MICHAEL OMI AND HOWARD WINANT

RACIAL FORMATION IN THE UNITED STATES FROM THE 1960s TO 1980s.

The main idea is to understand race as a concept on its own and not a product of nature or even
the socio-political dynamics dominated by different ethnic and class theories.Omi and Winant
understand race through social nature of race, historical flexibility in its meaning, absence of
essential racial characteristics and political aspect of racial dynamics. Their argument is that race
is constantly evolving category on its own and not a manifestation of social and political
dynamics. Race will always be the centre of an American experience which no policy will be
able to completely resolve because the meaning itself would change.

THE DOMINANT PARADIGM: ETHNICITY- BASED THEORY

1. The paradigm has passed through three major stages:
a. A pre-1930s stage in which the ethnic group views was an insurgent approach,
challenging the biologistic view of race which was dominant at that time.
b. A 1930s-1965 stage during which the paradigm operated as the progressive/liberal
“common sense” approach to race and during which two recurrent themes –
assimilation and cultural pluralism—were defined.
c. A post 1965 phase, in which the paradigm has taken on the defense of
conservative (or “neoconservative”) egalitarianism against what is perceived as
the radical assault of ‘group rights’.

2. By 20th century, biologism was losing coherence. It had come under attack by adherents
of progressivism and questioned by the ‘Chicago School’ of Sociology. Progressive
attack was led by H.Kellen’s concept of ‘cultural pluralism’. The Chicago school led by
Robert. E. Park and his concept of ‘assimilationism’.
3. The ethnicity-based paradigm was an insurgent theory that argued that race was a social
category. Ethnicity was understood as the result of a group formation process based on
culture and decent. ‘Culture’ in this formulation included diverse factors as religion,
language, customs, nationality and political identification. ‘descent’ involved heredity
and a sense of group origins thus suggesting that ethnicity was socially ‘primordial’ if not
biologically given, in character.
4. With the coming up of liberalism, the idea of egalitarianism was instilled in the society.
Theoretical Dominance of Ethnicity Paradigm.
1. The chief debate between assimilationist and cultural pluralists has been about the
possibility of maintaining ethnic group identities over time, and consequently the
viability of ethnicity in a society (anglo conformity) that is, the presence of a supposedly
unitary culture.
2. The appearance of Gunnar Myrdal’s ‘An American Dilemma’ in 1944 marked the ascent
of the ethnicity paradigm to a position of theoretical dominance. Myrdal’s assessment
was optimistic about the ultimate resolution of this battle – the contradictions would give
way to racial equality and the eventual integration of blacks in to the mainstream of
American life. The ethnicity-based theoretical tradition, derived from the experiences of
European immigrants, was extended in the conclusions of an American dilemma so that it
might apply as well to non-whites, especially blacks.

3. Nathan Glazer and Daniel P.Moynihan attempted further innovation in ethnicity theory in
their work ‘Beyond the Melting Pot’, they sought to link cultural pluralism with political
pluralism, the dominant construct in American political science and thus reconcile the
paradigm’s problem of ethnic group identity—assimilation vs cultural pluralism;
incorporation vs preservation.

4. So ethnicity theory assigned to blacks and other racial minority groups the roles which
earlier generations of Europeans immigrants has played in the great waves of the
“Atlantic migration” of the 19th and 20th centuries. But racial minorities refused to play
their assigned roles. Structural barriers continued to render the immigrant analogy
inappropriate and the trajectory of incorporation did not develop as the ethnicity
paradigm has envisioned. Many blacks rejected ethnic identity in favour of a more radical
racial identity which demanded group rights and recognition. Given these developments,
ethnicity theory found itself increasingly in opposition to the demands of minority
movements. The ethnicity paradigm has to be reworked again. The phenomenon of
neoconservatism came about.

Some critical remarks on ethnicity paradigm

1. Substantial criticism has been offered to the ethnicity school for its treatment of racially
defined minorities as ethnically defined minorities and for its general neglect of race as a
category per se. This argument points out the lacunae of the immigrant analogy in
addressing what was a qualitatively a completely different historical experience which
included slavery, colonization, racially based exclusion and in case of North American,
virtual extirpation.
2. Omi and Winant focus on two problems with the ethnicity theory in comprehending the
social influence and meaning of race. The two problems are – the bootstrap model and
‘they all look alike’.
3. The bootstrap model: substantial reworking of the ethnicity paradigm took place in the
1960s and early 1970s. The key factor in explaining the success that an ethnic group will
have in becoming incorporated into majority society is the values or ‘norms’ which the
group brings to bear on the general social circumstances it faces just as all minorities
have done. Since the independent variable are the ‘norms’ the idea that ‘difference in
 status could be accepted by factors outside or even unrelated to the group is ruled out at
the level of assumption. Everything is mediated through norms internal to the group.
In other words, something akin to Milton Gordon’s notion of ‘structural assimilation’ is
assumed to take place as immigrants groups pass beyond the’ fresh off the boat’ status
and gain the acceptance of the majority. Yet this assumption is quite unwarranted with
respect to racial minorities, whose distinctiveness, the white majority is often not
appreciably altered by adoption of the norms and values of the white majority.
4. “They all look alike” argues, in what sense can racial minority groups be considered in
ethnic group terms? In what sense the category ‘black’ is equivalent to say ‘Irish’?

Ethnicity theory isn’t very interested in ethnicity among blacks. The ethnicity approach
views blacks as one ethnic group among others. It doesn’t consider national origins,
religion language or cultural differences among blacks as it does among whites as source
of ethnicity.

CH-2; RACIAL FORMATIONS

WHAT IS RACE?
 In 18th century, there was a popular acceptance of a concept with roots in classical Greek
thought – the ‘Great Chain of Being’. Posing a grand hierarchy starting with inanimate
objects, up through the lowliest forms of life, through “man” and culminating with God
the creator, the ‘Great Chain of Being’ hierarchized all
 In the 19th century, Count Arthur de Gobineau, in his work ‘Essays of the Inequality of
Races’ basically projected the idea that there were superior races which produce superior
cultures and the racial intermixtures result in the degradation of the superior racial stock.
These themes found expression, for instance, in the eugenics movement inspired by
Darwin’s cousin, Frances Galton, which has an immense impact on scientific and
sociopolitical thought in Europe and the united states.
 There have been several theories to revoke the scientific nature of race. They all seek to
remove the concept of race from fundamental social, political or economic determination.
They suggest instead that the truth of races lies in the terrain of innate characteristic. Of
which
 There are many ongoing scientific project that seek to observe the biological reasoning of
the existence of race. In this attempt, scholars are basically removing the concept of race
away from the fundamental social, political or economic determination.
RACE AS A SOCIAL CONCEPT
 Social Sciences have come to reject the biologistic notion of race and instead regard it as
a social concept. The work of Franz Boas was crucial in refuting the scientific racism of
 the early 20th century by rejecting the connection between race and culture and the
assumption of a continuum of ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ cultural groups.
 It is a socio-historic construct. ‘Racial Formations’ refers to the process by which social,
economic and political forces determine the content and importance of racial categories
and by which they are in turn shaped by racial meanings. Therefore, even the concept of
‘black’ would imply different meaning with respect to the diversity of social contexts as
well as historically within which it operates.
 The meaning of race is defined and contested throughout society in both collective action
and personal practice. In the process, racial categories themselves are formed,
transformed, destroyed and re-formed. Racial formation refers to the process by which
social, economic and political forces determine the content and importance of racial
categories ad by which they are in turn shaped by racial meanings.
RACIAL IDEOLOGY AND RACIAL IDENTITY
 In the US society, a kind of ‘racial etiquettes’ exists, a set of interpretative codes and
racial meanings which operate in the interaction of daily life. ‘Etiquettes’ is not merely
universal adherence to the dominant group’s rules, but a more dynamic combination of
these rules with the values and beliefs of the subordinated groupings. This is also called
the rule of HYPODESCENT (interaction of subordinate groups with dominant groups in
daily life in context of etiquettes).
 ‘Race’ thereby becomes a way of comprehending, explaining and acting in the world, it
becomes a part of common sense.
 The ‘skin colour’ difference further translates into differential value being attached to
intellectual, physical and artistic temperaments and to justify distinct treatment of racially
identified individuals and groups.
 The superficial meanings, stereotypes and myths can change but the presence of a system
of racial meanings and stereotypes of racial ideology, seems to be a permanent feature of
the US culture.
 In the reaffirmation of these social meanings attached to the category of race, the media
plays a significant role. Television not only reflects the meaning but also creates the
ideology. Thereby, race is viewed as something immutable and fixed. This form of
representation masks its historical construction and political ideology that contributes and
shapes the racial relations.

RACIALIZATION: (The Historical Development of Race)

 Racialization is to signify extension of racial meaning to a previously racially
unclassified relationship, social practice or group. Racialization is an ideological process,
a historically specific one (because its contextual depending on a specific time and
space). For instance, with slavery, a racially based understanding of the society was set
in motion which resulted in the shaping of a specific racial identity not only for the
salves but the European settlers as well.
  Racial ideology is construed from preexisting conceptual elements and emerges from the
struggles of competing political projects and ideas seeking to articulate similar elements
differently.

RACIAL FORMATION: THE CREATION OF RACIAL MEANINGS

 Much racial theory has argued to treat race as a manifestation or epiphenomena of
other supposedly more fundamental categories of sociopolitical identity, notably
those of ethnicity, class and nation. Race is not regarded as a continually evolving
category in its own right, these approaches have often imagined that race would
decline in importance, even disappear, as economic or political “progress” rendered
“race thinking” obsolete.
 However according to the authors, racial meaning pervade US society, extending
from the shaping of individual racial identities to the structuring of collective
political action on the terrain of the state. An approach based on the concept of racial
formation should treat race in the US as a fundamental organizing principle of social
relationships.
 At the micro level, race is a matter of individuality, of the formation of identity. The
ways in which we understand ourselves and interact with others, the structuring of
our practical activity at work and family.
 At the macro-level, race is a matter of collectivity, of the formation of social
structure: economic/political and cultural or ideological. Social structure maybe
understood as a series of ‘sites.’ Site then is a region of social life with a coherent set
of constitutive social relations – the structure of the site. Thus, in the advanced
capitalist social formation, the liberal demarcation states, the capitalist economy and
the patriarchal family may be considered sites in that each maybe characterized by a
distinct set of ‘rules of games’ for participation in practices.
 The racial order is organized and enforced by the continuity and reciprocity between
these two ‘levels’ of social relations. The micro and the macro level. In our lived
experience, in politics, in culture, in economic life, they are continuous and
reciprocal. Racial discrimination considered at the ‘macro’ level has obvious
implication for the experience and identities of individuals. It affects racial
meanings, intervenes in “personal life”.
CONTESTING THE SOCIAL MEANING OF RACE
 The effort must be made to understand race as an unstable and decentered complex of
social meaning constantly being transformed by political struggle. It is important to
understand it this way because,
 o Today as in the past, racial minorities pay a heavy price in human suffering as a
result of their categorization as ‘other’ by the dominant racial ideology
o Racial politics are emblematic, we believe of a new stage of US politics as a
whole a new socially based politics.
 Racial dynamics are quite visible in social life. They cause uncertainty in the minds of the
individual subject to them. They confront institutions, local communities and families
with deep seated conflicts and agonizing dilemmas. They structure lar scale policy
debates. They inspire movements. Racial debate, the interpretation of race – which in
previous periods of US history was relatively less problematic, has taken up what seems
to be long term residence on the social terrain of everyday life, where people must
reconcile the conflicts in their lives, or live with their inability to reconcile them. It is in
this terrain racial theory has most often been addressed.