|
Social Inequality and Differentiation Unit M1: Ethnicity and Stratification Introduction As we have seen in relation to various sociological perspectives on stratification, an understanding of the concept involves something more than simply ranking people in society in a "neutral" way (that is, simply noting that social differences exist). In this respect, it involves the acknowledgement of two main ideas: Firstly, any system of social stratification involves differences in both,
Secondly, stratification involves something more than a simple reflection of social differences. We need, therefore, to understand how social inequalities themselves contribute to the unequal distribution of material and non-material rewards in any stratified society. In effect, we need to understand how social stratification not only reflects the institutionalisation of social differences but also contributes to their creation.
This rather convoluted point will be important when we consider stratification systems based around the identification of ethnic differences. Ethnicity and Social Stratification In relation to our understanding of social stratification based on or around the concept of ethnicity, there are two main areas that we need to discuss: Firstly, those forms where biological characteristics (such as skin colour) are a determining characteristic of an individual's position in a stratification system.
Secondly, those forms where ethnic background is used to discriminate against individuals or groups, such that biological characteristics are used to deny people equality of status, income, opportunity and the like.
Institutionalised Racialism We can begin this analysis by looking briefly at the first of the categories noted above, mainly because societies that have practised institutionalised racialism tend to be easier to describe and evaluate. Historically, several societies have existed where social stratification has, to a greater or lesser extent, been based upon racism and the institutionalisation of racialism. We can note the following examples:
While we need to be aware of these types of social stratification, a more-theoretically complex task is to look at the second of the categories noted above. Disproportionate Representation… In the first category, stratification based squarely on ethnic grounds is clear, institutionalised and built into the political / legal structure of society through a variety of discriminatory measures. In the second category we have a more complicated situation in which ethnic groups find themselves disproportionately represented at the bottom of the stratification system not because they are legally discriminated against but because of a complex interplay of factors involving:
In the following section, therefore, we can explore the relationship between ethnicity and social stratification in terms of "class based" and "status based" theoretical perspectives. A. Class Based Theories of Ethnic Group Inequalities. Marxist perspectives are most closely associated with the analysis of class-based forms of ethnic stratification. We can, therefore, begin by noting a few comments in terms of the Marxist view of the relationship between the concepts of "class" and "race", before discussing a couple of Marxist models of ethnic stratification. Generally, Marxists have encountered several theoretical problems when looking at the relationship between ethnicity and stratification, for the following reasons:
In this respect, what matters theoretically is not so much who exploits these differences or who is exploited by them (although, in real terms, of course, these are highly significant questions that can have a multitude of consequences for various people); rather, the question is why do some differences appear relatively easy to exploit, while others are not.
However, "visibility" itself cannot be the defining factor here (although it is clearly important), since there are other, highly visible, characteristics that could potentially be exploited on the basis of their visibility but which are rarely, if ever, successfully exploited; for example, differences in hair colour, height, weight and so forth. Besides visibility we might add the ease with which a dominant status group can distance itself from a subordinate status group:
"Social distancing" (the ability to describe how "we" are different to "them" - and, by extension, the way "we" are superior (and deserving of better treatment) to "them") is an important element in the process of status discrimination. In addition, the ability to distance one social group from another (however arbitrary the distinction being used) requires the ability to rationalise the basis of the distinction. In effect, it is not enough simply to show that you are different, you have to be able to justify (however unfounded the justification) the difference. Thus,
In this respect, the ability to exploit a difference involves a combination of many different social factors:
In the above respect, the theoretical problem for Marxists is not the fact that people are discriminated against (since it is clearly easy to show this empirically). Rather, the problem is that the categories created in any society as the basis of discriminatory practices are more-or-less "arbitrary" (in the sense that I've outlined above - if someone is looking to discriminate then almost any biological / social difference will do). Thus, in terms of "race" or "ethnicity", Marxists tend to argue that the significant factor in racial discrimination / stratification is not "race" or ethnicity (defined in cultural terms), but rather the economic, political and ideological organisation of society that allows (and encourages) certain dominant groups to discriminate against other groups. Thus, Racial discrimination / exploitation, is a product of The "need" to discriminate on status grounds, which is a product of A system of stratification that encourages status differences, which is a product of a class-based system of stratification... In this respect, the theoretical problem for Marxists has tended to be that of how to acknowledge the fact that racial discrimination is degrading (both for the victimisers and the victims), while arguing that "racial" discrimination is a product of class-based systems of social stratification. In this respect, ethnicity is only a sociological issue for Marxists in terms of the way it can be related to what Stuart Hall ("Culture, Media and Language", 1980) has called a set of,
In this sense, "race" is a socially-created label that is used to describe, categorise and stereotype a mythical group - one defined by supposedly genetic "racial characteristics" (although there is a tendency amongst modern racists to rationalise their discrimination on "cultural" rather than purely biological grounds). Thus, rather than attempt to focus their analysis upon the kinds of stereotypical, ideologically-produced, categories created by dominant social groups who are seeking to extend their social status only by creating an artificial grouping of lower social status, Marxists tend to focus on the various ways social / biological differences (culture, sex, skin colour, age and the like) are exploited by the relatively powerful to oppress the relatively powerless.
If we accept this argument - that Marxists tend to look at the way in which any kind of human difference (real or imagined) can be exploited by those who possess significant levels of economic and political power - it follows that, for Marxists, class is seen as a "primary" (that is, most significant) form of stratification in modern societies, while stratification in terms of concepts such as ethnicity, gender and age are considered as a "secondary" (that is, dependent) form of stratification. To summarise this basic Marxist position, we can say that such sociologists focus their attention upon class-based forms of explanation because:
We can briefly review a number of class-based theories of ethnic stratification in terms of the following categories:
1. Class Cultures. Writers who advocate the classical Marxist notion of class theorised in terms of a "bourgeoisie / proletariat" dichotomy argue that, in order to analyse the relationship between social class and ethnicity, we should view the working class as having a set of common interests that derive from their relationship to the means of economic production. This is sometimes expressed as a "unitary" concept of the working class (that is, this class, whatever the particular differences among its members, has, at root, a common class interest). For such theorists, what matters most is an individual's relationship to the means of production (primary stratification) rather than secondary forms of stratification such as ethnicity or gender (since these forms of stratification are seen to be subservient to and consequently less theoretically significant than social class). As Westergaard and Resler ("Class In Capitalist Society", 1976) argue in relation to ethnicity, "Preoccupied with the disabilities that attach to colour, liberal reformers and research workers have been busy rediscovering what in fact are common disabilities of class; widespread and long-standing conditions inherent in the workings of capital, market and state in a divided society.". Briefly explain how the criticisms in the above could be applied to the concept of a "race relations industry" in our society. Within this general theoretical category, the idea that any "minority group" (blacks, women, men or whatever) should be singled-out for special treatment is seen to be indicative of two main things: Firstly, the acceptance of a divisive ideology that propagates the myth that "minorities" are inherently different to the "majority". In technical terms this involves a "discourse of domination"; that is, the idea that if we, as sociologists, begin our analysis by accepting the idea that blacks, women, the disabled, etc. are socially different, then we have to try to account for their differential treatment on the basis of qualities that they do - or do not - possess. In this respect, the argument here is that:
Writers such as Westergaard and Resler are arguing, therefore, that to use such concepts is a form of bias, since they are concepts that reflect a partial, highly subjective, view of the social world (one that reflects the interests of dominant (white) social groups / classes). Secondly, following directly from the above idea, to accept the category of "ethnic group" as socially meaningful is, in itself, a way of perpetuating racism, since, by definition, to use the use means accepting that there are socially meaningful cultural differences between, for example, "blacks" and "whites".
In basic terms, what writers who advocate the idea that questions of "ethnicity" are ultimately a theoretical distraction or blind-alleyway are saying is not that "ethnic differences" do not exist; rather, they are arguing that these differences are due to the operation of class, not "ethnicity". Therefore, we should analyse status differences in terms of an objective concept such as class, rather than a subjective (and racist) concept such as "ethnicity". There are a few criticisms we can identify in relation to the above that will lead us into the next (Marxist) perspective on the relationship between class and ethnicity.
2. Class Sub-Cultures. As we have just seen, writers such as Westergaard and Resler implicitly argue that we should theorise the nature of ethnic group stratification in class, as opposed to either biological or cultural terms. Other Marxists, such as Castles and Kosack ("Immigrant Workers and Class Structure in Western Europe", 1973) have, however, taken a slightly different approach to the question of ethnic group stratification. In particular, such writers have focused upon the idea that the working class may, in some instances, be split into several different class sub-cultures (that is, smaller cultural groupings within the working class).
In post-war Britain, for example, living standards rose in combination with labour shortages created by the war. An "economic vacuum" was effectively created at the very bottom of the labour market and this was filled by encouraging immigration from Commonwealth countries (countries that had, historically, been part of the British Empire). Immigrants, in this respect, became part of what Marxists like to call a "reserve army of labour" in post-colonial Britain. As immigrants were absorbed into the class structure, they entered through the working class and, according to Castles and Kosack such immigrants were seen by the working class not as potential "class allies" but rather as potential competitors for jobs that had been traditionally done by the working classes. As they note:
Castles and Kosack argue, in this respect, that while the basic Marxist analysis of capitalist class relationships is correct, we need to recognise that, in cultural terms, the working class invariably splits into various class-based sub-cultures focused around status differences (in relation to type of job, ethnic background and so forth). In effect, they argue that the concept of status, theorised within the context of social class, is a significant one in relation to the explanation of ethnic group stratification. In status terms, a ruling class (through various agencies such as the mass media) is able - because of its powerful social position - to exploit the opportunity presented by status considerations (encouraged through various forms of economic and social discrimination) to split the working class along ethnic lines and, by so doing,
3. Class Fractions. A development of the above idea is the concept of "class fractions" (for example, Miles "Racism and Migrant Labour", 1982). This concept emphasises the idea that social classes are neither homogenous, monolithic, entities (that is, composed of people who see themselves as having everything in common with people in a similar objective class situation), nor simply divided on cultural lines. Rather, for someone like Miles social stratification is viewed in terms of groups of people who share the same economic (market) position but who are divided by status concepts such as age, gender, skill, ethnic background and the like. Class fractions, according to writers such as Miles and Poulantzas ("Classes in Contemporary Capitalism", 1975), exist within each of the two main classes. Racialised Class Fractions A significant point to note here is that ethnic groups appear at most levels of the class structure. In Britain, for example, while most West Indians are working class there are also successful West Indian intellectuals, professionals and entrepreneurs.
4. The "Underclass". The concept of an "underclass" is one that appears in several theoretical perspectives in several, different, guises or interpretations. Usually it is associated with both Weberian and "New Right" perspectives (in, it should be noted, different ways) but, before we examine these in more detail, it will be useful to include a Marxist interpretation of this concept, for comparative purposes if nothing else.
To investigate this idea further, there are three basic perspectives at which we can briefly look. A. Marxist Conceptions of an Underclass. Marx used the concept of an underclass, in his analysis of Victorian Britain, in terms of the idea of a "lumpen-proletariat" - a class category that he saw being drawn mainly from the very dregs of society. As he termed members of this class, "The 'dangerous class', the social scum, the passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of...society". Neo-Marxists such as Paul Q. Hirst ("Marx and Engels on Law, Crime and Morality", 1975) has further characterised the lumpen-proletariat as,
For most Marxists, therefore, an underclass has two main characteristics:
This first definition of an underclass is very different to its subsequent use by both Weberian and New Right writers, since for Marxists an underclass consists of people who have two main characteristics:
The underclass does not, in this interpretation, include people who are marginalized in society by poverty, unemployment, illness, sexual and racial discrimination and so forth, since these are potentially productive members of society (people who want to be productive) whose needs are simply stifled by the nature of capitalist exploitation. Miles ("Racism and Migrant Labour", 1982) adopts the above point-of-view when he attempts to reject the non-Marxist use of the concept, as it has been applied to ethnic minorities in particular, by noting that:
We will develop these ideas in a moment when we look at alternative concepts of an underclass. B. Status Based Theories of Ethnic Inequality. The theme of an "underclass" is continued in this section, even though we have switched the focus of attention slightly from explanations of ethnic group stratification based around the concept of class to explanations that centre upon the concept of status. We can begin by looking at a range of "New Right" ideas (by which is meant various writers whose defining characteristic is their political conservatism and economic liberalism) about the nature, extent and consequences of the existence of an underclass in modern industrial societies. New Right Conceptions of an Underclass. At the opposite extreme to Marxism (both politically and theoretically) we find a group of Neo-conservative writers who have argued not only that an underclass exists in societies such as Britain and America, but also that it represents a major threat to the stability of such societies. For the New Right, an underclass is generally defined as those people who exist at the very bottom of the class structure and such writers tend to adopt what might be termed an "inclusive", (rather than the "exclusive" view adopted by most Marxists) view of this class.
As opposed to the Marxist view , the New Right see underclass membership largely in status terms - the underclass is, by definition, those at the bottom of the class structure with the lowest social status. In terms of membership of this class, writers such as Peter Saunders in Britain ("Social Class and Stratification", 1990) and Charles Murray in America have attempted to define it in terms of such people as:
Disproportionately represented amongst this class are:
According to Murray, there is a positive correlation between membership of the underclass and high rates of illegitimacy and family breakdown, violent crime and juvenile delinquency, the lack of a "work ethic" (what Saunders' calls a "dependency culture" - a reliance on State handouts, charity, etc.) and so forth. In relation to ethnicity, New Right theorists generally see the fact of a "disproportionate membership" of ethnic minorities in the underclass as evidence not of things like exploitation, discrimination and the like, but rather as evidence of various failings amongst ethnic groups. These failings include: a. Cultural Organisation. There are a variety of different aspects to this:
b. Family Organisation.
c. Welfare Dependency. As members of an underclass, ethnic minorities, according to writers such as Saunders, develop a passive and fatalistic acceptance of their poverty and failure to become socially mobile. They are, in effect, trapped in a cycle of poverty and deprivation from which it is impossible to escape (hence their alleged fatalism). It is fairly evident that not only are the "explanations" produced by New Right writers devoid of any real empirical validity (its fairly easy to show, for example, that ethnic minorities do not live in a "culture of poverty", nor do they "fatalistically accept their poverty"), but they carry with them a clear smell of the kind of racism that seeks to blame ethnic minorities for their "failure" to better themselves socially.
As I have suggested, one of the main arguments advanced by New Right theorists to explain the fact that ethnic minority groups are, in the main, bunched at the very bottom of the class structure is their supposed failure to "assimilate themselves" into the dominant norms of values of a society. This, in effect, means that ethnic groups are not integrated into the general structure of a society and such groups are effectively excluded from participation in the "normally expected" standard of living in society. While this "assimilation" argument is clearly not applicable to all societies on an empirical level (countries such as Germany, for example, have tended to treat immigrants as "temporary workers" rather than citizens with full political rights), it should be applicable theoretically to all societies where a colonial past, for example, has resulted in widespread immigration. Problems with this type of argument centre around the assumption that there is a set of dominant cultural norms and values, to which there is widespread adherence, amongst an indigenous population. These norms and values would include such things as:
and so forth. Two responses can be made to this argument:
Either way, the "failure to assimilate" argument breaks down. Weberian Perspectives. Sociologists writing from a Weberian perspective have probably been most responsible for the development of the "underclass thesis" in relation to ethnic group stratification (even though, as we have seen, various New Right authors have attempted to develop a variant on the thesis to explain the position of many "disadvantaged" social groups - mainly in terms which effectively "blame the victims" for their own misfortune). Considering, as we have further seen, the emphasis that Weberian sociologists place upon the related and inter-dependent concepts of class, status and party (organised political power) in explaining social stratification generally, this should not be very surprising. Weberian sociologists also tend to take a more open-minded view of the underclass when compared with the forms of analysis produced by New Right writers. In terms of the basic Weberian categories noted above, we can relate them to ethnicity in the following ways. 1. Class:
2. Status:
3. Party / Power:
In Weberian terms, ethnic groups in Britain have tended to occupy a "weak market position"; on the one hand, most lack the technical skills and qualifications required to improve this situation whilst on the other they suffer a higher level of implicit and explicit racial discrimination. The two are not, of course, unconnected. Thinking in terms of a combination of class, status and power, the position of ethnic groups tends to be low, contributing to what Rex and Tomlinson ("Colonial Immigrants in a British City", 1979) have argued is an underclass - a group at the very bottom of the class structure. For Rex and Tomlinson ethnic minority groups alone do not constitute an underclass - numerous other "minority groups" (the disabled, elderly, chronically ill, women...) find themselves in a similar situation. Rex and Tomlinson justify their argument for the existence of an underclass by claiming that one of its characteristics is the inability of its members to "escape" from it (that is, to improve their market situation), mainly because of the way in which employment policies and laws and labour markets have developed. In this respect, they use the theory of a "dual labour market" to illustrate this point, which involves the split between:
Members of the underclass are highly concentrated in the secondary labour market, which in turn creates a situation in which the social stigma attached to working in this sector tends to reinforce the lower social status on an underclass. Empirically, it is not difficult to produce evidence that substantiates this basic argument. However, while it is certainly true that many ethnic minority groups do find themselves at the bottom of the class structure, it is by no means proven that they are, in consequence, part of an underclass. As Braham ("Class, Race and Immigration", 1980) has argued,
In addition, it is possible to argue – and demonstrate - that ethnic minorities are represented at all levels of the class structure. However, their level of overall representation is less than one might statistically expect (although we have to be aware that other factors, such as class membership, may be significant here). It is also probable, however, that discrimination on racial grounds influences the ability of ethnic minorities to enter middle class occupations. The "Underclass" Thesis Examined. The underclass thesis (in either its "New Right" or "Weberian" forms) does not appear to be a particularly valid way of characterising ethnic stratification (the idea of a "racialised class fraction", for example, would appear to be a better way of explaining the position of ethnic minorities in the class structure because it allows for the fact that some members of ethnic minorities are social mobile).
The concept of an underclass is, perhaps, in danger of becoming accepted - both by sociologists and people-at-large – almost by default. That is, if people talk about it and write about it enough then it assumes some sort of validity. The adage "There’s no smoke without fire" springs to mind in this context.
In America, the "underclass debate" has been dominated by writers such as Charles Murray (at the respectable, academic end at least). In "The Underclass Revisited" 1999, for example, Murray argues that one "proof" of the existence of such a class is the extent to which American society is becoming what he terms a "custodial democracy"; in basic terms, America is imprisoning more and more "members of the underclass" so that the "law-abiding majority" are able to "enjoy democracy". In Britain, the underclass debate has, in the past couple of years, been framed in terms of "Social Inclusion / Exclusion". Tony Blair, for example, has talked frequently about the need for social inclusion and has even gone so far as to establish a Government Department to investigate ways of promoting social inclusion. In this respect, Social Exclusion (as defined by Katherine Duffy: "Social Exclusion and Human Dignity in Europe", 1995) involves the: "Inability to participate in the economic, political, social and cultural life of a society" (and if you think this sounds a bit like a definition of relative poverty, you’d probably be right). According to Robert Moore, the British debate over social exclusion has tended to coalesce around three main political groupings, all of whom basically agree that social exclusion exists but who, as you might expect, differ greatly in their prescriptions for its removal. These loose groupings can be noted as follows: a. The Political Left.
b. The "Middle Ground"
c. The Political (New) Right
Evidence If the terms of the debate over social exclusion have a tendency to be vague (reflecting, perhaps, the idea that the concept tends to be used more as a stick with which to beat undesirable social elements"), the evidence relating to an underclass is actually quite emphatically clear; in a nutshell, it’s very difficult, if not impossible, to find evidence that an underclass of permanently excluded outsiders actually exists. To put this another way, Robert Moore has concluded:
Buck in "Understanding the Underclass", 1992, edited by David Smith, for example, argues that the economic evidence for the existence of an underclass is very thin. In particular, unemployment varies with economic cycles, which means that people may experience periods of semi-regular employment / unemployment, but not the permanent unemployment predicted by underclass theories. Buck characterises people who experience this type of employment pattern as: "Unstable members of the working class, not stable members of an underclass". Heath ("The Attitudes of The Underclass" – also in Smith) likewise found little or no evidence of a permanently excluded group of people who could constitute an underclass. He found that amongst the supposed "underclass", such people were actually more likely to want work, less fussy about the types of jobs they took and no-less active in the political process than other groups (68% voted in the previous election, for example). Similarly, Dean and Taylor-Gooby (1992) found little or no evidence of a "dependency culture" amongst welfare claimants. Instead, they found high levels of motivation to work (the main problems were finding it and, most importantly, the levels of wages they would receive) and that the claimants they researched were a heterogeneous group, their diversity extending to the fact that a proportion of claimants had punitive attitudes towards claimants… What Dean and Taylor-Gooby found evidence of was not "an underclass", but a poverty trap where , for example, very high marginal rates of tax (that is, the more you earn, the more state benefits are lost – in a low-wage economy, for example, people may be paid very little more for a week’s work than if they simply claimed welfare. This is not a problem of high welfare payments; rather it’s a problem of low wages and a punitive benefit system), lead to an acceptance of "cash-in-hand" work (something that benefits some employers).
Finally, Le Grand et al (Social Exclusion in Britain", 1999) used a sample of 9000 respondents to test the extent of social inclusion / exclusion, using five indicators:
Using these "dimensions of social exclusion", Le Grand et al found that in terms of their sample:
On the basis of this research, Le Grand et al concluded that there was only slight and possibly ambiguous evidence for the existence of an underclass as defined by writers such as Murray. They also concluded that the number of people who could possibly be defined as "an underclass" were so small that they could not be characterised as a "threat" to social stability (as Murray, for example, has loudly and repeatedly claimed them to be…). |
