CRITICAL SOCIAL RESEARCH

MAIN MENU

Basics

Class

Gender

Race

Conclusion

References

About Critical Social Research (1990)

Search

Contact

© Lee Harvey 1990, 2011, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2023, 2024

Page updated 8 January, 2024

Citation reference: Harvey, L., [1990] 2011, Critical Social Research, available at qualityresearchinternational.com/csr, last updated 8 January, 2024, originally published in London by Unwin Hyman, all rights revert to author.

A novel of twists and surpises

Each of these studies deals with racial oppression. They essentially examine race as a construct of racism. They do not see 'race' as implying inherent characteristics but treat it as a socially constructed abstraction that becomes a concrete entity only as racist practices and structures are made explicit. Race as a social construct is thus not addressed by reference to any essential element but instead the nature of specific forms of racism are analysed: Ladner addresses the myth of Black culture; Duffield deconstructs the myth of workplace skill as it encapsulates racist practices; Ben-Tovim et al. fill out the empty abstract notion of local politics and anti-racism; and Weis similarly explicates taken-for-granted cultural concepts, such as 'success' and 'time', that are at the interface of the conflict between students and college authorities.

All the examples linked racism to institutionalised structures of oppression and adopted an essentially hegemonic view of ideology in which racism served the interests of a dominant power élite. Ladner, who operates within the limited horizons of 1960s American sociological theorising, does not address ideology directly but alludes to white middle-class hegemonic culture and defines institutionalised racism by reference to normative patterns. Despite this uncritical terminology, her analysis reflects an embryonic critical analysis of dominant ideology. Weis develops this by adopting a Gramscian view of hegemony and links ideology directly to culture. Like Ladner, she sees blacks as superexploited and black culture as dialectically linked to dominant culture. Duffield and Ben-Tovim et al. were less inclined than Ladner to see racism as determined simply by capitalist modes of production in which blacks are a superexploited underclass. They posit a much more complex process of hegemonic dominance, although not coming to radically different praxiological conclusions.

Praxis informs all these examples. Ladner wants to raise black consciousness against the norm of white-middle class culture and galvanise blacks into resistance in the face of further oppressive measures. Weis argues that by focusing on culture the ideology of the community college and the general attitude towards the education of blacks is exposed. She wants to do something about the community college system and suggests policy changes although admitting the limits of such intervention because of structural factors. Her hope is that with increased awareness to which her book contributes, the semi-autonomous nature of culture might make it possible for student cultural forms to develop radical transformative potential. Ben-Tovim et al., rather than suggesting particular policy changes offered a basis for local political action to engage racism. Duffield, sceptical of the role of multi-cultural workers, intended his work as an example of the radical potential of Black and Asian workers.

All the examples approach race and racism from a totalistic perspective. Although asking what are the processes that are involved in the coming to womanhood of poor Black girls, Ladner addresses a much wider context than the socialising effect of the family. Indeed, she looks beyond the confines of the ghetto to assess the processes of institutionalised racism and forms of resistance that characterise American society. Weis, similarly, in asking why Black students have such little success in community colleges addresses not just the impact of college culture but, similarly to Willis (1977), its relationship to Black culture in general. Black (ghetto) culture is itself viewed by examining its relationship to dominant (white) culture. Ben-Tovim et al. in assessing the local processes that give rise to and maintain racial inequality did not just focus on the internal workings of the Labour Party in Liverpool and Wolverhampton but assessed the ways the local process responded to and drew on wider forms of legitimation stemming from central government and populist consciousness. Duffield, in asking why there was a concentration of Indian workers in the West Midlands foundry industry was not content to look at the internal workings of the industry but related it to broader issues of immigration policy and national trade union initiatives on migrant workers. He ultimately assessed the way the interests of a dominant bloc including government, employers and trade unionists coalesced to inhibit the radicalism of Indian workers.

History informs all the studies. For Ladner, blacks have a history from Africa through slavery that impinges on their culture and thus the way in which they cope with and engage oppression. For Weis, history is a background resource. The history of the education system out of which community colleges grew, individual biographies, and the general history of racial oppression provide a context although the focus of her attention is structural. Ben-Tovim et al. similarly document the history of immigration legislation and associated racist policy in order to provide a context within which local battles against racial discrimination have been and continue to be fought. Duffield's study, on the other hand, is essentially an historical analysis of immigrant workers in which the West Midlands foundry workers are a case study.

Most of the studies were, in one way or another, critical of prevailing sociological approaches. The criticism was directed not just at particular theories but at the basic preconceptions (although, of course, they are not all in agreement). Ladner directly engaged the racism embodied in the 'pathological' model and the objectivism and hierarchy of the positivistic approach. Ben-Tovim et al. wanted on the one hand to assert, against 'positivistic objectivism', the validity of direct action to engage racism while on the other countering what they saw as the indifference of Marxists towards ameliorative action. Duffield reasserted the denial of the still prevalent 'problem' thesis of immigration but also attacked the whole sociological and political drift towards multiculturalism with its reification of cultural differences. Weis, alone, was less condemnatory of existing approaches and adopted an existing thesis (Willis, 1977) and applied it to a different set of circumstances.

MAIN MENU Basics