Author: Andre Coleman

Critically analyse the way social problems are constructed and prioritised for intervention. Distinguish between the realist and construction approaches to social problems and offer an assessment of their value. Apply the relevant social theory to a contemporary social problem such as prostitution.

Outlined below is a critical analysis of the way in which social problems are constructed and prioritised for intervention. This critical analysis will aim to distinguish between the realist and the construction approaches to social problems, going on to assess the value of each approach in turn. Then the social theory deemed to be the most relevant would be applied to a contemporary social problem.

The realist approach to social problems is an approach that stresses that there is usually underlying causes of issues or phenomena within modern societies. The realist approach to social problems assumes that such problems have short – term and also long – term causes that are actually found ingrained into the social structures of modern societies.^[1] The starting point of the realist approach to social problems stress that the underlying social causes of such problems as crime, illegal drug taking, and prostitution are generally more important over the long – term rather than the sometimes more obvious short –term causes of the phenomena being examined.^[2]

Advocates of the realist approach to social problems frequently contend that sociologists should always delve deeper into the specific social problems that they are evaluating. The realist approach to social problems implies that sociologists delve deeper to find out the affects of factors such as deprivation, discrimination, prejudices, and also poverty.^[3] According to the realist approach to social problems these factors whether own their own, or in various combinations with each other are the real underlying causes of social problems. Therefore in many respects the realist approach to social problems has a great deal in common with the Marxist approach to social problems and all related issues. The main difference being that the Marxist approach to social problems would always contend that class and economic conflicts or developments are the root causes of every social problem.^[4]

The Construction approach to social problems examines the causes of all such social problems from a different perspective than the realist approach to social problems does. Whereas the realist approach to social problems contends that there are nearly always underlying factors causing these social problems, the Construction approach to social problems does not automatically that to be the case. Thus in contrast to the realist approach to social problems the Construction approach assumes that social problems are specifically constructed and that they could actually have causes that are as straightforward as they appeared to be at first glance.^[5]

The Construction approach to social problems argues that these problems are often constructed at the same time as the societies that they are found inside, and sometimes constructed after the society in question has already become well established. In the Construction approach to social problems it also often implied that the issues that are deemed to be social problems are classified as such due to the prevailing social and moral values within any given society. What is regarded as a social problem in one society might be regarded as being partly or entirely acceptable in another society.^[6]

For instance different societies have different attitudes towards issues such as homosexuality and prostitution, with more liberal minded societies perhaps not regarding them as social problems at all. Under the Construction approach to social problems various social issues and whether or not they constitute social problems depends upon the subjective values of prevailing social and moral attitudes.^[7] Societies are not always entirely agreed as to which social issues can be regarded as being social problems. The Construction approach to social problems therefore finds it useful to argue that it is the strongest or prevailing social and moral attitudes that construct and prioritise social problems and labels them as such.^[8]

The best of the approaches to social problems to be used to construct and also to prioritise the social problem or problems being examined would be the realist approach to social problems.^[9] The strength of the realist approach to social problems is that it would offer the chance to gain an understanding of the underlying causes of social problems. The realist approach to social problems such as drug taking and prostitution gives more extensive explanations than those provided by the Construction approach to social problems does. ^[10]

The realist approach to social problems offers a deeper insight into the underlying causes of problems like prostitution. To begin with the realist approach to social problems would make the sociologists examining the issue look into all the possible underlying causes of prostitution.^[11] When following the realist approach to social problems like prostitution sociologists would evaluate the parts that addiction, alienation, desperation, discrimination, sexuality, and violence played in making the problem better or worse.^[12]

In other words the realist approach to social problems would contend that prostitution was a social problem that demonstrates the unfair, harsh, violent, and frequently hypocritical ways social problems are formed and also understood are actually common in contemporary modern societies.^[13] The realist approach to social problems would contend that prostitution has been around for thousands of years in virtually every society that has ever existed, its most obvious cause being that people will pay for sex, and that other people will exchange sexual services for cash payments. According to the realist approach to social problems prostitution has more underlying causes such as prostitutes selling their bodies to make a living, to pay for drink or drug addictions, and more sinisterly they are physically forced into doing it. Whether or not prostitutes undertake their role freely or are forced into it the realist approach to social problems would nearly always argue that they are being exploited for the financial gains of others. The realist approach to social problems or at least its advocates would contend that prostitution will probably never go away, and the main aim of society should be to protect prostitutes from exploitation, violence, and sexually transmitted diseases.^[14]

Therefore to conclude the realist approach to social problems is better than the Construction approach to social problems as it allows sociologists the chance to evaluate social issues and social problems in greater detail. The realist approach to social problems offers a better understanding of the constructing and the prioritising of prostitution as a social problem.

Bibliography

Abercrombie N, Hill S & Turner B S, (2000) The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology 4^th edition, Penguin Group, London

Abercrombie N, (2004) Sociology, A Short Introduction, Polity, Cambridge

Cavadino M & Dignan J, (2002) The Penal System An Introduction, Sage Publications Lawson T & Heaton T, (1999) Crime and Deviance, MacMillan, Basingstoke

1

Rationalization and Weber’s Possible Interpretations

Rationalization is not a term that Max Weber defined in his book Modernity and Society. However, it is possible to speculate that the most plausible interpretation for what Weber meant by rationalization is, the replacement of traditional ways of doing things with new calculated ways. Two examples of these calculated ways of doing things can be seen in his writings on capitalism and bureaucracy; in which he highlights that capitalism has changed the economic structure of the West and bureaucracy, has changed the organizational structure in the West. One alternative interpretation that can also be taken from his book is that rationalization is the advancement of scientific reasoning through empirical evidence; which is a shift from previous emphasis on just spiritualism and mysticism. This paper will demonstrate that his interpretation does not hold much foundation in Weber’s writing and in fact, the most likely interpretation is the one regarding a shift to more calculated ways of doing.

For Weber, calculation of human actions comes up immensely in his writing, and this ability to calculate and move from old traditional norms can be seen in the rise of capitalism and bureaucracy. Human beings systematic shift from bartering goods to a more sophisticated and logical way created a capitalistic society. Weber’s claim that capitalism is the essence of rationalization can be seen when he states “Also capitalist businessmen, not only as occasional entrepreneurs but as persons oriented permanently to business, have been ancient, enduring, and highly universal figures” (Weber, p. 57). He is referring to the old ways business was done which was not sufficient enough to survive in a more progressive Westernized world in which capitalism replaced it because it is a more rational way of viewing the economy. This is quite significant because he touches upon the theme of calculating the market and using that to one’s advantage to better understand the economy. A supporter of the scientific interpretation might state that capitalism is not in fact a better way of organization because it causes many problems for individuals such as the inequalities that it produces. Thus might add, science through empirical evidence helps individuals unlike capitalism. While capitalism existed in places like China and in the Middle Ages it did not have the “spirit” as Weber describes it. This spirit that Weber speaks of is to have a duty to prosper through financial gains. When capitalism does prosper it is because individuals accept internal a certain way for doing things and realize that a capitalist society is right for them to achieve their goals and desires. He says “commercialisation would not have existed if capitalist-rational organization of work had not been there. One reason is rationalization is the enhancement of capitalism; it is the improvement of capitalist industrial firm.”(Weber, p.18). This illustrates his profound confidence in capitalism as rationalization, which is a shift to more systematic calculated ways of thinking about and doing actions.

Another example that can be used to support the calculated ways interpretation is Weber’s writings on bureaucracy. Bureaucracy’s ability to handle the tasks of an increasingly complex society with relative ease, has significantly changed the social life of individuals. Weber highlights the superiority of the bureaucratic system when he writes “the decisive reason for the advance of bureaucratic organization has always been its purely technical superiority over any other form of organization”(Weber, p.198). In a sense, Weber is praising bureaucracy with the formulation of a structural hierarchy chain of command that makes time more efficient and individuals know what goals must be accomplished as opposed to the old ways of doing things where the structure was not as defined. One might say that Weber does not support this because he states “Bureaucracy both in business offices and in public service, promotes the rise of a specific status group, just as did the quite different officeholders of the past” (Weber, p.202). Weber is stating that bureaucracy is nothing different from the old ways of doing things because it creates a hierarchy where individuals are still at the bottom. At first glance this might present a reasonable challenge but after further analysis, its flaw is evident. This would not be a sufficient argument because Weber states “according to all constitutions he can be dismissed or resign at any time”( Weber , p.204), the “he” Weber is referring to is a high official in a bureaucratic system. He essential debunks the argument raised that bureaucracy creates a hierarchical society that individuals will always be able to retain their power. When in actuality unlike the traditional ways where power was secure and did not fluctuate, bureaucracies are deeply infringed in Western legal systems that inhibit people from keeping their power if that majority wants them out. The reality is that because of the effortless movement of ideals and people, bureaucracy enables individuals to cooperate in an efficient manner, which is a result of rational behaviour. Weber accepting the bureaucracy has had a tremendous impact on his entire writing because from a sociological perspective, it allows individuals to work together more harmoniously because of the constant flow of activity as previously described.

In a traditional society, human beings were focused on mysticism and spiritualism as a means of discovering everything in their surroundings and as a result they lacked comprehensive knowledge of their environment. An alternative interpretation to what rationalization might have meant to Weber is that it is the move from spiritual and mystical ways of seeing the world to a more scientific and empirical way of understanding our surroundings. A scientific interpretation might be seen as plausible because Weber’s admiration for science can be seen when he states “Every scientific “fulfillment” raises new “questions”; it asks to be “surpassed” and “out-dated“ (Weber, p.56). This is a very relevant reason for this interpretation because with scientific rise, one is able to ask more insightful questions than previously thought of. However, a disadvantage to an individual taking this interpretation is that although Weber supports scientific reasoning, he does not believe that it is only unique to Western society. “Empirical knowledge, reflection on the world and the problems of life, philosophical and theological wisdom of the deepest kind extraordinarily refined knowledge observation – all this existed outside the West” (Weber, p.53). This raises a huge flaw in rationalization with this interpretation because if rationalization is the move from better ways of thinking and more systematic calculable ways, then why would other individuals than the West develop it? A more unique perspective is to adopt the first interpretation where capitalism and bureaucracy are primarily found in the West. Weber, throughout the chapter entitled Scientific Vocation, makes reference to science not being able to answer the questions that govern a person’s regular life and it falls short in this area. Weber, a sociologist, would be primarily interested in the social aspects of rationalization – something that science does not offer an answer to. The scientific interpretation would not be a suitable explanation for what Weber meant by rationalization.

It is clear that Weber did not provide a direct definition for what rationalization meant. However, it is possible to conclude that because of his strong interest in capitalism and bureaucracy, he meant rationalization is the ability to calculate and systematically change the world. Although some might propose the alternative interpretation that Weber might have meant that rationalization is the transformation from mysticism thinking in the world of how religion used to be and towards more scientific knowledge. This interpretation would not be a substantive one to explain the other forms of rationalization that Weber describes throughout his book.

References:

Weber, M. (2005). Max Weber: Readings and Commentary on Modernity. S. Kalberg (Ed.).

Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Over the years, there have been various explanations to the causes of mental illness; while some have indicated genetic causes, others have identified socio-economic causes and others have explained it using a stress-vulnerability model. Sometimes it has been explained as a combination of these factors but irrespective of these explanations which could be argued, it has been substantiated by various studies. One cannot dismiss the strong association of cultural and religious beliefs and practices in the explanation of mental illness and how these explanation and beliefs can influence treatment options sought by the individual and clinicians’ attitudes and responses. In some instances, people experiencing mental illness may have delusions of religious content as this can obscure valuable diagnosis and required treatment to be given (Cinnirella and Loewenthal, 1999). Although, religion in certain instances does not have association with mental health disorders, when it does, some close associates of the person experiencing mental health difficulties see them as someone who requires treatment, while others think they have a good doctrine or fundamental ideas and will seldom seek medical or psychological intervention (Johnson-Hill, 1995).

Rastafarianism is a way of life predominately allied with people of the Afro-Caribbean background. The movement turned religion, began in Jamaica in the 1930s, came into view as a proxy to the governance of western colonial authority and values. Teachings of Marcus Garvey, who advocated and championed the interests of people of African descent in the Diaspora, inspired the movement (Chevannes, 1998). There are over a million worldwide followers of Rastafarian religion. It has been estimated that about 5,000 Rastafarians are living in England and Wales in the 2001 census and there are considerable followers of the faith in communities predominately in London, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Bristol and Nottingham (BBC, 2009).

The primary aim of the religion is to bring about the elementary transformation of an unjust society. Ethiopianism is an idea that merges Ethiopia and the whole of the African continent which occupies followers of the Rastafarian faith with dreams of a return to their ‘heaven on earth’ (Chevannes, 1994). Johnson-Hill (1995) stated that everything about this religion, the use of the ‘holy herb’ (cannabis), the use of the term I, meaning ‘We’, and songs are all intended for the Oneness (divine self) within inner self discovery which acts to strengthen the individual. All these aid the Rastafarian to engage in purity of the mind and be regarded as person of self worth (Murrell, Spencer and McFarlene, 1998).

The rise of Bob Marley, who was a practicing Rastafarian made the movement/ religion very popular not only in the Caribbean but the whole world and has attracted a considerable number of followers mainly blacks, and some white people who claim to have affiliation with Africa, to the ethics and practices of the Rasta faith. The inclusion of white people to the religion has led to a change in their philosophy of skin colour to an orientation of the mind and self- determinism (Johnson-Hill, 1995).

Their strict teachings and practices, like any other religion may have protective factors against mental illness however it does not exempt an individual from experiencing mental health difficulties. This article will attempt to highlight the origin of Rastafarianism, spiritual practices and its impact on mental health and mental health practice.

Origin of the Rastafari Religion

Marcus Garvey was one of the founders of the religion. His middle name ‘Mosiah’ which was interpreted by people as a link between Biblical Moses and the Messiah was very significant to his followers and turned the United Negro Improvement Association to a worldwide movement. Garvey used Biblical suggestion of Ethiopia as a place of return to Africa and also predicted to his followers to “Look to Africa for the crowning of a Black King; he shall be the Redeemer” (Murrell, Spencer and McFarlene, 1998). As Barrett (1988) pointed out, this prophecy to all of Garvey’s followers existed in their minds until in 1930, when Ras Tafari the great grandson of King Saheka Selassie was crowned Emperor of Ethiopia. He took up the name Haile Selassie (Might of the Trinity) and other titles as “King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Elect of God and Light of the World and placed himself in the dynasty of King Solomon (Murrell, Spencer and McFarlene, 1998).

Many Jamaicans and followers of the United Negro Improvement Association saw the coronation as a revelation from God and the fulfilment of the prophecy predicted earlier by Marcus Garvey. The fundamental idea of Ethiopianism and Messianism were put together by the Garvey movement whose task was to rebuild Africa shattered by the invasion of the colonialists (Chevannes, 1998).

Rastafarians soon accredited themselves as part of the twelve tribes of the biblical Israel and identified with Haile Selassie as the redeemer or messiah who would lead them away from the white oppression (Babylon) with a promise of a return to Africa (Barrett, 1988).

Johnson-Hill (1995) pointed out that although some followers of the faith returned to Ethiopia, others now see this mission as a psychological self discovery and personal attribute to Africa; its culture and way of life.

Rastafarian beliefs, rituals and practices

The Bible is of great importance to the practice of Rastafarianism but only some of its content is peculiar to the religion. However the Rasta believes in the Bible as having higher power to expose evil. They have nurtured for themselves a wide range of beliefs and spiritual practices with support from their interpretation of various texts in the Bible (Murrell, Spencer and McFarlene, 1998).

The Rastafarians are persuaded that God is black and support their doctrine with Biblical text in Jeremiah 8:21. A reverence of Haile Selassie is very vital to the Rasta as he is perceived as a living god and returned messiah linking him to the lineage of King Solomon. The distinct characteristics of Haile Selassie is divine to the followers of Rastafarianism but to some he is an incarnation of God who is called Jah or combined as Jah-Rastafari which they support with Biblical verses in Revelations 5:2-5, Psalms 68:4 and Psalm 87:3-4. (Barrett, 1988).

Chevannes (1994) points out that twice every week, the Bobo Shantis’ who are the strict followers of the religion use prayer and fasting and drumming as an essential part of the Rastafarian faith. On these occasions, nothing whatsoever passes their lips from noon to sunset amid worship in their temple. Prayer is predominately done three times every day, where the believer prostrates facing east at sunrise, noon and sunset. These religious beliefs and practices clearly have implications for mental health practice.

The general believe in the Rastafarian religion is peace and their denouncement of violence. Sometimes this non-violent way of life is highly unachievable due to their socioeconomic strata and the militant affiliation of one section of the religion, the Nyahbingi order that might support violence. The Rastafarians lifestyle and day to day activities began as a deviation from society’s norms and the formation of a cohesive unit. Protest against authority brought about violence in the early days of the founding of the religion (Johnson-Hill, 1995).

The Bobo Shantis (a sect of Rastafarianism), are self mindful non violent people who wear their dreadlock hair under turbans. They desist from amassing wealth and property with a notion of living a very simple life similar to the lifestyle and practices of the ancient Israelites while observing the Sabbath weekly from Friday evening through Saturday evening (Murrell, Spencer and McFarlene, 1998). Another division of the Rastafarian religion is the twelve tribes of Israel which have larger and diverse followers. Each tribe is associated with a month of the year according to the names of the twelve tribes of Israel and members are deemed equal in status although they may function differently (Barrett, 1988).

In the Rastafarian religion, women are seen as less superior beings and obtain the faith’s thorough divine wisdom through their husband, or partner (Barrett, 1988). This indicates the possibility of Rastafarian men treating women inhumanely and possibly preventing them from accessing mental health services and treatment. There are some traditional practices which bear similarities in the practices of Rastafarians where in the public place, women must wear ankle length dresses, and hair must be covered during ritual proceedings. Rasta women are exempt from cooking when menstruating and in certain situation they are placed in seclusion (Chevannes, 1998). Although these are beliefs and custom held by the Rastafarians, it is evident that it can cause oppression to the woman, and can be a contributing factor of mental illness.

Another belief or practice that can have implications for the treatment of mental illness is the Rastafarians placing a valuable importance on nature. It is seen as an endowment of Jah for healing and sanctification of mankind (Murrell, Spencer and McFarlene, 1998). As a result of this view, they reject unnatural things relevant to life including medical treatment, rather preferring the natural herbal use. The use of cannabis referred to by the Rastafarians as the herb, weed or ganja is believed to have been found on the grave of King Solomon and it is to aid in gaining insight into life, have a clear conscience and meditating in worship (Barrett, 1988).

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Cannabis and mental health

A feature that people attribute to Rastafarianism is the use of cannabis. To the Rastafarian smoking cannabis is a special spiritual experience and help in their meditation as well as enlightens their mind. A procedure referred to as reasoning. The ritualistic way involving cleansing and prayer before using cannabis is sacred to them. Smoking cannabis without purpose is regarded as disrespectful to a Rasta (Barrett, 1988). To the Rastafarian, it is their right to use cannabis but its cultivation and possession according to the law is illegal and warrants a police caution or arrest (Home Office, 2009).

In a medical context, the association between cannabis sativa commonly known as cannabis, marijuana, weed, or herb and psychosis has been raised. Cannabis sativa is exceptional for producing different types of cannabinoids but the most powerful type associated with psychosis is the Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which also contains carbon monoxide and carcinogens found in tobacco (Ashton, 1999). The THC content in cannabis has dramatically augmented over the years due to the advanced ways by which the plant is cultivated. The increased potency of cannabis nowadays may expose users to high doses of THC.

In a study conducted by Reilly et al., (1998) using 268 long term users of cannabis with regular usage of at least three times per week, the subjects gave reasons for their cannabis use as mainly for relaxation, having a feel good effect and to alleviate stressors in their day to day lives. They however reported feelings of anxiety or depression, lack of motivation, exhibition of paranoid ideation and some also reported respiratory symptoms. Beer (2007) explained that certain individuals with a Valine modification in the dopamine-regulating COMT (catechol-O-methyl transferase) gene are vulnerable to developing psychosis and cannabis can exacerbate psychosis in individuals with this defect in their genome. Experiments conducted by D’Souza et al (2004) described the existence of positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia in the healthy people in their study who were given cannabis intravenously and also a transient acute psychotic episode in others. Early commencement of cannabis use on a frequent basis was noted as a strong predictor in the individual’s future addiction to cannabis and an important relation to depression (Kalant, 2004). He further showed that there is evidence that memory and information processing in the children of women who are chronic users of cannabis were permanently affected and a susceptibility to other illicit drugs dependence in later life owing to early exposure.

Still exploring the impact of cannabis use on mental health, Ashton (1999) has indicated the pharmacokinetics of cannabinoids as it enters the lungs into the blood stream and the effect it precipitates. As the cannabis smoke is inhaled or taken orally, its effect is noticed within minutes and evoking a physiological and physical effects in users. In the bloodstream, the cannabinoids are circulated quickly to parts of the body requiring high blood demand like the brain, liver and lungs. In the brain, cannabinoids like THC act as agonist at the CB1 receceptors which is only found in the brain and a second one is also located in peripheral tissues especially in the immune system (Iversen, 2003).

Studies have shown that these CB1 receptors are predominately confined to axons and nerve terminals but not in the dendrites or body of the neurons. These receptors have a presynatic mechanism in origin and modify the release of neurotransmitters which are mainly found in the basal ganglia, cerebellum, hypothalamus, anterior cingulated cortex, hippocampus and cerebral cortex (Levenes et al., 1998). Chronic cannabis use is linked to memory, learning impairment and cognitive function which are allied with the cortex and the hippocampus with subsequent mental health deficit (Iversen, 2003). Impaired judgement by these users relates to disruption in their decision making. This effect of cannabis on the brain explains the effect of the amount of dopamine released corresponds to the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia whereby excessive production of dopamine is associated with symptoms of schizophrenia (Johns, 2001).

There is an extensive research highlighting the adverse effect cannabis has on one’s mental state most especially in chronic or regular users. The capacity of cannabis is to generate a ‘high’, a notion widely associated with its use. Its abuse or addiction is related to substantial pre-morbid psychopathology (affective and personality disorders as well as psychotic disorders). The intense reaction it gives is ecstatic otherwise a euphoric, detached and relaxed feeling which may persevere with perpetual use of cannabis (Johns, 2001).

Patriarchal structure and mental health implication

While the woman signifies an enchanting pleasure to men and also satisfying their partner’s desires by not showing dissatisfaction or allowed to complain about anything in the Rastafarian faith, she is thought to denote a specific hazard to their men. “Rastafarians believe that a woman is of such wayward nature that only through her male spouse, her ‘king-man’, may she attain the enlightenment of Jah” (Chevannes, 1998).

Using Biblical context of Adam and Eve and Samson and Delilah’s experiences, Rastafarian men do not trust their women folk. This feature of the Rasta faith which has society’s condemnation is the issue of dissimilarity in gender and a patriarchy practice. In certain Rastafarian communities, some of these sexist ideas results in women being marginalised, seen as inferior and a source of sin. There is a concept about women being submissive to their men folk and always show respect as well as do what they ask which is very contradictory or antithesis to their belief about human equality (Johnson-Hill, 1995). This oppression and control can lead to emotional and physical abuse in the women. Domestic violence arises when a partner considers dictating and gaining control of the other partner. Most often abusers are of the male gender and the need to dominate may arise from low self esteem, extreme inferiority issues in socioeconomic and educational status, excessive anger and jealousy. Intense traditional beliefs or cultural practices may influence people’s behaviours as they grow either witnessing these practices of abuse from childhood or being victims of abuse themselves and the subsequent development to think it is right to control and abuse women (Briere, 1996).

This occurrence of jealousy, insecurity and all forms of abuse with the situation of intimate relationship are common (Spiegel, 2003). Abuse is often thought as a physical abuse but emotional and verbal aspects can be as damaging as that of the physical. In many situations of abuse, these women will seldom report such incidences and only in serious proportions resulting in injuries and death reaches the attention of the authorities. Women experiencing this ordeal of pain and trauma in their relationships are referred to seek mental health and psychological interventions (Salter, 1995). In a cross-sectional survey comprising of 432 women who attended walk-in clinics, Maharaj et al (2010) used the Woman Abuse Screening Test (WAST) and showed a major association between abuse in mental health disorders in the patients especially depression, anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder.

A longitudinal study conducted by Roberts et al (1999) with women aged between 16 to 74 years, who were treated at the accident and emergency department investigated the features of symptoms and precedents of mental illness associated with domestic violence and abuse. Their findings showed similarities with other results highlighted in other research which identified that women who suffer abuse in their adult lives suffered an impact on their mental health and other women who experienced similar abuse in their childhood as well as adult life also had a significant difficulty in their mental health than women in the control group who were women not abused in any form. These studies clearly indicate an association between abuse and mental health problems. It also indicates that addressing the issues of abuse is paramount to religious beliefs and practices in mental health practice. The other implication it has on mental health practice is; professionals’ ability to carry out accurate risk assessment and subsequently manage risk in the light of these complex beliefs and practices.

Rastafarianism and the vegan’s syndrome

The Rasta believes that it is wrong to eat the carcass of animals because then the body is being converted into a burial ground (Chevannes, 1994). Most Rastafarians will not eat animal meat, some will eat fish but not eat shellfish and the consumption of milk by some is viewed as not coming from dead animals. They will not eat fruit that has been altered from its natural form nor any food that has been processed. In vegan diet, there is a low concentration of vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 (cobalamin) is a vital component of the synthesis of DNA and has been implicated in various neurological and psychiatric disorders (Lerner and Kanevsky, 2002). Vitamin B12 contributes an important part in the maintenance of homeostasis in the nervous and the transport systems (haematology). The daily dietary recommendation is 2.5 µg and only produced naturally by some microorganisms unlike humans who have to obtain it from their diet especially in dairy products, eggs, fish and meat (Catalano et al., 1998). A decline in the level of vitamin B12 causes anaemia, a rise in mean corpuscular volume (MCV), haematocrit and haemoglobin and some patients are found to have normal blood levels but deficient in this vitamin which can prove difficult to diagnose. Its role in the disorders of a neuropsychiatric is understudied, however several research cited by Catalano et al (1998) in their article has postulated toxic levels in homocysteine, axonal demylenition of neurons are a cause of deficiency in vitamin B12 and an association with mental health difficulties. It has proven a challenge to diagnose, as the psychiatric symptoms sometimes can present with or without hematologic or neurological appearance (Sabeen and Holroyd, 2009). There is a correlation between vitamin B12 deficiency and different types of psychiatric and neurological deficits. Vitamin B12 (cobalamin) plays an important role as a coenzyme in human metabolism which contributes to the synthesis of neurotransmitters such as dopamine, serotonin and noradrenalin. Defects in these neurotransmitters can lead to a decline in mental state and subsequently evolve into a psychiatric disorder (Hutto, 1997).

Symptoms of a psychiatric nature that is accredited to a deficiency to vitamin B12 are a decline in cognitive function, confusion, delirium, depression, acute psychosis (agitation, paranoia, hallucination) and a rare schizophrenia presentation. In the older adult patients, there are reported cases of dementia and catatonic presentation and other patients presented with neurological deficit like paresthesias, ataxia and other sensory impairments (N. Berry, Sagar and Tripathi, 2003).

Recommendations

It is very evident that the religious beliefs and practices of Rastafarians have implications for mental health and mental health practice. It will be recommended that;

Practice

Rastafarians have nurtured a phonological scheme of words into a new framework of the English language which is heavily accented. This exclusive way of communicating might obstruct the clinician’s task in mental health assessment of a Rastafarian. Health professionals ought to be aware of the variations in making accurate assessments. This will include sometimes consulting people with in-depth knowledge.

Secondly, a thorough spiritual assessment needs to be considered especially if the patient is a practising Rastafarian as spiritual practices like chanting, fasting and their dietary needs to be adhered to and some of the beliefs and practices can be construed as symptoms.

Raising awareness of vitamin B12 deficiency and its relation to psychiatric symptoms among healthcare professionals is essential to provide understanding to the vegan syndrome in these people who presents as anaemic or neuro-psychiatric disorder or both. Training regarding this causality of deficiency in vitamin B12 and psychosis should be ruled out when these group of people present with symptoms of a psychiatric nature.

During any psychological or psychiatric assessment of the Rastafarian women, clinicians should be aware of the possibility of abuse and in- depth exploration into the likelihood of abuse in order to safeguard the individual. Psychological intervention could also play an important part in ensuring their well being if identified of suffering abuse.

Cannabis use and its association with psychotic illness should not be undermined. Patients and their carers need to be educated about the risks of cannabis use. Staff should set up groups to educate and help patients to be abstinent.

Training and Education

In pre qualification training, health professionals need to be educated on the existence of such beliefs and practices and its impact on mental health assessment and management despite this group being little. Subsequently, post qualification training in religious, cultural and spiritual needs has to begin exploring the needs of this minority group. Furthermore, training in techniques such as motivational interviewing will be invaluable.

Education of the general public as a whole is also important, and followers of the Rastafarian faith should be encouraged to include products like milk or take vitamin B12 supplements in their diets.

Research

Further research into the Rastafarian beliefs and practices and its implications for mental health need to be carried out as this is limited and almost non-existent

Conclusion

It has been established that the beliefs and practices of Rastafarians has implications for mental health and mental health practice. The differences between Rastafarianism and other “typical” religion are myriad, including: no set membership, no ordained or commanding leader, and as a whole there is association with the outside world.

In certain societies, Rastafarians have been described as a religious group exhibiting delusions. The negative analysis needs to be questioned because it suggests a misinterpretation of the ideals of the religion and encourages the incorrect concept that their beliefs are atypical to notions of other religious movements. Despite these diverse ideas, it should be highlighted that Rastafarians, like other religions; Christians, Muslims, Buddhist etc are susceptible of having mental health difficulties. Diagnosis and management should be based on clinical examination and a holistic understanding of the person, in order to provide an appropriate medical, religious and cultural sensitive care.

Part of the current feminism strive is to raise awareness of what is known as rape culture. Rape culture is a socially constructed concept that depicts a culture in which sexual violence and rape are belittled, tolerated, and even justified in society. This concept is related to some specific behaviors such as women’s causal role, rape stereotypes, sexual objectification, and trivialization of rape along with sexual discrimination.

Legally, rape is defined as forced sexual intercourse between a man and a woman against the woman’s will (or the man’s). In many states, the legal definition of rape does not include marital rape. In others terms, husbands which force their wives into sex are not punished by law, as rape is only seen as “illegitimate” sexual intercourse, i.e., the wife’s exception implies that “rape is rape” if and only if the man commits the act on a woman other than his wife. This would suggest that sexual violence is not always considered as an act of rape. Even more, this implies that the law might consider sexual assaults as tolerable. For a forced sexual act to be sanctioned as rape, the man should not have conjugal rights over the woman. In other terms, the law’s acceptance of a violent sexual act depends on the relationship between the victim and her rapist.

According to the feminists’ rape culture theory, sexist behaviors contribute to the normalization of sexual assaults towards women. The root of rape culture is -according to the theory- the objectification and domination of women in a highly patriarchal society. Rape culture exists today because of the socially constructed image of sex as being an act of male domination over women. It is the traditional perception of how men and women are to behave which is the cause of rape being so trivialized. Men are expected to have sexual dominance in the relationship whereas women are pictured as passive, subordinate creatures.

The contrast between men and women in the socially constructed sexual culture can be seen in dating for instance. In a date, a man is expected to buy gifts, dinner, drive the date of/from location to location and shower the woman with attention. Society has accustomed men to expect sexual rewards for their actions. The man thinks he has a right to sexual favors because of what he did on the date. This reasoning puts women as legitimate for sexual aggressions, and gives justifications for men to reason what they might do. When society produces rapists by encouraging values such as domination, anger, aggression, violence and rejecting the idea of men expressing and sharing their feelings, it fosters a rape culture.

The rapists are also victims in the sense that they are frustrated by not being able to nurture their need for love and affection through more normal, healthier ways; hence acting through violence.

Social conditioning through media holds a huge part of responsibility in rape culture oriented societies. Men and women are made to behave and think in a very specific way from a very early age through school and popular culture. Women and girls should act properly and in a “ladylike” manner, men should be strong and unemotional. This socialization process, this distribution of roles and behaviors creates the imbalance of power between men and women, giving the floor to male domination over female subordination, and indirectly training women how to be raped, and men how to be rapists.

Some rules which train women “how to be ladies” actually contribute to a lot of rape situations. For instance, a “lady” should not make a scene just because she is at discomfort. During a sexual assault, wouldn’t this entitle that the woman should stay quiet, in order to preserve ladylike qualities? A “lady” should always trust and be kind to strangers which offer to help. This rule gives rapists plenty of situations where they can trick women into thinking that they are actually willing to help them whilst having planned the rape act. Another rule claims that a “lady” should always graciously smile when spoken to. A potential rapist might consider a woman acknowledging him with a smile as her being consenting to the situation.

Social conditioning has also leaded us to deem as true a set of prejudicial beliefs, called rape myths. These stereotypes provide aggressors with justifications and legitimization for their acts of sexual violence. Feminists claim that rape myths are fundamental to the patriarchal society which supports control and domination relationships. Not only do those stereotypes and lies present assaulters with excuses for their acts, but they also move the responsibility of the act away from the aggressors and lay it on the victims.

Some examples of rape myths include: “Black men rape white women”, “Provocative female clothing is the cause of rape”, “it’s the victim’s fault”, “She was asking for it”… Even more dangerous is women’s acceptance as the ones to blame for rape and the hostility some women show towards other women which were rape victims, by saying and believing in claims such as “She provoked the rape”, “Men are unable to control themselves”, “rape is only perpetrated by sick men”.

The new trend nowadays, and from what I hear around me when I ask people about the causal role of women in a rape situation is to say that women should not dress in an alluring way then blame men for raping them. Society is full of sick men, and women should be prepared for this. Raped women actually “had it coming”.

A study done in Germany where participants (students) were given a set of questions, tried to measure to which extent rape myths were accepted and it tried to study the correlation between the desire for sexual dominance and the inclination to accept rape and rape myths. The results of this study supported the feminist theory which claims that rape is much more linked to the desire for men to express their dominance and control over women than to simple sexual arousal.

There are three main theories which suggest different factors as support for the proliferation of rape culture.

The first theory, gender disparity, claims that rape is the main instrument for patriarchal societies to keep oppression and control. As discussed earlier, the imbalance of power in the relationship between men and women is a direct cause of the objectification and subordination of women versus the domination and demonstration of force of men, which encourages rapist behavior.

The second theory, cultural overflow, claims that rape myths and gender socialization are not the only causes for sexual violence, as other components of culture might serve to justify and trivialize rape. An example would be the aspects of violence in our everyday life. Violence in schools, in media, and in governments can be generalized or extended to relationships, thus condoning rape acts.

The third theory, social disturbance, suggests that elevated rates of rape might reflect disturbance in social lives such as divorce and relocation. A generalization of the theory would be that deviant acts in general mirror social disorganization which disturbs commonly agreed on social mores.

Although I agree with the fact that feminists have done well in raising awareness against rape in societies, and (to some extent) to how society might have contributed to the increase of rape rates through popular culture and mass media, I think there are some issues with rape culture as an entity proposed by traditional feminists.

Traditional feminists’ rape culture theory mainly insists on gender imbalance as being the cause of rape proliferation in society. However, and as the Cultural Spillover theory suggest, other factors and other components might cause increase in rapes’ rates.

The war in Bosnia (92-95) was infamously known for wartime rape. Many Muslim women in Bosnia were raped by Serbs at the time. Rape becomes a weapon of war in this case. It is not intentionally or (at the least solely) directed towards the individual victim, but rather used as any other tool to hurt the enemy.

The rape during the Yugoslav conflicts was consequently labeled as “genocide rape” or “rape warfare”. Many examples in India, South Asian, and Middle Eastern and South African countries show similar patterns where the culture of war and violence tends to lead to a tacit acceptance of rape in society.

Rape as a war weapon can be much more effective than any other weapon as the lasting effects of such an act not only hurt the individual on the long term but the society as a whole. Through children born in time of rape warfare, the society is relentlessly reminded of the war and the enemy. It is one of the most degrading and brutal attacks that could be carried on the enemy. Victims of rape in war time live in isolation from their family and community, especially if they have a child born from the rape act.

Another issue with the traditionalist feminist view on rape is the binary structure and the rather monolithic perspective on the matter. There is this tendency to represent men as evil animalistic rapist creatures and women as helpless submissive victims.

The feminist cause is first and foremost a fight for equality. As a movement which condemns rape as a result of gender inequality, the irony here is the separation between genders which label the man as a rapist and the woman as a victim. The theory depicts all men as potential rapists and sex offenders, controlling and dominant. Across my research, I noticed that most of the literature on rape culture only highlights female oriented violence. Such discrepancy makes it appear as if male oriented violence does not exist, and that female victims are much more prevalent. Such unfairness in research contributes to the rigid binary representation of the matter.

The danger in doing such propaganda (i.e. labeling all men are potential sexual aggressors) makes it sound as if being a man is enough to identify the person as someone likely to rape. Even the definitions I encountered on feminist blogs and journals define rape as the act of sexual violence towards a woman by a man without her consent, but not vice versa. A similar distortion can be seen when talking about domestic violence as it is now assumed and taken for granted that men are the wife beaters. While feminism’s original strive is to gain and maintain equality between the genders, rape culture theories create a serious loophole as such distortions and discrepancies actually put women as the harmless gender on higher grounds for moral superiority in comparison with men as the harmful gender, which creates gender imbalance all over again.

By acting as such, feminists negate their goal of gender equality. It is not anymore the battle for equal rights; it is the fight for moral superiority that is at stake here.

Hence as much as rape culture following the feminist view trivialize and encourage rape, rape culture also benefit this feminist view of men being animalistic and unable to control their urges in comparison with women.

A third issue with rape culture is the labeling itself of the entity. What does rape culture exactly encapsulates? I am concerned that the focus of feminists on rape culture might exclude other abused victims which were not subject to rape but other types of violence.

For instance, domestic violence victims’ doesn’t necessarily mean rape victims. Aren’t those women excluded from the movement because of the fact that they were not raped? Sexually harassed women are not necessarily raped too, where do they stand in the rape culture movement? By choosing a label and identifying an entity such as rape culture, Rape acquires a special place in the feminist movement, as women who were raped gain a unique status which makes them a priority over other women.

The problem here is that, by giving rape this privileged status, by making the focus rape and rape culture, the feminist movement creates this gender-separatist, discriminatory entity which shadows other gender related issues. Other society problems are as important as the rape issue, yet we do not have a “child molesting culture” entity for instance.

Furthermore, one can actually draw a pattern of similarities between the feminist’ rape culture movement and the traditional white feminist movement, because both are discriminatory in a way. The white feminist movement does not represent black and Latino women for instance. Similarly, rape culture feminists do not represent battered women or women who were not raped but were still victims of sexual harassment.

Rape culture oriented feminism does have some good arguments as socially constructed behaviors and gender roles do impact on rape behaviors. However, and to draw the analogy with the white feminist movement, victimized women which were raped as a product of the imbalance of power between men and women in society represent only a small part of the rape victims and situations, as much as white desperate housewives with college degrees who are forced to stay at home only represent a small portion of oppressed women.

Just as white feminism should evolve to include other women in the group, rape culture oriented feminism should also change by broadening its area of interest and not limiting itself only to first: physically raped victims and second : physically raped victims outside the sample society provided by rape culture oriented feminism. Wartime rape victims, which are ignored by this feminist movement currently should also be part of the strive. Furthermore, the movement should also reconsider the monolithic view it gives of society which separates men and women in a negative way. Rape culture oriented literature so far is very biased in terms of who does the aggressions. It should also recognize that not all men are aggressors, because of the unfairness and incorrectness of such accusation, and move towards a more cooperative image between the genders rather than the hatred one it currently gives.

Work cited:

Rape Myths. “Research & Advocacy Digest”

Living things throughout the world have been abused by loved ones and strangers for no reason at all. Abuse has been apart of our world for as long as we can remember. It is a common thing to hear about in the news and is something that should not be so common. There are many types of abuse in the world, such as emotional, physical, and verbal. It is common to think that only humans suffer from those types of abuse but it is not exactly true. Animals in this world suffer from emotional, verbal, and physical abuse just as much as humans do. It is even safe to say that in some cases they suffer much more then humans do from the abuse they deal with. One thing that humans have over animals when it comes to abuse is the ability to ask for help. Humans can ask family members, or any one else to help them get through the abuse they are dealt with. Animals, on the other hand, have no way to communicate and to ask for help. They have to put up what they dealt with which is truly upsetting and wrong. This paper is designed to broaden ones perspective on the things animal go through when being raised for food, clothing, and in slaughterhouses. It is also designed to explain how places such as factory farms pollute the world.

A. Animals Raised for Food

Throughout time animals have been seen as companions and a source of food. The only hope of survival for many, especially in the winter, was to eat meat. Meat gave them protein and was a source of food that was always readily available to be hunted. The days of animals being hunted in their natural environment for food are long gone. For the purpose of this paper it is important to understand how animals were killed for food back in the day and now. Animals are going from living in the wild the way they want to before being killed for food to being mutilated and treated poorly so that the best piece of meat can be obtained. Raising animals for food has become a cruel and wrongful event.

These animals are put on special diets where they do not get all the nutrients they need to survive. They are neglected and mutilated. They are genetically manipulated, and put on drugs that cause chronic pain and crippling. These animals live in broken down, disease-ridden and filthy sheds. They live in such confined areas that it is impossible to move or get comfortable. They have to travel long distances in any kind of weather imaginable to get to the slaughterhouses. They have to travel these gruesome trips without food or water because it is too much trouble for the owner of the factory farms to supply food and water for the animals before they die (PETA).

Cows are one of the animals that are killed most often for their meat. Dairy cows, for example, have to deal with being pregnant for their whole life so that they will always be able to produce milk. They have to basically go through a never ending cycle of being pregnant and giving birth. They are kept chained to the barn stall for the entire time that they are able to give milk. Once they are emptied of all their milk they are sent to the slaughterhouse so that their meat can be used for hamburgers (Global Action Network). Calves have a different fate. Veal calves have the worst life of them all. They have to stand in a 22? by 54? crate which is their permanent home. In this cage they cannot turn around or lay down. The purpose of these crates is to prevent movement so that the calf’s muscles are tender. The more tender the muscles, the more gourmet the veal is. These calves are also put on special diets. They are fed milk substitutes that do not contain iron or other essential vitamins. Up to fourteen weeks after birth these calves are slaughtered and the veal is sent to stores so we can eat it(veal: a cruel meal).

Horses are an animal that we humans would never think would be abused for food. Yet people around the world are taking an animal that is meant to be a companion to humans and slaughtering them for their meat. In the United States of America (USA) it is against the law in most states to slaughter horses, but there is still some states that are allowed to do it, Texas and Illinois are examples. These horses are kept in extreme conditions and not cared about. They are sent to the slaughterhouses in trailers that should fit four horses but are stuffed with so many more. The horse meat is used for humans to eat, and is used in dog food. Horses also used to be killed to be used to make glue. Most of the people that live in the areas where slaughtering horses is legal think it is wrong to murder horses and do not want to take part in it. They also find that eating horse meat is repulsive and just wrong (SHARK).

In Canada today there is about 18 million pigs being raised for pork. Sows, which are mother pigs, live a life like those of a dairy cow. They endure constant pregnancies and births, reaching a number of about 8 to 10 births in their life time. They live their entire life in farrowing crates which are just bigger then them and that have no bedding. They live on a concrete floor and have to deal with birth and pregnancy on that cold dirty floor. The piglets live in the farrowing crates for 2 weeks then are moved to a feeder pen. Some of the piglets, about 15%, die off due to the poor living conditions they have to deal with. The others are sent to be castrated and have their tails cut off, teeth ground, and ears notched, which is all done without any pain medicine used. The piglets live in stalls that have manure pits underneath them; this means they are basically living in their own feces for their entire life. They live up to they reach market weight which is 250 pounds and then are shipped to slaughterhouses (Global Action Network).

Chickens are also commonly raised for food and by-products. Chickens raised for eggs are kept in wired cages measuring 40cm by 45 cm. These cages are not just to hold one chicken, but up to six chickens. The lack of space prevents the chickens from doing anything such as moving or stretching out their wings. Due to the conditions they live in, 1 in 5 chickens die. The other hens are killed after close to 2 years. Broiler chickens live in dark sheds that are extremely crowded. Living in these conditions cause most of the chickens to have hysteria, which causes stampeding and suffocation. The stress the chickens are put under can even bring upon cannibalism. These chickens go through this life for a few years before being sent to the slaughterhouses. (global action network)

B. Animals Raised for Clothing

Animals have been used for clothing for as long as one can remember. The pioneers of this nation once hunted and killed animals but when they did this they used every part of the animal possible. They ate the meat and they took the fur and used it to make clothing so that they could stay warm. It is important to understand that those days are sadly over. Now animals are being raised just for the purpose of their furs and/or leathers. Millions of animals are killed every year for the clothing industry (PETA). These animals endure great suffering so humans can have that nice leather jacket or fur coat to wear.

Fur farms are not a four star place for animals. The animals are kept in wire cages with four to five animals in each cage. These animals live in filthy cages and live lives not much better then those that live in factory farms. The owners of these fur farms do not want to put much money into them. They tend to want to keep the money for themselves and leave all the barns to ruin and fall apart. They also tend to pick the cheapest and cruellest ways to murder the animals for their fur (PETA). There are many fur farms in Canada that have been around since the beginning of the 1900’s. These farms raise fox, mink, racoon, marten, and lynx. (Canadian Encyclopedia). Canadian fur farms have to operate under certain Codes of Practice developed by the Provincial and Federal Government. (appendix) (candianaˆ¦)

The most common and valuable Canadian fur bearer is the mink (The Canadian Encyclopaedia). The mink is a member of the weasel family and was first raised in the Canada during 1866-67 (Canadian Encyc. P.1). Mink are aggressive and have to be held with a certain care because they tend to bite often and have thick leather mitts. At first the mink are housed in wire cages with two or three of them per cage. Once they become adults they are housed one mink per cage (ency p.2). These minks are properly fed their meat based diets and also the vitamins the need to survive (Ency. P. 3). They also receive proper bedding and nesting to survive (ency. P.4). When the time comes the mink are killed by carbon monoxide poisoning and then skinned for their furs. This type of practice, where the animal is given some dignity, is only given in Canada and not all animals are as lucky.

Animals in China are not so lucky. Most of the fur that is found in stores comes from Chinese fur farms due to the fact that China is one of the largest distributers of furs. Back in 2005, an investigation was done by the Human Society International in the Hebei province of Eastern China. The investigation by the Human Society International (2005) brought about the following evidence

Investigators witnessed a significant number of animals that were still alive when the skinning process began-starting with a knife at the rear of the belly and ending with the fur being pulled over the animal’s head. After the skin was removed, investigators taped animals being thrown on a pile of other carcasses. These animals were still breathing, had a heartbeat, and continued moving and blinking for between five to ten minutes after their skin had been ripped from their bodies.

Before these animals even go through the skinning process they are forced to live in cramped cages with more then one animal in each cage. These cages are tiny enough and the more animals that are in it the more anxiety that builds up in the animals. They pace, nod, and circle their heads in such a way that shows they are helpless and scared.(human international). These animals are forced to live outdoors in all types of weather conditions. The mothers that give birth often kill their litters before they have the chance to live the life that she is going through.(PETA)

Leather is one of the most common clothing elements that all humans have. Leather made in Canada and the USA is made in conditions that are healthier for the animals then the farms in India. India is a larger supplier of the world’s leather. Cows in India go through the process of having their throats cut and the skin ripped off their bodies while still alive (PETA). Leather is not a by-product of cows. It is a way of adding to the value of a dead animal at the slaughterhouse and adds support to the industry.(animal equality). Humans do not really understand how much leather is apart of their lives and the pain and anguish that the cows go through to give them that leather, if it is from India that is.

Wool is another common element used in clothing from animals. Most people think that the wool from sheep is obtained by shaving the sheep down. That is the proper safe and proper way to take care of the sheep and get the wool but is only done in countries such as Canada. Most of the wool that is used in clothing is from countries such as Australia. The domestically raised sheep are bred in such a way to allow them to produce more wool then needed which causes illness to the sheep (animal equality). The sheep then undergo “mulesing” which is a form of shearing that causes large amounts of skin and flesh to come off the body with the wool. This is all done without the presence of pain killers for them. These sheep are packed onto ships to from Australia to places such as East India. If they survive the voyage they are dragged off the trucks by their ears and legs and beaten until they dead and then skinned for their wool. (PETA)

C. Slaughterhouses

The slaughterhouse is the last stop on the journey of life for an animal being raised for food and clothing. It is the end to their suffering in some ways but brings upon a horrific experience for them as well. The animals that painfully made it through the hardships in the factory/fur farms and then the journey to the slaughterhouse without food or water are dealt their last leg here. They go through being skinned and dismembered alive so that their meat and furs can be sold for human use. Slaughterhouses pick the easiest and cheapest ways to kill the animals. These ways include suffocation, electrocution, slicing of throats, and beating. After they go through these methods they are then hung upside down so that all the blood can drain out of their bodies, this is sometimes done even when the animal is still alive. Slaughterhouses have employees quitting left and right because the conditions are so bad and they don’t want to torture the animals like that. Because of this there are low-paid workers with no experience at all killing the animals. This means the animals are going through more pain then ever because the employees do not clearly know what they are doing (Global Action Network).

D. Pollution Caused by Factor Farms

Factory farms do a great deals harm on the environment and communities surrounding them. Due to living in small confined areas and having so much live stock in one barn the owners do not want to clean our the manure caused by the animals. Therefore it is funnelled down below into a holding tank until emptied. These holding tanks are usually poorly made and break often leaking the feces into the water system which then harms the citizens in the neighbouring townships (NRDC para1). These factory farms also emit harmful gasses, such as ammonia, into the air so that surrounding townships breathe it in. Factory farms emit greenhouse gasses into the air which cause the ozone to deteriorate and put harm on the whole world. It has been found that towns around factory farms have shown an increase in chronic sickness, brain damage, cancer, poisoned waterways, and death plagues.

In conclusion, there is so much that needs to be done to help stop and prevent the terrible things that animals have to go through. It is understandable to wear leather shoes or eat meat but there is an alternative to everything. Having two days a week where meat is cut out of daily meals saves a few more animals and brings down the pollutants released into the atmosphere. Even getting furs and leathers from places such as in Canada where the animal is treated with the dignity they deserve is a step up. When purchasing meats and clothing made from animals be sure to read the labels and know where you are getting it from before purchasing it. Humans can ask for help when being abused, animals cannot. Just looking into what you purchase to make sure the animal was treated with dignity is giving a voice to that animal who could not speak for itself and making a difference.

Racism Football SportReal Literature Review

The phenomenon of racism in football is not as old as the conflict of racism in society in general, but neither is it as recent as the current worrying situation in which some to believe (Back et al.1998). Back et al. (1998) identified that football grounds have provided one of the largest public arenas in which racism can be openly expressed. It is against this background that the phenonomenon of racism in football has led to wide spread discussion during the past couple of decades within the media, amongst policy makers and in the wider football community.

Recently, there has been a increase in the study of sport, racism and ethnicity (Jarvie 1991). Numerous factors which will be explained have undoubtedly contributed to fuel this interest. However, a couple of considerations appear to have been of great importance. Firstly, black sportsmen and sportswomen throughout the world have experienced remarkable ‘successes’ in international sport (Jarvie 1991).

According to Mercer, (1994) and Shohat and Stam, 1994) this may be due to the fact that apparently each positive stereotype has a negative result. Therefore, as black men and women have come to excel in various sports, people of a non ethnic backgroundhave needed an explanation for why what seemed to be an inferior race can outperform a superior one. This may be one of many factors which may have encouraged resentment for their success which in turn could have lead to abuse in a racist nature.

Secondly, a disproportionately high level of athletic participation by diverse ethnic minority cultures has often been used by ‘liberal minded’ sports enthusiasts as an excuse to indicate that there is no racism in these arenas. These authors use these examples to try and illustrate that there is no form or racism in certain sports, however authors such as (Williams 1992, 1994; Turner 1990; Holland 1992a, 1992b, 1995) have proven otherwise.

Bairner (1996) and Guha (1997) who are thought to be sporting enthusiasts argue the assumption that sport itself is relatively free from racism and that sport, more than any other sphere of society, enjoys a certain degree of democratization and equality according to Jarvie (1991). However, “such accounts of sport which make general inferences about the changing nature of racial relations in society based on a consideration of athletic participation rates” (Jarvie, 1991, p. 3) are misleading due to their ignorance of the broader issues of power and domination within society.

Although there has been a sizable interest of studies in the area of race and sport in the UK (Chappell et al. 1996; Norris & Jones,1998) focusing primarily on the issues of “stacking” and “centrality” is useful evidence in a descriptive term. However, in terms of quantifiable data indicating that there is a decrease racism in sport, it would be very nave to gain assumptions that their was a decrease in racism in sport from these sources. Maguire (1991) has therefore recognised that there is a need for greater qualitative as well as quantitative research into the area in the “hope that a more rounded picture may be produced” (p. 100).

Although some qualitative research involving racism in English football has been carried out (Cashmore,1982; Howe, 1976; Maguire, 1991), these studies only concentrated on the experiences of top level Black players. This has been highlights to identify there is very little data on the experiences of racism on lower league footballers. Therefore, this is a worthy study because not only will it explore the different avenues of racism, but will also give a broader picture as to the experiences of racism in lower league footballers. It is believed that non-league football, which consists of the middle section of the football hierarchy in the United Kingdom, would prove to be a grounded place for such a study for a variety of reasons. First, the realities of race relations could well be more real at lower levels of the game than in the polished environment of professional sport (Hoberman, 1997) due to its less cosmopolitan nature (Maguire, 1991).

The need to investigate below the top level of sport has been echoed by Horne (1996),who stated that focusing on the lower level of soccer culture may be beneficial in understanding the differing forms of attachment to, and identification with, the game for Black players, as these everyday levels could well be “important sites for consolidating and possibly transforming racist attitudes” (p. 61). He further stated that investigations at different levels of soccer are needed if involvement of ethnic minorities in sport and in the wider community are to be better understood and appreciated Racism is undoubtedly a sensitive issue and it is important to be clear on what racism is when conducting the research.

What is Racism?

As quoted from the McPherson report from the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry:

‘Racism in general terms consists of conduct or words or practices which advantage or disadvantage people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. In its more subtle form it is as damaging as in it overt form.’ (Macpherson, 1999: 6.4)

According to Long et al (2000) racism arises from the belief that people can be divided into physical genetic categories that make some superior to others, a belief which is then used to justify inequality. He also goes on to explain that ‘recently racism has been recognised to extent beyond supposed biological superiority to others to encompass notions of cultural differences’ (Long et al, 2000 p. 15).

Further to this point Solomos and Back (1996) who conducted a study on racism in society states that racism can be seen as a mutable and changing phenomenon in which notions of biological or pseudo-biological cultural difference are utilised to explain and legitimate hierarchies of racial dominance and exclusion. Therefore there are cases where people do not realise they are disadvantaging people because of their ethnicity. This is can be referred to as everyday, subconscious or indirect racism (Long et al. 2000).

It is helpful to look at racism on a broad scale to identify the common trends which may occur and compare them with the experiences of individuals in the UK. Therefore, different types of research such as ……..carried out within various countries in Europe was a practical place to begin with.

Racism in football is still a major problem in Poland, Spain and Italy for instance. In the Netherlands: “Ajax fans have the tradition of using Jewish and Israeli symbols to express their allegiance”(Wikipedia). This shows how the picture can often be complex, as these Ajax fans are for the most part not Jewish, but use Jewish symbols because of the historical connections of the club and the area it was founded in to Jews before WW1.

Within Holland fans of teams playing Ajax sometimes exhibit racist behaviour in terms of anti-semitic remarks, even though there are no actual Jewish players at Ajax another example from the literature is those Italian fans from Napoli who supported Argentinians in the world cup 1990, rather than the national team, because their local team hero Maradonna was in the Argentine side. This lack of national loyalty meant that the Northern Italian fans disliked the southern region fans and so supported anyone who played against Argentina. Examples like these two above highlight that it is not always a straight forward picture that we are dealing with in considering racism within football.

Local and divided loyalties arise and sometimes exchanged, patterns of illogical racist behaviour can develop according to varying circumstances. Therefore: “… the racism on display in European football matches is more often than not dependent on the traditions and historic rivalries within white fans’ cultures’ (UNESCO 2000).

However, there also may be common practices of racism that can be seen through out Europe and even the world. Therefore common ways to deal with it are applicable: ‘While one must recognize that the problem of racism is different in each country, a Europe-wide initiative to combat the problem must surely be welcomed’ (UNESCO 2000).

Even within the UK their are a different patterns and history of racism, and different things being down to combat it. The situation in Scotland or Northern Ireland is different from that in England and Wales. For instance the investigation in 2007, against West Ham fans before the match with Spurs was over anti-Semitic chants. An example of the kind of chants that are sometimes used against Spurs fans are:

“Those yids from Tottenham

The gas man’s got them

Oh those yids from White Hart Lane” (UNESCO 2000)

Localised Racism

Authers such as Holland et al. (1995) who considered the impact of racism by far right groups at Leeds united football club and the strategies used to oppose these by the club identified ‘that it is impossible to identify uniform patterns of racism or prejudice or race relations’, rationalize their own choice of focus on the basis that ‘terms such as race, ethnicity and sport have to be specifically “unpacked” in terms of content, time and place’.

There is a general consensus that white players do not experience racism in football in the UK, however there is evidence to contradict this belief. There are in fact identity codes within football culture which reveal quite complicated racial meanings. A prime example is the song ‘I’d rather be a Paki than a Scouse’ which is regularly sung to Liverpool supporters by supporters from Arsenal and Chelsea and Manchester United fans.

This song which is sung to the tune of ‘She’ll be coming round the mountain’ is directed at Merseyside fans. The intention is to demote the status people who come from Merseyside from being a normal English society, to one which is frowned upon. Therefore ridiculing the ‘neighbourhood nationalism’ of Scouseness. This is achieved by fans of different ethnicities from London and Manchester to altering the meaning of being a loathed minority which is the stigmatized category of a ‘Paki’, rather than retain their race and be a Scouser.

This example ehphasises the complexities of local racialization and racial exclusion. Likewise it also highlights the fact that different minority communities may have a different hierarchal status within local society. . For example, young black men may win inclusion and even command positions of prestige within particular fan cultures while other minorities – in this case South

Asians – are relegated to the status of vilified outsiders.

(Williams 1992: 24)

Williams has also developed a more nuanced notion of the politics of racism within English football. Interestingly he used Phil Cohen’s (1988) notion of ‘nationalism of the neighbourhood’ to discuss the ways in which minorities can win contingent inclusion within local working-class collectivities

Reverse Racism

The terms of racism, moreover, may in some situations also be reversed and lead to phenomena that are difficult to grasp without a sense of the inherent contradictions of contingent Racialization. For example, it has been noted that a racialized black identity can have a number of advantageous connotations within a masculine culture like soccer. In some circles, the mythical dimensions of the black body (of physical, sexual and athletic prowess) may even make a black identity preferable over a white one in terms of its ability to signify a powerful masculinity (Carrington, 2002).

As a result, such racialized identities may sometimes be sought out for short term gains as kind of strategic essentialism’ (Mercer, 1994). Without doubt, the contingent admiration of racialized black bodies and men is not only a source of possibility within soccer culture, but also one of restraint. Racialized expectations of ‘black performance’, for example, position black players mostly in attacking roles, and much more rarely as key defenders or goalkeepers (Maguire, 1991).

Moreover, this particular black identity is not available to all black players. In contrast to players of British-Caribbean descent, those of British Asian descent are rarely perceived as potentially talented professional players in any position at all. The latter ethnicity, as Burdsey has shown, is stereotypically taken as effeminate and too frail for soccer (Burdsey, 2004).

Long, Tongue, Sprackle. and Carrington(1995) affirm this assumption that racial stereotyping provides a freefall for commonsense racism’ (Long et al., 1995). These assumptions transcend a belief that it true that Asians cannot play football. This in tern leadsindividuals who do not research the subject to believe that these myths are true. These views are the same for black players. Examples include ‘not being good trainers, not being any good once the pitches get muddy and not having the bottle to be defenders’ (Long 2000).

A further hopeful note there is that in recent years a Japanese player, Shunsuke Nakamura has been making a considerable contribution towards decreasing racist habits amongst Scottish football fans, merely by his popularity as a player. The friendly chant there of “Oh, it’s so Japaneasy,” when Nakamura gets the ball makes a welcome change from the racist chants that are otherwise heard in football.

His football shirt had become the favourite new buy amongst Children in Glasgow, and they have welcomed him as one of their own, so that: ” The Japanese midfielder revealed in the pages of the official club magazine, The Celtic View, that he would even contemplate extending his contract with the Hoops, such is the manner in which he has acclimatized to life in the West of Scotland.” (Soccerphile Ltd, 2000)

In a 1995 England vs. Republic of Ireland friendly match in Dublin saw considerable trouble from hard core group of right wingers, including the BNP and Combat 18 groups. They chanted anti-republican songs that led to such bad fights that the game was actually called off, only half an hour later. Research into such things brings to light the cultural nature of racism in football. It comes out in ways that depend on the wider culture that it is within.

Clearly the long history of trouble between Eire and England is the background to the 1995 scenes. In a habit that is similar that outlined in Italy where the northerners call the southerners ‘blacks’ there is also a tendency towards antagonism between the North and South of England. The chant: “I’d rather be a Paki than a scouse (Liverpudlian)” is sometimes used by the fans of some southern teams playing against Liverpool.

Tim Crabbe, principle lecturer in sport sociology at Britain’s Sheffield Hallam University notes the significance of using such race related words: “These insults only work because of the stigma that these racial groups still suffer in the minds of large swathes of white European society. As such, race often stands on the sidelines, ready to be mobilized in circumstances where it is deemed appropriate within the ritualized abuse of a football game… ” (UNESCO, 2000)

Dramatic incidents like these focused the public’s attention, and attracted widespread debate in the media about the role of racism among certain groups of supporters and about violence and hooliganism. It is perhaps not surprising therefore that most studies of racism in football tend to concentrate either on the nature and extent of racist abuse in and around football stadiums (Holland 1992a, 1992b, 1995), or are preoccupied with the recruitment activities of extreme right-wing movements (CCS 1981; Leeds Trades Council 1988; Waters 1988). In addition a number of writers have analysed the phenomenon of the growing presence of black players in football, notably Cashmore (1983, 1990), Woolnough (1983), Hill (1989) and Vasili (1994).

While most studies have focused on the issue of fan behaviour, racism is apparent at other levels.

Football racism Theories

In terms of scholastic writing and in the minds of the general public, racism in football is often associated with the hostile behaviour of groups of hooligans in and around the stadium (Holland 1992a, 1992b, 1995, Garland and Rowe, 2001; Back et al 1999; Jones, 2002). Nevertheless, it has been acknowledged by Brown (1998) that racism exists amongst ordinary soccer fans, players and even amongst referees and coaches (King, 2004).

Racism has also been identified amongst referees and coaches and in the institutional regions of football associations such as executive committees of football clubs (Back et al., 1999). Further to this point, a number of writers have analysed the phenomenon of the growing presence of black players in football, in particular Cashmore (1983, 1990), Woolnough (1983), Hill (1989) and Vasili (1994). Although, most studies have concentrated on the issue of fan behaviour, racism is evident at other levels.

Authors such as Back, Crabbe and Solomus, (1999) have indicated that the majority of the literature on racism in football overlooks the issue by reducing the problem to a clearly identifiable, overt form in which everyone can recognise as racist behaviour. A prime example would be racist hooligan groups (Back et al., 1999). They suggest instead that racism in football should be considered as a part of global football culture.

Interestingly, Back et al. (2001) recognised that identifying racism is a more complex than task than originally perceived. They identified that there lies four domains in which racism can be measured in football culture. These can be identified as the ‘the vernacular’, ‘the occupational’, ‘the institutional’ and ‘the culture industry’. The ‘vernacular’ domain relates to those forms of racist behaviour which can be identified by society as a negative form of abuse within football. These problems include explicit racist chanting amongst fans.

This also includes local rivalries which can be identified as a form of ‘neighbourhood nationalism’ (Long, 2000) which can lead to racist behaviours within and outside the stadiums (Crabbe, 2004). An example of this is the 1995 England vs. Republic of Ireland friendly match in Dublin which saw considerable trouble from hard core group of right wingers. The second domain which has been identified is the ‘occupational domain’ which concentrates on the forms of racism players experience at their football clubs.

These can include experiences on the training ground and in the chaning rooms. Racist actions which can also be identified in this domain include the process of ‘stacking’ players in certain positions which comply with historic racial folk law views of successful positions for some for ethnic minorities (Maguire, 1991) EXAMPLE?? The ‘institutional’ arena involves the administration and management of the football. Racial issues which arise from the institutional domain include a lack of access for ethnic minorities towards decision making and policies and at the club. racialized patterns of club ownership, and a lack of representation of different ethnic groups on management and club boards.

It also involves the shapes of social networks that can constitute racialized networks of patronage, which hinder access of certain minorities in football (Solomos and Back 1995 and Burdsey, 2004). This is reflected due to the growing number of black and ethnic players, emerging from professional football. It would be natural to think that this development would naturally transcend to the institutional forums of football.

However, this has not had a significant impact on management, coaching or in the board rooms (Solomos and Back 1995). The fourth domain, ‘culture industry’, looks at racism involved in biased representations of football players from different ethnic backgrounds in the popular media and patterns of advertising and sponsorship that support them (Hernes, 2005).

The four arenas of racialization in football mentioned above bring to light the different ways in which racial exclusion can occur within football. This shows that there has been a development on the notions of racism which illustrate that there is in fact more depth to the origins of racism compared to previous authors such as Williams (2001) who relate racism in football with hooliganism and violence.

Therefore, this research has focussed on all the aspects of racism which have been identified in the literature. However, in particular finding out if the more covert forms of racism are existent at lower league football.

Initiatives

In addition, the Football Offences Act was passed in 1991 which criminalized racial chanting or abuse (Armstrong, 1998). Nevertheless, according to Welsh (1998), the undoubted racialized nature of the fan environment has resulted in “a generation of black people [having] been hounded out of football by overt racism” (p. xii). Emphasizing this point of a continuing racialized environment, he went on to ask,

The ‘Football unites, racism divides’ initiative (FURD), started in 1995 by some Sheffield United fans focuses on the issue of increasing the participation of people from ethnic minorities in football in a variety of ways. They note:” It has long been the case that a number of fans have used Saturday afternoons at football matches to air their racial prejudices but it is now recognised that this minority of racist fans is only part of the problem.” (FURD, 1997)

They help make it clear that in order to decrease racism in football it is also necessary to get people from ethnic minorities involved, not just as fans, but also as players, mangers, etc. FURD indicates that the UK was the first country to try to tackle racism in football in an organised way. The ‘Let’s Kick Racism out of Football’ campaign was started in 1993, also the ‘Show Racism the Red Card’ came soon after.

Now there is a Europe wide effort, the ‘Football Against Racism in Europe’ (FARE) network. The Let’s Kick Racism Out of Football is now well established within the UK and aims to prevent racism through a variety of aspects. “Kick It Out works throughout the football, educational and community sectors to challenge racism and work for positive change.” (Kick it out, 2007) They target Professional football players and clubs with advice, and try to get to Young people in schools and youth clubs.

However, more specific to this research project, they also attempt to prevent racism within Amateur football, and so stop it growing into the professional side. They also, in conjunction with the most recent developments in combating racism in football try to help various Ethnic Minorities, especially Asians become involved with football.

The (SIRC) notes two important points, that racism: “…an important factor in the problem of football hooliganism itself (SIRC, (2007). The actual extent of racism is virtually impossible to measure as detailed statistics in this context are almost non-existent.” The issue of football hooliganism was better known, at least until recently in the UK. Of course it is a less contentious issue, as the vast majority of people can easily condemn it. When it comes to racist hooligan behaviour then the issue become that divisive. Since, it appears many in the UK still harbour racist attitudes in various ways.

Another aspect of the literature that has informed the present study is the issue of right wing groups and racism. Groups like the BNP are often associated with racism in football. It is an issue to consider as to why the groups are attracted to each other: “

Some debate also exists as to whether right-wing groups deliberately target soccer fans as recruits or whether soccer fans are drawn into the groups because of the opportunities they offer for violence.” (SIRC, 2007)It appears that some researchers think right wing groups do deliberately target football fans. Others think that they are opportunist and use violence as a way to direct aggression against those they see as their enemies, i.e. ethnic minorities

Types of Racism

A study in 1999 by Jon Garland and Michael Rowe attempted to consider three aspects of racism in football and efforts made to combat it: “the conflation of racism with `hooliganism’; the role of antiracist campaigns within the game; and the denial of the problem of racism within football.” (Garland and Rowe, 1999: 335). They suggest that although the various efforts by fans and clubs are good, they lack an academic rigor in the way that defines racism and other important concepts.

This is not just academic nit picking, but something that actually affects real efforts. For instance there is often too much attention paid to large scale, obvious examples of racism, such as a group of fans self consciously giving the Nazi salute. This at the expense of more subtle examples of racism at the everyday level.

They suggest that these everday forms of racism are actually more harmful to individuals because of the impact on their ordinary lives which can cause psychological upset in a way that is, though hard to quantify, deeply felt. Garland and Rowe note that initiatives would benefit from having more sociological thinking behind them: “Adopting these perspectives at the local level would help both clubs and fans to develop and sustain more meaningful programmes that suit the prevailing conditions.” (Garland and Rowe, 1999: 335).

Overt racism among supporters and abuse directed at black players, both of which flourished in the 1970s and 1980s, have declined steeply in recent years in the face of vociferous public campaigning such as the kick it out campaign. “EXAMPLE – JOHN BARNES However, Crabbe, (2004) goes on to note that the underlying negative feelings against black players appears to still be there.

Also, that, unfortunately in other European countries it is not even implicit EXAMPLE LEWIS HAMILTON 2008. The racism is still very much explicit and in your face. He notes the singing of chants like ‘Get out, get out, queers, niggers, Basques and Catalans’ in Spain and anti-Semitic slogans written on club walls in Italy. In addition, some researchers think that there has been something of a return to racist behaviour in football in the last few years. (Cowley 2003) comments on the possible cause of this:

“… the present rise stems partly from the growth of racism within society generally… The present ‘war on terror’ has brought about increased suspicion, hatred and outright hostility to Muslim communities in Britain.” (Cowley, 2003: 55)

Statistics in 2000 from the Football League national fan survey sagest that three out of ten of fans had heard racist remarks aimed at players in the 1999/2000 season. 7% had seen racism towards other fans. These figures are very similar for the FA Premier League. only 4% of all FA Premier League fans surveyed thought racism was getting worse at football matches at that level in 2001.

Although, half way through 2001 apparently racially motivated organised groups of fans and others were involved in serious disturbances in Oldham before the Oldham Athletic v Stoke City match. This appeared to be the catalyst which caused disturbances later in northern cities to ethnic minorities who retaliated to these supporters and racist organisations (Williams, 2001).

Inconspicuous forms of Racism

The focus on different cultural domains and interactions outlined above has particular consequences for the way racist behaviour is understood, and its reproduction theorized. Overt and instantly recognisable ‘racist’ acts can no longer be taken as shorthand to classify a person as belonging to a deviant group of soccer fans that is characterized by moral degeneration (that is, ‘racist/hooligans’).

As (Garland and Row, 1999) state, they should rather be seen as expressions of a larger ‘racialized’ culture of Football. Therefore, the solution to understanding racism does not lie solely in the study of the content, consequences and intentions behind the overt racist act itself. Interestingly it also requires taking into account the cultural context in which such acts become meaningful expressions (Miles, 1997).

Further to this point Miles (1997) declared that the cultural context of racism is repeated through continued development of ‘Racialization’, which are contained in the unobtrusive, sub-conscious ins and outs of everyday life. These everyday endeavours can range from a simple joke about black players in the changing room to differential racist expectations on the training grounds and the development of mono-ethnic sub-groups of players within mixed soccer clubs and teams (King, 2004).

These practices do not necessarily produce overtracism, nor may people identify these expressions with that of a racialized nature. However, by reproducing a racialized situation they are in fact, fuelling the catalyst for overt racist abuse to occur in meaningful ways.

Since the potential for meaningful expressions of racism lies in sets of racialized practices and interactions of wider soccer culture, the usual focus on the perpetrator and ‘victim’ of the racist act needs to be complemented with a similar rigorous attention for the culture in which the act was expressed.

Racialization implies a set of differentially racialized cultural contexts it also constitutes a move away from the common assumption that such a context is formed by a single, coherent racist ideology. Instead, it allows for an understanding of the contradictions and incoherencies within and between the expressions of racism in different domains of soccer culture.

For example, white soccer fans can racially abuse black players of the opposite team

Whilst supporting those on their own team, (Garland and Rowe, 1999) and racist abuse is also common between different non-white ethnic groups and in situations where the white majority is underrepresented (King, 2004).

Institutional Racism in football?

Back et al (2001) interestingly made some intriguing observations when invited to a Carling No.1 Panel of Chair of the Football Supporters’ Association. The first was that not only did this setting reflect traces of middle or upper class and status but ‘white centredness within the institutions of football more generally’ (Back et al. 2001, p. 162). It is in these exact places, where political decisions, footballing rumours, policies and job opportunities are instigated.

During the visit to this setting, Back et al. noted that there was not one ethnic minority descendent sited at the location. Therefore if the most influential people in British football do not have a true representation of society (in this case people of ethnic minority who work in the footballing industry).

These boards claim that their decisions are based on holistic approaches which benefit everyone at their establishment. However, if there is no diversity in at the top level of decision making, how can there be a fair conclusion in policies which embodies everyone involved in the game? This proves that the old-boy network is still active and is continuing to work along racial lines (Rimer, 1996).

Back et al (1996) go on to state that it is:

“easy for everyone to support a campaign against racism in football when it is targeted against pathologically aggressive, neo-Nazi thugs. It might prove a little more tricky to generate football-wide support if we were to start asking questions about the attitudes in the boardroom, on the pitch, and in the training gro

Racial profiling keeps and hate alive in our country. Not only is it unethical but is against the law. There are many reasons why our society and individuals are racist and chose to racial profile. Many of these reasons have to do with our family, where we grew up, or our perceptions of other races in the media. There may be some positives of racial profiling but the negatives outweigh the positives without question. Even with the tragic events of September eleventh our country is still taking steps toward a non-biased nation.

Racial Profiling

Racial profiling is a disease that has plagued our country since the beginning of time. In the United States this has occurred since the time of the first settlers, people have treated humans of different races differently. This different treatment created slavery, hatred, and discrimination throughout our country. Imagine this; you are sitting at a restaurant with probably ten friends you are white and they are all African American and one Latino male. You have ordered your meals and it has been probably an hour since you have ordered, you notice that people whom arrived after you and are parties of all whites have received their meals. Your group keeps waiting patiently and after many other tables of people have received their meals and almost two hours have went by, you finally receive your meals in which most of the orders are messed up somehow. This happened to me probably two months ago in a dinner not far from Crookston. Some may have blown this experience off and thought nothing of it but I think of it as racial profiling.

The history of racial profiling dates back to the beginning of time, and for the United States it has been around since our country was founded. People not only use the color of one’s skin to racially profile but also if the person is noticeably different then the profiled Christian “norm” then that could also qualify them as a victim of racial profiling. Racism is the root and main factor in racial profiling. As we have all been taught in our history classes racism did not end after slavery was abolished, it continued throughout the nineteen hundreds, and still continues today. In the early nineteen hundreds the days of slavery were not forgot. Whites still thought that they were the superior race in this

country and continued the hatred of other races through segregation, refusal to serve in places of business, and in many other ways.

Later in the 1900’s our country has gotten somewhat better with racism by creating laws that made segregation and similar acts illegal. One law that was put into action by George W. Bush was the Hate Crime Statistic Act, which made hate crimes a federal offense. This new law was a very big step towards stopping hate crimes but in 1994 the act was amended by the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which stated that all hate type crimes must be reported and compiled along with other Type 1 Index crimes (Anderson, 2002). For example some other Index crimes would include manslaughter, robbery, and forcible rape (Anderson, 2002). The definition of a hate crime was sketchy so congress defined it to make the new laws more understandable. Hate crimes were defined as actions against a person where the defendant’s conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice toward an individual or group solely because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender or orientation (Anderson, 2002).

Where does all this hate come from? The basis of racial profiling is hate and racism. All of this hate has come from many different places. This way of thinking is a learned behavior; people are not born being racist. The main place that people have learned this behavior and way of thinking is from their family (Anderson, 2002). If people are raised in a family that is racist or discriminatory against people they are very likely to have a similar way of thinking. This way of thinking usually sticks with people throughout their life and they pass it on to their children unless they gain experiences with people of other backgrounds and change their views on other people.

If a person is brought up in a place that is predominantly one race, such as rural or secluded environments the person may not have any experience with other races apart from what they see on television. So being in a secluded and non-diverse environment can severely affects a person’s opinion on people of other races. In many of these small rural areas the majority of the inhabitants may be racist because they have grown up in the area. Being in a community that the majority may be racist can also cause a person to develop this way of thinking even if their parents did not teach them to be prejudice. It can almost be like peer pressure in a way that the populous is pressing their beliefs and thoughts upon a person that may have not been raised to be racist.

Another place that people may have learned this type of behavior, racial profiling, is from television (Prosise, 2004). There are many police type shows and talk shows that depict some races in certain ways. These types of shows usually only show the negative stereotypes of certain races. Such as talk shows like Maury, this show usually only shows African Americans as having many problems in their lives and making a lot of noise. Many Maury episodes also show African American women as promiscuous and not knowing who the father of their children is and such things like that. Police type shows such as Cops shows many African Americans and Latin Americans as trouble makers and trashy. People who watch these television shows and don’t get much experience with other races many only get their knowledge of other races through these types of shows. Therefore the only knowledge that they retain of different races would be negative. Countless stereotypes are not correct for the majority of the populous of any race.

Racial Profiling comes in many different forms. The main way that people think of racial profiling is in police work. In a 1999 nation wide poll forty-two percent of African Americans felt as if they were stopped by the police because of their race. Seventy-seven percent of African Americans believe racial profiling is a widespread problem and eighty-seven percent believe that the practice is wrong and disapprove (Institute on Race & Poverty, 2001). This belief that the police target people because of their race has lead to the mistrust of the police officers whom we are supposed to trust with the security of our society. It is not only wrong but it is an inefficient method of policing (Institute on Race & Poverty, 2001).

The reality is that people of color are arrested for drug offenses in connection with vehicle stops at a high rate because they are targeted at a high rate, not because they are more likely than whites to have drugs in their cars. Studies have even shown that even when people of color are searched at higher rates, they are no more likely than whites to be found with contraband (Institute on Race & Poverty, 2001). Proof of this statement is that in a study of stops made by police officers the percentage of contraband that was found was the same for both white Americans and African Americans; twenty-eight percent (Gabbidon, 2007). Another example of how this racial profiling in policing is in correct is that in New York the attorney general reported that in the “stop in frisk” incidents in 1998 and 1999 the arrest rates were twelve point six for whites, eleven point three percent for Latinos, and ten point five percent for African American. Also another study that proves that racial profiling is incorrect is in 1998 the US customs service reported similar numbers for stops and searches in airports nationwide. The hit rate percentages were as follows; six point seven percent for whites, six point three percent for African Americans, and two point eight percent for Latinos.

Personally I have talked to people that have taken criminal justice classes. They explained to me about some of what their taught about police work in their classes. They were taught what to look out for while patrolling and what to look for in someone to pull over. The person I talked to said that they were disturbed because one day in this class the professor started to talk about what to look for in a criminal. They were disturbed because some of what the teacher said seemed very odd and almost racist.

Some of what was taught to them was to look out for African American and Latino men driving and them driving during the night and people that dressed in urban style clothing. This example is proof of racial profiling and that police officers are taught to look out for certain races. My mother works for the Minnesota Department of Corrections and she has also talked to police officers about racial profiling and they have said they do but my mother and all of them support it and believe it is something that helps stop crime. Everyone is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law and innocent until proven guilty, but this seems almost impossible. This almost seems impossible because the eyes of the law are human eyes and humans can be prejudice, especially when they are taught to discriminate.

Another form of racial profiling is when employers, teachers, or people giving services discriminate against ethnic and racial minorities. For the consumer racial profiling, where the people giving services are racial profiling, it usually takes on two forms. The first form is where ethnic or racial minorities are given bad or no service at

all. The second form is where the ethnic or racial minorities are treated as if they are suspected shoplifters and then receive discriminatory attention. In a 1999 poll of African Americans the majority revealed concerns about discrimination in retail settings. The polled said that they felt that they were treated less fairly than whites in stores and malls. There was another poll conducted five years later in 2004 that surveyed a larger group of people of different racial background. Over half of the people felt that racial profiling in retail settings was a widespread problem. When the people taking the survey were asked of they felt that racial profiling was ever justified even when trying to prevent theft in a retail store only twenty five percent said yes the rest said no (Gabbidon, 2007).

Some people believe that there may be some positives to racial profiling, which may be correct. But I firmly believe that there are many more negatives to this racist act. One positive in the police racial profiling may be for cops to look out for certain young men with urban style clothing that are wearing gang colors or gang types of clothing. That may be one positive because gang violence and crime is a big problem in our most populated cities of the United States and by watching out for these certain styles and clothing, not at race, than our police officers may become more successful in profiling. They may be able to stop crimes before they happen. Another thing that may be a positive in the retail store type of profiling is watching certain age groups and behaviors of people whom are proven to steal at a higher rate, not just race, and this may help reduce theft in retail stores.

But like I said the negative outweigh the positives. One big negative is that racial profiling makes people hate and not trust police officers. Citizens are supposed to look to

police officers as our protectors and as a positive thing to have around, but as people feel that they have been discriminated against they learn to dislike the people that are supposed to be protecting us and the law. Also many people showed in a 2002 study that they believe that it is our government’s responsibility to make sure that everyone is treated equally as stated in our great Constitution (Weitzer, 2005). If the people of our country do not believe that our government is doing their job in they will lose faith in our government, which is a huge negative.

Another negative is that if people feel as if they are being discriminated against and that they are going to get pulled over or searched not matter if they are following the law or not, they will probably start to not care about or respect the law. One negative that I truly believe has been happening since the birth of our country is that racial profiling keeps a line and division between races (Yancey, 2007). We as a country are supposed to be the great land of the free and everyone is treated equal, but with racial profiling it just influences people to keep barriers up and lets people think that hatred and discrimination is okay. And that behavior is not okay.

Our country has continually been taking steps forward in ending and showing all the wrongs of racial profiling and racism. Some of these steps include attempts to generate diversity awareness and racial tolerance. These attempts are not only made in classrooms and law enforcement settings but now churches congregations and religious groups are making special efforts to address this major societal problem. For example the National Black Evangelical Association and the National Association of Evangelicals sponsored the Racial Reconciliation Initiative to help Christians to understand the many

sources of conflicts and hardships between races (Anderson, 2002). The main goal of this organization is racial and cultural tolerance. It is hoped that if it is taught in a religious setting and place that people will think about it more seriously and it will become a reality instead of learning about racial tolerance in theory through the media.

Another step being taken is more serious punishments for groups, retail stores, and restaurants that engage in discriminatory behavior or actions. In one case between a family of a man whom was severely beaten and lynched in Alabama and the Alabama Klan, a jury decided for seven million dollars against the Klan. Also in South Carolina a jury ordered the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, its state leader, and others to pay thirty-seven million dollars for their role in a conspiracy to burn a black church (Anderson, 2002). Also when restaurants and retail stores get charged with crimes of discrimination and racial profiling, the jury has been trying to sought out the maximum punishment possible such as the infamous Denny’s and Cracker Barrel Cases (Gabbidon, 2007).

More steps being taken to purify our country of this hatred is legislation addressing racial profiling. Some of the states that are included in the legislations and bills are California, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Washington. Missouri law is the strongest legislation out of those I listed. Bills dealing with racial profiling have also been introduced in Minnesota. The bills make data collection by all state and local law enforcement agencies mandatory. Analysis of the data collected is made to help eliminate racial profiling through the percentages of traffic stops and other interactions of police officers and citizens (Institute on Race & Poverty, 2001). The new legislations also state how racial profiling in law enforcement is unacceptable because it is an issue that affects a person’s civil rights (Institute on Race & Poverty, 2001). Some laws take actions against police officers that are showing inappropriate behaviors. A Missouri law requires each police station to have procedures of determining whether any officers have a pattern of stopping certain races more than others. Many law enforcement agencies will take disciplinary actions against officers whom engage in racial profiling such as additional training or suspension (Institute on Race & Poverty, 2001). With all of this action taken against racial profiling mayhap we will see a future with a greatly reduced number of incidents of racial profiling.

After the terrorist attacks of nine eleven we have taken a step back in creating a more ethical and non-biased country. Racial profiling has become much more predominant after nine eleven. Immediately after the attacks on our twin towers law enforcement officials focused special investigations and efforts on foreign nationals from the Middle Eastern countries, so many Arab underwent extensive interrogations and questioning (Ramirez, 2003) Also, there have been laws taken into legislation that have made using race to arrest permissible under certain circumstances. For example if someone called in to the police and said that a certain number of Arab men (or whatever other race) will be attempting to bomb the Minneapolis Midwest Airlines Airport, the officers may use race as a reason to stop, search, or hold a person until they have all the information they need (Siggins, 2002). However this does not make it okay for any and every police officer to stop anyone without a specific reason just because they, for example, are a young black male. The police officers still need a specific reason to use race as a reason to investigate anyone.

The graph below indicates the percentage of people who get search and are found with some sort of contraband. It is sorted out by racial groups, where it took place, and what year the search took place in. It also shows the total number of people searched and included in the data. This graph supports that it is not in any way justified to racial profile people when searching because in almost every incident they percentages of people found with contraband are very close to the same percent.

This graph is very good evidence that most incidences of racial profiling is unjustified and unethical. Not only are the percentages close but in some incidents white are the ones that had a higher rate of being found with contraband. In conclusion not only is it unethical to racial profile, but there are laws made against it to stop it. In order to make our society equal and in accordance to our constitutional rights we need to keep on taking steps to move towards an unbiased society. Our future for this country is looking brighter, even the upcoming elections show how our country is taking large steps toward an unprejudiced society. We can only educate people about this disease called racism and continue to make laws against it and hope for a bright future.

Cited Sources

Anderson, James F., Laronistine Dyson, and Willie Brooks Jr. “Preventing Hate Crime and Profiling Hate Crime Offenders.” ProQuest. Fall 2002. Western Journal of Black Studies. 12 Apr. 2008 http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=30&did+275848141.

Gabbidon, Shaun L., and George E. Higgins. “Consumer Racial Profiling and Perceived Victimization: a Phone Survey of Philadelphia Area Residents.” ProQuest. Nov. 2007. Criminal Justice Association. 12 Apr. 2008 http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1411351791&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1208918783&clientId=3286.

Institute On Race & Poverty. “Components of Racial Profiling Legislation.” University of Minnesota. 8 Aug. 2001. University of Minnesota. 4 Apr. 2008 http://www1.umn.edu/irp/publications/racialprofiling.html.

Narcotics Enforcement & P. “Searches of Minorities are Unequal in Illinois.” ProQuest. 1 Aug. 2007. Narcotics Enforcement & Prevention Digest. 12 Apr. 2008 www.dot.il.gav.

Prosise, Theodore O., and Ann Johnson. “Law Enforcement and Crime on Cops and World’s Wildest Police Videos: Anecdotal Form and the Justification of Racial Profiling.” ProQuest. Winter 2004. Western Journal of Communication. 12 Apr. 2008 http://proquest.umi.com/pdqweb?index=20&did=574625491.

Ramirez, Deborah A., Jennifer Hoopes, and Tara L. Quinian. “Defining Racial Profiling in a Post-September 11 World.” ProQuest. Summer 2003. The American Criminal Law Review. 5 Apr. 2008 http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=9&did=422105211.

Resource Center at Northwestern. “Racial Profiling Data Collection.” Racial Profiling Analysis. 2007. Northwestern University. 5 Apr. 2008 http://www.racialprofilinganalysis.neu.edu.

Siggins, Peter. “Racial Profiling in an Age of Terrorism.” Santa Clara University. 12 Mar. 2002. Santa Clara University. 6 Apr. 2008 http://www.scu.edu//ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/profiling.html.

Weitzer, Ronald, and Steven A. Tuch. “Racially Biased Policing: Determinants of Citizen Perceptions.” ProQuest. Mar. 2005. Social Forces. 12 Apr. 2008 http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=11&did=845506251.

Yancey, George. “Experiencing Racism: Differences in the Experiences of Whites Married to Blacks and Non-Black Racial Minorities.” ProQuest. Spring 2007. University of Calgary – Department of Sociology. 12 Apr. 2008 http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1295269511&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1208918450&clientId=3286.

The concepts of community cohesion and integration have been at the core of UK social policy over the last decade. This renewed race relations approach requires people from minority ethnic communities to mix with mainstream community which will lead to strong cohesive communities.

In order to apply these concepts to critically investigate phenomena in contemporary society there is a requirement to ‘look beyond the stated objectives and public political negotiations and explore the ways in which deeply entrenched processes of discrimination may be resistant to legal and political interventions’ (Solomos and Keith 1989). This exploration requires a critique of race relations approaches within a historical and wider economic and political context, to fully understand and assess the effectiveness of the renewed race relations approach since the beginning of this century.

In this chapter, I will provide an outline of the key events which brought about change in race relations approach in the UK with the view of placing the contemporary social policy in political, social and economic context, these changes can be viewed in phases. The early phase of race relations had assumed a process of assimilation, where ‘coloured’/ black migrants would settle in, had not worked and this had led to a change. The second phase in race relations is commonly referred to as the multiculturalist is viewed to have failed due to its divisive nature with result of different ethnic communities becoming inward and not interacting with the wider community. The contemporary phase, community cohesion and integration are at the heart of the very public debate in the UK on how best to integrate immigrants in the post-immigration phase. It is believed this latest approach to race relations will build stronger and cohesive communities. While this is the political rhetoric a deeper examination would reveal there are social and political factors which are required to be equally considered to understand the effectiveness of the renewed approach to race relations. Certainly, a view of the discourse on the community cohesion agenda reveals there is much criticism of the concept which may limit its effectiveness. The agenda may not address the problem of unrest and disturbances within communities. Rather than bringing communities together, the policy may have the opposite effect of dividing communities.

Assimilation

To understand the race relations approach in this period, the political and economic situation requires to be considered.

Following the post war II period Britain faced a shortage of labour, and initially the labour of ex POWs, Polish and Italian people was employed. The archival research of parliamentary papers on immigration in the 1940s/1950s by (Joshi and Carter 1984) have revealed the ethnocentrism and racist assumptions by some government officials that the jobs were suitable for ‘white’ workers as it was alleged the similarities of ‘white’ cultures would not cause problems of assimilating cultures that were different.

However, (Sivanandan 1982) argues that the British government wanted cheap labour, with sensitivity to demand and unnecessary labour contracts. Thus it suited Britain to import the workers it needed from the British colonies and ex-colonies; it was the quickest way of getting the cheapest labour at minimum (infrastructural) costs. Thus ‘coloured’ people from the West Indies were encouraged to travel to Britain largely to fill the jobs. However, from the first stages of the arrival of black workers to Britain they were perceived, both within and outside the government, as a ‘problem’ (Sivanandan 1982); (Solomos 1988). Particularly with reference to the social and ‘racial’ conflicts which were officially connected with their arrival. (Solomos 1988) maintains that the media publicity given to the arrival of 417 Jamaicans on the Empire Windrush in 1948 and the subsequent arrival of groups of West Indian workers helped to focus attention on the number of ‘coloured’ immigrants and this obscured the fact that the majority of immigrants came from Ireland, white Commonwealth countries and European countries.

The consequence of this attitude was that from the early stages of black migration process there emerged a debate about the implications of the growth of black settlement for the host society, particularly in relation to immigration, housing, employment, cultural differences and the emergence of ‘racial’ conflict’ (Solomos 1988 p31). No such concerns were raised about ‘white’ immigrants. Having set the precedent that black migrants were ‘alien’ and ‘cultural differences’ would lead to racial conflict, future government policies were largely based on such assumptions (Solomos 1988).

(Solomos and Back 1996) contend that from the 1950s onwards political processes and institutions have played a key role in the construction of racial and ethnic questions in British society. This can be viewed in the way successive governments in the UK have responded to racial discrimination with two measures – with legislation to reduce discrimination and new legislation to reduce the immigration numbers of black people (Sivanandan 1982). The assumption being that if the gates were closed to black migration the “race” ‘problem’ would be resolved. These types of social policy and attitude ensured that subordination and the exclusion of black migrants were set in place. For e.g. following the “race” riots in Nottingham and Notting Hill in 1958, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 was introduced to curb further black immigration. After this period there was a racialisation of immigration legislation (Miles and Phizacklea 1984); Solomos 1988).

The belief that immigration was essentially an issue of ‘race’ was consistent with the view that a) the growing number of black citizens was a potential source of conflict and b) it was necessary for the state to introduce measures to promote the ‘integration’ of immigrants into the wider society (Solomos 1988) . The linking of immigration controls with integrative measures was a significant step, since it signalled a move towards the management of domestic ‘race’ relations as well as legitimising the institutionalisation of firm controls at the point of entry. These two sides of state intervention were seen as inextricably linked, the reasoning behind the link was the idea the fewer immigrants (especially black ones) there were, the easier it would be to integrate them. Miles and Phizacklea argue, that a central ideological consequence of this was that the notions of ‘race’ and ‘immigration’ became interchangeable, and so, whenever, ‘immigrants’ and ‘immigration’ became the centre of debate, the reference was in fact to ‘coloured people’ regardless of their place and not to all people entering Britain (1984 p22).

The fear that the social exclusion of racial minorities in Britain could follow the violence and disorder of the civil rights movement in the US led to the government in changing the approach to race relations in the 1960s (Solomos 1988)

Multiculturalist / Integration Plus

The 1960s is broadly viewed as the second phase in race relations approach. The fear that the social exclusion of racial minorities in Britain could follow the violence and disorder of the civil rights movement in the US subsequently led to the introduction of the Race Relations Act of 1965 which aimed to prevent racial discrimination. However, it was a weak piece of legislation and only spoke of discrimination in specified ‘places of public resort’, such as hotels and restaurants, as being illegal. A new act was introduced in 1968 in which provisions were extended to cover housing and employment in the UK (Deakin et al. 1970). Under the terms of the act, the Race Relations Board was set up in 1966 which set up the Community Relations Commission to promote “harmonious community relations (Deakin et al. 1970). A few years later in 1969, the UK government chose to ratify the United Nations Convention on Racial Discrimination, with a reservation in respect of the Commonwealth Immigration Acts so it could continue with the racialisation of immigration to the UK (Sivanandan 1982). These, and subsequent immigration controls have continued to have implications which range much wider than one aspect of law. Firstly, because internal immigration controls affect not only immigrants but all black people in the UK, they reinforce the division in society between black and white people, and secondly, this had and continues to have, serious implications for the civil liberties and rights of the population in general (Gordon 1985).

This period saw a shift in race relations to ‘integration plus’. In this period there was growing recognition of the legitimacy of black and minority ethnic people to be different especially with regard to issues around language, religion and the wearing of school uniforms (Gilroy 1987); (Brah 1996). It was thought that identities and values represented by immigrants could be accommodated within a “multicultural” framework and the recognition and acknowledgement of different cultures could coexist with mutual respect. In 1966, the then home secretary, Roy Jenkins, announced:

I do not regard [integration] as meaning the loss, by immigrants, of their own national characteristics and culture. I do not think that we need in this country a ‘melting pot’, which will turn everybody out in a common mould, as one of a series of carbon copies of someone’s misplaced vision of the stereotyped Englishmanaˆ¦ I define integration, therefore, not as a flattening process of assimilation but as equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance.

The multicultural policy appealed to white British population, as it fitted in with their universal liberal democratic principles, they were confident to welcome people from Commonwealth countries. It was also about cultural value, that British did not regard their culture to be superior to those of the immigrants, at least not at a personal level. It was anticipated the differences in cultures would mainly be restricted to the home, and would involve mainly differences in traditional dress and cuisine, festivals and religions (Solomos and Keith 1989)

In the public sphere, a variety of policy initiatives and programmes were based on the premise of providing equal access to employment, education, housing and public facilities generally. However, from the start the policy of ‘equality of opportunity’ and ‘racial equality’ caused confusion for many reasons and led to the policy to have little effect. Firstly, as Solomos (1989) notes, the notions of ‘equality of opportunity’ and ‘racial inequality’ are embedded in value judgements; thus there is not an agreement what on what ‘equality’ constitutes in relation to the public good.

Furthermore, the definitions of and guidance on these concepts were not forthcoming from the government. As a result of this fundamental constraint, local authorities did not know how to implement ‘equality of opportunity’ as an effective measure against discrimination and were using terms and concepts in a confused, arbitrary and contradictory manner (Sooben 1990). Ouseley (1984) questions, how far can ‘equality of opportunity’ and ‘racial equality’ are achieved without incorporating into the established channels of decision-making the political interests of the black and minority communities

It is also significant to note that at the introduction of the race relations legislation successive governments did not seek to use the mainstream Government departments to tackle this issue. While the Home Office was directly responsible for the enforcement of strict immigration controls, the responsibility for enforcing the legislation was given to regulatory agencies and judicial system. From 1965 to 1975 successive governments left the issue of tackling racial discrimination to these bodies and there was little direction or support provided by central government itself (Solomos and Back 1996).

By the early 1970s there was much criticism of the limits of legislation and critics were calling for a new and more effective strategy to tackle racial discrimination particular in such areas as housing and employment (Solomos and Back 1996). At the same time research on aspects of racial discrimination by a number of bodies showed that high levels of discrimination persisted and this was taken to imply that the efforts of successive governments from 1965 onwards had produced little or no change (Solomos and Back 1996). More critical studies took their cue from this evidence to argue that race relations legislation, particularly when linked to discriminatory immigration controls, could be no more than a gesture or symbolic political act which gave the impression that something was being done while in practice achieving very little (Solomos and Back 1996)

The shortcoming of the existing legislation, and particularly the powers available to the Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission, were becoming increasingly evident by the early 1970s. A major government investigation was launched titled ‘The Organisation of Race Relations Administration in 1975’. The report helped to put a number of important points on the agenda (a) The need to go beyond the narrow definition of discrimination used in the 1965 and 1968 Acts, in order to include institutionalised or unintended forms of discrimination; (b) The need to strengthen the administrative structures and legal powers of the Race Relations Board in order to allow for a more effective implementation of antidiscrimination policies, including penalties for those found guilty of discrimination; (c) The need for a more interventionist stance from central government departments, particularly the Home Office (Solomos and Keith 1989)

The Labour Government which came to power in 1974 therefore proposed reform to the legislation and in 1976 the new Race Relations Act was introduced. This new act was wider and significantly it incorporated direct and indirect discrimination. Direct discrimination was defined by the act ‘where a person treats another person less favourably on racial grounds than he treats, or would treat, someone else’, however, indirect discrimination was defined as consisting of ‘treatment’ which may be described as equal in a formal sense as between different racial groups, but discriminatory in its effect on one particular racial group’ (Miles and Phizacklea 1984).

The second recommendation, to strengthen the administrative powers of the race relation bodies led to the setting up of the Commission for Racial Equality. The Commission was seen as having three main duties: (a) to work toward the elimination of discrimination; (b) to promote equality of opportunity and good race relations; and (c) to keep under review the working of the Act and draw up proposals for amending it (Miles and Phizacklea 1984).

However, within a decade of the 1976 Act the disjuncture between the objective and its actual impact was apparent. This was clearly stated in Lord Scarman’s report on the urban unrest riots in Brixton in 1981 when Scarman stated that racialism and discrimination against black people – often hidden, sometimes unconscious -remained a major source of social tension and conflict [1] . Almost all the academic research that has been done on the effectiveness of the 1976 Act, has pointed to three ways in which policies have proved to be ineffective in tackling racial inequality. First, the machinery set up to implement the Act has not functioned effectively. Second, the policies have not produced the intended results. Third, policies have failed to meet the expectations of the black communities (Solomos and Jenkins, 1987).

At a local government level the policy initiatives actions to eradicate discrimination had developed ad-hoc and taken many forms. Multicultural types of events such as International Women’s Day, fun days, face painting and food, or as (Alibhai-Brown 2000) states ‘saris, samosas and steel bands’. Whilst in the public sector offices there would be ‘cultural awareness’ training events. These initiatives were based on the premise that if the white population were convinced of the legitimacy and values of other cultures then this would eliminate the ignorance, intolerance which had led to previous acts of discrimination and conflict. This approach was criticised by many as it meant the problems experienced by migrants would be attributed to their culture – essentialising all experiences to their culture.

The funding allowed minority groups to set up groups to meet the needs of the minority population. Whilst these may have me the short term needs of people excluded from mainstream services, the fundamental flaw with this method was it was often viewed the town councillors played the different ethnic communities against each other to compete for funding, there was resentment among populations as one community was viewed to be seen to be more privilege than another. (Sivanandan 1982) states this type of multicultural policy resulted in taking the fighting off the streets and into the town halls.

Another criticism of multiculturalism is that the term was not defined and became over time a ‘fuzzy concept’ (Markusen 2003). Multiculturalism came to have many different meanings and became a divisive tool creating separate groups within communities. Rather than integrated communities, different groups engaged in aspects of their cultural identity. (Benhabib 2002) refers to this as ‘mosaic multiculturalism’, that cultures are clearly delineated and identifiable entities that co-exist while maintaining firm boundaries’ (p8).

The tragic murder of Stephen Lawrence, in 1993 and the subsequent complaints and Macpherson Inquiry published in 1999 (Macpherson 1999) about the way in which the Metropolitan police had mishandled the case, is viewed as major benchmark in “race” issues (Back et al. 2002). In this respect the Macpherson Inquiry was a significant marker in racism in that institutional racism was exposed and put on the political agenda by the then Home Secretary Jack Straw (Back et al 2002).

Following the recommendations made in the Macpherson Report in 1999 the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 was introduced. The amendments extended further the application of the Race Relations Act 1976 to the police and other public authorities; “exemption under that Act for acts done for the purpose of safeguarding national security; and for connected purposes; immigration and nationality cases; and judicial and legislative acts” (RRAA 2000).

The act also specified that local authorities adhere to general statutory duty: to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups. And also specific duties, to undertake positive action to eliminate discrimination, race equality policies were compulsory within public sector organisations.

Whilst racism continued throughout 1980 /90s there were signs of another distinctive form of discrimination arising towards Muslims and Islam. There were anti-Muslim feelings throughout mainland Europe including the UK. It is suggested the roots of Muslim marginality date to The Satanic Verses affair in the late 1980s [2] . Certainly, by the mid-1990s, anti-Muslim feelings were serious enough for the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia to be established in 1996, and the following year the report titled Islamophobia: a challenge for us all (1997) by the Runnymede Trust. The report described the nature of anti-Muslim prejudice and reported the consequence of this prejudice greatly hindered Muslims to play a full part in mainstream society.

It was rather insightful, when Solomos wrote in 1999, ‘if anything the experience of the last two decades teaches us that the ways in which policy recommendations are translated into practice remains fundamentally uncertain, particularly as the nature of policy change depends on broader political agendas. (Solomos 1999: 3.2)

Integrationist

Since the beginning of this century, the race relations approach has moved to a new phase, to community cohesion and integration.

Two significant events in 2001, the ‘race riots’ in three towns in northern England and ‘911’ in the US led to a renewed approach by the government in the UK. While investigations into the disturbances were conducted in the areas involved in the disturbances in Burnley, Oldham and Bradford (The Clarke Report [3] , The Ritchie Report [4] and The Ouseley Report [5] respectively) and the Independent Review Team (Cantle Report) which provided a national overview of the state of race and community relations, Community Cohesion Review Team Report (2001) (Home and Office 2001) that directed changes in government approach.

A few days before the release of the Cantle Report, the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett expressed his concerns about the ‘race’ riots in an interview in the Independent

“We recognise there are historic divisions between communities that have separated Asian from White and Afro-Caribbean from Asian and that it will take many years to overcome. We also recognise that racial prejudice is deep-seated and we need to face it head on”. He stated that ‘we have got to develop a sense of identity and a sense of belonging’ if we are to have social cohesive communities. [6] .

Following the interview, the media focused on one recommendation out of the 67 which the report recommended (Robinson 2005). The result of this was the disturbances quickly became a concern about ‘identity and belonging’ rather than the frustrations of people living in areas of social and economic deprivation, as detailed in each of the local reports. The concept of ‘segregation’ was used in The Ouseley Report, and was placed at the heart of the Community Cohesion Review Team Report and the opening paragraph in the report exemplified this concern:

“Whilst the physical segregation of housing estates and inner city areas came as no surprise, the team was particularly struck by the depth of polarisation of our towns and cities aˆ¦aˆ¦Separate educational arrangements, community and a voluntary body, employment, places of worship, language, social and cultural networks, means that many communities operate on the basis of a series of parallel lives.” (p9).

The concern was the lack of interaction between the different ethnicities had led to the ignorance and fear about each other. It was viewed the minority ethnic community had not integrated into ‘white’ mainstream exemplified by the residential segregation of the different ethnicities.

The blame for the existence of ‘parallel lives’ people was considered to be due to multiculturalist policies, these had caused and allowed ethnic communities to be inward looking and had allowed minority communities to self-segregate. The self-segregation debate was fuelled further by comments from unexpected quarters, from the then head of the Commission for Racial Equality who stated that Britain was ‘sleep-walking into segregation’, that this would lead Britain to have American style black ghettos [7] . This public declaration by the head of race relations body lent further support to self-segregation debate.

At the time, policy makers and politicians and sensationalised headlines in the right wing media gave support to and legitimised the claim that it was not racial discrimination that was the problem, it was the ‘culture’ of immigrants, that immigrants did not want to mix and ‘their’ culture was too different to integrate with British culture. Levels of residential segregation also became an indicator of migrant integration and high levels of segregation were viewed as a divisive factor (Phillips 2007).

Although the term’ integration’ is popularly used by politicians and policy makers alike, guidance on policy was not forthcoming and there was confusion as to what the term means (Catney, Finney and Twigg 2011). Most political discussion of integration seems to assume tacitly that it means conformity with a homogenous set of norms and values within a monocultural society. In 2002 a report had been commissioned by Home Office (Castles et al. 2002) had been critical of the use of the term ‘integration’. As a theoretical concept the meaning of the term ‘integration’ ranges from assimilationist to pluralist perspectives, which the authors argued needs to be examined more closely in terms of their application to two-way processes of accommodation between minorities and the broader society. And also the term ‘integration’ is so broad and vague that it can be over-used and invoked without any attempt to establish relevant indicators p118. The confusion over the term was also reflected in the initiative and policies that local government were addressing as part of the community cohesion agenda.

Four years after the term had been introduced, at the launch of the government report (Home and Office 2005) Improving Opportunity, Strengthening Society in January 2005, which had been attended by some 500 delegates and distinguished panel [8] , delegate members and many of the panellists questioned what is meant to ‘integrate’ to achieve ‘integration’. Delegates questioned whether it meant ‘going to the pub’ ‘stop praying’ and ‘shaving off the beard’ ‘sharing some common values while not abandoning what differentiates one from others’ and ‘how did we know when a person has integrated’ (Grillo 2007). These types of questions are a reflection of the questioning and great confusion over the meaning of the term integration across the UK.

Segregation

There has been a strong link made between the integration of minority ethnic groups and their residential segregation by policy makers, media and academics (Kalra and Kapoor 2008).

The authors of the Cantle Report had stated “We do not see ‘integration’ and ‘segregation’ as necessarily opposed. The complete separation of communities based on religion, education, housing, culture, employment etc., will, however mean that the lack of contact with and absence of knowledge about, each other’s communities will lead to the growth of fear and conflict. (Section 5.7.3).

An explanation of the term segregation is provided ‘the extent to which different groups are geographically, economically and socially separated, including the impact of housing policies and practice (CANTLE REPORT 2001, p61).

Over the last decade the much sensationalised claim of ‘sleepwalking into segregation’ has been challenged and has been refuted and the segregation debate has been put to rest. Human geographer (Peach 1996, Peach 1999, Peach 2009) extensive empirical work in ethnicities and residential patterns has shown the segregation levels to be very different from the American style ghettos and on the contrary to Phillips (2007) claims, Peach argues the levels of segregation of minority ethnic communities are decreasing (2009, p17). Another extensive work by (Simpson and Finney 2011) Sleepwalking into Segregation: Challenging Myths about Race and Migration. Simpson (2004) argues the evidence did not support the legend of self-segregation. Demographic evidence shows dispersal, supporting the survey evidence of a desire to live in mixed neighbourhoods by most in the South Asian populations.

There has been much criticism of the narrowly focused ‘self-segregation’ claims, which highlight the racialised lens of the debate. For instance, there has been little criticism of the ‘white flight’ process which affected the residential patterns to be obscured in particular areas. Additionally, there is not so much attention, by the media or government, to the segregation of neighbourhoods by class, income and lifestyles or to the increasing trend of gated communities by social elites ((Atkinson and Flint 2004); (Manzi and Bowers 2005). Kalra & Kapoor (2008) point out the pattern of settlement of immigrants requires to be understood in a historical context as immigrants settled in areas where there were historically manufacturing jobs. The concentration of 55 per cent of Muslim households in the worst two deciles of multiple deprivations in England and Wales (Peach 2006) needs to be seen in this context. Studies into the experiences of integration and segregation in the Netherlands and the UK found that current understandings of segregation and integration are too focused on cultural aspects, and overlook structural factors that obstruct immigrants’ integration (van and Liempt 2011).

Whilst the claims of segregation were finally dismissed, alarm over American style segregation persisted from the period 2001 – 2007, and where integral to the debate on the community cohesion and integration agenda.

Communitarianism and community cohesion

In the concern to bring about racial harmony within communities, the New Labour government drew upon American policy makers and concepts. According to Robinson (2005) the language of community cohesion had been non-existent in urban theory or public policy prior to 2001.

One of these was the concept of ‘communitarianism’ which was the work of Etzioni 1995. The idea behind this concept is that ‘communities can serve the dominant moral order by expressing particular moral commitments to which individual members’ assign their personal values and allegiance’ (p1417). Within this narrative, segregation is problematized, as it is perceived that communities that assert order are at odds with the dominant order. Thus, after the 2001 disturbances and questioning in the West of assertive Muslim allegiances post 9/11 the focus on ‘community’ as an area of social control was given credence. According to Robinson, The Cantle Report saw the ‘community’ to be the place where cohesion was to happen, ‘for micro-communities to gel or mesh into an integrated whole’ (p1417).

The Cantle Report in 2001 drew upon the work of (Kearns and Forrest 2000) in relation to cohesion in communities. Their framework for socially cohesive society consists of five key elements, four of these elements were adopted – common vision and a sense of belonging for all communities; the diversity of people’s different backgrounds and circumstances are appreciated and positively valued; and strong and positive relationships to be developed between people from different backgrounds in the workplace, in schools and within neighbourhoods. The fifth element was adapted ‘social solidarity and reductions in wealth’ was replaced with ‘those from different backgrounds have similar life opportunities’ (p1013). Thus ‘community cohesion’ is conceptualised as social cohesion at the neighbourhood level and community is regarded as the place where common social values enabling all communities to work together towards common goals can be asserted (Robinson 2005).

The concept of ‘social capital’ which was popularised b

Identity is based on being the same as some people and different from others. The difference is usually equally weighted discuss with reference to the category of ‘race’.

Identity is one of the most heavily debated factors of modern social life. This is represented in the corpus of sociological research, by the importance placed upon its influence in the different ways in which individuals and societies conceptualise themselves and others. Identity, first and foremost, is based upon the notion of being the same as some people (to identify with some people), and to be different from others. This can and often is interpreted as identity having both a positive and a negative aspect, positive in identifying with a social group, and negative in being different (or opposing) another. This may not necessarily be the case however. In this paper I will investigate the use of race as an identity, as this has traditionally presented us with both the positive and negative model of identity, and in more recent times, a more positive model in both identity and difference.

Identity, in its most basic sense, is formed from being ‘other’ than another particular person or group. This basic difference comes in many forms, from gender, to class, nationality, sexual orientation and race or ethnicity. Whilst these are the some of the more major identity groups, there are countless other ways in which people identify with each other, from a lifestyle guided by a certain musical taste to a radical political identification. Identity therefore remains a very important way in which people understand themselves and the world. Any one person will belong to a number of different identity groups however. A person might, for example, be a British national with an Asian ethnicity, and belong to a particular political group and economic class. Whether or not one particular facet of a person’s identity is more important than the others, is a matter that is fiercely debated.

For some theorists such as Miller (1997:11), ‘nations are ethical communities. They are contour lines in the ethical landscape. The duties we owe to our fellow-nationals are different from, and more extensive than, the duties we owe to human beings as such’. Miller and others argue that nationality is the most important way in which people identify themselves, and as such it renders their responsibilities to co-nationals much greater than to others. Whilst Perry (2001:103-108) argues that gender is the most important identity group, and that feminism is in danger of being watered-down and destroyed by theories that place too much emphasis on the multi-faceted nature of an individual’s identity. For, she argues (2001:107), ‘Women of all ethnicities, sexual preferences, and even classes, will be disadvantaged by proposed changes in welfare regulation, means-tested custody, and the rolling back of abortion rights and affirmative action guidelines’. Marxist theorists argue however that class is the most important factor in social identity, for the economic class you belong to will determine whether or not you have political control over you and your society’s future. Hence Marx’s (2001:8) famous opening line to his Communist Manifesto, ‘The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles’.

For the purposes of this paper however, I am going to focus on the influence that race plays in identity formation, and its relationship with the other facets of identity. Race has long been debated in sociological circles, but precisely what race is or even whether it exists to any significant level has been placed in doubt by a number of theorists. Todorov (1999:64-70) argues that for a theory of races (or racialism) to exist, it needs to have five different presuppositions. Firstly the racialist must suppose that there are different races of people at all. Scientifically such a position is untenable, but, as Todorov argues, whether or not the man in the street thinks this way does not depend upon science. Secondly the racialist must suppose that people are not only racially separated by appearances, but that there are lines of division amongst cultures too, which are intimately linked with racial appearances. The third supposition is that the behaviour of an individual is profoundly affected by their race. Fourthly there is a hierarchy of values between differing races, and lastly that some political order should be in place to reflect all the previously mentioned factors. For Todorov racialist doctrine has not gone away but has merely changed its form, from discourses based on race to those of culturalism and nationalism.

For Todorov then there are many different presuppositions that have to be in place before race itself as a significant identity can be considered. But, as he himself notes, there is an ideological form of racialism which is pure and simply racist and does not rely upon theoretical grounding or offer any form of justification. This is racist behaviour and attitude is the most common one in society, and this behaviour can only create and galvanise race or ethnic identity. This can take occur in both a positive and negative fashion, in that one group might define itself in a positive nature when under pressure from another, or one group might violently negate another and try to eradicate it. In such circumstances, the significance that race or ethnicity plays in identity is accentuated and becomes more important than other factors. Indeed, according to Assad (1993), minorities in modern states are faced with two stark choices; they can submit to complete assimilation or be despised as different. In such circumstances, the identity under threat comes to the fore of the life of the person in question. To submit to the majority is to lose your identity, but to keep it is to face hostility and conflict. Of course, the situation that Assad presents us with is somewhat extreme. But whereas in most circumstances the differences among people might be treated with equal weight, within the boundaries of a nation state trying to forge a unifying identity, racial and ethnic identity does become more important.

Britain, for example, present us with a multicultural society that incorporates a whole range of people from different ethnic, religious and economic backgrounds. But this does not mean that racial discrimination and intimidation does not occur. As Solomos (2003) argues, the long history of racial discrimination in Britain has led to political activists in all the main political parties, whose aim and purpose is to fight for the rights of ethnic minorities. Such developments galvanise people around their ethnicity and form new identities with which people differentiate themselves against others. The Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in the 1980s were interested in precisely this:

A major concern of the group was the need to analyse the complex processes by which race is constructed as a social and political relation. They emphasised that the concept of race is not simply confined to a process of regulation operated by the state but that the meaning of race as a social construction is contested and fought over. In this sense they viewed race as an open political construction where the meaning of terms such as black are struggled over. Collective identities spoken through race, community and locality are, for all their spontaneity, powerful means to coordinate action and create solidarity (Solomos 2003:28).

Race can therefore be theorised not as a natural category or regulation of the state, but as a political construction where identity can be formed in order to fight for social justice. This political use of race argues that racial divisions in society are a cause of major differences in quality of life, and therefore racial identity is of much more importance than other factors. Such division can however cause greater resentment amongst different social groups and put more emphasis on difference than on similarity. While positive discrimination by the dominant social group, in an attempt to redress the power balance between different segments of society, can often enflame racial tension. As Solomos (2003:192) argues, anti-racists are often depicted as doing more harm to race relations than extreme rightwing fanatics. This is because they highlight racial differences and polarise people between different racial identities. It could be argued however that anti-racists do not create racial tension, but merely highlight tension that is already there. In any case, the importance that race plays in everyday social life is clearly evident. Anwar (1998:99-100), for example, claims that racial discrimination against Asian people has been on the rise in recent years in Britain, and that in 1994 alone there were 170,000 instances of racially motivated crimes and threats, whilst an estimated 74 people have been killed by racist attacks between 1970 and 1989. Racial identity can motivate people not only to dislike and slander each other, but even to reach the extremes of violence and murder. With this in mind race is quite obviously, although without any ultimate justification, the deciding factor in a person’s identity in many social situations, overriding other factors such as gender, political affiliations or, very often, religion.

Scott (2002) renders this assumption problematic however by researching the roots of racism from a Marxist perspective. Whilst race and racism clearly do have an important impact in social identity, this is for Scott a modern phenomenon with historically traceable roots. Scott argues that modern racism is intimately related with that of capitalism, and that whilst racism has always figured in societies in different forms, it is only with capitalism that it becomes a constant factor. Early slavery in the New World, for example, was largely made up from white slaves from England before the large influx from the West Indies and Africa. The English ruling classes had no qualms about exploiting the white working classes, but in the end the demand for labour at home rendered the practice of shipping white slaves over to the Americas as inefficient. Using Blackburn’s analysis of racism and capitalism, Scott (2002:167) argues that racism is linked to capitalist growth, national identity and the individualising of the populace.

Its development was associated with several of those processes which have been held to define modernity: the growth of instrumental rationality, the rise of national sentiment and the nation-state, racialized perceptions of identity, the spread of market relations and wage labor, the development of administrative bureaucracies and modern tax systems, the growing sophistication of commerce and communication, the birth of consumer societies, the publication of newspapers and the beginnings of press advertising, “action at a distance” and an individualist sensibility (Blackburn in Scott (2002:167).

A further Marxist analysis might consider the influence that alienated labour has on divisive notions of race (see Manson 2000:20). For Marx, man becomes alienated from his labour in a capitalist society, because he no longer has any control over the products of his labour. He therefore becomes reduced to an atomistic cog in a productive machine, alienated from his work and society. Pseudo-identities can then be formed and people coerced into assuming them to fill in the lack of meaning left by his lack of control over his social production. Furthermore, the crux of Marxist theory rests upon the notion that the ‘class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it’(Marx and Engels 1970:64). This means that it is the ruling economic class, which are the people who control the means of production, that disseminate ideas and values throughout the rest of society. Notions of race are therefore inherently linked with the prevailing ideas of capitalist production and the values and ideas that this produces.

Whilst the Marxist analysis does not refute the existence of racism, nor can it deny its powerful and destructive effects, it does suggest that the existence of racial discourse is the product of an underlying one, that of the capitalist economy. Whether this is correct or not, it does at least render problematic the notion that race is a distinct and unique form of identity. This also calls into question whether or not race really is more important than other forms of identity, or whether its existence is part of an underlying form of identity production.

The issue of race which sometimes could be looked on as ethnicity has habitually been a very debatable issue among scholars, researchers and some scientists. Closely linked with this is the controversy surrounding the issue of identity which has been the cause of war and some other similar problems in the past; the result of which is evident in today’s multicultural and multi-ethnic societies. In some parts of the world, it is usually difficult to classify a particular group of people or tie them down under a specific identity. In many cases, identities are usually sometimes related to position or hierarchy which can be linked to classification in terms of high, middle, low; in some other cases however, this classification which may be seen in different perspective, could be broad such as ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ categories. Racial and ethnic classifications have led to the concept of `ethclass? with the help of which alternatives in group identification can be understood across all classes and ethnic groups which is illustrated in the classification rendered above. The discussion on race and class which has been up for many years and is still going on among researchers and students can be seen as the descriptions of history of different people in a particular area and misconception about race are no less prevalent now than they were many years ago. Stephen stated that “from an evolutionary standpoint it was evident that the race relation cycle was a universal phenomenon” (Steinberg, 2001:2).

The issue of race and class is an issue that has brought forward conflict, discrimination and many more that has happened in so many countries. In Burundi, it is the discrimination or classification between the Hutus and the Tutsis; in America, the classification of black Americans and the white Americans and some other classification included in America due to multiculturalism. In Germany, it is the classification between the Jews, Turks and the typical Germans; and in South Africa, it is the classification and discrimination between the blacks and the white South Africans. If we take the case of the Americans, it is seen that many people who are born in the USA and automatically are US citizens are still segregated from those who believe they are the main citizen of the country due to history, progeny and lineage. “Race creates a ?group` only when it is subjectively perceived as a common trait” (Weber, 1922:52). These implies that in the US, it is glaring that race is nothing new to majority of the Americans it is normal to them and should be practiced and showed through an attitude or behaviour towards who they do not like by way of segregation. Weber make a claim that, the fact that several million mulattoes (a person with one black parent and one white parent) in the United States speaks clearly opposed to the assumption of happenings between people of different races antipathy, even among quite different races (ibid, 1922: 53). The explanation of the problems caused by race and class above will lead me to my point of departure and the focus of my paper on the issue of race and class structure in South Africa

Race and Class Structure in South Africa

The subject of the place and role of race, class and ethnicity has been at the focus of discussion and deliberation about the character of the South African problem and the strategies necessary to solve it (Nengwekhulu, p.29). South Africa being an African country is known to be a black country, which the majority of its population should also be black and so it should be for the majority of the workers, non workers and probably the farmers because Africa is generally known to be an agrarian continent. Therefore we can find several people being farmers at the subsistence level. In the aftermath of South Africa’s 1948 elections, as the Afrikaners who are the white minority in SA, National Party (NP) began enforcing its apartheid policies on the majority who are the blacks in SA. Inspired by religious mythology and legitimized by the Dutch Reformed Churches, Afrikaner nationalism controlled the State or the country of South Africa. These minority non-black rulers made and enforce series of rules that dichotomized the bi-racial South African ethnic landscape. These rules involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against non-whites are collective called ‘apartheid’. During the regime of apartheid, there were a lot of discrimination, using race and class structure as tools of oppression and segregation. Part of the discrimination is racial classification, racial domination and profiling between the white and black and not leaving out the rich and poor. The white are classified as the rich and the higher class people while blacks are seen as the lower class people and segregated from the whites. During the apartheid regime, the blacks were segregated from the white in terms of where they live and where they can live, the kind of work they can do. The ethnic blacks and the white rulers cannot intermarry; they can only associate in well defined and highly limited scenarios or circumstances. The whites are eligible to do only the high paying and mostly official and profitable duties while the blacks are limited to those works that are naturally difficult and with unprofitable and low incomes such as mining and subsistence farming. In a clear statement, the blacks became aliens in their own country as a result of the apartheid revolution. “With respect to racial equality, contrary to initial assumptions, inter-race income disparity remains a greater determinant of inequality than intra-race differences. In other words, the aggregate difference between White and non-White, incomes is the dominant reason for South Africa’s extraordinarily high Gini coefficient” (Zain et al, 2009:7). Couple with the quote above, it is noted that the white (Afrikaners) ruled with apartheid revolution from 1961 to 1989 with the National Party (NP) before the African National Congress took over.

In a nutshell, it is worthy to note that before the advent of the apartheid regime in 1948, people of South Africa including the white settlers lived in harmony. There were the normal happenings between members of the same group, country or organization and tribal warfare which is similar to those that happens in many other countries of the world but 1948 proved to be a pivotal point in the history of South Africa whereby the white minorities, mainly the descendants of the anglo-dutch people that have been ruling since the 18th century decided to introduce laws that favours ethnic segregation, discrimination, racial classification, racial domination and profiling and the general introduction of class structure. The foregoing led Nengwekhulu to observe that “the white racism and the articulation of racial consciousness by blacks cannot therefore just be ignored on the basis that they are expression of false consciousness and epiphenomena of the economic base” (Nengwekhulu, p.29). The scheme of “grand apartheid,” which begun at that time and lead to the delineated separate schooling, jobs, pay and places to live, and deprived most black Africans of citizenship in South Africa. Forgetting the fact that Africans has the massive and growing majority in South Africa, while whites are the minority; national liberation there would mean a profound change in who ruled. Nengwekhulu, in his article, explain further in the problems faced by the South African people with the illustration that “South African situation and in formulating strategies for the elimination of black domination and exploitation whilst according to both race and ethnicity a place and role in this analysis and formulation of a strategy for black liberation and for social change” (ibid, p.30). In other words, we can say the matter of race, class and ethnicity is not only of crucial theoretical but it is also a matter of powerful political significance for it is on the basis of the resolution of this question that the proper ground work can be laid not only for political strategies for the struggle against black exploitation but also for the construction of a future South Africa. Race discrimination, prejudice and ideology in South Africa are therefore not what happens or what people do without trying to change anything or oppose them in fundamentals of whose existence is determined automatically. They are however social matter which is not fully understood with a relative autonomy. For this reason, race discrimination and prejudice has always existed between the blacks and white and the colours in South Africa now they interact with each other while maintaining their identities. The incidence of apartheid in South Africa from 1948 to 1994 could be linked in retrospect to a form of social misnomer that is opposed to the classical form of Marxism. Marxism is based upon a materialist interpretation of history. Taking the idea that social change occurs because of the struggle between different classes and races within society who are under contradiction of one against the other. The Marxist analysis leads to the conclusion that capitalism, the currently dominant form of economic management, leads to the oppression of the proletariat as in the case of the South African apartheid era, who not only make up the majority of the world’s populace but who also spend their lives working for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, or the wealthy ruling class in society. From the foregoing, I will attempt to explore the Marxist ideals and how it could be extended to explain the socio-economic dis-enfranchisation of the black majority as it happened in the apartheid in South Africa.

Marxism

The Marxist vision of society and history was presented in the 1848 “Communist Manifesto” in dramatic narrative form, sketching out the rise of capitalism and bourgeois society and its revolutionary overthrow by the industrial proletariat (Harrington, 2005:154). According to Karl Marx, Marxism is as a philosophy of history couple with an economic doctrine. He further explains Marxism also as a theory of revolution and the basic explanation for how societies go through the process of change (Marx, p: 2). He explains his idea by using two basics of ideas that is in demonstrating and explaining his idea of Marxism which they are MATERIALISM and CLASS STRUGGLE. By Materialism of Marxism, Marx aimed that the engine that drives society is the economy. Economic forces are more complex and pervasive than we thinkI? According to Marx, they even determine how we think: “Consciousness is from the very beginning a social product (Mazlish, 1984, p. 94). That is, the way at which people incorporate there things in when we talk about human material life shapes every part of humans life including the most important aspects that could include general character of the societal, community, public, political, and spiritual or religious practice of life. This could also be that it does not have to be that the well being of human that can prove the fact of their state of being but having in mind that the social life of human can also be a determinant in their consciousness. By Class Struggle which is the idea that is applicable to the problem of class structure in South Africa. “Marxist analysis takes historical materialism a step further. All of human history can be explained and predicted by the competition between antagonistic economic classes, or as Marx put it, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” In political terms, this means that the social classes are competing in essence for control of the state-or, as Marxists would put it: the class that controls the Mode of Production also controls the State” (Marx, 1818-1883,p: 4). The existence of class struggle that brought about the Marxist idea is applicable to the situation of South Africa because South Africa in the time of the apartheid government or ruler was one of the most hideously racist administrations during the time of twentieth century, a very obvious case of the bourgeois ruling class oppressing the majority proletariats (Zain, 2009:8). This struggle lead to the idea that social change occur due to class and race problem of discrimination between white and black South Africans.

The existence of class struggle which is one of the basic tenets of Marxism as clearly evident in the case of South Africa “sought to overcome the dogma and reductionism of Stalinism and Trotskyism, to engage with history as a living process rather than a mechanical formula, to found a historical consciousness linking local struggles to global processes, and implant itself in a working-class movement which sought to control its own destiny, openly and democratically, rather than submitting to the authority of nationalism or pseudo-science” (Nash, 1999:66). In other words, it can also be noted that the regime of the apartheid in South Africa in the 1970s can be seen as Western Marxism as portrayed in Douglas Kellner article. In terms of the Western Marxism, South Africa started with the recognition in the midst of white students that are not among the social force that could bring about innovative change into the country South Africa. “In a global context, this generation of South African Marxists played a vital role in interpreting for the Western left, in the terms of their own thought, a struggle which had come to be “crucial to the whole history of our time”” (ibid: 1999:66, quoted in “Sweezy and Magdoff, 1986). In the analysis of Marx and Engels who are the author of Marxism, cultural ideas of a period serve is always to the comfort of the ruling class, providing ideologies that justifiable the domination of class. They make analysis of “Ideology” clarifying it as a critical term for Marxian that describes how dominant ideas of a ruling class promote the interests of that class and help mask oppression, injustices, and negative aspects of the specific culture, society or country. The introduction of the apartheid in South Africa includes the above mentioned in the case whereby most of the blacks were separated from the white. The blacks South Africans were leaving in a place where they can be classified as the lower class group and the white due to the kind of job and the place they live are seen as the high class and that is what the system of the apartheid illustrate “segregation”. At every situation in South Africa, white students or the white ethnic group were in a lot of ways allowed to their opinions and decisions on their own different individualities, with limitation that could do as ethical individuals that has no living history of struggle to be identified with, which includes the relationship to their history.

Marxism as the political and economic theories of Karl Marx during the 1818 – 1883 that should give details of the changes, alterations, modifications and developments in a particular society or country that is implanted by implementing socialism. The implementation of socialism was supposed to be based on the belief that everyone has the same equal right in a country’s at which the government would have to own and control the main industries and not by private settings. But in the case of South Africa, the ruling system by the apartheid regime was not for equal right or for the development of the changes that were altered, but it brought differences between the black and the white which could be seen as racial dominant in South Africa. In other words, instead of the implementation of socialism, the case of South Africa led to capitalism. That is, instead of equal right as socialism represent; it was a system at which South Africa country’s businesses and industry are controlled and run for profit by private owners (the Afrikaners (whites)) which means “I am not free to be open to the other as a person. I have to manipulate the other in such a way as to obtain things. And to manipulate the other I have to manipulate myself” (Wolpe, 1980:21). In other words, capitalism did not basically take advantage of human beings whose underlying identity or personality was left otherwise indifferent by their experience of class mismanagement. The regime of apartheid which is that practices of Capitalism in South African can be viewed as the focused and attention to the relationship between the country’s economy and its polity, specifically on the relationship between class and race to build differences, racial capitalism and segregation between the working class people and the lower class people and South Africa being an Africa and a black country at large which was ruled by the white government who came up with the system of apartheid which was viewed as “racial domination”.

Thus, the Marxism ideology is used to analyze the situation that occurred in the 1970s to 1980s till the end of apartheid in 1994 in South Africa. This is because when the white (the Germans, French, Irish and the British) who are known at the long run as the Afrikaners because of their way of life, and due to believes and culture and also that the Afrikaners view themselves as Africans and not as white people. They brought churches and believe into South Africa and because of the culture and believe they brought, these made the main South Africa people to believe in them and be rest assured of their words and whatever they promised of doing. Even though they are seen as the minority, they still have principal contributions to what is happening in the country and to the dos and don’ts in South Africa. With these minds of the Afrikaners, they created a political party that promised the people and the ethnic South Africans as a result of their trusts and basic cultural beliefs and ideologies allowed the white Afrikaans to have their ways. Part of the campaign during the election was the introduction of Apartheid which was introduced in 1948 to be practiced. Thereafter they implemented series of laws that promises a lot as the ideology portrays which is supposed to be for “socialism” but instead lead to segregation of the white and the blacks in South Africa. The idea of Marxism is to create equal right for everyone in the country while the government alone rule the country at which the Marxist theory is implemented. On the contrary in an unfortunate manner, most of the countries at which the Marxist theory was implemented did not survive with the Marxist theory due to the wrong implementation of the theory. “The question of the place, role and relationship of race, class and ethnicity is not only of crucial theoretical significance but it is also a matter of powerful political significance” (Nengwekhulu, p: 30). The white South Africa’s used the apartheid and the implementation of Marxism which they promised during the campaigns to acquire economic advantages and these economic advantages they never want to lose for any reason because it is of a great impact to their racist regime. A similar occurrence in some other countries has led to serious outcomes. If we take the case in France during the 18th century, the practices of oppression lead to war between the bourgeois and the proletariats. In their case, the bourgeois are the upper class people, the ruling class, and wealthy people while the proletariats are the working class people. Therefore because the bourgeois are the ruling class, they believe in power and used their power in differentiation and segregation between the working and the ruling class which later lead to war. As a result of these in South Africa, equal right as the theory portrays, the white goes to different schools, live in a separate environment, work in separate place and they have no say in what is going on within the country. The apartheid government isolate and keep apart the education, health care, and other community services, thereby make available black people with lower services compare to those of white people. Apartheid and the non-implementation of the true tenets of Marxism, led to deep class division between races and classes in South Africa failed because theirs was an oppressive form of government that put class wedges between different races and classes in the country. The race, class and separation of the white from the black in South Africa eventually lead to the struggle of class and race structure. In the manner, the black South Africans struggle for their race and class.

The black South Africans during the racist regime in the 1970s to the 1980s which was the apartheid regime, after being promised a lot but instead was initiated with differences, maltreatment and segregation lost trust in the National Party (NP) people and had to struggle for their right which is equal right for everyone. In other words, non implementation of the true ideals of Marxism led to deep divide between the races and classes of people in South Africa. Nowadays, since 1994 onwards, we have a succession of governments that tries to practice equality among the disparate genders and classes of South Africa. The issue of racial discrimination and ethno-centric profiling has been reduced to the barest minimum. People are no longer hounded or massacred when they demand for their rights under the ethics citizenship as opposed to what happened in the Sharpeville massacre of the 1950’s. Although we still have to a quite subliminal level the issue of class relating to the economic situations of the different classes of South Africans but the same is what is happening in many other countries that practices loose form of Marxism laced with high doses of Socialism such as the case of South Africa. It still remains a highly agrarian country but in the general case, it is no longer at the subsistence level. The proletariats that are majorly involved in the mining business now have a satisfying sense of belonging. Racial desegregation of South Africa has brought about mutual economic emancipation to the hitherto different classes of people as people that use to initially feel disenfranchised in their homeland now seems to have enhanced sense of belonging.

The country still have its normal problem of crime, intrinsic economic instabilities, manipulation of governmental policies and general increased in awareness among the populace of the lassitude of their economic drive, but the same trend is being witnessed in several other developing countries that are middle ranked in the committee of nations such as South Africa. No longer do we have issues that relate to economic listlessness provoked by racial disparities and ethnic discrimination. South Africa in subsequent years as a country is still trying to dissociate from the lethargy and scariness harbingered by the Apartheid era but we now have in the country peace occasioned by sense of belonging.

The general feelings in South Africa now are revealed through one of the speeches of Nelson Mandela after voting in the first South African democratic election and took the office in 1994, which initiates a new regime. Now we moved from a regime of doubt, separation, limited opportunities, disorder and conflict. In other word, a new era is starting to give hope, resolution and to build the nation. Thus a genuinely cast of voter results will give prospect to all the South Africans and make them realize the country is theirs and they are one nation.

The speech thus goes that the fundamental requirements of majority of the citizens will be talked, such as the provision for employment, accommodation, and the initiation of power supply. Including the constructions “of schools and hospitals, providing free, compulsory quality education, running water, paved roads” (Natal, 1994) stating that these are their main concern which includes the minorities the white (Afrikaners). He made clear citizens should have confidence also that there would be security to those who are bothered that by these transformations and revolutions, which might not be of benefit or improvement to them. “I again repeat that I have throughout my life as I pointed out in the Rivonia Trial: I have fought very firmly against white domination. I have fought very firmly against black domination. I cherish the idea of a new South Africa where all South Africans are equal and work together to bring about security, peace and democracy in our country. I sincerely hope that the mass media will use its powerful position to ensure that democracy is installed in this country” (ibid: 1994). Since this historic speech at Inanda, Kwazulu Natal in April 1994, South Africa has continued to grow in leaps and bounds albeit with the normal problems that a budding and truly developing country might experience. From the foregoing, it could be inferred that any country that intermarry the basic tenets of the proletariat Marxism with democratic ideals may very well reap the benefits. However, the practices of these ideals must be in sync with true respect for the basic and fundamental rights of the citizenry. No nation may be able to move forwards if these ideals are violated.

In many other countries of the world such as Iran in 1979, Russia in 1917 and France in 1789-1799, ruler ships by potentates and maximum rulers were done away with due to their well documented lack of care for the needs of the proletariats and the masses in their charge. In these countries, the initial deep chasm between the rulers and the proletariats were very well abridged due to introduction of class and ethnic declassification. So also in South Africa, the gain of racial declassification since 1994 and the introduction of almost a classless society is still unfolding and times will be able to show if truly the new trend could be maintained well into the future and if it will truly continue to benefit the entire people of South Africa.