The Racialisation of Disorder in Twentieth Century Britain

Michael Rowe

• Editorial: Routledge
• Año: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351883276
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Theologie & Religion
• Categoría: Ethik & Religion

This book develops the concept of racialisation. It argues that a full understanding of racialized discourse must pay attention to both the particular local circumstances in which they appear, and well-established themes which have unfolded over time. An important aspect of the study is the examination of other discourses with which racialized ideas have co-joined, reflecting the way in which notions of 'race' are socially constructed. The final part of the book returns to debates of the 1980's and argues that the racialisation of unrest in that decade was closely intertwined with conservative perspectives which sought to deny socio-economic causes in favour of explanations based upon the supposed cultural or personal proclivities of those involved.

1 Marxism, Postmodernism, and the Racialisation Problematic

Introduction

The introduction referred to some academic analyses which endeavoured to identify the relation between ideas about ‘race’ and broader debates concerning law and order in Britain during the 1970s and 1980s, and did so in terms of the wider ideological and political project of the New Right. This Chapter reviews the relevant literature and explores the theoretical positions behind these arguments. Given that most of these debates were within the Marxist tradition, the discussion in this Chapter begins by exploring the theoretical assumptions behind this broad approach. A large part of the Chapter is dedicated to this, partly because of its importance to debates about ‘race’ and racism, as well as the social sciences more generally, and partly because of the diversity of the Marxist approach. Three main strands, identified by Solomos (1986), are critically discussed — the ‘classical tradition’, the migrant labour model, and the relative-autonomy approach. The Chapter also evaluates ‘postmodern’ critiques of Marxism in general and, by inference, the assumptions made about the nature of ‘race’ in a capitalist society. However, whilst postmodernist positions make some interesting criticisms of Marxism, they also raise other difficulties. One possible way of moving beyond this debate is the critical realist approach to ‘race’ developed in this book, which utilises a ‘racialisation problematic’. The Chapter outlines this approach and considers its relation to the specific case studies which are explored in subsequent chapters.

Marxism, neo-Marxism and ‘race’

In order to consider the theoretical debates which impinge on the empirical discussions in the chapters which follow, neo-Marxism offers an appropriate starting point. A full discussion of theories of ‘race’ and racism is not possible here and others have charted their development in much greater detail (Banton, 1967; Rex and Mason, 1986; Banton, 1987; Goldberg, 1990; Solomos, 1993a). Banton (1967) outlined the emergence of sociological interest in race and ethnicity in the United States in the 1920s and showed that investigation of these subjects was closely bound up with the analysis of urban development associated with Robert Park and the Chicago School. Rex (1970; 1986) suggested that consideration of these features of social life were continued in the immediate postwar period by work developed by UNESCO that was designed to investigate the scientific status of race. When these studies reported that genetic or biological factors bore no relation to political or social differences between different groups,¹ UNESCO commissioned a panel of sociologists to consider the social contexts in which racism flourished (Rex 1986). It was this approach that characterised studies of racial and ethnic relations in Britain during the 1950s and 1960s, some of which are considered in more detail in the discussion of the 1958–59 disorders outlined in Chapter Four of this text. These studies, often characterised as a liberal ‘sociology of race relations’ (Miles, 1984; Banton, 1991; Solomos and Back, 1996), tended to adopt a social boundaries approach and considered the nature and basis of contacts between those of different races in various areas of social life, such as employment and housing.

A fundamental criticism of this school is that the ontological status of the concept of race has often been neglected (Solomos and Back, 1996). Banton (1967: chapter one) rejects the argument that the lack of genetic evidence to support the concept should deter sociologists from researching the field of ‘race relations’. He argues that the repudiation, in biological and genetic terms, of the idea of race does not mean that sociology should disregard attitudes towards it on the grounds that they are at odds with scientific evidence (1967: 4):

Beliefs about the nature of race — whether true or false — still have considerable social significance, and, when a category is labelled in the popular mind by racial terminology rather than by religious or class criteria, certain predictable consequences ensue.

For Banton then, the fact that many people ascribe validity to the concept of race is sufficient to justify taking it seriously and examining the social contexts in which it becomes an important basis for action. The main theoretical criticism of the work on ‘race relations’, conducted by researchers such as Glass (1960), Banton (1967), and Rex and Tomlinson (1979), is that they accept the ontological reality of ‘race’ as a means of categorising human beings. The ‘race relations’ school focuses on illuminating those conditions where the different ‘races’ come into conflict and suggests means whereby this may be alleviated. The central advantage of Marxist approaches is that they problematise the concept of ‘race’ and seek to explain it critically in a socio-economic context. For those who adopt the ‘sociology of race relations’ approach, the fact that individuals believe in the existence of races is enough to give the concept credibility, even though it may be acknowledged that it has no biological or genetic basis. Their critics adopt a more rigorous approach, as exemplified by Miles (1984a: 232) who goes so far as to reject even the use of the word ‘race’:

The idea of ‘race’ has profound meanings in the everyday world, but these have no scientific credibility and I can therefore find no reason why those who write in the Marxist tradition should wish to legitimate an ideological notion by elevating it to a central analytical position.

The lack of scientific credibility for the term ‘race’ is one reason why the concept of racialisation, developed in this study, is preferable and some of the ‘profound meanings’ Miles suggests are associated with it are examined in the chapters that follow.

Choosing to begin this discussion with debates informed by a Marxist analytical framework is not, then, simply a random intervention into the history of these ideas. In addition to the theoretical advantages already highlighted, they have been selected as a point of departure because of their importance to political and academic activity surrounding racism and disorder in Britain during the 1970s and 1980s. As was highlighted in the Introduction, a major feature of the deliberations that followed the events which occurred at Broadwater Farm in October 1985, described in Chapter Five, was their relation to the ideological and political project of Thatcherite neo-liberalism. This link is considered in more detail later in this Chapter, where it is suggested that although it makes some important contributions to understandings of ‘race’ and racism problems with this approach remain and a less deterministic conception is preferable.

Having explained why Marxism has been chosen as the starting point for discussion it is necessary to echo the caution made by Solomos (1986) when he remarks that significant differences exist between the texts loosely corralled behind the umbrella of Marxism. Despite their differences, the three strands identified earlier share a common focus on rooting explanations of ‘race’ and racism in a broader analysis of economic, social and political relations. The migrant labour model is the prime exemplar of their shared rejection of the ‘race relations problematic’ which dominated studies in this field in the 1950s and 1960s, which is discussed further in Chapter Four in relation to the disturbances in Nottingham and Notting Hill in 1958–59. This Chapter moves on to examine the three varieties of Marxist approaches to ‘race’ and racism previously mentioned.

The classical Marxist approach

As previously indicated, the kinds of arguments which explained the politics of ‘race’, law and order in the 1970s and 1980s in terms of the broader context of Thatcherism can be located within a Marxist framework. Writers such as Hall et al, (1978), CCCS (1982), and Gilroy (1987) adapt and refine economically-reductionist analysis of ‘race’ and racism in accordance with crucial developments within Marxist theory which came to prominence in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Solomos, 1986). Put simply, the main argument of this ‘western Marxism’ was the insistence that ideological spheres had a certain dynamic of their own and that they should be treated seriously on their own terms and not just as a second-order epiphenomenon of the economy. In order to consider in more detail the conceptual break that such developments made possible in relation to Marxist approaches to the issue of ‘race’, it is useful first to examine the classical Marxist approach, found most notably in the influential work of Cox (1948).

Cox argued that notions of ‘race’ and the practice of racism could only be understood by reference to the economic ‘base’ of capitalist societies. Fundamentally, Cox suggested, racism exists in order to justify the super-exploitation of one group, such as a colonial proletariat, by another, such as colonial capitalists. This argument relies on the notion that the superstructural forms in a capitalist society, such as political debate, culture, and social relations, are determined by the demands of the economic base, that is capital. For Cox, ‘racial identities’ and the prejudices which accompany them were inherently subjective and could thus be contrasted with objective class relations. He argued (1948: 336) that ‘race relations are proletarian-bourgeois relations and hence political-class relations’ and he contrasted them with other, precapitalist, forms of social relations such as caste or religious affiliations.

A number of problems can be identified with Cox’s approach. First, his notion that racism arose from the need of the European bourgeois to provide ideological justification for their proletarianization of colonial peoples can be criticised on historical grounds. As Miles (1993: 33) argues: ‘what distinguished the establishment of agricultural commodity production in the Caribbean … was the absence of proletarianization’. In other words, Cox was wrong to identify the relations which it is claimed gave rise to racism as those between the owners of the means of production and those who commodify their labour and sell it in the market. Instead, such relations were typically those of slavery, which whilst exploitative did not correspond to the Marxist model of surplus value.

Quite apart from the empirical detail of Cox’s argument, a number of conceptual problems also arise. Crucially, this approach to ‘race’ and racism has been subjected to the more general criticisms levelled at the economic reductionism of the ‘base-superstructure’ model. The reduction of ‘race’ to a subjective by-product of objective class relations ignores the multifaceted construction of ‘race’ which occurs at various social sites, rather than just the economic. From a postmodern perspective, Goldberg (1993: 26–27) makes a similar argument when he suggests that:

Racial definition and discourse … have from their outset followed an independent set of logics, related to and intersecting with economic, political, legal, and cultural considerations, to be sure, but with assumptions, concerns, projects, and goals that can properly be identified as their own.

The role of the state in the social formation of ‘race’, for example, nationally through immigration legislation (Layton Henry, 1984), or locally (Ball and Solomos, 1990), is one manner in which the ‘superstructure’ plays a crucial constitutive part. The economic determinism found in Cox’s approach, which gives such formative power only to the ‘base’ of capital relations, overlooks such dimensions.

Another difficulty with the attribution of racism to economic relations is that the complexity and even contradictory nature of various different racisms cannot be reduced to a causal relationship of this kind. ‘Race’ and racism are not coherent unitary concepts that can be understood as attributable to some other foundation, as though they were just a surface manifestation of deep-seated forces. Cox’s conception does not allow for the discursive power of ‘race’ to constitute and reconstitute itself as a different concept in varying circumstances. Thus, the divergent forms of racism, such as anti-Semitism in Victorian London, racism directed at aborigines in Australia, or native Americans in the USA, or Ugandan Asians in early 1970s Britain, cannot tenably be reduced to a single explanatory factor. The diversity of racist discourse is a central theme of the case studies detailed in the chapters which follow. As Gabriel and Ben-Tovim argue (1978: 132, emphasis in original):

the complex, changing and at times contradictory nature of racial ideologies defy a straightforward reduction to certain forms of production relations.

Gilroy (1990) extends this argument by suggesting that the nature of ‘racism’ is disparate and so cannot be explained by a single theory and is always contingent and context-specific. Whilst this contingency is acknowledged and examined in the case studies in this work it is also argued that structural features provide similarities between different forms of racism and that not everything can be reduced to the specific. The racialisation problematic delineated toward the end of this Chapter provides the means to consider the interplay between specific and more general sites in the formation of ‘race’.

A further difficulty arising from Cox’s conception is that there is no recognition of the part that individuals play in construing ‘race’, perhaps even as a form of resistance to oppressive ideologies (see, for example, Werbner, 1988). Perhaps the most obvious example of this is the rise of the ‘Black Power’ movement in the United States in the 1960s which invoked notions of ‘racial identity’ and destiny, for example, through the much older notion of Afro-centrism. Of course, it is unfair to blame Cox for not anticipating theoretical and political developments that occurred twenty years after his book was first published. The relation between ‘race’ and class is a central concern of the migrant labour model, which similarly suggests that the class position of minority ethnic groups is emphasised above other factors. It has the advantage, however, of recognising that ‘race’ is an inherently problematic concept and of concentrating on the process of racialisation as the focus of analysis.

The migrant labour model

The debates within liberal sociology of ‘race relations’ have been fundamentally criticised by the migrant labour model as developed by Phizacklea and Miles (1980) and Miles (1982). This position rejects the approach which suggests that the object of interest is the nature of ‘race relations’, and also argues that many Marxist writers, such as Cox, rely upon the same premise as liberal sociological explanations in that they both give analytical credence to the concept of ‘race’. The only distinction between them is that they use different terms of reference to explain the aetiology of racism (see Miles, 1984a). Phizacklea and Miles (1980) argue that Marxist writers must be prepared to give analytical priority to the role of productive forces in their attempts to explain broader social phenomenon. Writers who insist on the relative autonomy of ‘race’ are mistaken in that the granting of such autonomy reifies an ideological construction into an ontological fact.

The migrant labour model argues that it is not enough to accept that ‘race’ has a real and constitutive role in society simply because individuals hold it to be a real phenomenon. Rather, what should be explained is the process and development of this constructed notion. Miles (1984a: 218) criticises both the liberal sociologists and the work of the CCCS on the grounds that they ‘attribute the ideological notion of “race” with descriptive and explanatory importance. “Race”, for both groups of writers, is a real political phenomenon’.

Miles also suggests that one of the disadvantages of arguments that prioritise the importance of ‘race’, is that they inevitably marginalize, or even exclude altogether, the role of class. Thus Sivanandan (1982), for example, suggests that the experience of racism is not only the most important defining influence on the lives of black people in Britain, but also that it serves to unite them. This, he argues, makes the black population especially prone to revolutionary fervour and dynamism. Miles (1984a) claims that Sivanandan raises the black population to the position of the vanguard of the proletariat, a point which reflects Hall’s (1992: 254) concern about the creation of an unidimensional ‘essential black subject’, a concern also discussed by Brah (1992). It is clear that other factors also influence the lived experience of black people. Miles suggests (1982 and 1984a, for example) that their class position — most likely working class or unemployed — is also a vital and powerful constituent which should be regarded as primary. Thus, he argues that the history of, first, black immigration into Britain and, secondly, the continuing disadvantage of the black population can be explained by the labour requirements of the economy. He stresses ‘the differential location of “black” agents to different sites in production relations and the determinate effects that this has upon political practices’ (1984a: 225–6).

A further criticism of this romanticised view of the black population centres around the notion that the common experience of racism serves to unite the black population, which would otherwise be divided by class, gender, and other variables, like any other community. This imparting of solidarity to an otherwise divided group may be an example of wishful thinking and certainly ignores the position of black entrepreneurs, for example, who ‘exploit’ their workforce, who might be black. Miles (1984a) argues that it is contradictory for an expressed Marxist to argue that black capitalists will feel solidarity for black members of the working class before they feel solidarity with other, white, members of their own class. The conception of a unitary black community also ignores the position of black women who occupy a distinct position within a more general ‘politic of dominance’ (hooks, 1989: 175).

The implication that Miles draws from this need to avoid reifying ‘race’ is that the proper object of analysis should be the processes by which social life becomes ‘racialised’. The ideological construction of ‘race’ over time is the key issue, rather than the immutable belief in ‘race’ which influences day-to-day reality. In this respect the migrant labour model offers a useful development from the earlier theories. By recognising that ‘race’ is a process rather than an outcome, this argument stresses that ideas about ‘race’ are essentially contestable, and are fluid rather than fixed. Given this, though, it is hard to understand the continued insistence on the fundamentality of class to social relations. It seems that Miles is trying to have it both ways. His recognition that ‘race’ is expressed through spheres other than the economic, including the social and the political, is welcome, as is the argument that it is a process rather than a fixed entity. Yet, he still apparently seeks to prioritise the predominant influence of the economic dimension. He still argues from a position that holds class relations to be the determinant of others.

Further examination of Miles’ (1984a) criticism of Sivanandan’s assertion that race is the most important issue around which the black population coalesces illustrates this point. Whilst Miles’ argument that class is also a key factor in the social position and identity of the black population is valid, it is hard to explain why he does not mention the role of other variables. Clearly, he is suggesting that class is the key to the conu...

Índice

• Cover Page
• Half title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Content Page
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: Law, Disorder and the Nation
• 1 Marxism, Postmodernism, and the Racialisation Problematic
• 2 Liverpool, 1919: ‘…To Make An Honest Bread’?
• 3 Political Disorder in 1930s Britain: ‘Coloured Shirts and Tin Trumpets’
• 4 Nottingham and Notting Hill 1958–59: ‘Ostentatious Blacks and Rowdy Whites’
• 5 Broadwater Farm, October 1985: ‘This is not England’
• 6 Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index