Race and ethnicity
Race and ethnicity are modern concepts. They have their origins in the global expansion of European societies, which gathered pace from the late fifteenth century onwards. The process of rapid social change that followed culminated in the transformation of European societies from primarily rural-agricultural to urban-industrial formations. This was also a period in which ways of thinking about, and explaining, natural and social phenomenon also began to change as science, in recognisably modern form, gradually developed.
Their growing exploration of other parts of the world brought Europeans increasingly into contact with other human societies, ranging from small isolated groups of hunter-gatherers to large, complex states and empires. What appears to have struck explorers most forcefully, particularly those from England, were differences of physical appearance between themselves and others. The most striking of these seems to have been skin colour and it is notable that an early distinction emerged between those who had what was described as a 'black' in contrast to a 'white' skin.
This characterisation was of considerable importance because of the way in which the colours black and white were emotionally loaded with concepts in the English language. Not only was the contrast one which denoted polar opposites but while 'white' represented good, purity, and virginity, 'black' was the colour of death, evil, and debasement. As a result, it is frequently argued that great care needs to be taken in the use of language in a multi-ethnic society if the reproduction of the negative connotations of blackness is to be avoided.
Thinking points:- Think of the nursery rhyme 'ba ba black sheep', the use of the terms 'black board', 'black market’ ,’black mail’
- Do you agree that language can be discriminatory? Or do you think it is 'political correctness gone mad'?Spend a few minutes jotting down your ideas.
Race as an ideological Construct
It has been argued that race is an ideological construct. Robert Miles (1982; 1993) argues that its use serves only to legitimise it, giving comfort to those who would wish still to maintain that there are indeed real biological differences between groups of humans.
The race concept that emerged in the race science of the 19th and early 20th centuries linked physical variation with personal, social, and cultural competencies. It was this that enabled science to be enlisted as a justification for differential treatment. Thus race was always more than just a way of thinking about and describing human difference. It was a social relationship characterised by unequal distribution of power and resources. Beliefs about race, and the stereotyped images of others which they entailed, were among the symbolic resources which were mobilised by dominant groups in their efforts to protect their positions of power.
Sociologically, then, race does not refer to categories of human beings (whether biologically or socially constituted). Rather race is a social relationship in which structural positions and social actions are ordered, justified, and explained by reference to systems of symbols and beliefs which emphasise the social and cultural relevance of biologically rooted characteristics. In other words, the social relationship race presumes the existence of racism.
The term 'racism' is almost as contentious as race. It is a concept denoting attitudes, beliefs, and ideologies and social actions and structures.
There has been an increasing tendency in recent years to use the term to refer not merely to the propagation of ideas about biological race but more widely to apply to any expression of inter-group hostility or ethnocentrism.
Some have argued that the old style biological racism has increasingly been replaced by a ‘new racism'. Proponents of the idea that there is a 'new racism' draw attention to the increasing frequency with which political arguments in favour of the exclusion of migrants, or the segregation of members of different population groups, appeal to notions of cultural incompatibility and to the allegedly mutually disruptive and negative consequences of forcing such cultures to mix. These ideas can be found in, for example, arguments about so-called minority (or group) rights in South Africa and more recently the debate about asylum seekers and refugees.
This can be seen in the way peoples experience of health services was different compared to the host communities in the UK. Take a look at this clip of a person who came to the UK from And his experience of racism in the NHS
Things did change and here we see an account that reflects the developments made in the NHS in particular.
Thinking points:- To what extent do you think racism still occurs in Britain?
- What impacts do you feel migration had on people's health?
The NHS and Race
The National Health Service (NHS) was founded on the principle of providing appropriate and accessible health care services to the British population. Since its inception in 1948, changes in the demography of the British society, in part brought by post war immigration and settlement in response to acute labour shortages and by more recent influxes of refugee populations, have created new and additional challenges to those involved in health care. Specifically they need to respond to ethnic diversity in the provision of health care services, while previously occupying a marginalised position in health policy and service delivery, has come increasingly to the fore.
In addition, there is a growing recognition of the inequities and inequalities evident in health and health care provision and how these may impact upon the experiences of minority ethnic communities, with the result that increasing attention is being paid to the need to provide services which avoid discrimination and promote equality of opportunity (Smaje, 1995).
The response to the arrival and settlement of migrant communities in Britain after the Second World War provides the framework within which contemporary 'race relations' are usually understood. A core feature of this response was the belief that Britain had suddenly become 'multi-ethnic', and that the host population had been faced with the novel challenge of ethnic diversity.
Ethnicity
The term 'race' is often used in a way that purports to identify differences between human population groups. This usage has been discredited scientifically. The only legitimate sociological usage is one, which identifies race as a particular kind of social relationship constructed in, and through, racist reasoning.
An alternative way of thinking about human diversity is one, which invokes the concept of ethnicity. There is no single, universally accepted definition of ethnicity. Most academic commentators would stress some sort of cultural distinctiveness as the mark of ethnic grouping.
Ethnicity, is more a matter of process by which boundaries are created and maintained between ethnic groups
Thinking points:- Why monitor ethnicity in NHS services?
- You may want to visit these web sites to assist in your thinking:
Measuring/assessing ethnicity is not simple, consider the following:
- What would you class as your ethnic group?
Ethnicity is situational. The implication is that people have different ethnic identities in different situations. Their salience is affected by such factors as the distribution of desired resources and the objectives of the people concerned. Thus it is possible to be simultaneously English, British, and European, stressing these identities more or less strongly in different aspects of daily life. Similarly, the same person might identify as Gujerati, Indian, Hindu, East African Asian, or British depending on situation, immediate objectives, and the responses and behaviour of others.
Ethnicity in Britain
In Britain, ethnicity seems to signify an allegiance to the country of origin and implies a degree of choice and a possibility for change. This highlights two observations.
- First, the emphasis on choice and change could easily lead to a naive view that the 'absorption' or ‘assimilation' of newcomers or migrants is only a matter of time. A related implication is that the responsibility for continued patterns of disadvantage is to be laid at the door of those who stubbornly refuse to change - to adopt 'our ways'.
- The second aspect concerns the tendency for the term 'ethnic' to refer only to those who are thought of as different from some assumed indigenous norm. In this connection it is interesting to note that the sole category in the ethnic classification system utilised by one a police force was - 'Ethnic'. Talk of and ethnic 'look' in the world of fashion is only one example of the way white British people are apt to see ethnicity as an attribute only of others - something that distinguishes 'them' from 'us'. One might perhaps add that the apparent denial of their own ethnicity (which is, perhaps, more properly seen as an English, rather than a British phenomenon) also seems to be associated with distinctively individualistic views.
Thus English people are apt to conceptualise themselves as individuals, while outsiders are seen as members of groups. The greater the degree of cultural difference between themselves and others, the more likely they are to see 'groupishness' as a characteristic of the behaviour and motivations of those others. In these circumstances the attribution of ethnicity to others may become part of a process of denial of legitimacy to claims on resources by those concerned. Also the political and popular discourse often uses the term 'ethnicity' in ways which suggest distinctions based primarily upon physical markers such as skin colour and not infrequently, and erroneously, as a surrogate for biological race.
Ethnic Minority
All to often the popular understanding is that a 'minority group' refers to a groups size in respect of numbers. Indeed, looking at the categories suggested in the previous page, ethnic minorities make up about 6% of the total population of the UK.
However, the term indicates that minorities are those groups in subordinate positions irrespective of their relative size. There are, however, difficulties with this option. There is a danger, particularly within formally democratic political systems, that the term 'minority' may embody the implication that the designated group is numerically, and hence politically and morally, less significant than the 'majority'. Moreover, this terminology is confusing and, to some, offensive since it involves, for example, using the term minority to refer to women - a majority of the population in Britain - and to black people in South Africa - an overwhelming numerical majority.
In Britain the term 'minority' is rarely used on its own but is usually qualified with the word 'ethnic'. This term is widely understood in Britain to denote a category of people whose recent origins lie in the countries of the New Commonwealth and Pakistan; in other words, in former British colonies in the Indian subcontinent, the Caribbean, Africa, and, sometimes the so called Far East. Two points seem to be significant here.
- The first is that, despite the implicit reference to cultural difference entailed in the term 'ethnic', not every group having a distinctive culture and constituting a minority in the British population is normally included. Thus, the large communities of people of Polish, Ukrainian, and Italian origin to be found in many British cities are rarely thought of as constituting ethnic minorities.
- The second point, which follows from the first is that, in fact the criterion which distinguishes those to whom the term normally refers is skin colour.
Thinking points:
- How would you define the term 'ethnic minority'?
- How do you think the term ethnic minority is used in Britain today (think about national documents and governmental reports - which groups of people do they use it to refer to?)
Assimilation, Multiculturalism, Anti-Racism and Community Cohesion
The governments that have shaped policy since the 1960's have adopted various strategies to attempt to deal with the issue of migrant communities to this country. These are:
Assimilation
With the arrival of the African Caribbean and Asian migrants, the assumption of the governments throughout the 1950s and into the 1970s was that provided their children were given support with the English language in schools, the migrant population would; learn 'to become like us'; that is, they would be assimilated.
The assimilationist model was based upon an inadequate understanding of the social psychology of group identity; and in particular of the resilience of ethnic identities in context where the minority community is marginalised and faces hostility. When a minority community begins to adopt the cultural practices of the dominant ethnic community and is still rejected by the majority population, then assimilation is hardly a viable political or cultural option.
Given this scenario, it seems hardly surprising that the xenophobia and racism present in the majority populations should have reinforced any tendency of the minority communities to attempt to retain their unique ethnic values and culture.
Multiculturalism
Responding to the failure of assimilation, multiculturalism emerged as a policy which allowed for the recognition of ethnic diversity in Britain. Multiculturalism has provided a framework within which ethnic diversity may be recognised by policy makers; and respect for different cultures may be encouraged between individuals. It has, however, been severely criticised for its failure to address inequalities of power and resources between the majority and the minority populations.
Thus within multiculturalism the identity and need of the minority ethnic communities have tended to be determined in a political process where their difference has been the perceived problem. Through the late 1970s and into the mid 1980s multiculturalism was critiqued by members of minority ethnic communities, who deeply resented its implicit paternalism. Perhaps after the early 1980s, anti-racist strategies emerged as an alternative to multiculturalism.
Anti-Racism
This model of recognising the conflicts of interest within multi ethnic Britain and of addressing systematic processes of inequality within British institutions was never widely acceptable. It developed the insights derived from the concept of institutional racism which informed the 1976 Race Relation Act, and made visible that 'nice people' may be involved, through their routine professional practice, in generating discriminatory outcomes. As a model for responding to the inequalities and discrimination within multi-ethnic society, anti- racism was a direct challenge to this members of the indigenous dominant white community who felt comfortable with Britain's tolerant credentials. This started considerable debate in the political and governmental circles. It attracted a range of critiques from many on the left and from minority ethnic communities who found it strong on rhetoric and weak on delivery.
Community cohesion
Today, we see a reversal of the policies of the 70's 80's and 90's. With the increasing development of international political unrest, asylum seekers and refugee situation taking the forefront of local and national media attention and the growing terrorist fear since the attack of september 11th a new policy has emerged – that os community cohesion.
The publication of the Cantle report, titled Community Cohesion, defines the government's strategy for maintaining order in those towns in northern UK where riots had taken place in Summer 2001. In December 2001 Home Secretary Blunkett announced that the government was considering an oath of allegiance for immigrants and that English language tests would be introduced. Blunkett's provocative comments signalled that, from the state's point of view, the 'multiculturalist settlement', which has dominated race relations thinking in Britain for two decades, is no longer working: The old multiculturalist formula of 'celebrating difference' - itself a response to the riots of the early 1980s - is to be replaced.
The death of multiculturalism
By Arun Kundnani
1 April 2002, 10:00am
The official response to the summer 2001 riots in the northern towns of the UK is now taking shape.
December saw the publication of the Cantle report [1], titled Community Cohesion, which defines the government's strategy for maintaining order in those towns. [2] At the same time, Home Secretary Blunkett announced that the government was considering an oath of allegiance for immigrants and that English language tests would be introduced.[3] We were told that practices such as forced marriage and genital mutilation had been allowed to continue because of an over-emphasis on 'cultural difference' and 'moral relativism'[4]. Blunkett wanted a new framework of core values, which would set limits to the laissez-faire pluralism of the past. The Mail and the Telegraph had, it seemed, found their great white knight to slay the demon political correctness.
Of course, each of Blunkett's proposals, when taken individually and out of its political context, was eminently reasonable. Of course, cultural difference cannot be used to legitimise oppression of women. Of course, knowledge of the English language is a factor in social inclusion. And, yes, migrant communities cannot live in the same way that they did decades ago, in the countries of their origin. But in the context of responding to riots which had sprung from the police's failure to protect Asian communities from racist violence, Blunkett's comments seemed to be a case of 'blame the victim', rather than an attempt to deal with the real issues. And how could a lack of ability in the English language be a factor in causing the riots when the participants were born and bred here? Blunkett argued that, if their first-generation mothers could not speak English, this might, in some way, have contributed to deprivation in the second generation. But it was a highly tenuous link. Wasn't Blunkett just appeasing racism? Worse, he was attempting to use immigration policy as a way of disciplining black communities, thereby explicitly reconnecting the issues of race and immigration - something that no leading Labour politician had done for at least thirty years.