SOCI 2368 Race & Ethnicity In Canada PDF

Soci 2368 Race & Ethnicity in Canada Institutional Completeness Ethnic institutions: sites (e.g. economic, educational, religious) or social spaces within which ethnic identity is produced and maintained over time; e.g., language, schools, religious institutions Institutional comple...

Soci 2368 Race & Ethnicity in Canada Institutional Completeness Ethnic institutions: sites (e.g. economic, educational, religious) or social spaces within which ethnic identity is produced and maintained over time; e.g., language, schools, religious institutions Institutional completeness: the extent to which an ethnic group in a particular place and time forms organizations by and for its members -​ These organizations (educational, religious, or social) cater to the needs of the ethnic group members; e.g., ethnic credit union; services by co-ethnic professionals  Non-territorial autonomy: (NTA) strategies that mitigate ethnic tensions by providing groups (large, ethnic minority populations) with cultural or institutional autonomy that does not threaten the integrity of the state -​ E.g., Chinatown, Italian Village (no clear physical/geographical boundary) A Short History of “Race” ​ “Race” (problematic) has historically been defined in terms of physical or genetic characteristics, or as an ascriptive characteristic (vs. achieved characteristics/status) ○​ Race is more complex than ‘phenotypes’ ​ Prior to the late 19th century, “race” meant lineage and was variously defined in religious and environmental (e.g., impacts on skin colour) terms ​ European exploration in the 15th century brought them in contact with other people, Others, who seemed different in physical appearance, culture, and religion ​ Europeans used these differences as justification for slavery and colonialism ​ Europeans classified Indigenous people as “heathen” (irreligious) based on religious differences ○​ This classification meant Indigenous people were not seen as rightful occupants of the land ​ Ideas served as justification for colonial settlement of Indigenous lands ​ By the 19th century, historical intersections of colonialism and science shifted the meaning of “race” ​ “Race” began to be used to explain physical, social, moral and intellectual variation among people, and the apparent technological superiority of Europeans ​ European scientists used racial typologies that helped to perpetuate systematic expressions of biologically informed racism (Banton, 1970) ○​ In 1850, Knox published The Races of Men focused on “horizontal” (among different ethnic groups), away from vertical (within a single ethnic group) lines of individual and collective descent, differences between discrete people groups “Race” and Scientific Racism ​ Scientific theories that advanced doctrines of racial typologies make certain assumptions: ○​ There exists distinct and permanent types of Homo sapiens ○​ Physical differences and behaviours are expressions of discrete biological type that is permanent ○​ Cultural variation is determined by biological type ○​ Biological variations is the origin of conflict between individuals and nations ○​ “Races” are differentially endowed such that some are inherently inferior (or superior) to others (superiority – inferiority continuum) Ethnicity ​ Roots in the Greek word ethnos, meaning “people” ​ The collective conscience for Emilie Durkheim is a primary source of identity formation. It encompasses: ○​ Social solidarity based on “sameness” and preference for “own kind” ○​ “Us” vs. “Them” feelings, which help set clear boundaries between Self and Other ​ Group formation – associated with social practices of inclusion/exclusion, influence group formation, and the production and distribution of scarce valuable resources Max Weber - ethnicity is made up of common descent, tribe, culture, language, religion, and nationality ​ “Ethnic groups” are those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; presumed identity ​ “Race” denotes the common identity of groups based on heredity and endogamous conjugal groups ​ Group boundaries can be established based on perceived differences; group consciousness ​ Ethnicity and the belief in a “common descent” can eventually give rise to the formation of “nationality” ​ These distinct “nations” may eventually lead to the creation of nation-states ○​ Before the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, large political entities were multi-ethnic and multinational ​ Acquisition of ethnic identity–ethnic identity can be collective (objective; consensus w/in the group) or individual (subj.; the relationships of individuals to their own ethnic collectivity) The Human Genome Project ​ Started in 1987 in an attempt to trace the human genome ​ Found that humans share as much as 99.9% of genetic material ○​ The Haplotype Project seeks to find out the significance of this 0.1% difference ​ Genetic mapping of the human genome raises concerns regarding ethical implications and how the info will be used ​ Equating genetic differences to “race” CAN HAVE REAL CONSEQUENCES Racialization and the Social Construction of “Race” “Race” is a socially constructed category for categorizing humans ​ Racialization is a concept that emphasizes the socially constructed nature of “race” as opposed to there being biological differences between people ​ The use of the concept “race” can reify it (treat it as real) ○​ Individuals and groups, therefore, can be “racialized”, whereby attention is drawn to their “race” as a way to understand and explain interactions and processed, even though “race” is not an objectively measurable aspect of human differences Racism ​ No single agreed-upon definition ​ Martin Barker (1981) argued that negative evaluations of racially defined groups were being masked in new, racially neutral language and rearticulated to make them more politically acceptable in public discourse, which he called “new racism” ​ “Old Style” racism and discrimination may have been replaced by more subtle forms of racism – microaggressions Microaggression refers to “brief commonplace daily verbal, behavioral and environmental indignities, whether intentional or not, that communicate hostile, derogatory or negative racial, gender, sexual orientation, and religious slights and insults to the target person or group” (Sue, 2010:5) ​ Three distinct but interrelated microaggressions: 1)​ Microassaults – old style explicit racism (e.g. racial slur) 2)​ Microinsults – subtle snubs (e.g., dismissive look, “do something else, that’s too hard for you”) 3)​ Microinvalidations – invalidate the feeling/experience (e.g., colour-blind, I don’t see you as a POC) “Dog-whistle” politics: coded racial appeals by politicians to direct hostilities to minority groups (e.g., “Tough on crime”, in US, is primarily used as a code for “tough on Black and Latinx people, who are dangerous!”) ​ Henry and Tator (2010) argue that in Canada, there is “democratic racism” ​ Democratic racism is “an ideology in which two conflicting sets of values are made congruent to each other. Commitments to democratic principles such as justice, equality, and fairness conflict but coexist with attitudes and behaviours that include negative feelings about minority groups” ​ Some of the discourses of democratic racism include: ○​ Discourse of colour-blindness – refusal to recognize that race is part of the baggage that POC carry with them ○​ Discourse of equal opportunity – “Forget about the past; just treat everyone the same.” ○​ Discourse of blaming the victim – e.g., lack of motivation to succeed ○​ Discourse of multiculturalism – idiosyncrasies of others must be tolerated but that the dominant ways of doing things are ultimately superior ​ Some critiques of “new racism” include: ○​ It attaches simple motivations to complex ideas and discourse; e.g., may genuinely believe, although naively, that multiculturalism policy is ideal ○​ It tends to essentialize the category of whiteness and homogenize the category of ethno-racial communities ○​ There is no clear dividing line between “old” and “new” versions of racism White Racism: The Only Racism? ​ Racism is often seen as something that is inherent only to white people ○​ E.g., Feagin and Vera (1995, p.7) argue that because of the institutional power possessed by white Americans, which often deny POC “the dignity, opportunities, freedoms and rewards,” racism cannot be perpetuated at the systemic level by POC in the US. They argue that: ​ Minorities are powerless to act on the basis of prejudicial ideas ​ Minorities do not possess any no centuries-old system of racialized subordination and discrimination Critiques of White Racism ​ Critiques find it problematic to take the view that racism is the exclusive domain of white people for several reasons, including: ○​ This view assumes that all members of minority communities are powerless in the face of an insurmountable white power structure ○​ Individuals within minority communities are not uniquely immune to racism or powerless to act on the basis of these beliefs ○​ Colorism occurs within both “white society” and racialized groups IN CONCLUSION… ​ Ethnicity and “race” are persistent bases for the formation of social groups ​ Ethnicity is usually associated with people’s cultural characteristics while ‘race” is believed to be an irrational way of dividing human populations into groups based on members’ physical characteristics ​ New racism shows that while articulations of racism may have changed, groups continue to be categorized based on “race” and ethnicity ​ Some scholars argue that white racism is the only racism; others contest this way of thinking Chapter 2 – Theory & Race Theory ​ Theories are based upon hypotheses and empirical evidence to define and understand social reality ​ Theories search for the multiple causes of social relations, and help us analyze, explain and predict social phenomena ○​ E.g., They help us to understand incidents such as Rodney King’s and George Floyd’s killing by police officers in the US and subsequent responses ​ There are several different theoretical perspectives to understanding “race” and ethnic relations Primordialism and Socio-biology ​ Primordial (basic & fundamental) approaches (e.g., sociobiology) conceptualize ethnicity and “race” as being discrete (distinct), ascriptive (based on predetermined factors) characteristics that are given at birth and that derive from objective biological or blood ties ○​ Pierre van de Berghe (1981): ethnic groups tend to band together to ensure the long-term survival and propagation of their group ○​ He argued that in order to maximize their chances of survival, individuals resort to inclusive fitness (intermarry to pass on genes) ​ Basic mechanism of ethnic solidarity is nepotism (=favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship) ​ Some understand modern-day conflicts through primordial perspectives, e.g., the 1994 Rwandan genocide ​ Critics, however, suggest that a primordial perspective may be insufficient because: ○​ It doesn’t explain how ethnic groups coexist in peace ○​ Conflict may not be borne simply from physical differences (conflicting groups are often physically indistinguishable) Culture & Assimilation ​ The Chicago School - how groups interacted and experienced immigration in the US ○​ W.I. Thomas study of Polish immigrants to Chicago found that internal and external competition often led to community disorganization, despair, and disarray and changed family structures ○​ Thomas argued against the forced abandonment of ethnic cultures, languages, religions, or other bases of ethnic identity ​ He called for pluralism, the tolerance of ethnic differences and for reconciliation ​ Pluralism promotes the worth and value of other cultures whereas multiculturalism is a social response to cultural diversity – normative. ​ Robert Park studied the processes through which “racial” groups come into contact and interact ​ He proposed a “race relations cycle”, which also applied to ethnic relations ○​ The elements of the cycle are: contact, competition (resources), accommodation (or conflict), and fusion/assimilation ​ The cycle led to one outcome: assimilation, in which the subordinate minority groups are assimilated into the dominant majority group ​ This form of fusion, according to Park, allowed for social harmony and equality ​ Milton Gordon expanded on Park’s analysis by suggesting that assimilation is a seven-stage process 1)​ Cultural/behavioral (acculturation); 2)​ Structural; 3)​ Marital (interim); 4)​ Identificational (sense of belonging); 5)​ Attitude receptional (no prejudice); 6)​ Behavioural receptional (no discrimination); 7)​ Civic assimilation (no conflict of values/power) ​ Gordon argued that progression through these stages was not inevitable or linear and that some groups can get “stuck” at a stage of assimilation  ​ Gordon Allport introduced the “contact hypothesis”, in which he argued that prejudice between groups can be reduced when certain conditions are met (equal group status, shared goal, needs both groups to cooperate to achieve the goal, supported by authorities) ​ Critics, however, pointed out that the hypothesis does not really specify how and why contact under these conditions reduces prejudice or if the effects of contact can be generalized to other situations ​ Both Parks and Allport’s approaches have been criticized for not being applicable to minority experiences Alejandro Portes used the concept of segmented assimilation to reflect that the society immigrants and their children assimilate into is not itself homogenous. Three outcomes are possible for immigrant children 1)​ They become assimilated into the dominant culture 2)​ They are integrated into ethnic claves 3)​ Lower social class immigrant children may develop marginalized identities and positions in the labour market ​ Boyd (2002) found some evidence of segmented assimilation in Canada Culture and Socio-economic Success ​ Some argue that cultural values and biological characteristics affect the psychological composition of group members and produce “differences in cognitive perception, mental aptitude, and logical reasoning” ○​ These differences, in turn, affect educational and economic achievements ​ Other important cultural arguments include: ○​ Oscar Lewis’ Culture of Poverty Thesis ○​ Wagley and Harris’ theory of Adaptive Capacity ​ John Porter (1965) distinguished between behavioural assimilation (acquiring dominant group cultural values) and structural assimilation (integration of minorities into the economic, social, and political life of the country) ​ Porter also advanced the Blocked Mobility Thesis: ○​ Ethnic affiliation was a determinant of social class membership and prevented the upward mobility of certain groups, partly because they had not assimilated culturally in Canada ​ Amy Chua and Jed Rubenfield (2014) published The Triple Package: How Three Unlikely Traits Explain the Rise and Fall of Cultural Groups in America ○​ Three cultural traits explain success for minority groups in America: ​ Superiority Complex ​ Personal Insecurity ​ Impulse Control ​ There are limitations of the cultural approach to understanding racial and ethnic differences: ○​ Peter Li (1988) argues there is no simple correspondence between people, culture, and “nation” ○​ Differences within groups: People who claim common origins do not necessarily share the same experiences or culture. Cultural differences also might vary by gender, class, age, region, education, etc. ○​ Culture is not static, uniform, or homogenous Conflict Theory and Political Economy ​ In general, the political economy perceives “race” and ethnicity as relational concepts ​ “Race” and ethnicity have historically been defined as and often overlapped with class ○​ Class is both a fundamental economic relationship between groups and a structural condition within which these relations take place