Racialization: Binary Paradigm

In the essay “Color Lines” by Ralph Eubanks, the author explores the flawed logic of race from a scientific perspective. In the article, Eubanks explains the fact that a person cannot know the ancestry of another person or the nature of that person by looking at their race alone. Heritage is a much more complex concept than a simple racial categorization. In writing the article, the author sought to demonstrate that when looking at a person, you could not confirm their identity based on what percentage of a certain race they may have and that social construction meant to depict one group as being superior or inferior to another. This rhetorical analysis will therefore explore the importance of the rhetorical devices and strategies used by Eubanks to communicate with the audience.

The book has as its principal thesis the consideration of race as “a folk classification, a product of popular beliefs about human differences that evolved from 16th to 19th centuries” (Smedley, 2007, pag.24). The book also specifies three characteristics that distinguish the racial ideology in America: the absence of a category for biracial people, the homogenization of the black or African American Americans, and the impossibility to change a person’s race. (Smedley, 2007, pag.7)

A majority of people here in the United States have felt a touch of the issues, that come with classification of race. Due to this, many men and women of the minority racial groups are put in to sub-groups as a way to “help” give them an identity that can relate to. This idea to separate people by giving them identities is called the Racial Formation Theory. First introduced by Michael Omi and Howard Winant, the theory is a tool that helps build the idea that race is a social contracted tool where your racial status is weighed upon by many factors such as by those social, economic and political origin. By using race a way to build lines and boundaries, this has resulted in causing a rift to grow between the majority and minority

Society has a way of making assumptions based on one’s physical characteristics. Often at times we categorize individuals to a particular social group. In regard to society’ perception of an individual this however, contributes to the development of social construction of racism. Most people want to be identified as individuals rather than a member of specific social group. As a result, our social identity contains different categories or components that were influenced or imposed. For example, I identify as a, Jamaican, Puerto Rican and a person of color. I identify racially as a person of color and ethically as Jamaican and Puerto Rican. According to Miller and Garren it’s a natural human response for people to make assumptions solely

Humans define race by how they conceive and categorize different social realities. Thus, race is often referred to as a social construct. The differences in skin color and facial characteristics have led most of society to classify humans into groups instead of individuals. These constructs affect us all, and they often result in situations where majority racial groups cause undue suffering to those that are part of the minority. The understanding of race as a social construct is best illustrated by the examination of racial issues within our own culture, specifically those that have plagued the history of the United States.

Racial Formation in the United States by Michael Omi and Howard Winant made me readjust my understanding of race by definition and consider it as a new phenomenon. Through, Omi and Winant fulfilled their purpose of providing an account of how concepts of race are created and transformed, how they become the focus of political conflict, and how they shape and permeate both identities and institutions. I always considered race to be physical characteristic by the complexion of ones’ skin tone and the physical attributes, such as bone structure, hair texture, and facial form. I knew race to be a segregating factor, however I never considered the meaning of race as concept or signification of identity that refers to different types of human bodies, to the perceived corporal and phenotypic makers of difference and the meanings and social practices that are ascribed to these differences, in which in turn create the oppressing dominations of racialization, racial profiling, and racism. (p.111). Again connecting themes from the previous readings, my westernized influences are in a direct correlation to how to the idea of how I see race and the template it has set for the rather automatic patterns of inequalities, marginalization, and difference. I never realized how ubiquitous and evolving race is within the United States.

In the world of sociology, the theory of racialization is a widely known and occasionally frustrating topic. However, two sociologists have successfully been able to define and break down the essential information behind this theory. Within their own writing, Michael Omi and Howard Winant (1986) define racial formation as,” the process by which social, economic, and political forces determine the content and importance of racial categories” (Omi and Winant 16). In essence, this theory frames the very meaning of “race” itself. The stereotypes of race are rooted deep within the contexts of history, allowing these concepts to be subject to gradual change over time. In addition to the original standards of racial formations, there have been other writings that parallel very closely to the ideas set forth by Omi and Winant. Richard Wright, Pem D. Buck, and Karen Brodkin are three notable authors that have excellently highlighted the concepts set forth by Omi and Winant.

One of the most prevalent themes throughout the world’s history is the dispute over race and racial differences. But, there is a problem: the majority of the population doesn’t have a clear understanding of what race is. Race is a socially constructed grouping of people that was created in order for people to differentiate themselves from one another and has many sources of influence. While most people believe race is determined by biological characteristics (hair type, skin color, eye shape, etc.), this is not true. To make things more complicated, there is no cut and dry definition to race. Authors of Race and Ethnicity in Society, Elizabeth Higginbotham and Margret Anderson, claim that there are seven different distinct ways to define race. They begin with the popular belief of biological characteristics, and, as mentioned before, through social construction. They go on to note that race can be formed from an ethnic group, from social class rank, from racial formation by institutions, and also can form from one’s self-definition (Higginbotham & Anderson, 2012, p. 13). All of these ways to define race have been seen throughout our history, and many of them have caused problems for minorities, especially in the United States.

Defining someone by their skin color is an everyday phenomenon. Many people see a specific shade of skin and believe they know exactly how that person is going to speak, carry, and illustrate themselves. It seems to be embedded in one’s head at a young age to have specific views given by family, friends, and coworkers such as, believing interracial relationships are immoral, or it being acceptable to judge others according to their skin color. In the articles “Race is a Four Letter Word” by Teja Arboleda and “Mr. Z” by M. Carl Holman, the color of the authors skin plays a substantial role on how they are treated and perceived. Living in a society that doesn’t understand one’s culture can make their life extremely difficult.

As we go about our daily lives and interact with all kinds of people, from all kinds of backgrounds and different races, we often do not always stop to think of their skin color and the culture they may be from. We are often too busy to really stop and take notice of what is really happening to the lives of the people around us. Two Nations Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal by Andrew Hacker is remarkable book that spells out Andrew Hackers thoughts about the race and the American people. A question one may ask is, do we simply see people and not their color, or do we see black people and white people and does that play a factor in what we do, how we act, and what we say. Hacker claims that we are a country moving toward being two nations, one white and one black. He feels like we will be “Two nations, between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy: who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different time zones, or inhabitants of different planets”(Hacker preface).

It’s either black or white, right? This is a common misconception heard in relation to many contentions involving racial controversies in America, and sadly, more often than not, it is assumed to be true. The racial, or rather ethnic, and social injustices in the United States are under the unsubstantial influential power of, what is deemed by most philosophers as, the “black/white paradigm”. “Juan Pera defines this paradigm as “the conception that race in America consists, either exclusively or primarily, of only two constituent racial groups, the Black and White… In addition, the paradigm dictates that all other racial identities and groups in the United States are best understood through the Black/White binary paradigm” (Alcoff 248). Linda Alcoff, a distinguished and highly recognized woman philosopher at the City of University of New York, who specializes in epistemology, feminism, and race theory, hopes to dissuade one from simply accepting the “black/white paradigm” but rather instead deduce that all matters in relation to race and the wrongs inherent to racism cannot unpretentiously nor moralistically be placed into the two racial groupings of either black or white.

Critical theories of race and racism have been used by sociologists to not only describe modern societies, but also address issues of social injustice and achieve an end to racial oppression. Critical race theory is one of the most widely used for this purpose. Its utility rests upon the assumption that race is a social construct and not an inherent biological feature. In place of the concept of inherent race, critical race theory proffers the concept of racialization. The tenet that the concept of race is created and attached to particular groups of people through social processes. In tandem with this, critical race theory contends that identity is neither fixed nor unidimensional. It also places importance on the perspectives and experiences of racial minorities (Ritzer and Stepnisky, 2013:66).

Omi and Winant’s discussion from “Racial Formations” are generally about race being a social construct and is also demonstrated in the viewing of Race - The power of an illusion. Omi and Winant have both agreed that race is socially constructed in society. Ultimately this means that race is seen differently in different societies and different cultures. Media, politics, school, economy and family helps alter society’s structure of race. In the viewing , also media as well as history seemed to create race by showing how social norms have evolved in different racial groups.

This is done deliberately through representations of the other by the dominant group, as they have the power to mark, assign and classify (Hall, 2001), to justify the subordination of these groups (Lorber, 1994). It is through these subordinate characteristics (stereotypes) assigned to the subordinate groups that they become the way in which the group is defined and hierarchically stratified on the basis of race, class, sexuality or gender and then become naturalised through discourse (Hall, 2001). For example black people are hyper-sexualised and characteristics such as barbaric and savage are associated with them (Hall, 2001). This then becomes the reason why black people are seen as inferior and in need of being subordinated, oppressed and marginalised. This is then articulated through discourse and by doing this the dominant group maintains power as it is connected with knowledge; knowledge that dominant groups aim to replace their own specialized thought so as to produce internalised oppression in subordinate groups (Collins, 1990).

Although our culture is said to be completely removed from the idea of racial discrimination, this sense of inequality can be seen occurring behind the scenes within our society. Within the subtopic of race, several areas including our current culture, social psychology and the current format of our social institutions allow for the production and often the reproduction of racial discrimination in our day and age. Throughout this course, the various readings and class lectures have been very beneficial when examining the impact that racial discrimination and inequality has on our society. In this paper, I will delve into the subtopic of race and ethnicity and expound on how it is greatly influenced by our culture, social psychology, and social institutions around us today.