Existence Of Racism In Contemporary Britain Sociology Essay Essay
“ The being of ‘races ‘ in a given society presupposes the presence of racism, for without racism, physical features are barren of societal significance ” ( Van den Berghe, 1978, p.11 ) .
This represents a tenseness, explored within this essay, between the inability to categorize human existences into separate ‘races ‘ on the footing of physical difference ( Peoples and Bailey, 2011 ) and the fact that such classification occurs, based on the misconception that socially constructed constructs of racial difference are an nonsubjective world ( Barak et al. , 2010 ) . As the being of ‘race ‘ relies basically upon its building within society ( Marger, 2011 ) , it appears, within this essay, as ‘race ‘ . In analyzing the being of racism in modern-day Britain, a figure of definitions will be explored, nevertheless, a commonalty among them is their dependance on the definition of ‘race ‘ , showing, I would reason, the every bit, socially, constructed, nature of racism ( Capdevila and Callaghan, 2007 ) .
By analyzing Immigration and Asylum policy, this essay will analyze how differing definitions of racism, explicate its continued being, within a apparently tolerant society ( Wemyss, 2009 ) . It besides considers how immigrants and refuge searchers are perceived and treated within society, because in add-on to happening at policy degree, racism is a lived experience ( Lentin, 2011 ) . I do non see the definitions examined, viz. biological, new, institutional and cultural racism, to be an thorough list and recognise that sing its being from other concepts, may give a different image of modern-day Britain, farther showing the demand for a critical attack to constructs of racism and its being within society ( Zamudio et al. , 2011 ) . I will reason by researching whether accurately specifying racism, impacts its prevalence, or whether prosecuting the obliteration of negative life opportunities, for minority cultural groups, is non more good than the classification of favoritism.
Although it is now normally recognised that there are no biological differences, by which ‘races ‘ can be categorised ( Nanda and Warms, 2010 ) , this construct continues to make the foundation for biological racism and associates such difference with a behavioral hierarchy in footings of ethical motives and mind ( Smedley and Smedley, 2005 ) . This construct of hierarchy, I would reason, is built-in to racism, in that the ‘self ‘ is constructed as superior and the ‘other ‘ as inferior ( Rivers, 2008 ) . Having proven the non-existence of ‘race ‘ , this signifier of racism could be considered out-of-date and irrelevant, nevertheless, I would reason that its prevalence is still evident within scientific discourse and public sentiment ( Lentin, 2011 ) . In recent political argument, for illustration, around cut downing the spread of HIV within the UK, by supplying free intervention to foreign subjects ( HAUK Select Committee, 2011 ) , dissenters have argued that this will increase in-migration, out of a desire for free medical intervention ( Department of Health, 2005 ) . Whilst I would non deny the greater prevalence of HIV in some parts of the universe, and hence some cultural groups, tie ining this with the motive for in-migration, within such cultural groups, being to take advantage of free resources, I would reason, has biologically racist undertones. In add-on, there is no grounds that the proviso of free HIV intervention would make such ‘health touristry ‘ ( NAT. , 2008 ) .
With racism being legislated against ( Race Relations Act, 1976 ) , racist undertones are now more common than open racism, when taking a biologically racist position ( Jiwani and Richardson, 2011 ) and the denial of racism within Immigration and Asylum policy, reasoning that “ it ‘s non racist to enforce bounds on in-migration ” ( Conservative Party, 2005 ) , is unsurprising. Whilst in-migration regulations, by their nature, discriminate between those who have, and do non hold, the right to stay in the UK, I would reason that this favoritism is merely biologically racist, if determinations are made on the footing of physical difference. As such, it could be argued that the Conservative discourse is justified, in that some standard are required for in-migration control, but that such regulations do non mention to peculiar ‘racial ‘ groups holding features finding their suitableness for in-migration ( Sriskandarajah, 2006 ) . Whilst this statement does non needfully turn out the deficiency of racism within Immigration Policy, it demonstrates how one definition of racism, in this instance biological, can be used to deny its being, whereas, as this essay will show, building alternate definitions high spots greater prevalence of racism within Immigration and Asylum policy.
A combination of factors, including statute law, scientific principle behind the non-existence of ‘race ‘ and eugenics motions, have resulted in traditional signifiers of racism being constructed as socially unacceptable, doing a decrease, although non obliteration, in overt, racist behavior and a denial of racialist purpose ( Romm, 2010 ) . If my apprehension of racism, hence, were restricted to a biological definition, I might reason that its being within modern-day Britain has reduced. By redefining racism, nevertheless, in the visible radiation of its societal unacceptableness, to subtler, indirect signifiers, the being of racism, I would reason, in both Immigration and Asylum policy and wider British society, can still be seen. This subtler definition, known as New Racism ( Collins and Solomos, 2010 ) , argues that the same belief in racial high quality underpins many current discourses, but that new linguistic communication is used to stand for these traditional beliefs, for illustration, replacing ‘race ‘ with immigrant or asylum searcher ( Kimber, 2010 ) .
Returning to the Conservative Manifesto ( 2005 ) , if no illation of racism exists within policy proposals, so why is at that place a demand for rhetoric which defends a non-racist place? The powerful usage of linguistic communication is apparent in this sort of discourse, because in add-on to denying racist purpose, statements are constructed, such that, accusals of racism are deemed irrational, doing any covert or indirect signifiers of racism hard to dispute ( Goodman and Burke, 2011 ) . In Conservative leader, Michael Howard ‘s election run ( 2005 ) , for illustration, the demand for stricter in-migration control is argued to be based on common sense, instead than racist rules. Mr. Howard categorises immigrants as ‘good ‘ and ‘bad ‘ , with those being different and non embracing British values, deemed ‘bad ‘ ( Btihaj, 2006 ) . Bing a kid of immigrants, he classifies himself a ‘good ‘ immigrant, for whom racism is unacceptable because he is ‘one of them ‘ , nevertheless, Michael is white, and hence does non look ‘different ‘ and his immigrant Father is Rumanian, a Christian, European state whose values and civilizations are more in line with “ Britishness ” than possibly, ‘non-white ‘ , ‘non-Christian ‘ states, doing conforming to the image of ‘good ‘ immigrant, much easier for him ( Capdevila and Callaghan, 2007 ) . In this manner, I would reason that, although new linguistic communication is used, racist beliefs underpin this discourse, in depicting acceptable immigrants as ‘white ‘ , with similar civilization and values, and conversely less acceptable immigrants, as ‘non-white ‘ persons, declining to conform to ‘our civilization and values ‘ . A biological definition would deny racism within this address, whereas, a new racism definition high spots underlying racialist discourse, which may ensue in the execution of racist in-migration policies. I would reason that this farther demonstrates the contested and constructed nature of racism, which can be made to be, or non, on the footing of its definition.
This coded usage of linguistic communication can besides be seen in broad public attitudes, within the UK. Where footings like lazy, stupid and unprincipled were historically used to depict ‘racial ‘ groups, they are now connected with immigrants and refuge searchers ( Craig, 2007 ) . Similarly, Finney and Peach ( 2006 ) found that although prejudiced positions have shifted from ‘race ‘ to immigrants and refuge searchers, similar linguistic communication, and grounds for feelings of animus, are used in depicting both groups. A biologically racist position, could reason that attitudes toward cultural minorities have improved within the UK, but I would reason that, sing a new racism definition, although linguistic communication and focal point have changed, racialist attitudes still prevail within modern-day British society.
Another position in understanding racism, is to see how policies, determination devising and institutional patterns create and define racism, instead than single belief systems. This institutional definition of racism, argues that, policies are constructed to both subsidiary, and keep control over, peculiar racial groups ( Carmichael and Hamilton, 1969 ) . In this manner, racism is the creative activity of lower status through the execution of organizational policies and processs ( Better, 2008 ) and is rooted in the procedures of established and respected forces within society, which I would reason makes them less likely to be challenged than single Acts of the Apostless of racism ( Carmichael and Hamilton, 1969 ) . Institutional racism can happen accidentally, by unintentional bias and racial stereotyping making policies and cultural patterns which disadvantage cultural minorities ( Macpherson, 1999 ) . The complexness of institutional racism is that, administrations can non do determinations or policies, without the presence of persons and therefore inquiries whether an establishment can be racist, or whether racism consequences from the influence of persons within that establishment ( Roush, 2008 ) .
The UK Border Agency, in working preponderantly with immigrants and refuge searchers, in my position, holds important possible for institutional racism. Whether such racism is knowing is contested, but irrespectively, I would reason that, some in-migration policies disproportionately disadvantage certain cultural minorities. Recent alterations to work license policies, for illustration, mean that eating houses using chefs from outside the EU, must happen appliers with at least 5 old ages ‘ experience and graduate-level makings, paying them at least ?28,260 a twelvemonth ( Home Office, 2011 ) . Although this policy is applied to all eating houses and its execution purposes to prioritize occupations for British citizens, I would reason that eating houses supplying culinary art arising outside Europe, are likely to be disproportionately impacted by this policy and that such concerns are likely to be owned by, and using persons of, cultural minorities ( Khaleeli, 2012 ) . In this manner, whether deliberately or non, I would reason that these in-migration alterations are institutionally racist, in that their negative impact, upon cultural minorities, is inexcusably disproportional. This once more demonstrates, I would reason, how the definition of racism taken, can significantly impact its sensed being within modern-day British society. A biological definition, for illustration, would reason that determinations are non being made on the footing of physical difference, as all persons are having the same intervention, and hence the policy is non racist. Similarly, new racism, by analyzing the linguistic communication used, could still reason that the purpose of this policy, is non to favor any peculiar racial group. The difference, I would reason, with institutional racism, is that purpose is less of import than impact and hence, racism can be deemed to be if the results for cultural minorities are disproportionately worse than the general population, which in respect to this policy, I would reason, could be the instance.
The concluding position being explored, cultural racism, is argued by some to merely be an extension of new racism ( Jacobson, 2008 ) . Within in-migration and refuge discourse, nevertheless, I would reason, the linguistic communication of civilization so often replaces that of ‘race ‘ , as to do a distinguishable geographic expedition of cultural racism good ( Diller, 2010 ) . Cultural racism relates to the belief that less dominant civilizations are dysfunctional, maladaptive or even aberrant, underscoring single weaknesss, instead than a social failure to suit difference ( Williams, 2007 ) . Although it could be argued that this moves excessively far from a valid definition of racism, this depends upon how ‘race ‘ is defined and if there are no biological differences by which ‘races ‘ can be categorised, so the socially constructed differences which create racism, may besides be cultural differences ( Pon, 2009 ) . In this manner cultural racism is both the negatively, differential intervention on the footing of cultural difference ( Hill, 2008 ) and the denial of chance to show one ‘s civilization ( Ford, 2005 ) .
Moslems are often constructed, for illustration, as a homogeneous group, when in world the diverseness of persons sorting themselves as Muslim, is excessively huge to formalize a individual individuality ( Al-Azmeh, 2007 ) . Despite this, the term Muslim has become a manner of depicting ethnicity, both in political relations and public sentiment ( Wilson, 2007 ) . This procedure of homogenization, I would reason, has caused thoughts of fundamentalism, and terrorist purpose, to be attributed to the Muslim individuality, building them, in some respects, as an enemy of British society ( Todorov and Brown, 2010 ) . This is non merely a discriminatory and inaccurate portraiture of a diverse group, but besides culturally racist in the manner such beliefs are played out in the execution of policy and intervention of Muslims within British society ( Qasmiyeh, 2010 ) . This can be seen in proposed legislative alterations, following the terrorist onslaughts of September 2001, where Prime Minister, Tony Blair, argued a demand for increased ability to except and take those suspected of terrorist act and those seeking to mistreat the refuge system ( Hansard, 2001 ) . In add-on, in depicting the onslaughts, Mr. Blair highlighted the terrorists ‘ motive as a spiritual duty set out in the Islamic Holy text, the Koran ( ibid ) . This demonstrates, I would reason, an implicit in discourse tie ining both Muslims and refuge searchers with terrorist act ( Huysmans and Alessandra, 2008 ) . Further political statements in the subsequent decennary, I would reason, cemented this building of Muslims as the enemy ( Pantazis and Pemberton, 2009 ) . In 2006, for illustration, a study on countering terrorist act ( Cabinet Office, 2006 ) concluded that the most outstanding menace came from Islamist extremists. Furthermore John Denham, as Home Office curate, suggested that behind a minority group of terrorists, sat a wider Islamic community, who considered terrorist act to be a legitimate response to current concerns ( Denham, 2007 ) .
A effect of this negative building of Muslims, I would reason, is the prejudiced intervention of immigrants and refuge searchers who identify as Muslim ( Pantazis and Pemberton, 2009 ) . Risk-profiling computing machines, for illustration, finding on entry to the UK who should be scanned, searched and questioned, have been found to concentrate upon Muslim-specific behaviors, categorizing rehearsing Muslims as ‘high hazard ‘ ( Webber, 2012 ) . This is a clear presentation, I would reason, of cultural racism, in finding negatively, differential intervention on the footing of cultural individuality, farther foregrounding how the being of racism, is really much dependant upon the manner in which it is defined. Biological racism, for illustration, would reason that the scope of cultural diverseness within Islam, indicates that any prejudiced intervention toward Muslims, can non be racialist, as implicit in, prejudiced, motives are non based upon biological difference. Similarly, although much of the favoritism explored, occurs at an institutional degree, Institutional Racism is based on the impact of policies and patterns upon ‘racial ‘ , non cultural or spiritual, groups and so would non see the affairs explored to turn out the being of racism, within modern-day British society.
Having considered changing definitions of racism, I would reason that its being, within modern-day British society, is complex and can be argued to be both prevailing and a thing of the yesteryear ( Rattansi, 2007 ) . By taking a biological position, this essay has considered that, although racist undertones may be in some in-migration and refuge discourse, its prevalence within British society is diminishing ( Day, 2011 ) . Alternatively, by taking an institutional position, where it is non captive but impact which is measured, the being of racism has been highlighted, through some UK policies and establishments disproportionately, disfavoring cultural minorities. Similarly, by sing racism from the position of new linguistic communication being used in topographic point of traditionally racist footings, the prevalence of racism additions significantly, specifically, as this essay had demonstrated, within Immigration and Asylum policy. Finally, by widening this new racism definition to the replacing of ‘racialised ‘ linguistic communication, with that of civilization, this essay has demonstrated how specific groups continue to see important degrees of racism within British society, both in footings of policy building and public attitude ( Allen, 2010 ) . Reflecting upon these assorted buildings of racism, I would reason that its sensed being is extremely dependent upon the definition used.
Whilst this analysis has examined the being of racism, it could be said that it does non explicate its being. Why is it that some groups consider it appropriate to negatively handle others, on the footing of their ‘race ‘ ? I would reason that the reply to this, is power. With biological racism, it is seen in the high quality and lower status of ‘racial ‘ groups, on the premiss that biological difference creates a ‘natural hierarchy ‘ . With new racism, it is seen in powerful discourses which paint racialist political orientations as rational and in the best involvements of Britain, whilst in world keeping the important place of the powerful ( Capedevila and Callaghan, 2007 ) . With institutional racism, it is seen in those with the power to make policy and organizational processs, building these to maximize the benefits for themselves and keep their place of authorization. Finally, with cultural racism, it is seen in the position that inferior and less developed civilizations should be discarded and persons from such cultural groups assimilated into the dominant civilization, accepting the high quality of these cultural norms.
In visible radiation of this, I would reason, that if the being of racism is determined by its definition and the ‘purpose ‘ of racism is to keep power, so a critical apprehension of the constructed nature of racism, is paramount in measuring the discourses and policy proposals of those with such power. This contemplation has besides caused me to oppugn the extent to which an academic chase of categorizing behaviors, policies and political orientations as racialist, is good and if alternatively, it is debaring the focal point from disputing negative favoritism, faced by certain groups, irrespective of their experience suiting our socially constructed definition of racism. In decision, nevertheless, I would reason that, as racism is now considered both lawfully and morally incorrect, if it can be accurately defined and its being proved and highlighted, so work can be achieved towards its obliteration ( Cole, 2009 ) .