3c-Theoretical Explanations of ethnic inequality Flashcards
Functionalist explanations for ethnic inequality - The host–immigrant model - Patterson
This theory depicted Britain as a basically stable, homogeneous and orderly society with a high degree of consensus over values and norms. This equilibrium was disturbed by the arrival of immigrant ‘strangers’ who subscribed to different sets of values. Patterson described the culture clash between West Indians and the English hosts as understandable fears of the host community. The hosts were not actually racist, just very unsure about how to act towards the newcomers.
Functionalist explanations for ethnic inequality - The host–immigrant model - Some of the problems and strangeness that immigration brings may be:
- Some ethnic minority groups may have language problems which reduce their chances of finding employment in Britain. Modood et. al. (1997) found that three fifths of Bangladeshi women, half of Pakistani women, and one fifth of Pakistani and Bangladeshi men did not speak English, or only limited English.
- Some patterns of disadvantage may stem from the cultural choices of ethnic groups. For example, Dahya (1974) argued that first-generation Pakistanis deliberately chose to live near each other in the inner city, partly in order to protect and maintain their cultures.
Functionalist explanations for ethnic inequality - The host–immigrant model - Patterson eval
Paul Gilroy is highly critical of what he calls ‘ethnic absolutism’: the assumption that ethnic cultures are somehow ‘fixed’ and ‘final’ have a permanent ‘essence’ which never changes and that every member of the culture is bound forever to it. Against this, Gilroy argues, first, that cultures are dynamic rather than static - they are always evolving. Second, they are not mutually exclusive: they frequently borrow from one another, and there is great overlap. Third, no culture is uniform and homogeneous: it always contains internal diversity and individual differences in lifestyles and values. • Racial hostility has not declined as predicted by Patterson. The basic structure of British society remains unchanged and the struggle over jobs, housing and money continues. This may create racial tension.
Weberian explanations - Status inequality
There is not only a class struggle for status, income and wealth but there is also an ethnic struggle. However, status and power is in the hands of the majority ethnic group, thereby making it difficult for ethnic-minority groups to compete equally for jobs, housing, etc. Ethnic minorities who do manual jobs are technically part of the working class but are likely to face prejudice and discrimination from the white working-class because they suffer from status inequality in addition to class inequality. Even middle-class Asians doing professional jobs may experience status inequality in the form of prejudicial attitudes held by members of both the white middle- and working-classes.
Weberian explanations - Status inequality eval
However, whilst Weber is helpful in highlighting the importance of status he fails to explain why some ethnicities are aligned to higher status and others have less. Marxists would argue this theory lacks a structural explanation.
Weberian explanations - Organisation of the job market
Such prejudice and discrimination can be seen in the distribution of ethnic minorities in the labour force. The ‘dual labour-market’ theory argues there are two markets for labour – the primary sector characterised by secure, well-paid jobs with long-term promotion prospects dominated by white men, and the secondary sector consisting of low-paid, unskilled and insecure jobs. Barron and Norris point out that women and black people are more likely to be found in the secondary sector. They are less likely to gain primary-sector employment because employers may subscribe to racist beliefs about the unsuitability of black people.
Weberian explanations - Organisation of the job market 2
Furthermore, the legal and political framework supporting black people is weak. Trade unions are generally white-dominated and have been accused of favouring white workers and being less interested in protecting the rights of black workers. The recent amendment to the Race Relations Act which came into force in 2001, it seeks to ensure that racial discrimination is outlawed throughout the public sector and placing a duty on all public bodies and authorities to promote good race relations. It is too early though, to say whether this amendment has had any real impact
Weberian explanations - underclass
Rex and Tomlinson (1979) argue that ethnic minority experience of both class and status inequality can lead to poverty, which is made more severe by racism. Consequently, a black underclass may be created which is marginalised and feels alienated and frustrated. Sometimes these feelings may erupt in the form of inner-city riots if young blacks feel they are being harassed by the police and socially excluded.
Weberian explanations - eval
In criticism, there is considerable overlap between the white and black population in terms of poverty and unemployment but the constant threat of racism does suggest some sort of break with the interests of the white working-class. In addition, the concept of status inequality does help to explain the apparent divisions between the white and black working-class.
Marxist explanations
Marxists argue that black people are part of the exploited working class and that racism and racial inequality are deliberately encouraged by the capitalist class for three ideological reasons.
• Legitimisation
Racism helps justify low pay and poor working conditions because black workers are seen as second-class citizens. Capitalist employers benefit from the cheap labour of ethnic minorities.
• Divide-and-rule
If black and white workers unite then they are in a stronger position to campaign for better wages and conditions. But Marxists such as Castles and Kosack argue that employers prefer them to be divided by racism so they can played off against one another. Employers may use the black workforce as a ‘reserve army of labour’ to prevent white workers from demanding higher wages.
Marxist explanations 2
• Scapegoating
When a society is troubled by severe social and economic problems then widespread frustration and aggression can arise. Instead of directing this anger at the capitalist class, whites use black people as scapegoats to blame for unemployment and housing shortages. Scapegoating is in the interests of the richer and more powerful groups because it protects them from direct criticism and reduces pressures for radical change.`
Marxist explanations - Miles
Miles argues that the class position of black people is complicated by the fact that they are treated as socially and culturally different. They become the victims of racist ideologies which prevent their full social inclusion. Miles argues that ethnic minorities are members of ‘racialised class fractions’. Whilst most black people are members of the working-class, they also recognise the importance of their ethnicity. Whilst members of the white working class may stress the importance of ethnicity through prejudice and discrimination, black people may react by stressing their ethnicity in actions such as campaigning for recognition of their need to observe particular religious or cultural traditions.
Marxist explanations - institutional racism
The term suggests that racism is a basic feature of Britain’s social institutions (eg government, schools, employment). According to this view these institutions neglect the needs of their racial and ethnic minority clients, or even discriminate against them. This does not necessarily mean that every individual working within these institutions ‘supports’ racist attitudes and behaviour. But regardless of their personal views on racism they tend to reinforce it just by going about their normal business. It has serious consequences for racial and ethnic minorities as it reinforces their socio-economic disadvantage. Indeed, institutional racism can be defined as ‘any situation in which groups, socially defined as races, are systematically disadvantaged in respect of social rewards, capacities or opportunities’ (Mason, 1982).
Marxist explanations - institutional racism eval
Institutional racism is a highly controversial concept. It is a prime example of ‘conceptual inflation’ where the meaning of racism has been stretched beyond attitudes and behaviour to include socio-economic disadvantage as well. Some sociologists feel it is little more than a political slogan which has limited analytical usefulness. Here are some of the main criticisms levelled at it: • The term implies that all racial disadvantage is the result of racism. But there may be other causes, such as cultural or class factors. • It presents a rather simplistic view of stratification in which whites are always the winners and ethnic minorities the losers. As Pilkington points out, this takes insufficient account of ethnic diversity.
Postmodernists such as Modood
Modood argues that the globalisation of culture has led to national cultural identities being eroded. British culture is not immune and all ethnicities, including white, have begun to ‘pick and mix’, producing an array of new hybrid identities. Racial difference becomes a matter of choice and racial disadvantage is impossible to discuss as ethnic identity is not fixed. The extent and impact of racism will differ from person to person as identities are chosen and interact.
