Stuart Hall's Alternative To Reductionist

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.

This paradox resulted into two positions to explain the parts-whole relation in this paradox. The two positions is the Reductionist Position and the Holist Position. The Reductionist Position states that the whole is the sum of its parts and the Holist Position states that the whole is greater than or different from the sum of its parts. In the example of the basketball blunder the whole is represented as the total average and the parts is represented by the individual average of the 2-point and 3-point shots of Jordan and Chamberlain. Then the Reductionist Position, in terms of the basketball blunder, states that the total average is the sum of Jordan’s and Chamberlain’s individual point averages. then the Holist Position states, in terms

While many choose to label this phenomenon as the fading issue of racism, the simple fact is that our obsessive desire to ‘sort’ has instead resulted in a plethora of other social divisions. Apart from race-based discrimination, we have also fabricated

For this week’s memo, I decided to read “Racial Formations” by Omi and Winant. The reading talks about the meaning of race as being defined and challenged throughout society in both collective and personal practices. It also suggests that racial categories are created, changed, ruined, and renewed. Omi and Winant explore the idea that the conception of race developed progressively, ultimately being created to validate and rationalize inequality. It began with the denial of political rights and extended into the introduction of slavery and other forms of forcible labor.

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.

Kwame Anthony Appiah's article “Racisms”, claims racism to be a view of racialism which are the “heritable characteristics, possessed by the members of our species, that allow us to divide them into smaller sets of races… these races share certain traits…” (Appiah). Appiah argues that humans need a definition of

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

In general, I am skeptical of the notion of institutional racism, which implies that the nation as a whole is racist at the core of its laws and society, as I am not aware of any laws or institutions which are motivated racially. However, given that I lack a sophisticated knowledge regarding this issue, I pursued this book with an open mind. I found that throughout Between the World and Me, the perspective that Coates provides

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)

In Racist America author Joe Feagin confronts the passive attitude, held by many in the Anglo culture in America, towards racism. This is the third edition of the title specifically revised for undergraduate and graduate use in studies. It deals in depth with the historical, political and economic foundations of racism and white supremacy. It adds a rich breath of knowledge on the subject matter, and an expert knowledge in addressing the issues we will be discussing throughout the writing.

Institutional racism on the other hand is far broader in context and more complex. It refers to the ways in which racism has infiltrated into social institutions which govern, discriminate and oppress various groups within that society based on their race (McConnochie et al, 1988). These institutions within our societies, such as schools and healthcare services, use racism in a systematic manner which favours one group over all the others. Although racism as a notion is the same for both individual and institutional purposes, the consequences of the two are vastly different. Sociologists have argued that in the recent years racism has shifted from excluding groups on a biological basis, to more of a cultural basis of difference (Giddens, 2001; Van Krieken et al, 2010).

First is the belief that race is central, not peripheral, to American thought and life. Second is the notion that racism is common and ordinary rather than rare and episodic, so that a great deal of Americans’ social life is affected by it. A third strand is material determinism, or interest convergence—the idea that racial relations maintain a white-over-black/brown hierarchy that provides benefits and profits to elite groups in the majority race and are for that reason difficult to reform. A fourth feature is the social construction thesis, according to which races are products of social thought and invention, not objective or biologically real (Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge, 2011, p. 1).

We live in a society where race is seen as a vital part of our personalities, the lack of racial identity is very often an important factor which prevent people from not having their own identity (Omi & Winant, 1993). Racism is extemely ingrained in our society and it seems ordinary (Delgado & Stefanic, 2000), however, many people denounce the expression of any racist belief as immoral (Miles & Brown, 2003) highlighting the complicated nature of racism. Critical Race Theory tries to shed light on the issue of racism claiming that racism is ingrained in our society both in legal, cultural, and psychological aspects of social life (Tate, 1997). This essay provides us the opportunity to explore this theory and its

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).

Paul Churchland argues for the total elimination as opposed to smooth reduction of folk psychology with materialistic sciences to replace it in “Eliminative Materialism and The Propositional Attitudes,” on grounds that folk psychology is a theory that is fundamentally flawed due to a severe lack of explanatory power, has a bad historical trend of retreat and stagnation, and does not fit well with prominent physical sciences. In this essay I will explain his argument, evaluate it for its merit and show that his conclusion of the need for total elimination is unwarranted because he has a fundamental misunderstanding of folk psychology.