Does Racism Still Exist - Coursework Example

Introduction Nowadays it is impossible to read a newspaper or a magazine or to watch news on TV and not to run against the information concerning the issues of ethnocentrism, racial or national stereotypes, discrimination, etc. These issues occur overall: from the sphere of international commercial activity up the wars caused by racial and ethnic distinctions. The given questions are going to become even more topical in the future when technological progress will unite various cultures of the world tighter. The discussion of any concepts is impossible without their preliminary careful definition. Most of differences in opinions regarding any matter of dispute usually arise not because of disagreements in the understanding of values or importance of these notions in our daily life, but because of some distinctions in their definitions. It should be stated that racial categories are variable and mostly depend on the meanings inserted by contemporaries. According to some scholars, it is wrong to consider the concept of race politically neutral. It always contain, even if just implicitly, the idea of conflict of interests. Omi and Winant state "race is a concept, which signifies and symbolizes social conflicts and interests, by referring to different types of human bodies" (55). Some sociologists state that the notion of race has always been filled with some socio-cultural meaning, demonstrating an attitude towards 'aliens' expressed through the emphasizing of their most observable physical differences. In other words, sociologists consider that physical marks reflect not the objective reality, but subjective attitude. According to Robert Park (237-239, 315), a racial mark has become the symbol of the suspense, in the ground of which has laid the sense of self-vulnerability. He writes that a sociologist is interested not in physical distinctions, differentiating one race from another, but in less evident lineaments of inner apprehensions. And physical distinctions are just the symbols of these inner apprehensions. Park claims that historical process in the issue is predetermined by the ideological factors, not by the biological ones. The more important is to realize what people believe in and look for, than to know who they are. In other words modern sociologists, considering race as an artificial construct and one of means of creation and description the identity, emphasize that race remains to be rather important notion, which determines and legalizes social and political actions of people. At the same time they are sure that race is a product of racism, and not contrariwise. From this point of view groups, which are called racial, turn out to be 'racialised'. It means that social, political, or economical state of these groups is described with the help of racial categories. A lot of scholars for decades have oppugned against scientific racism, which has tried to ground the idea of racial inequality. They have proved that human capabilities do not depend on the color of the skin or type of eyes. One of the most outstanding representatives of this stream is Ashley Montague, who from 1940s has insisted that race is just a scientific phantom. However a lot of scholars as before consider race and ethnos as some biological reality, underestimating the paramount role of social factor. "While racism is necessarily rooted in biology, ethnocentrism is typically rooted in culture," says D'Souza (33). Nonetheless most of scholars have understood that race is rather social construct then the biological reality, and that the concept of race implicates relationship of dominance and submission. Does racism still exist It should be said that it is rather difficult to define the notion of racism. In fact this concept has an extraordinary ability to mimicry, changing itself in accordance with the circumstances. Besides attitudes to race in the different countries are different, moreover different people of the same country may take it differently. Therefore the definition of racism has become rather complicated issue for the researches. Some researchers associate racism with real behavior, both social, and political, which comes from the racial doctrine. The social behavior is expressed in reaction to "another" on the part of employers, journalists, men on the street, etc., and political is marked by the legislation and other discrimination actions of authorities (Vasta 93). For example, according to the definition of American sociologist Winant, we can call racist the actions, which create and reproduce the social structure based on the absolutisation of racial categories, and cultivate racial inequality, or consider racial identity and marks to be natural and primordial (760-761). French researcher Balibar pays attention to "social structure of discrimination", without which racism would lose its ground. Moreover, he states that in contemporary world such structure is pretty often set by the policy of the state (11). Wodak and Reisigl (178-179) suggest regarding racism as: Everyday racism, represented in behavior of common people; Racism as a political program; Racism in legal norms (in particular, definition of citizenship by birth); Racism as a state policy (apartheid, etc.) Modern racism is no longer based on biological explanation, and has reshaped into 'cultural racism'. The shining example of such metamorphose is a book written by Dinesh D'Souza. In 'The End of Racism' we can observe convincing denial of any form of discrimination, rejection of egalitarian values, putting the blame on victim, and the emphasis on 'pathologies' of black culture. Such a point of view has been called 'symbolic' racism. So we may say that 'cultural racism' is a form of denial of racism existence, as its followers try to avoid being reckoned among racists, and at the same time continue to spread views and opinions, which strengthen and/or escalate racial and ethnical inequality. Why is it so difficult to build a harmonious multiracial society Is there any society, where the representatives of numerous cultures can exist as equal partners American sociologist of Indian origin, Dinesh D'Souza gives the negative answer. He enumerates the variety of mores, which absolutely incompatible with western culture. He states that many cultures deny romantic love as a basis for marriage, and therefore parents select fiancs and brides for their children. For many cultures the declining age is a synonym of wisdom, accordingly young people must show respect and worship of elder. Some cultures, in particular Islamic culture, permit polygamy, etc. D'Souza claims that not even one society is able to make up its mind to unlimited diversity (41). On the one hand, western liberalism promotes multiculturalism and pluralism. On the other hand for example not even one faithful Islamite can accept the principle of separation of church from state. Such principle is totally uncongenial to Islam, as well as idea of cultural pluralism. D'Souza considers that the only way out is to follow strict demarcation of private and social spheres. He claims that America is able to become a multiracial society, but it is not able to become multicultural one (27). Dinesh D'Souza claims that the enslavement of black people had been going on not on the ground of racism, but had been a kind of social reaction directed towards ensuring control under their pathologies. In his book 'The End of Racism' D'Souza says the reason of all problems representatives of minorities, especially black citizens, face with lays in destructive and pathological patterns of behavior and disinclination to improve own educational level. D'Souza denies principles of antiracism, which, to his opinion, is even much more dangerous phenomenon than racism. So we may see that D'Souza is trying to deny the existence of racism in contemporary society. We may agree with Allen, who says: "While D'Souza rightly longs for an end to the formal recognition of race in the United States, therefore, he makes clear that his wish is rather contingent (on black performance) than something which has already taken noetic existence within his own soul. He does not espouse color-blindness (as casual critics mistakenly argue); although he recognizes such a regime as superior to the perverse form of color consciousness that now prevails. Indeed, he fully expects consciousness of color to survive into the indefinite future. What he longs for is only the end of regime-plaguing obsessions with color consciousness as a taboo" (1). According to Miles "the specific content of racism should be expected to change temporally and contextually. A discourse 'inherited' from the past is likely to be reconstituted if it is to be used to make sense of the world in a new context, while new circumstances can be expected to stimulate the formation of new representations. Moreover, the expression of racism should be distinguished analytically from the reception of racism" (47). The base of Miles analysis lays in his non-acceptance of 'race relations' sociology, and in claiming that racism, which Miles consider as phenomenon inseparable from the process of capital accumulation, must become the object of studying. The works of this author present the most demonstrative example of the development of Marxist analysis of racism as a social and historical phenomenon. The empirical research made by Miles has been focused in the first instance on the situation in Great Britain and Western Europe, where he has studied the role of political, class, and ideological relation in the formation of racial conflict. Miles consider the concept of 'race' as a notion constructed within the framework of ideology, peculiar for societies, in which authority is one way or the other regulated. Analytically race may be presented as a 'paper tiger', divided by all on the level of daily discourse, but herewith being a serious theoretical issue (63). Therefore the sociologist has studied analytical and objective statuses of race as a basis for collective action. Mile has come to the conclusion that race, as a social issue, is a result of the ideology of a certain type, a mask, which conceal real economical relations. According to Miles, forms of class-consciousness must be narrowed down to economical relations, concealed within managed process of racial differentiation. Within the given context the author uses the notion of 'racial categorization' and 'racial division' to define what he calls situations, where social relations between people are constructed in the way, that they determine and construct various forms of collective living. These concepts has been used by other authors as well in order to analyze processes, by virtue of which the notions of 'race' and 'ethnicity' have been socially and politically constructed within certain historical and institutional contexts. In some of these works the authors have studied the role of legislation in racial and ethnical relations, the history of appearance of black people representation in political institutions, the development of public policy in such typical spheres of racial and ethnical inequality as employment and housing. These researches have shown that the processes, in result of which race and ethnicity receive their social value, vary depending on national scope and determined by political, legislative, and socio-economical environment. Comparative studying of immigration policy in some European countries have shown that working out of legislative basis for the control under incoming groups of immigrants often becomes a subject for political and ideological debates. According to Miles, the practice of usage of racial categories in social context is bound up with conditions of life of immigrant employees (114). There is an evident contradiction between demands of world economy in mobility of the main productive sphere from the one side, and existence of territory state borders and the institute of citizenship, which set limitation of human resources mobility from the other side. For example in Great Britain the development of state acts, directed towards optimization of economy, in particular towards getting over the crisis, has kept pace with pursue the regulation policy of racial and ethnical relations amidst working class. Miles has raised some fundamental questions concerning the nature of political moves in communities of immigrant workers. The one of the most important question is to what extent the policy towards blacks and ethnic minorities is an expression of class conflict Miles insists that racial differentiation is always constructed within the context of class differentiation, in the process of political regulation of social life. This is a foundation stone of his criticism of sociology of racial relations. However there is no telling that such a position is a kind of class reductionism. In some cases class exploitation may be accompanied with construction of situations of racial inequality and domination. According to Miles, race by that is a first of all a political construct. In this meaning he uses all above-mentioned notions of race categorization and race division. He uses them for analysis of the satiations, in which social relations of people are constructed by the meaning of human biological characteristics in that way that the last ones determine varied social collectivizes. Accordingly, the works of Miles is an attempt to go away from apolitical social constructs of race and ethnicity by means of placing them into the context of Marxist theory of social conflict. Conclusion In the mean time we have to confess that unfortunately even in the twenty first century mankind failed to get rid of racism. Just the other way round during last decades of the twentieth century it has got the new, even more 'fastidious' forms. As a result it has become very difficult for scholars to define the notion of 'racism'. And what even worst is that modern racists make use of such uncertainty and declare themselves as intransigent fighters against racism. It should be said that contemporary criminal justice turned out to be just not ready to such metamorphoses of racism. Modern antiracists very often fall short of knowledge about its essence and history, and accordingly they do not take into consideration significant peculiarities, which can be very helpful in struggling against it. In fact antiracism time and again is based on the same prejudices as racism, being just its mirror reverberation (Gilroy 12; Solomos & Back 115, 118-119; Wieviorka 44). Display of racism, prejudices, stereotypes, and discrimination has become apparent on a wide spectrum of the social and psychological phenomena, in the first instance in inter-group and interpersonal conflicts, stigmatization, and aggressions against the certain groups. The question of self-identification of a person with some ethnical group takes special place in international relations, as this choice becomes for a person a ground for making decisions, comprehension of values, and acceptability of the certain style of behavior, readiness to support the selected public or political movement. One of the first steps of improving of our understanding of inter-group relations may become more accurate studying and understanding of cultural and historical processes, and especially their influences on basic psychological processes. However perfection of our understanding of culture, history, and their influences is only one step. It is necessary to analyze critically own culture and behavior in order to find out the reasons why stereotypes continue to exist. It is necessary to accept existence of significant individual variability inside of groups and cultures, and also vices of own cultural ethnocentrism and negative stereotypes. On accepting group and individual distinctions instead of to ignore them, we get an opportunity to communicate with people on the general platform, instead of judging in advance their actions, behavior and reasons by means of the stereotypes based on ignorance and intolerance. There is no doubt, that studying of our cultural environment, upbringing and heritage, and also their influence on our behavior has a huge value and benefit for all society. The recognition of the contribution of culture of different ethnic groups in actions, behavior and its reasons, helps us to understand, to respect and to estimate these distinctions when we observe them in real life. Works cited: Allen W.B. Who Created Dinesh D'Souza. Retrieved 13 March, 2007 from www.msu.edu/allenwi/book%20reviews/Who_Created_Dinesh_Dsouza.pdf Dinesh D'Souza. The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society. New York: Free Press Paperbacks, 1996. Ellie Vasta. 'Rights and Racism in a New Country of Immigration: The Italian Case', Racism and Migration in Western Europe, Oxford, 1993. Etienne Balibar.'Es gibt keinen Staat in Europa: Racism and Politics in Europe Today'. New Left Review. No. 186: 5-19, 1991. Francis Ashley Montague. Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race. Meridian books and Jewish publication society edition, no. 190. [Cleveland etc.]: The World Pabl. Comp, 1968. John Solomos and Les Back. Racism and Society. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996. Howard Winant. 'Racism Today: Continuity and Change in the Post-Civil Rights Era', Ethnic and Racial Studies. Vol. 21. No. 4. p. 760-761, 1998. Michael Omi and Howard Winant. Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge, 1994. Michel Wieviorka. 'Is It Difficult To Be an Anti-racist, Debating Cultural Hybridity: Multi-cultural Identities and the Politics of Anti-racism. London: Zed Book, 1997. Paul Gilroy. 'The End of Anti-racism', Race and Local Politics, edited by Wendy Ball and John Solomos. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1990. Robert Ezra Park. Race and Culture. Glencoe, Ill: Free Press, 1964. Robert Miles. 'Racism, Marxism and British Politics', Economy and Society. V1.17, 1988. Robert Miles and Malcolm Brown. Racism. Key ideas. London ; New York: Routledge, 2003. Ruth Wodak & Martin Reisigl. 'Discourse and Racism: European Perspectives', Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 28. p. 178-179, 1999. Read More