 1986) and our main purpose is to look at the ways in which theorizations impact on the process of empirical research. What follows then is a brief and necessarily somewhat over-simplified outline of theoretical approaches.
Marxian analyses were the subject of an extended essay in the Rex and Mason reader by John Solomos. He argues that contemporary Marxists have largely shaken off the shackles of determinism and functionalism. Whereas earlier accounts, stemming from the work of scholars such as O. C.Cox (1948), were guilty of economism and class reductionism, research since the late 1970s has tended fairly consistently to allocate at least a partially autonomous rôle to
“race”, “ethnicity” and (more recently still) “gender”. Thus accounts such as that of Castles and Kosack (1973) gave way, for example, to the work of Miles (1982, 1987, 1989) and Phizacklea & Miles (1980), on the one hand, and Stuart Hall (1978, 1980) and Birmingham’s cccs (1982) on the other. In the work of Miles and Phizacklea “race” (and gender) are incorporated theoretically using the notion of class fractions. While rejecting race as a “false” construct, racism, or more precisely racialization, is seen as the means by which social actors are located in structurally distinct strata. In the latter case, the authors argue from a critical cultural studies perspective that we need to focus on the production and reproduction of racism and the ideology of “race” at different historical junctures, therefore explicitly rejecting the ahistorical and deterministic analyses of earlier Marxian writers.
Sympathetic critics of the Marxian literature have included two important strands of argument. Robinson (1983) and Rivera Cusicanqui (1988) have attacked what they see as the Eurocentric brand of Marxism which typifies much of this work. Ben Tovim et al. (1986) argue, implicitly at least, that the problem lies in the lack of any real commitment to social change through theory-driven action. In distancing themselves from traditional “case study methodology” they argue that,
[both] as a source of valid knowledge of the processes and conditions of successful/unsuccessful race relations interventions and as a responsible and purposeful use of research resources, our approach is quite as legitimate and useful as those more conventional methods. We would also insist that this is far closer to the spirit of Marxism, the “unity of theory and practice” or “praxis”, than much of the Marxist sociology of race…
that has in recent years institutionalized Marxism within mainstream social science. (ibid: 151)
THE SALIENCE OF “RACE” 95
But this would not in itself satisfy Rivera Cusicanqui, given that she is also worried about the nature of action, and particularly the imposition of classcentric (and in this case also Eurocentric) values by Marxist academics.
It is probably fair to argue that empirical work has not, with the exception of Ben Tovim et al., featured strongly in the work of the above authors. Research of this kind has been dominated by organizations such as the Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations (CRER), the Policy Studies Institute (PSI), the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) and a host of government departments and local authorities. All but the first of these are directly involved in policy-oriented research and as such are not driven principally by theoretical concerns.
Undoubtedly the two major figures in Britain over the last quarter of a century have been John Rex and Michael Banton. Rex, who describes him self as a
“radical Weberian”, was responsible for the two major studies of race relations in Birmingham (Rex & Moore 1967, Rex & Tomlinson 1979). Here the central theme was that actors compete in markets and social (or “class”) conflicts arise from the competing interests of groups formed in this process (cf. “housing classes”, to be discussed below).
Despite heading the forerunner of CRER while it was based in Bristol, Banton has done little empirical work over the past 30 years. Instead he has concentrated on theorizing “race” and on developing “rational choice theory” (Banton 1983), which has been argued by Rex among others to lead to a de-emphasis, or even rejection, of the theoretical centrality of racism as a systematic process.
Except for isolated examples, such as Peter Weinreich, few researchers in Britain have worked within a social psychological framework. Few also explicitly at least, have evoked a plural society model, though some multiculturalists have flirted with the terminology and others such as Banton have been accused of being cultural pluralists (Bourne 1980). Sociobiology, while gaining a following in the USA, appears to have had little impact on the British academic literature, though the same cannot be said for the political sphere, in that some of its ideas have been incorporated within the “new racism”
of the Right.
Rather belatedly “gender” has found its way onto the academic agenda. It is now a commonplace for theorizations to cite the “trinity” of race, class and gender (Parmar 1982, Phizacklea 1983, 1991; Feminist Review 1984). Whether a successful theoretical synthesis has yet been achieved is a mute point but writers such as Carby (1982) have provided a very provocative re-evaluation of existing sociological and historical (or in her terms, “herstorical”) accounts of “race” and
“ethnicity” by showing the way in which analyses are often fairly crudely ethnocentric as well as male-centred. Ware (1992) shows the extent to which
“white” women have historically been part of the “problem” faced by “black”
women.
This debate apart, the central controversy still revolves around the relative salience of race and class. Although there is no parallel debate to that provoked in the USA by William Julius Wilson’s The declining significance of race
96 “RACE” IN BRITAIN: THEORY, METHODS AND SUBSTANCE
(1978), a debate kept alive by his more recent book published in 1987 (see Allen in this volume), there is nevertheless academic controversy as to whether the issue of race can be effectively subsumed within a modified stratification theory.
Some “black” academics, notably Gilroy (1987) would argue not, as would (from very different perspectives) theorists like Rex and Banton. The crux of the argument within Marxian circles, accord ing to Solomos (1989), is the extent to which “race” and “class” are accorded autonomous status.
Perhaps the key question though relates to the acceptability or otherwise of the
“race relations” paradigm. Rex is attacked (Miles 1982: ch. 2) for allegedly reifying the concept of “race” by problematizing “race relations situations” and thereby seeing these as the central research “object”. For Miles the focus should be on the production and reproduction of the ideology of “race”. Hence the objects of study become racism and the process of “racialization”, and not “race relations”. However, much of the debate stems from problems of semantics in that Miles not only takes an overly literal view of Rex’s “race relations”
approach but also misses Rex’s central concern with racism as an object of study and as a result slides rather perversely into a culturally reductionist explanation of
“racial disadvantage” (ibid: 36). Arguably, the notion of “racialization” begs more questions than it answers in that its substantive content is rarely, if ever, specified.
Another possible route is to take Montagu’s (1964) lead and talk not about
“race” but about “ethnic groups” and by implication, a “sociology of ethnic relations”. This fusion, or rather, proposed fusion, of “race” and “ethnicity” has its own problems, however. For one thing, the abandonment of the former term by sociologists will clearly not be followed by its exclusion from contemporary political debates. More importantly, though, the change may well be dangerously mystificatory by switching the focus of major debates from the ideology of
“race” and racism to ethnic differentiation. Thus, the conflict dynamic contained in the work of Rex and others might become obscured, as might fundamental structural questions (Jenkins, 1986). Accordingly, the author in his earlier work (e.g. Ratcliffe 1981), retained the term “race” for theoretical debates involving these social structural concerns, while describing particular collectivities as
“ethnic groups”.
It is nevertheless clear that this is little more than a heuristic solution to a necessarily intractable problem. The “groups” so described are not “groups” in any meaningful sense (hence the use of the more neutral term collectivities). It would, for example, be misleading to assume communalities of interest between category members. (That would be to beg the empirical question.) “Ethnic group” has to be seen for what it is, simply a less pejorative label representing categories of people defined on the basis (in this case) of geographical origin.
A theoretically convincing measure of “ethnicity” would be a different matter entirely, implying a consciousness of group membership. For Bulmer (1986:54) it is
THE SALIENCE OF “RACE” 97
a more inclusive concept than that of race. An “ethnic group” is a collectivity within a larger society having real or putative common ancestry, memories of a shared past, and cultural focus on one or more symbolic elements which define the group’s identity, such as kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance.
It is perhaps not surprising that the paper does not go on to address the question of its measurement in this form. Clearly it would involve a research project in itself. Ignoring the thorny problem of “situational ethnicity” the most realistic measure may well be a composite variable combining geographical origin, birthplace and religion, as far as “objective” indicators are concerned.
Consciousness of group membership could then be assessed by questions on
“self-image” which may stress a number of differing dimensions such as colour/
class/religion/nationality and country of origin. Thus, respondents in the British context may describe themselves as, for example, “Indian Sikh”, “Muslim”,
“Pakistani”, “black middle class” or “black British” (cf. Henry 1982). Each of these potentially tells us a great deal, in a theoretical sense, about an individual’s perception of him/herself, especially if the initial “self definition” question is followed by an effective “probe” to contextualize the response.
The end result of this, of course, is a complex web of “objective” and
“subjective” measures, the latter being internally generated, externally conditioned (as a result of ascriptive rôle allocation) or a mixture of both. The theoretical lessons to be drawn from an exploration of these basic concepts are essentially tied up with the issues of specificational clarity and sensitivity to the vagaries of self-definition in a highly “political” climate.
This issue is considered further later (p. 130). We now turn to the ethical and political problems which are intimately linked to, and also compound, those which are essentially theoretical/methodological.
Politics, ethics and theory
Most sociologists would agree that their research inevitably entails certain ethical responsibilities and has political ramifications of one form or another. It is, of course, no longer even the accepted wisdom among (natural) scientists that they enjoy such freedoms (Watson 1970). Undoubtedly it is in areas such as
“race/ethnicity” that the problems are particularly marked, and need to be openly confronted. What is particularly interesting in the context of the present chapter, though, is the extent to which the nature of research undertaken is influenced by these considerations, and the interaction between “theory development” and
“ethics”.
The first question to be asked is “why study the subject at all?” Although researchers may not acknowledge them, the underlying reasons could be many and varied; voyeurism, paternalism, political commitment to the cause of oppressed peoples, or simply that the problem is “out there”, i.e. is on the
98 “RACE” IN BRITAIN: THEORY, METHODS AND SUBSTANCE