SO39CH18-Saperstein ARI 27 June 2013 12:53 Racial Formation in Perspective: Connecting Individuals, Institutions, and Power Relations Aliya Saperstein,1 Andrew M. Penner,2 and Ryan Light3 1Department of Sociology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305; email: [email protected] 2Department of Sociology, University of California, Irvine, California 92697; email: [email protected] 3Department of Sociology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403; email: [email protected] Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2013. 39:359–78 Keywords First published online as a Review in Advance on racialization, ethnic boundaries, identification, classification, May 22, 2013 inequality The Annual Review of Sociology is online at http://soc.annualreviews.org Abstract This article’s doi: Over the past 25 years, since the publication of Omi & Winant’s Racial 10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145639 Formation in the United States, the statement that race is socially con- by University of Maryland - College Park on 09/30/13. For personal use only. Copyright c 2013 by Annual Reviews. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2013.39:359-378. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org structed has become a truism in sociological circles. Yet many struggle to All rights reserved describe exactly what the claim means. This review brings together em- pirical literature on the social construction of race from different levels of analysis to highlight the variety of approaches to studying racial for- mation processes. For example, macro-level scholarship often focuses on the creation of racial categories, micro-level studies examine who comes to occupy these categories, and meso-level research captures the effects of institutional and social context. Each of these levels of anal- ysis has yielded important contributions to our understanding of the social construction of race, yet there is little conversation across bound- aries. Scholarship that bridges methodological and disciplinary divides is needed to continue to advance the racial formation perspective and demonstrate its broader relevance. 359 SO39CH18-Saperstein ARI 27 June 2013 12:53 INTRODUCTION Multilevel studies that make these connec- tions among individuals, institutions, and the The social constructivist turn has been a fruit- broader terrain of power relations will not Race: “a concept ful one for sociology. Despite its critics (e.g., only advance scholarship on race and ethnicity which signifies and Hacking 1999), the recognition that everything but also help further demonstrate the utility symbolizes social from social norms to categories of analysis conflicts and interests of incorporating a constructivist approach are historically situated, context specific, and by referring to to these slippery concepts in social science subject to processes of both resistance and different types of research. human bodies” (Omi reproduction (Berger & Luckman 1966) has & Winant 1994, p. 55) invigorated numerous subfields, including the Racial formation: sociology of race and ethnicity. At the same “the sociohistorical time, the proliferation of “scare quotes” around CORRALLING THE CONCEPT process by which racial key axes of social inequality that were long seen OF RACE: HISTORY, categories are created, as objective measures of difference seems to TERMINOLOGY, AND inhabited, METHODOLOGY transformed, and have frightened some scholars away from fully destroyed” (Omi & exploring the implications of constructivist The position that race is socially constructed Winant 1994, p. 55) claims for the broader body of sociological developed, in part, as a response to claims that Racial project: the research: Constructivism, although readily social inequalities, for example in educational “building block” of acknowledged, has been unevenly engaged achievement between blacks and whites in the racial formation; “an across sociological subfields. United States, were rooted in biological or interpretation, Thus, in the spirit of bridging academic representation, or genetic differences. The argument that such explanation of racial boundaries, our review of recent research on disparities are shaped more by politics and dynamics, and [a the social construction of race aims to provide environment than by biology dates at least simultaneous] effort to an overview of the field for the nonspecialist. to the debunking of racial craniometry by reorganize and Although a nodding consensus exists in sociol- Franz Boas in the early twentieth century (see redistribute resources ogy that race is a social construction, we argue along particular racial Gravlee et al. 2003), and arguably to W.E.B. lines” (Omi & Winant that the discipline as a whole has a narrow Du Bois (1899) and beyond. Other influential 1994, p. 56; see also understanding of this widely accepted claim, in figures contributing to the social constructivist Carbado & Harris part because its implications for the conduct of perspective on race and ethnicity over the past 2012) research beyond the field of race and ethnicity century include Max Weber (1978), Ashley remain underappreciated (see, e.g., Morris Montagu (1942), and Fredrik Barth (1969). 2007, Saperstein 2013). To address this gap More recently, the literature has been and to underscore the wide-ranging empirical shaped by the seminal work of sociologists support for the larger theoretical paradigm, we Michael Omi and Howard Winant (1986, 1994) synthesize the evidence that has accumulated in Racial Formation in the United States.In- by University of Maryland - College Park on 09/30/13. For personal use only. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2013.39:359-378. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org over the past several decades on processes deed, the exponential growth of sociological of “racial formation” (Omi & Winant 1986, work on race that employs the language of 1994). In doing so, we also highlight some of social construction began around 1990 (see the internal divisions in the field—in particular, Figure 1a)—the midpoint between the publi- differences in scope conditions or levels of cation of the first and second editions of Racial analysis—offering specialists and nonspecialists Formation. Dissatisfied with scholarship that of- a unique perspective on the literature. We con- ten “reduced” race to a product of other so- clude by noting the need for more research that cial processes and dimensions of power rela- explicitly crosses macro-micro-meso divides to tions (namely assimilation/ethnicity, class, and reveal whether and how racialization processes nation), Omi & Winant argued that social sci- work in concert across different domains of entists needed to make race, “racial projects,” social life to shape ideas of racial difference and and the process of “racial formation” the con- reproduce the larger system of social inequality. ceptual focus of research. 360 Saperstein · Penner · Light SO39CH18-Saperstein ARI 27 June 2013 12:53 a Total number of articles by year b Top citations by window 160 0.16 140 0.14 120 0.12 Omi & Winant 100 0.10 (1986, 1994) Barth (1969) 80 0.08 60 0.06 Number of articles 40 0.04 Percent of citing articles Waters (1990) 20 0.02 Harris & Sim (2002) 0 0.00 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 Year Window Figure 1 Trends in sociological research on the social construction of race. Note: Windows consist of articles from Supplemental Material the labeled year to the labeled year minus a weighted lag to capture a citation “environment.” For more details, see the Supplemental Material online. Racial Formation has been cited in about racial formation perspective to other areas of 6% of all articles about race in sociology since sociological research. Part of the challenge of its publication, making it one of the five most generating a clear synthesis on how the social cited publications in this core sociological construction of race unfolds, particularly one subfield (for more details of our citation that is accessible to nonspecialists, is precisely analysis, see the online supplemental material that the literature is not only topically diffuse, by following the Supplemental Material as can be seen in the citation pattern of link from the Annual Reviews home page Racial Formation (Figure 2), but also split by at http://www.annualreviews.org).1 How- differences in terminology and methodology. ever, the influence of Omi & Winant’s work The perennial debate over whether or not to drew initially from other disciplines, includ- distinguish between race and ethnicity—that ing scholars in history, education, and law, is, between purportedly physical, immutable, with sociology relatively late to recognize the ascribed, or externally imposed divisions by University of Maryland - College Park on 09/30/13. For personal use only. paradigm shift (HoSang et al. 2012). Even now, and those claimed to be cultural, malleable, Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2013.39:359-378. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org citations of Racial Formation are more likely to achieved, or self-designated—has generated appear in sociological articles about racism and one type of divide in the field (see Jenkins 1997, whiteness or identification and assimilation Patterson 1997 for discussions). Other internal than in articles about prejudice and segregation divisions can be attributed to differences in the- or work and inequality (see Figure 2). oretical commitments, methodological starting We argue that these cleavages in the field points, and social justice orientations (Bobo & of race and ethnicity have hampered progress Fox 2003, Bonilla-Silva 1997, Loveman 1999, on the topic and limited application