Race and Ethnic Minorities Dr. Jack Niemonen 3.0 Credits/Fall Term

Sociology 350: Race and Ethnic Minorities Dr. Jack Niemonen

3.0 Credits/Fall Term 1996 Office: 308 East Hall

University of South Dakota Telephone: 677-5587 (Office);

605-339-0137 (Home; Emergencies Only)

TIME/PLACE: OFFICE HOURS:

9:30 - 10:45 a.m., T/R 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m., M. W.

313 East Hall All Other Times By Appointment

REQUIRED TEXTS: Yetman, Norman R. 1991. Majority and Minority: The Dynamics of Race and Ethnicity in American Life. Fifth Edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Rose, Peter I. 1990. They and We: Racial and Ethnic Relations in the United States. Fourth Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. Willie, Charles. 1989. The Caste and Class Controversy on Race and Poverty: Round Two of the Willie/Wilson Debate. Second Edition. New York: General Hall.

Note: The books above have been ordered for Sociology 350. They are somewhat dated and, at times, marginal to the objectives of this course. Thus, you may find that the readings do not integrate well with the lectures. Approximately fourteen other sociology of racial and ethnic relations textbooks are available on the market. Two of these textbooks are, in my view, very good but they pursue other objectives. To make the problem more difficult, some of the monographs that would be ideal for this course are out of print. I have attached to this syllabus a recommended reading list from journals in sociology; this reading list is organized sequentially by course objectives and content.

COURSE OBJECTIVES AND CONTENT:

In the broadest sense, this course will be taught as a history of paradigmatic shifts in how we think about racial and ethnic relations. Paradigms are sets of assumptions that are taken for granted. They influence how we see and interpret the social world. They are more basic than the choice of a particular problem to be investigated or the particular rules for selecting data and interpreting them. Rarely are these assumptions made explicit. By comparing and contrasting how paradigms frame the study of racial and ethnic relations, we can investigate the level beyond which a theory does not progress, and note themes and issues that are emphasized or ignored. This approach is premised on James B. McKee’s observation that racial situations assume different configurations depending on the framework adopted for studying them. In any study of paradigmatic shifts, those shifts must be rooted in specific socio-historical conditions, and a detailed examination of the underlying assumptions of the paradigms themselves must be conducted. As a sociology of the sociology of racial and ethnic relations, this approach forces a confrontation with questions about the value-free

79 nature of sociological inquiry, about the adequacy of analyses subsumed under other sub-discipline rubrics and built on traditional concepts such as “majority” and “minority,” and about the modes of political action that paradigmatic frameworks legitimize. In this approach, then, theory is not an after-the-fact enterprise; it is the foundation for understanding the race relations problematic. Because theories are rooted in paradigms, the problem is to explain how paradigms inform theories which influence how we interpret racial and ethnic relations at the everyday level. In the next section of this overview, I provide an outline of how this may be done.

This approach is a distinct alternative to, rather than a clone of, extant approaches to teaching the sociology of racial and ethnic relations. It does not offer incremental changes; rooted in a sociology of sociology, it offers a fundamentally different way of teaching the sociology of racial and ethnic relations. This approach is divided into three major parts. Part 1 identifies and discusses a number of important theoretical and conceptual controversies in the study of racial and ethnic relations. Part 2 identifies three paradigmatic frameworks in the sociology of racial and ethnic relations: “assimilation,” “power-conflict,” and “the declining significance of race.” Each of these paradigmatic frameworks is examined in terms of their underlying assumptions, how they conceptualize the race relations problematic, and the controversies they generate. Part 3 addresses four issues: 1) why sociology generally has failed to account for the role of the state in constructing, maintaining, and reproducing racial and ethnic relations; 2) why William Julius Wilson’s work constitutes an important paradigmatic shift in this respect; 3) how the state is viewed, and some of the social policies that result, from each of the paradigmatic frameworks above; and 4) important considerations in redressing racial and ethnic inequality.

PART 1: THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL CONTROVERSIES In the introduction to the course, I will explain why I reject 1) following the current practice of introducing basic concepts in the field without at the same time introducing a substantive context; 2) devoting the majority of the course to a compilation of social histories of racial and ethnic groups, where theory appears as a form of after-the-fact analysis; and 3) assuming that any attempt to explain the complex and contradictory phenomena of racial and ethnic relations requires an eclectic approach. Then, I will offer an alternative approach rooted in the sociology of sociology and the sociology of knowledge. This approach may appear less objective than eclectic approaches, but it has the advantage of paradigmatic consistency and theoretical coherence. The course attempts to transcend particular paradigmatic frameworks to evaluate the interconnectedness of the frameworks themselves as modes of explanation, and to make explicit the broad, unexamined assumptions that underlie these frameworks. For example, the failure of American liberalism to account for the black experience in the United States in the 1960s contributed to the rise of the power-conflict approach. This failure was expressed symbolically in the disagreement between Martin Luther King, Jr., and Stokely Carmichael [now Kwame Ture] over the concept of “black power.” Black power (the concept) and Black Power (the book) challenged the underlying values, assumptions, and goals of American liberalism, as well as its emphasis on assimilation. Black Power (the book) redefined the social world in power-conflict terms and rooted discrimination in institutional structures rather than in individual prejudice.

Following this introduction, the difficulties associated with conceptualizing “race” and “ethnicity” will be examined. A common tendency is to take the concept of race for granted but to be troubled by the impreciseness of the concept of ethnicity. The position I take is that the reification of

80 race reflects back the phenomenal world and does little to increase our understanding of the social construction of race historically; and that ethnicity is a complex concept subsuming a variety of processes.

For example, I will suggest in this section of the course that racial classifications are not constant. They 1) focus on arbitrarily-chosen patterns of phenotypic variation; 2) acquire specific meanings relative to historical context and prevailing discourses; 3) define inclusion and exclusion; 4) minimize or exaggerate racial and ethnic differences; and 5) vary cross-regionally and nationally, evidenced by the fact that different states have different systems of racial classification. In other words, racial classifications give what David Theo Goldberg calls an “apparent specificity” otherwise lacking to social relations. To be capable of this, he argues, race itself must be almost but not quite empty in its own connotative capacity, able to signify not so much by itself as by adopting and giving naturalized form to prevailing conceptions of social group formation at different times. In other words, by “naturalizing” the groupings that it identifies in its own name, race gives to social relations a sense of permanency and encourages the idea that “race” is an objective determinant of the behavior of racially defined social categories.

The process described above takes place within the context of specific economic, political, and cultural forces. These forces “form, transform, destroy, and re-form” racial categories. Born out of specific historical conditions, racial categories have a strong tendency to reproduce themselves, however. They may be embedded in economic, political, cultural, and state practices (where they are often contested); and they take on the appearance of being part of the natural world. By definition, then, race is a form of discourse and practice that can be harnessed through the state to different political projects to further the interests of any number of groups. Through the use of examples, I will try to show how the state defines what it means to be a racial minority and disunites minorities simultaneously by promoting their individualization through Constitutional interpretations, philosophies of individualism, ideologies of equality of opportunity, the politics of assimilation and integration, and a process of blaming the victim. However, I also explain that the relationship between the state and racial belief systems is not strictly determinate, although the state plays an important role in the construction of racial classification systems and sustains their validity. In this context, we will raise questions about the historical conditions which make distinctions based on racial (or ethnic) origins an important issue in a specific society.

Scholarly work in racial and ethnic relations has been dominated (at least in the past) by an assumption that ethnicity is “primordial” and both precedes and transcends nation-states. This course will offer an opportunity to evaluate this assumption based on available evidence. However, I will also argue that ethnicity is a socially constructed phenomenon emerging on the basis of contradictory developments within modes of production, structures of opportunity, and the “exigencies of survival” (as a famous article in AJS put it). Shaped in important ways by the state, to some extent ethnicity is a matter of political expediency--a discourse and practice to gain advantages as much as a definition of collective selves. The complexity (and ambiguity) of the concept is expressed in the 1) number of forms that it appears in (e.g., symbolic, cultural, and political); 2) practice it generates (from street fairs to separatist movements and genocide); and 3) political, economic, and social forces which promote or devalue ethnic affiliations. This view gains credence by virtue of contemporary references to ethnic conflicts as expressions of 1) mutually exclusive, incompatible, and difficult to reconcile goals and objectives; 2) disputed territorial claims with roots in periods of classical

81 colonialism and state formation; and 3) forced assimilation policies.

In short, this section discusses older and more recent theoretical approaches to defining ethnicity; and it examines the processes by which ethnicity is created or destroyed, strengthened or weakened.

This practice stands in marked contrast to the majority of racial and ethnic relations textbooks on the market, as well as the empirical research published in major sociology journals over the past twenty-seven years. The complex operationalizations applied to concepts such as social class (including neo-Marxist versions) have not been applied to the concepts of race and ethnicity. On the whole, textbooks and articles alike show a strong tendency to reify race and ethnicity; that is, they 1) rely on common sense and ahistorical levels of understanding; 2) borrow U.S. Census categories without evaluation or critique (a problem more apparent in earlier than in later works); 3) treat race and ethnicity as dichotomous or multichotomous variables, or as mutually exclusive groupings (discussing African Americans, Native Americans, Italian Americans, Asian Americans, and so forth in separate chapters encourages this view); 4) offer few justifications for viewing race and ethnicity in these terms; and 5) in some cases conflate race and ethnicity to the point that they become interchangeable--and meaningless--concepts. Some sociologists get around this problem by defining ethnicity primarily as immigrant status. Although that practice has heuristic value, it tells us little about the social construction of ethnicity per se.

The justification for challenging standard definitions is this: reifying the concepts of race and ethnicity confers upon them an ontological status they may not have. Using these concepts in this context reflects back the phenomenal world and, in so doing, reproduces everyday conceptions of that world. As a consequence, we don’t learn very much about how processes of racialization occur at the everyday and state levels, the evolution of the concepts of race and ethnicity in comparative context, or the nature of the state and its relationship to racial and ethnic inequality (although the state plays an important role as object, product, and determinant of racial and ethnic relations). I will argue that these issues should be included among the fundamental concerns of any course covering the sociology of racial and ethnic relations.

The critique and reconstruction of the conceptual language in the sociology of racial and ethnic relations then shifts to the concepts of dominant-subordinate and majority-minority. This section tries to accomplish three objectives: 1) show how sociology has explained the emergence of dominant-subordinate and majority-minority relations in comparative context, thus necessitating a review of the theories of the origins of racial and ethnic stratification; 2) note the significance of racial and ethnic “groupings” vis-à-vis racial and ethnic “groups” and explain how they are constructed (this is a direct transition, then, from previous discussions); and 3) challenge the concept of “minority group.” As a concept, minority group is problematic and may be of dubious value (e.g., it disguises more than reveals internal differentiation within minority communities). This becomes more apparent when placed in the context of William Julius Wilson’s declining significance of race thesis as a paradigmatic framework to the study of racial and ethnic relations. I will show how the concept is rooted in unexamined assumptions, has encouraged a disproportionate emphasis on the socio-cultural characteristics of certain groups, and diverted attention from structural processes. This not to say that the concept is without value, however.

82 Problems of conceptualization will be followed by a review of standard accounts of prejudice, discrimination, and racism, as well as by other considerations. Most textbooks provide thorough overviews of psychological accounts of prejudice and it is necessary to introduce them in the course. However, I will also critique psychological accounts and discuss the development of distinctly sociological accounts of prejudice. Ellen Seiter’s work exposing the hegemonic potential in stereotyping is a good example of the latter; stereotypes persist because they justify existing inequalities and thus help to maintain the status quo. In addition, I will emphasize a paradigmatic shift in how prejudice is understood that is not acknowledged in the textbooks.

That is, Theodor Adorno and his colleagues’ (1950) influential work The Authoritarian Personality may have been responsible for shifting conceptions of prejudice from the benign to the psychopathological. An example of the former is found in Robert Park’s work, who defined prejudice as “an elementary expression of conservatism” and as “an instinctive and spontaneous disposition to maintain social distance.” An example of the latter is found in The Authoritarian Personality, where prejudice reappears as a “disease” rooted in disturbed psychological processes such as the authoritarian personality. This is a paradigmatic shift of some consequence for understanding race relations, plays well in assimilation as a paradigmatic framework, and rivals the one I attribute to William Julius Wilson. Park, unlike his latter-day counterparts, defined assimilation in conflict terms: assimilation was to be achieved through the struggles of a race-conscious minority led by its own leaders in a context similar to nationalist movements. Thus, “race” is a form of discourse and practice in which minorities act in their own interest through the state. To my knowledge, Park never specified the underlying assumptions in his view of the state, however.

Most sociology of racial and ethnic relations textbooks provide basic definitions of racial discrimination for use in class; few, however, provide good examples of institutional discrimination (which subsumes cultural and structural forms), and few explain why discrimination exists and persists. In the textbooks, the attempts to explain discrimination draw heavily from neoclassical economics and political economy. In the research literature, some tendency exists to explain racial discrimination as an expression of class conflict or labor market competition; this assumes, then, that racial factors are reducible to other causal determinants. Interestingly, the attempts to explain discrimination appear in textbooks that qualify or reject assimilation as the paradigmatic framework for organizing the book. In this context, I will stress three objectives: 1) illustrating the relationship between prejudice and discrimination, as well as constructing examples of forms of discrimination; 2) reviewing explanations as to why discrimination exists and persists, and placing these explanations in paradigmatic context; and 3) explaining why discrimination troubles assimilation more than the other paradigmatic frameworks that are the subject of this course.

Then, we will attempt to define racism, explaining how it is conceptually distinct from prejudice and discrimination. This is not an easy task given the troubled history of the concept in public discourse, the apparent disappearance of the concept in the research literature, and the conceptual ambiguities associated with symbolic or “modern” racism. For example, in 677 articles published on racial and ethnic relations from January 1969 through December 1995 in the American Journal of Sociology, the American Sociological Review, Social Forces, and Social Problems, racism as an analytical concept does not appear (although references to racism appear in Social Problems). Discussions of the concept in other journals, such as The Black Scholar, are often mired in polemics. An overview of these issues will be constructed in class; this overview stresses the need to recognize

83 the role of racism in the development of the capitalist system, such as its contribution to processes of capital accumulation, its justification for exploiting indigenous peoples, and its role as a “divide and conquer” strategy. I will emphasize that the construction of the concept in these terms raises profound issues in the sociology of sociology; for example, the meaning of racism shifts from an “aberrant response” characteristic of assimilation as a paradigmatic framework to a form of discourse and practice. The failure of some groups to assimilate becomes less a problem of social psychology and more a process of boundary construction, restriction, and exclusion.

PART 2: ON THE NATURE OF EXPLANATION IN THE SOCIOLOGY OF RACIAL AND ETHNIC RELATIONS: THE PROBLEM OF PARADIGMS

Assimilation as Paradigmatic Frame: Historical Roots and Contemporary Arguments In standard textbooks and the research literature alike, the study of racial and ethnic relations has been dominated by assimilationist and other American liberal concerns--for example, how personality variables at a social psychological level impede or facilitate the movement through the stages of assimilation. This general sociological frame implies an acceptance of certain assumptions, including 1) a consensus on values at the highest level; 2) that minority groups form in reaction to unethical exclusion from the competitive struggle; 3) that processes of assimilation will erode the boundaries of race and ethnicity given equality of opportunity, continued economic growth, pluralistic political processes, and a neutral state; and 4) eventual acceptance of racial and ethnic minorities into the primary groups of society in a process of change that is gradualistic, evolutionary, and continuous.

Standard textbooks and the research literature alike (with some exceptions) have shown little awareness of the sociology of racial and ethnic relations’ troubled roots; therefore, it is not surprising that 1) the political, ideological, and teleological implications of assimilation are either accepted or ignored; 2) social psychology, social stratification, and demography are the logical rubrics under which to subsume assimilationist concerns, since the problem by default is to identify barriers to, and progress toward, assimilation; and 3) Native Americans acquire an anomalous status that authors of textbooks solve by incorporating brief colonial analogies into what are essentially assimilationist accounts (ignoring, as I noted above, the epistemological implications of doing so). Indeed, a content analysis of twenty-seven years of research published on racial and ethnic relations in the leading journals in American sociology, and a review of approximately 5,000 abstracts on racial and ethnic relations in Sociofile, reveal a dearth of research by sociologists on the Native American experience.

I will address these issues directly in class. At the outset, I will present a brief history of assimilation as a paradigmatic framework for understanding racial and ethnic relations. This brief history includes references to the work of Robert Park, Louis Wirth, and Gunnar Myrdal, among others; as well as to the Americanization Movement, anglo-conformity, and the melting pot. Considerable time will be devoted to Milton Gordon’s (1964) theory of assimilation in Assimilation in American Life, identifying and discussing the following: 1) the underlying values, assumptions, and principles of assimilation; 2) the stages of assimilation; 3) factors affecting the rate of assimilation into the dominant culture; 4) the ways in which cultural pluralism can be considered a case of assimilation and the ways in which it cannot (this conceptual distinction rarely is made in

84 undergraduate textbooks); 5) the immigrant analogy, which argues for a similarity between the historical experiences of European ethnic groups and those of today’s racial minorities; 6) the policy implications that follow if we assume assimilation into the dominant culture is necessary and desirable; and 7) whether the goals of assimilationists have been achieved.

This format requires that several more issues be identified and discussed in class as well, including 1) recent theoretical, conceptual, and methodological modifications in assimilation, such as the introduction of spatial assimilation as a stage in the process; and 2) an overview of the extensive body of research that assimilation as a paradigmatic framework has encouraged.

Is Assimilation Theory or Ideology? Insights From the Sociology of Knowledge The next step examines in greater detail the underlying--and problematic--nature of assimilation as a paradigmatic framework, focusing on 1) a critical evaluation of the idea that minority groups form in reaction to unethical exclusion from the competitive struggle; 2) whether assimilation is more a statement of what should be than a sociological account of what is; 3) whether or not the resurgence of cultural pluralist (or multiculturalist) arguments is old wine in new bottles in response to recent changes in immigration patterns; 4) whether or not cultural pluralism is an (ultimately untenable) compromise to the dilemma of choosing between order and conflict models generally: as Shirley Hune noted, it is democratically agreeable and implies a means of reducing conflict while adhering to a core set of values that are not challenged; 5) the failure of assimilation as a paradigmatic framework to anticipate or explain the events of the 1960s, from race riots to schisms in the civil rights movement; 6) the fundamental questions that arose over individual rights versus groups rights, as well as what the state is and what it should do in this context; and 7) the challenge to the discipline of sociology itself (cf. Alvin Gouldner’s [1970] The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology).

Conflict Theory as Paradigmatic Frame: The 1960s Watershed In this section of the course, we will examine the re-emergence of power-conflict as a competing paradigmatic framework for explaining racial and ethnic relations. According to power- conflict in the broadest sense, U.S. society is characterized by a struggle between dominant (privileged) and subordinate (exploited) groups for scarce economic resources and political power. The dominant groups strive to maintain and legitimize their position; the subordinate groups strive to change it. Conflict exists between groups when a fundamental incompatibility exists between their values, interests, and goals. Thus, if one group gets what it wants, the others cannot. Indeed, the dominant group may seek to neutralize, injure, or eliminate the subordinate group. At least in part, racial and ethnic problems are the consequence of differential access to economic resources and political power. These problems do not arise in a vacuum but have historical roots in the conquest and subordination of one racial or ethnic group by another.

“Power-conflict” is a rubric that covers a variety of theoretical perspectives from Oliver Cox to H. M. Blalock. While my primary concern is to examine conflict responses to assimilation since the 1960s, I note earlier work as well, including that of Cox. Cox is interesting because he 1) recognized the importance of the state for understanding race relations, 2) noted its role in “administering and defending” capitalism, and 3) explained how ideological discourses (such as

85 individualism) are used to fragment opposition. However, he also 4) conflated race and class analyses without sufficient justification, 5) argued that the capitalist class purposely divides the working class along racial lines in the interests of economic gain--a claim that is only partially correct historically, and 6) failed to advance an understanding of the state as a complex administrative structure constrained by contradictory imperatives and competing demands.

In addition to Cox and Blalock, other theorists who have applied conflict theory to race relations are compared and contrasted; representative examples include Pierre Van den Berghe, Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton, Robert Blauner, Robert Allen, William Tabb, Raymond S. Franklin, James Geschwender, James Boggs, Frantz Fanon, and the early William Julius Wilson. Of these theorists, only Blauner receives consistent attention in the textbooks on racial and ethnic relations, and then primarily in the context of his internal colony model. Boggs has been ignored altogether. The significance of books such as Carmichael and Hamilton’s (1967) Black Power for challenging social psychological accounts of why people discriminate is an integral part of this discussion.

The basic objectives here are to 1) identify the underlying values, assumptions, and premises of a power-conflict approach (noting as well that these assumptions are not necessarily consistent from theorist to theorist); 2) explain why power-conflict represented a challenge to American liberalism generally and assimilation specifically; and 3) raise questions about a) the adequacy of individualistic and social psychological accounts of majority group-minority group relations, b) implicit connotations of elitism and monoculturalism in American liberalism, and c) the downplaying of race, discrimination, and social class as explanatory concepts in popular discourse. Power-conflict as a paradigmatic framework is controversial because it shifts the emphasis from cultural to political and economic dimensions of majority group-minority group relations; and it rejects the assumption that improving interpersonal relations will improve ipso facto the relations between groups. The interpersonal approach is cosmetic because it does not come to grips with the fundamental bases for group conflict. Power-conflict as a paradigmatic framework legitimizes a sociological vocabulary that includes social formations and the forces and relations of production constituting particular modes of production; and it recognizes the role of racism in the development of the capitalist system. However, this strategy does not account in any satisfactory fashion for the changing role of the state in historical context--a role that mediates between structural contradictions on the one hand and racial and ethnic discourses on the other hand.

Examples of power-conflict analyses are provided in class, including a handful of studies on the Native American experience. This is followed by an evaluation on theoretical, conceptual, and empirical grounds. Power-conflict approaches are much more difficult to test empirically than assimilation; consequently, there are fewer examples of good empirical work in the research literature. (I am excluding from consideration the stratification literature on race; although methodologically sophisticated, much of it is difficult to disentangle theoretically.) Some examples do exist, however, and they are discussed here. Of particular interest are attempts to test the internal colony model. Most textbooks in the sociology of racial and ethnic relations take its validity for granted and apply it uncritically. In Robert Blauner’s classic formulation, the internal colony suggests a society within a society based upon racial, linguistic, or marked cultural differences (as well as differences of social class) and subject to economic, political, and administrative control by the dominant group and institutions. However, before the colonial analogy can be used to account for

86 U.S. race relations, we must be able to demonstrate 1) the existence between two distinct and clearly separate groups of a superior-inferior status relationship encompassing both economic control and exploitation, and political dependence and subjugation; and 2) that institutions such as education and welfare create a cycle of dependency. The existence of an internal colony is difficult to prove unless the rate of labor exploitation is higher for minority workers than for white workers, and minorities serve as a reserve army of labor, facilitating the greater exploitation of non-colonized workers. Demonstrating the existence of “super-exploitation” is very difficult methodologically, given problems of operationalization and the corrigibility of empirical data.

Since the internal colony often is used to account for anomalies in accounts that are essentially assimilationist in nature, I will try to 1) show how the internal colony has been used to explain majority group-minority group relations; 2) outline processes of colonization; 3) examine parallels between classical colonialism and internal colonialism; 4) note the social policies which suggest themselves if we accept the internal colony as a legitimate account; 5) assess strategies for reconstructing power relations between the internal colony and the white power structure; and 6) develop a critique of the internal colony as explanation.

The Shift Toward Class Conflict, Political Economic, and Ethnic Enclave Models The next section of the course examines more recent attempts to explain racial and ethnic relations. These models are placed broadly in a conflict tradition, and the designation that they are “recent” is somewhat arbitrary. However, these models have in common a large debt to political economy. I will identify general class approaches to race and ethnicity (some of which are conventional analyses of labor economics in which race or ethnicity are introduced as variables); attempts to integrate race and class analyses (e.g., Erik Olin Wright); and then the theoretical and empirical work on the split labor market (including comparative examples from Brazil and Canada), middleman minorities, and the ethnic enclave.

For example, as part of a revival of studies on immigrant adaptation in the United States, the ethnic enclave literature is concerned with 1) issues of operationalization; 2) the factors that encourage or hinder the development of an ethnic enclave; 3) whether, how, and under what circumstances the ethnic enclave provides positive returns to human capital variables (note the stratification emphasis); 4) similarities or differences between the primary, secondary, and ethnic enclave sectors of the American economy; and 5) the consequences of the emergence of social relationships within the ethnic enclave--for example, how informal training systems structure opportunities for immigrants.

When addressing the split labor market, middleman minorities, and ethnic enclaves, I will stress the following: defining or describing what each is; noting problems in conceptualization; reviewing empirical work; providing comparative examples; identifying limits in applicability; and explaining why these models constitute a nodal point between early conflict models such as internal colonialism and the paradigmatic implications of the declining significance of race thesis.

The Declining Significance of Race as Paradigmatic Frame: Theoretical and Empirical Controversies The basic premise I will defend in this section of the course is that William Julius Wilson’s work constitutes a significant paradigmatic shift in the study of racial and ethnic relations in the

87 United States. Such shifts often are accompanied by storms of controversy and Wilson is no exception. His ideas have met fierce resistance which may (as James Boggs once pointed out in a different context) make them appear more revolutionary than they actually are. Yet, despite its flaws, The Declining Significance of Race (1978) is an attempt to synthesize race and class and to supersede paradigms built on the concepts of majority versus minority.

This paradigmatic designation oversimplifies a complex literature that synthesizes the role of political and ideological forces as well as economic forces in the construction of racial and ethnic relations. Furthermore, even if it is the case that economic forces today minimize the significance of race, other forces may increase its significance. However, I will argue that there is sufficient justification for designating Wilson as a paradigmatic shift; a synopsis appears below.

Wilson argues that many important features of black-white relations in the United States are not captured when the issue is defined as majority versus minority, and that a preoccupation with race obscures fundamental problems that derive from the intersection of class with race. A consequence of the rapid growth of the monopoly and state sectors of the U.S. economy is the gradual creation of a segmented labor market that provides different opportunities for mobility for different segments of the black community. On the one hand, poorly trained and educated blacks in the inner city (especially teenagers and young adults) see their job prospects restricted increasingly to the low-wage sector, their unemployment rates soaring to record levels, their movement out of poverty slowing down, and their welfare rolls increasing. On the other hand, highly trained and educated blacks are experiencing “unprecedented” (Wilson’s term) job opportunities because of the expansion of white- collar salaried positions and the pressures of affirmative action programs. In view of these developments, Wilson says it is difficult to argue that the plight of the black underclass is solely a consequence of racial oppression. The black experience has moved historically from racial oppression experienced by virtually all blacks to “economic subordination” for the black underclass. The fundamental causes of the perpetuation of this underclass are to be found in the structures of advanced capitalism. Such a macrosociological emphasis transcends some of the limitations of the assimilationist and power-conflict approaches; this is one of the ways in which it constitutes a significant paradigmatic shift.

Although some authors have challenged Wilson’s relatively benign view of the state in the Modern Industrial Stage, he laid the groundwork for (but did not develop) an argument that structural theories of the state can serve as a focal point for enriching our understanding of racial and ethnic relations. Particularly, Wilson introduced an element of historicism by arguing that each stage of race relations in the United States embodies a different form of racial stratification structured by the particular arrangement of both the economy and the polity. And, he countered the liberal assumption that the state is a neutral arbiter in racial conflict. Thus different systems of production and/or different policies of the state have imposed different constraints on the way in which racial groups interact [in the United States]--constraints that have structured the relations between racial groups and produced dissimilar contexts not only for the manifestation of racial antagonisms but also for racial-group access to rewards and privileges (Wilson 1978, p. 22). This is another way in which Wilson’s work constitutes a significant paradigmatic shift.

In this context, course work will be devoted to the following: 1) Outlining the foundation on

88 which Wilson’s declining significance of race thesis rests, including a) why Wilson divides race relations in the United States into three historical stages; b) the extent to which the “Orthodox Marxist” and the split labor-market theories apply to each of the stages and why; c) structural and political changes which reduced the significance of race and increased the significance of social class in explaining the life-chances of blacks; and d) the consequences of (c) above for the U.S. black social class structure. I will note that both continuities and differences exist between Wilson on the declining significance of race and Wilson (1973) in first book Power, Racism, and Privilege, which was quintessentially power-conflict in orientation. 2) Describing how Wilson’s thesis is different from, or similar to, assimilation and power- conflict as paradigmatic frames, focusing on underlying values and assumptions.

3) Assessing the logical and empirical adequacy of Wilson’s thesis based on recent research; a number of authors, for example, have argued for the continuing significance of race in American society. Some of the best known critiques are Thomas Boston’s Race, Class and Conservatism (1988); Alphonso Pinckney’s The Myth of Black Progress (1984); Benjamin Ringer’s We the People and Others (1983); and Charles Willie’s Caste and Class Controversy (1989), as well as a spate of articles and reviews in the research literature. Boston, for example, argues that Wilson’s use of data on education, income, and occupational mobility is not altogether persuasive. 4) Identifying the social policy implications that follow from the link between theory and practice. 5) Assessing the implications of Wilson’s work as a whole for a sociology of racial and ethnic relations.

For example, it can be argued (but remains to be shown) that Wilson’s work has shifted the emphasis in the research literature on segregation. Until recently, the published articles were concerned primarily with identifying factors that affect segregation or with methodological issues. Factors include demographic variables (e.g., migration), stratification variables (e.g., ethnic status rankings), ecological and political economic variables (e.g., housing markets), and, parenthetically, racial discrimination. Methodological issues include the problems generated by sample variations, deficiencies in segregation measures, and the development of new measures that correct for shortcomings in older measures. However, recent integrative work (particularly in the American Journal of Sociology) is showing how changes in the social class structure interact with patterns of racial segregation to produce severe poverty. This work on the structural formation of the underclass (culminating in Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton’s American Apartheid [1993]) ranks among the most innovative work in recent years on racial and ethnic relations generally. It is an explicit recognition that racial and ethnic relations have roots in the material forces and relations of production; although the connection rarely is made, this is an important step to bringing the state back in. The application of epidemic theory from the field of social problems to this unique phenomenon enriches the argument and dissociates the underclass from the ideological baggage associated with conservative (and some liberal) arguments on poverty.

In short, I will suggest that in Wilson’s work is a potential to advance our understanding of the socio-historical, macrosociological, and structural forces that determine racial and ethnic relations; on these grounds, we can claim legitimately that a paradigmatic shift has occurred.

PART 3: BRINGING THE STATE BACK IN

The Role of the State in the Sociology of Racial and Ethnic Relations: From Liberal to Structuralist Interpretations It is a rare textbook that makes explicit the assumptions which define the nature of the state and its relationship to racial inequality; in assimilationist accounts these assumptions are predominantly liberal, and in power-conflict accounts they are predominantly pluralist (e.g., Carmichael and Hamilton, Black Power [1967]) or instrumentalist (e.g., Cox, Caste, Class and Race [1948]). In the declining significance of race thesis, these assumptions shift toward a structural view. In the last section of the course, I will identify the underlying assumptions of the conceptions of the state in each of the paradigmatic frameworks, as well as the implications they pose in practice for the structuring of racial and ethnic relations, since implicit or explicit views of the state imply appropriate political contexts within which to redress grievances and effect action.

In the broadest sense, the liberal view assumes that racial and ethnic minorities are committed to the American Creed, desire assimilation, and will be assimilated in proportion to their access to dominant socializing agencies, including institutions of the state such as education. Minority groups form in reaction to unethical exclusion from the competititve struggle. However, processes of assimilation will erode the boundaries of race and ethnicity given equality of opportunity, continued economic growth, pluralistic political processes, and a neutral state. Ethnicity is viewed as “quasi- tribal” and dysfunctional in a society that is impersonal, competitive, achievement-oriented, and increasingly universalistic.

Competing racial and ethnic interests form alliances or contend with one another to make claims on the state and shape the decision-making process. As such, the state is more an object than a subject in the structuring of racial and ethnic relations. Discriminatory practices by the state, to the extent that they exist, can be corrected by moral appeals and political strategies (cf. Gunnar Myrdal and Martin Luther King, Jr.). This conception of the state assumes that 1) no single racial or ethnic group can monopolize all resources; 2) organizational freedoms and avenues of access to the state are available to redress grievances and (re-)allocate resources, subject to certain limits; and 3) outcomes of state activity reflect the preferences of racial and ethnic as well as other groups in the aggregate.

The state is justified in acting as it does because it represents aggregated (and presumably supra-racial or supra-ethnic) interests. Racial and ethnic groups at a comparative disadvantage gain advantage through pluralistic strategies and actions that pressure the state to effect social change. This is accomplished in the context of a presumed consensus on values--that is, the American Creed. Lack of change is attributable to lack of organizational pressure on the state.

An assessment, made possible by comparing and contrasting paradigmatic frameworks, reveals interesting insights into this view of the state. For example, in the abstract it seems more like a statement of what should be rather than a statement of what is. This view celebrates an ideal- typical system of governance that exists for some but not other segments of society and thus may be-- to paraphrase Alvin Goulder--consistent with the dominant group’s need for an ideological justification of its own legitimacy. To reject the assumption of the state as neutral arbiter would call into question the edifice upon which assimilationist accounts of racial and ethnic relations are constructed.

90 The assumptions embedded in assimilation direct attention toward the politics of integration and away from the socio-historical and structural foundations of the state itself. By representing the state as the aggregate of competing racial and ethnic as well as other interests, accomplished through institutions committed (presumably) to universalistic ideals such as due process, assimilation denies the intrinsically racial character of the state.

I will argue that the power-conflict approaches to racial and ethnic relations, including the Marxist classics, lack a well-formulated theory of the state. Furthermore, their instrumentalist implications are not acceptable--as in assuming that racism is “unequivocally functional” for the capitalist class or that the state is merely a tool in the hands of the capitalist class.

As I noted before, Wilson laid the groundwork for (but did not develop) an argument that structural theories of the state provide a useful framework for reconstructing the concept of the state in the American sociology of racial and ethnic relations. They are derived from, and consistent with, a general Marxist tradition. Although commonalties and incompatibilities are found among the various Marxist accounts of the state as they evolve over time, we can distill from them a “primary domain assumption” (Gouldner 1970) and use it to reconstruct the role of the state in the sociology of racial and ethnic relations. The state is not a neutral arbiter in racial and ethnic relations; it is simultaneously an object, product, and determinant of racial and ethnic relations understood within the context of 1) the contradictory imperatives of capital accumulation and legitimation, and 2) the degree to which the institutions of the state are at any point in time in the hands of various factions of the capitalist class. Contradictory imperatives structure opportunities available to the capitalist class. By virtue of its historically specific influence in the state, the capitalist class structures opportunities available to racial and ethnic minorities as well as the majority. Although these statements incorporate apparently contradictory views (structuralist and instrumentalist), one could argue, as Bertell Ollman does, that they represent different tendencies within the state as a set of relations.

Thus, at one level the state plays an important role in the process of racial and ethnic group formation and identity; at another level, it structures their relationships. The state plays a significant role in forming, establishing, structuring, mediating, and reproducing racial and ethnic relations in specific historical contexts; it sets parameters on the political capabilities of racial and ethnic groups to effect social change. For example, the U.S. Constitution is interpreted in such a way as to favor individual assimilation over group advancement. The state does not stand apart from racial and ethnic relations as if it were given before the fact. Racial and ethnic relations are embodied in the historical creation, evolution, and contemporary practices of the state, and are affected by them.

Racial and ethnic struggles occur at all levels of the state and reflect attempts by various groups to gain control of the concrete policies and programs shaped at those levels. Demands by groups upon the state are constrained to the extent that they must be congruent with the reproduction of capitalist social relations, generally, and the imperatives of capital accumulation and legitimation, specifically. The concrete ways in which the state responds vary with such factors as 1) the level of capitalist development; 2) the forms of class struggle; 3) the relative strengths of racial and ethnic groups as reflected in electoral politics, social movements, or other forms of insurgency; 4) administrative capacities and Constitutional constraints; and 5) local political histories. The balance of these forces determines distributional outcomes for various racial and ethnic groups, including access to political, spatial, educational, and occupational mobility opportunities.

In short, the tendency to reify the state as a transcendental reality that exists by and for itself (J. Girardin)--a fundamental problem in assimilation as a paradigmatic frame--sidetracks important questions about 1) the role of the state in the formation, maintenance, and reproduction of racial and ethnic relationships in various realms; 2) whose interests the state secures, and why; 3) the ability of the state to effect alternative courses of action or to transform recalcitrant racial or ethnic structures (to paraphrase Theda Skocpol); and 4) the grounds on which a particular conception of the state can be justified.

The purpose of this section, then, is to 1) examine why the state must be accounted for in any serious study of racial and ethnic relations; 2) raise questions about the adequacy of liberal and pluralist conceptions of the state on the grounds that they fail to answer important questions and are not altogether consistent with recent historical studies; 3) show how Wilson’s work implicitly shifts the frame of analysis from a liberal to a structuralist interpretation of the state; 4) construct a structuralist theory of the state as applied to racial and ethnic relations and explain the advantages of such an approach; 5) cite historical and empirical research that lends credibility to these arguments (or undermines them); and 6) explain why a structuralist approach is--at best--a partial solution to understanding the race relations problematic (e.g., note the loss of views from below).

Stated formally, the fundamental assumption which informs this discussion is that state interventions in the structuring of racial and ethnic relations reflect the historical tendency for the reproduction of the social formation as a whole to take place through the mediation of state activity.

Redressing Racial and Ethnic Inequality: Translating Theory Into Practice The conclusion of the course summarizes and evaluates the troubling questions that emerge: For example, is the complexity of racial and ethnic relations such that we are doomed to eclectic (hence epistemologically incoherent) approaches, or are there justifiable grounds for choosing one approach over the others? How do we incorporate views from below, and whose views should take precedence--for example, King, Carmichael, or Farrakhan? Is a synthesis possible of what are, clearly, contradictory approaches at the bottom as well as the top? Or, should we abandon the enterprise altogether in favor of the subsumption of the sociology of racial and ethnic relations under other sub-discipline rubrics such as social stratification? In other words, is it legitimate to argue that racial and ethnic issues are, at their core, fundamentally stratification issues? On what grounds are these determinations made? If we do not subsume the field, are structural views the most promising direction for a sociology of racial and ethnic relations to pursue? Would its radical implications be accepted by sociologists, students, and the general public alike?

What modes of political action from above and below do these paradigmatic frameworks legitimize? What are the most effective ways to restructure unequal racial and ethnic relationships? A number of historical and empirical research studies, particularly in the collective movements literature, offer interesting insights here. Do these studies support or undermine any of the paradigmatic frames discussed here? If so, in what ways? Ultimately, on whose premises should we construct our understanding of the racial and ethnic relations problematic, and by whose hand should we redress racial and ethnic inequality?

COURSE FORMAT:

92 Class periods will be heavily oriented toward lecture and discussion. Lectures will both clarify difficult readings and provide supplementary materials not included in the readings. Lectures will follow closely the sequence of topics discussed in Course Objectives and Content above. If you find some of the material difficult to understand, be sure to raise questions in class.

Evaluation for Sociology 350 will be based on three take-home, open-book exams to be due on the following dates:

Exam I Thursday, October 17

Exam II Thursday, November 7

Exam III Monday, December 16

The first exam will be designed to test one’s knowledge of important concepts underlying the sociological study of racial and ethnic relations, and one’s knowledge of the assimilationist paradigm. The second exam will be designed to test one’s knowledge of the power-conflict approach. The third exam will be designed to test one’s knowledge of Wilson’s thesis of the declining significance of race, as well as one’s ability to interpret the role of the state in the structuring of racial and ethnic relations from each of the three paradigmatic frameworks. Each exam will focus heavily on the assumptions made by each paradigm and the social analyses that result. By what criteria these analyses can be considered science, ideology, or critique also may receive attention. The questions on the exams will emphasize analytical, critical, comparison/contrast, data interpretation, and synthesis skills. The emphasis on comparison/contrast means that the second and third exams will be cumulative to some extent. Exams will include options that you may choose from, and they may include extra-credit questions as well. Students are encouraged to use appropriate resource materials and to consult with the instructor if help is needed. At least one week will be available between the time the exam is handed out and the time it is due. Each exam will be worth up to 200 points, excluding any extra-credit. The course total is 600 points.

Grading is not curved, but is based on the following scale:

Exam I 200 points 90% or better (540-600) = A

Exam II 200 points 80-89% (480-539) = B

Exam III 200 points 70-79% (420-479) = C

TOTAL 600 points 60-69% (360-419) = D

59% or below ( 0-359) = F

Borderline grades (such as 539 = B) will be adjusted upward if the student is within three points of 540, 480, 420, or 360; has three or fewer unexcused absences from class; and improved his or her score on each subsequent exam. Active participation in class discussion may also help one’s

93 cause. If a student meets all of these conditions, he or she will receive an A instead of a B, for example. The instructor reserves the right to use discretion in exceptional cases.

Generally, borderline grades (such as 360 = D) will not be adjusted downward. In other words, if a student did not attend class consistently, did not show continual improvement in exam performance over the term, and did not participate in class discussion, that student would still earn a D for the course if he or she accumulated 360 points. An exception would be a case of documented plagiarism on exams, whereupon the instructor will give a score of 0 for the exam(s) in question.

Class attendance is the responsibility of the student, but accurate records will be kept. Grades of “Incomplete” will not be given unless the student strictly meets the criteria set forth in USD policy. If a student meets these criteria, grades of “Incomplete” must be removed within one term or one year, depending on the circumstances in which they were given. Approximately two-thirds of the students who have taken incomplete grades from me in the past seven years have not removed them within the specified period of time. Some students have requested extensions. Extensions will not be granted! If the incomplete is not removed within the specified period of time, the student in question will not receive a grade for the course regardless of circumstances. Also, because this course relies on take-home, open-book exams for evaluation, the extra-credit policy that I use in other courses (and with which you may be familiar) is not applicable here. With the exception of extra-credit options on the exams themselves, extra-credit work will not be accepted under any circumstances in Sociology 350. If you are uncomfortable about the quality of your written work, you are encouraged to review it with the instructor prior to submitting it for a grade.

POLICY FOR LATE EXAMS: All students in Sociology 350 are expected to submit the take-home exams by the due dates. This is essential to maintain the continuity of the course as well as to provide timely feedback. However, if a serious medical or family emergency arises, making it impossible for a student to complete an exam on time, the instructor will extend the deadline on an individual basis provided that the student notify the instructor in advance of that deadline. Failure to turn in an exam on time without an adequate accounting will result in a score of 0 for that exam.

SCHEDULE OF READINGS: Note: The schedule of readings which follows is ambitious. It will be edited as class interests and needs dictate. Changes will be announced in class. Seven readings have been placed on Reserve in the library to compensate for certain theoretical weaknesses in the Yetman text. These articles are assigned tentatively for the period from October 15 to October 31. You may find it useful to make copies of these articles well before the due date.

Date: Text: Chapter: Chapter Title:

R, Sept. 5: INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW OF COURSE

T, Sept. 10: Rose Ch. 1 Race, Ethnicity, and the Sociological Perspective

94 Rose Ch. 2 A Nation of Immigrants

R, Sept. 12: Yetman pp. 1-29 Introduction: Definitions and Perspectives Rose Ch. 4 Prejudice

T, Sept. 17: Rose Ch. 5 Discrimination Berreman Reading 1 Race, Caste, and Other Invidious Distinctions in Social Stratification

R, Sept. 19: Yetman pp. 87-112 Historical Perspectives Rose Ch. 3 One America or Many

T, Sept. 24: Yetman pp. 209-247 Patterns of Ethnic Integration in American Life Gordon Reading 11 Assimilation in America: Theory and Reality

R, Sept. 26: Hune Reading 12 Pacific Migration to the United States: Trends and Themes in Historical and Sociological Literature In the Minority Rose Ch. 6

T, Oct. 1: Yetman pp. 379-401 Race and Ethnicity in 1980s America Portes and Reading 20 Making Sense of Diversity: Recent Research on Truelove Hispanic Minorities in the United States

R, Oct. 3: Alba Reading 21 The Twilight of Ethnicity Among American Catholics of European Ancestry Gans Reading 22 Symbolic Ethnicity: The Future of Ethnic Groups and Cultures in America

T, Oct. 8: Lieberson Reading 23 A New Ethnic Group in the United States Horowitz Reading 2 The Nature of Ethnic Affiliations Nagel Reading 4 The Political Construction of Ethnicity

R, Oct. 10: NO CLASS: GREAT PLAINS SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION MEETING

T, Oct. 15: Metzger RESERVE American Sociology and Black Assimilation: Conflicting Perspectives Lurie Reading 7 The American Indian: Historical Background

R, Oct. 17: Hershberg et Reading 10 A Tale of Three Cities: Blacks, Immigrants, and al. Opportunity in Philadelphia: 1850-1880, 1930, and 1970 Massey & Reading 19 Trends in the Residential Segregation of Blacks, Denton Hispanics, and Asians, 1970-1980

EXAM I DUE

T, Oct. 22: Noel Reading 5 A Theory of the Origin of Ethnic Stratification Johnson RESERVE Marginal Classes: Internal Colonies and Social Change

R, Oct. 24: Tabb RESERVE Race Relations Models and Social Change Tabb RESERVE The Black Ghetto as Colony

T, Oct. 29: Blauner RESERVE Colonized and Immigrant Minorities Blackwell RESERVE Housing: The Ghettoization of Blacks

R, Oct. 31: Blauner RESERVE Internal Colonialism and Ghetto Revolt Estrada et al. Reading 8 Chicanos in the United States: A history of Exploitation and Resistance

T, Nov. 5: Portes and Reading 17 The Immigrant Enclave: Theory and Empirical Manning Examples Bonacich Reading 3 Class Approaches to Ethnicity and Race

R, Nov. 7: Wilson Reading 6 The Declining Significance of Race Wacquant and Reading 27 The Cost of Racial and Class Exclusion in the Wilson Inner City

EXAM II DUE

T, Nov. 12: Steinberg Reading 15 Education and Ethnic Mobility: The Myth of Jewish Intellectualism and Catholic Anti- Intellectualism Hirschman Reading 9 The Extraordinary Educational Attainment of and Wong Asian-Americans: A Search for Historical Evidence and Explanations

R, Nov. 14: Willie Ch. 1 The Inclining Significance of Race Willie Ch. 2 The Declining Significance of Race Revisited But (Wilson) Not Revised Willie Ch. 3 Alternative Perspectives on Race and Social Class

T, Nov. 19: Willie Ch. 4 Significance of Race in the 1960s Willie Ch. 5 Significance of Race in the 1970s Willie Ch. 6 Significance of Race in the 1980s

R, Nov. 21: Willie Ch. 7 If We Won, Why Aren’t We Smiling? (Margolis) Willie Ch. 8 Camouflaging The Color Line: A Critique (Edwards) Willie Ch. 9 The Changing--Not Declining--Significance of (Pettigrew) Race

T, Nov. 26: Willie Ch. 10 On the Declining--And Increasing--Significance of (Payne) Race Willie (Lowi) Ch. 11 The Theory of the Under-Class: A Review of Wilson’s The Truly Disadvantaged

R, Nov. 28: NO CLASS: THANKSGIVING RECESS

T, Dec. 3: Willie Ch. 12 Rebuttal to a Conservative Strategy for Reducing Poverty Willie (Rose) Ch. 13 Are Non-Race-Specific Policies the Key to Resolving The Plight of the Inner-City Poor?

R, Dec. 5: Willie Ch. 14 On the Prevention and Cure of Poverty and Racism

OPTIONAL READINGS (To Be Assigned as Time Permits)

Rose Ch. 7 Black Consciousness Rose Ch. 8 The Resurgence of Ethnicity

T, Dec. 10: Rose Ch. 9 The Reagan Years and Beyond Rose Ch. 10 Insiders and Outsiders

97 Jaynes and Reading 26 A Common Destiny: Blacks and American Society Williams

R, Dec. 12: LAST DAY OF CLASS

M, Dec. 16: The University scheduled the final exam for Sociology 350 from 7:30 - 9:30 a.m. on Monday, December 16. Since Exam III is a take-home, open-book exam, it will be due in my office at 9:30 a.m.

COMPLETE REFERENCES FOR THE ARTICLES PLACED ON RESERVE: Metzger, L. Paul. 1971. “American Sociology and Black Assimilation: Conflicting Perspectives.” American Journal of Sociology 76(4): 627-647. (Reprinted on Pp. 340-351 in Yetman, Norman R. [ed]. 1985. Majority and Minority. Fourth Newton. MA: Allyn and Bacon.) Call No.: 654. Johnson, Dale L. 1976. “Marginal Classes, Internal Colonies, and Social Change.” Pp. 33-45 in Racial Conflict, Discrimination and Power, edited by William Barclay et al. New York: AMS Press. Call No.: 653. Tabb, William K. 1976. “Race Relations Models and Social Change.” Pp. 203-215 in Racial Conflict, Discrimination and Power, edited by William Barclay et al. New York: AMS Press. Call No.: 658. Tabb, William K. 1970. “The Black Ghetto as Colony.” Pp. 21-34 in The Political Economy of the Black Ghetto. New York: W.W. Norton. Call No.: 657. Blauner, Robert. 1972. “Colonized and Immigrant Minorities.” Pp. 51-81 in Racial Oppression in America. New York: Harper and Row. Call No.: 651. Blackwell, James. 1985. “Housing: The Ghettoization of Blacks.” Pp. 194-218 in The Black Community: Diversity and Unity. New York: Harper and Row. Call No.: 650. Blauner, Robert. 1972. “Internal Colonialism and Ghetto Revolt.” Pp. 82-110 in Racial Oppression in America. New York: Harper and Row. Call No.: 652.