toptermpaper.com

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.

DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATITVE RESEARCH METHODS

What is the difference between quantitative and qualitative research? In a nutshell, quantitative research generates numerical data or information that can be converted into numbers. Qualitative Research on the other hand generates non-numerical data.

Many times those that undertake a research project often find theyare notaware of the differences between Qualitative Researchand Quantitative Research methods. Many mistakenly think the two terms can be used interchangeably.

S“o what is the difference between Qualitative Research and Quantitative Research?

Qualitative Research is primarily exploratory research. It is used to gain an understanding of underlying reasons, opinions, and motivations. It provides insights into the problem or helps to develop ideas or hypotheses for potential quantitative research. Qualitative Research is also used to uncover trends in thought and opinions, and dive deeper into the problem. Qualitative data collection methods vary using unstructured or semi-structured techniques. Some common methods include focus groups (group discussions), individual interviews, and participation/observations. The sample size is typically small, and respondents are selected to fulfill a given quota.

Quantitative Research is used to quantify the problem by way of generating numerical data or data that can be transformed into useable statistics. It is used to quantify attitudes, opinions, behaviors, and other defined variables – and generalize results from a larger sample population. Quantitative Research uses measurable data to formulate facts and uncover patterns in research. Quantitative data collection methods are much more structured than Qualitative data collection methods. Quantitative data collection methods include various forms of surveys – online surveys, paper surveys, mobile surveys and kiosk surveys, face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews, longitudinal studies, website interceptors, online polls, and systematic observations.

Snap Survey Software is the ideal solution for a Quantitative Research tool where structured techniques such as large numbers of respondents and descriptive findings are required. Snap Survey Software has many robust features that will help your organization effectively gather and analyze quantitative data

Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research Methods

The similarities and differences between quantitative and qualitative research methods can be confusing. Here is a simplified explanation.

In quantitative research, you generally end up with data reduced to numbers, which are analyzed using statistics. Frequently, quantitative research is used to support or expand a theory that already exists.
In qualitative research, you usually don’t end up with numbers. Instead, you will describe and analyze a phenomenon using words. Sometimes, qualitative research is used to develop new theory that didn’t exist before.

The first thing to do in any research project is conceive, clarify and write a research question. After composing the research question, you compose a research plan, which includes the research method or methods you think would be best in answering the question.

Quantitative and Qualitative Research

What is the difference between quantitative and qualitative research? In a nutshell, quantitative research generates numerical data or information that can be converted into numbers. Qualitative Research on the other hand generates non-numerical data.

Only measurable data are being gathered and analyzed in quantitative research.

Qualitative research focuses on gathering of mainly verbal data rather than measurements. Gathered information is then analyzed in an interpretative manner, subjective, impressionistic or even diagnostic.

Here’s a more detailed point-by-point comparison between the two types of research:

1. Goal or Aim of the Research

Quantitative Research on the other hand focuses more in counting and classifying features and constructing statistical models and figures to explain what is observed.

Qualitative

Quantitative

Hypothesis

Broad

Narrow

Description

Whole picture

Focused

Type of Research

Exploratory

Conclusive

2. Usage

Qualitative Research is ideal for earlier phases of research projects while for the latter part of the research project, Quantitative Research is highly recommended. Quantitative Research provides the researcher a clearer picture of what to expect in his research compared to Qualitative Research.

Qualitative

Quantitative

Phase

Early

Late

3. Data Gathering Instrument

The researcher serves as the primary data gathering instrument in Qualitative Research. Here, the researcher employs various data-gathering strategies, depending upon the thrust or approach of his research. Examples of data-gathering strategies used in Qualitative Research are individual in-depth interviews, structured and non-structured interviews, focus groups, narratives, content or documentary analysis, participant observation and archival research.

On the other hand, Quantitative Research makes use of tools such as questionnaires, surveys, measurements and other equipment to collect numerical or measurable data.

4. Type of Data

The presentation of data in a Qualitative Research is in the form of words (from interviews) and images (videos) or objects (such as artifacts). If you are conducting a Qualitative Research what will most likely appear in your discussion are figures in the form of graphs. However, if you are conducting a Quantitative Research, what will most likely appear in your discussion are tables containing data in the form of numbers and statistics.

5. Approach

Qualitative Research is primarily subjective in approach as it seeks to understand human behavior and reasons that govern such behavior. Researchers have the tendency to become subjectively immersed in the subject matter in this type of research method.

In Quantitative Research, researchers tend to remain objectively separated from the subject matter. This is because Quantitative Research is objective in approach in the sense that it only seeks precise measurements and analysis of target concepts to answer his inquiry.

Determining Which Method Should Be Used

Debates have been ongoing, tackling which method is better than the other. The reason why this remains unresolved until now is that, each has its own strengths and weaknesses which actually vary depending upon the topic the researcher wants to discuss. This then leads us to the question “Which method should be used?”

If your study aims to find out the answer to an inquiry through numerical evidence, then you should make use of the Quantitative Research. However, if in your study you wish to explain further why this particular event happened, or why this particular phenomenon is the case, then you should make use of Qualitative Research.

Some studies make use of both Quantitative and Qualitative Research, letting the two complement each other. If your study aims to find out, for example, what the dominant human behavior is towards a particular object or event and at the same time aims to examine why this is the case, it is then ideal to make use of both methods.

1. Discuss the main difference between qualitative and quantitative research?

While qualitative research involves the analysis of unstructured information from interview transcripts, open ended survey responses, photos and videos, quantitative research involves the analysis of numerical data.

According to Reswick, J. B., (1994 p. viii), “Quantitative and qualitative research differ in at least three major ways.First, the process is very different; second, the tools are different; and, third, the outcomes differ”.

Qualitative research is used to explore and understand people’s attitudes, behaviour, experiences, value systems, concerns, motivations, aspirations, culture or lifestyles.It generates non-numerical data and tries to elicit a detailed opinion from the participants.

In a qualitative study, fewer participants take part in the research but the interaction between the researcher and the subjects is longer.Qualitative research techniques include focus groups, participant observations, content analysis and in-depth interviews.A qualitative type of approach strives for depth allowing the researcher to view behaviour in a natural setting without the artificiality that sometimes surrounds experimental or survey research.

Quantitative research aims to classify its subjects, counting them and constructing statistical models in an attempt to explain what is observed with the data collected being in the form of numbers and statistics. Usually the researcher knows clearly in advance what he or she is looking for. This type of study is considered to be more efficient in data collecting and is able to test hypotheses, but however as opposed to qualitative methodology, it may miss contextual detail.

Qualitative research is considered to be more flexible, allowing more spontaneity and informal interaction between the researcher andthe study participant.Qualitative research uses open ended questions whilequantitative research is characterized by close ended questions.With open ended questions, the participant expresses himself or herself more freely than in close ended questions, where a “yes” or a “no” answer is expected.Thus, replies in qualitative research leave more space for subjectivity and interpretation.

For example, if anorganization would like to know how many people in Malta are affected by diabetes, the researcher would have to conduct a quantitative studyas numerical data is required.On the other hand if a researcher would like to discover what are the bio-psycho-social factors that may influence which patients are able and willing to adhere to a strict regiment, self management behaviour to control their medical situation, a qualitative study would be more suitable.

The research methodology can include both qualitative and quantitative research, as none of them is necessarily more scientific than another; one is not exclusive of the other. Driscoll et al (2007 p.26) believe that integrating both type of research “can provide pragmatic advantages when exploring complex research questions. The qualitative data provide a deep understanding of survey responses, and statistical analysis can provide detailed assessment of patterns of responses”.

2) What are the advantages of secondary data analysis?

Secondary data is existing information collected for another purpose, by a person or organization other than the users of the data. Sources of secondary data include census data, national surveys, health care registers, government administrative records such as birth and death registers.

Secondary data is economical, as itcheaper and quicker to collect than primary data as it reuses and recycles existent data already collected by a third party. According to Boslaugh S. (2007, p.3)“even if the secondary data set must be purchased, the cost is almost certainly lower than the expense of salaries, transportation, and so forth that would be required to collect and process a similar data set from scratch”.

Another advantage of using secondary data is that it takes less time to collect than primary data. It is faster than doing original studies, as web-based materials and search engines makes research for secondary analysis easily accessible. This leavesmore time for the researcher to make in depth data analysis, rather than engaging in a primary data collection exercise.

.

Secondary data overcomes limited funds and time restrictions allowing the researcher to study large scale populations, particularly if the financial budget is constrained. Another plus is thatthe researcher using secondary data has often at his disposal“data collection process is informed by expertise and professionalism that may not available to smaller research projects.”Boslaugh S. (2007, p. 4).

Furthermore, secondary datais unobtrusive as corroborated bytheSocialResearch Association(2003, p.26) report considers secondary data as “one way of avoiding inconvenience to potential subjects is to make more use of available data instead of embarking on a new enquiry”.The researcher does not need to obtain approval from ethics committees or informed consent from the subjects particularly if the study of the research of a highly sensitive nature such as mental illness or drug abuse.

3) How are samples used to describe populations?
4) Discuss the difficulties with gaining access to the research site and the population.

Researchers often face a multitude of difficulties to obtain access to the research field, organization or population.It can be “complex and depends on the researcher’s familiarity with the subjects, the location, local culture, bureaucracy, and political situation”. (Mathie, A.& Camozzi, A. (2005). p. 105)

Being familiar with the subjects will enable the researchers to follow the protocol to gain entrymore easilyinto a bureaucratic organization, such as a police force or an education system.The researchers should be prepared to deal with the complexities of facilitating and maintaining access into such organizations and dealing with“”gatekeepers”who intentionally or unintentionally prevent easy access to study subjects” (Mathie, A.& Camozzi, A. (2005). p. 105)

Other groups which verge on illegality are very hard to infiltrate.Schrock, A., & Boyd, D., (2008, p. 13), sustain that groups suchas “online solicitors of youth, adult offenders participating in Internet-initiated relationships, and consumers of child pornography remain extremely difficult populations to research”. Besides information obtained from incarceration or rehabilitation institutions on those who commit similar crimes, other quantitativedatadoesnot exist.

Another difficult study to carry out and gain access to is a secretive subject such asa Masonic Lodge or a cohesive religious cult.It might take years for a researcher to build up a trusting relationship with one of the membersandto gain access in such organizations.

The task becomesfurtherextremely difficult when the research involves a sensitive topic such as mental illness. Confidentiality and data privacy issues often crop up and prohibit professionals in revealing their clients’ identity to the researcher.Other sensitive issues such as domestic violence, prostitution and poverty might be a hard nut to crack for the novice researcher.Social stigma prevents such vulnerable groups from revealing data to the researcherifhe or she is considered as an outsider to their group.

Theresearchershave to be tactful and use social skills when it comes to taboo subjects such as sexuality, in order to gain trust and acceptance from their subjects and conduct one’s research.Researchers must also always keep in mind sensitivity of such subjects and respect the persons’ confidentiality.

5. What are the major ethical issues in research?

The researcher has a moral obligation to minimize personal and social harm of the subjects and to safeguard their human rights. The design stageshould be carefully planned covering possible scenarios dealing with ethical issues that might emerge during the research.

Obtaining informed consent from interested subjects is a necessary requisite when conducting researchensuring that the subjects are voluntarily participating and are not coerced in taking part in the study.Fouka, G. & Mantzorou, M. (2011, p. 5) consider that it is essential to inform the prospective research participants about the procedures and risks involved including “any physical harm or discomfort any invasion of privacy and any threat to dignity” before they give their consent to participate.When subjects are identifiedfrom vulnerable groups or individuals with diminished autonomy such as children or people with mental health problems,a written consent from guardians or relatives should be sought.

The participants’ safety, both physical and psychological should be a primary concern for the researcher.“This is accomplished by considering all possible consequences of the research and balances the risks with proportionate balance”.Fouka, G. & Mantzorou, M. (2011, p. 5)

Anonymity and confidentiality are issuesclosely connected.

Anonymity prevents disclosure of identities, where subjects’ names are changed. The use of pseudonyms is widely used in social science, to prevent the subjects from being identified.

Confidentiality is the management of private information such as confidential communications, personal records and patient records, by the researcher in order to protect the subject’s identity. Data should not be available to third parties outside the agreement made with the subject. “The researcher is responsible to maintain confidentiality that goes beyond ordinary loyalty”. Fouka, G. & Mantzorou, M. (2011, p. 6)

“The researcher should certainly resist requests for the identity disclosure of any individual subject or subjects when such disclosure could lead to the failure to preserve the anonymity of other subjects who choose not to disclose their identity” Social Research Association(2003. p. 40),

Privacy is a debatable issue. What constitutes a breach of privacy mayvary from a society to another, from one culture to another.For example,Kasper, D.V.S (2005) considers both stockpiling and physical observationas invasionsof privacy, in which the research participants have little knowledge and even less control.Treece and Treece (as cited in Fouka, G. & Mantzorou, M., 2011, p.7) suggest that “privacy can be invaded when researchers study certain groups without their knowledge and without identifying themselves” such as in the case of Humphrie’s study in which he observed homosexuals during sexual activities in public’ men’s rooms.

The researcher should also be familiar and adhere to the relevant laws in which the research is being carried out taking into consideration institutional and governmental policies on the data protection of the individual.

Modern tourism has become one of the strongest and most remarkable phenomena of the time. To discover its true nature, one must attempt to understand how the various components are connected to each other, and what are the causes and effects, the conjectures and the realities. One must first grasp the workings of the mechanism before he can determine the means of controlling, changing, and improving it. But the connections are discernible if one limits himself to a narrow, sector-based view (Krippendorf, 1987).

The greatest reason for travel can be summed up in one work, “Escape”, escape from the dull, daily routine; escape from the familiar, the common place, the ordinary; escape from the job, the boss, the customer, the commuting, the house the lawn, the leaky faucets.

The benefits of tourism can be wide ranging, extending to benefits to the economy, social life for people living in destinations as well as personal benefits to tourist (UNWTO 1999; Bureau International du Tourisme Sociale (BITS) 2006). These tourism benefits have been found to include: rest and recuperation from work; provision of new experiences lading to a broadening of horizons and the opportunity for learning and intercultural communication; promotion of peace and understanding; personal and social development; visiting friends and relatives; religious pilgrimage and health (Dann, 1977).

Push / Pull Factor

Although a universally agree-upon conceptualization of the tourist motivation construct is still lacking (Fodness, 1994), the push/pull model is accepted by many researchers (Dann, 1977; 1981; Crompton, 1979; Zhang and Lam, 1999; Jang and Cai, 2002; Hsu and Lam, 2003). Push factors are defined as internal motives or forces that cause tourists to seek activities to reduce their needs, while pull factors are destination generated forces and the knowledge that tourists hold about a destination (Gnoth, 1997). Most push factors are instrinsic motivators, such as the desire for escape, rest and relaxation, prestige, health and fitness, adventure and social interaction. Pull factors emerge due to the attractiveness of a destination, including beaches, recreation facilities and cultural attractions (Uysal and Jurowski, 1994). Traditionally, push factors are considered important in initiating travel desire, while pull factors are considered more decisive in explaining destination choice (Crompton, 1979, Bello and Etzel, 1985).

Crompton (1979) identifies two clusters of motives among pleasure vacationers, namely socio-psychological motives and cultural motives. Nine motives were generated based on an analysis of 39 unstructured interviews. the seven socio-psychological motives are; escape from a perceived mundane environment, exploration and evaluation of self, relaxation, prestige, regression, enhancement of kinship relationships and facilitation of social interaction; those classified as cultural motives are novelty and education. Although not explicit, Crompton hopes to link these motives to push and pull factors by arguing that push factors for a vacation are socio-psychological motives, while pull factors are cultural motives.

Similarly, Dann (1977) builds his theory based on two conceptualizations: anomie and eo-enhancement. By taking a sociological approach to tourist motivation, Dann identifies anomie and ego-enhancement as two important travel motives. He further argues that both motives are ‘push’ factors. Anomie represents the desire to transcend the feeling of isolation obtained in everyday life, where the tourist simply wishes to ‘get away from it all’. On the other hand, ego-enhancement derives from the level of personal needs. Just as in the need for social interaction people wish to be recognized. The need to have one’s ego enhanced or boosted is analogous to the desire for a ‘bodily tune-up’.

Dann (1977) distinguishes the characteristics of anomic tourists and ego-enhancement tourists. The anomic tourists are typically young, married, male, above-average socio-economic status, from small towns and rural areas, and repeat visitors. Ego-enhancement tourists represent the opposite end of spectrum. This group is more likely female, first-time visitors, from lower socio-economic strata and older than anomic tourists.

Dann favours ‘push’ factors, and argues that an examination of ‘push’ factors is logically, and often temporally, an antecedent to ‘pull’ factors. Moreover, he argues that the question of ‘what makes tourists travel’ can only relate to the ‘push’ factors, as this question is devoid of destination or value content requirements of ‘pull’ factors. While Dann admits that both the anomie and ego-enhancement concepts stem from ‘push’ factors, he does not regard the relationship between these two concepts as dichotomous. Instead, he constructs his theoretical framework as a continuum, with anomie and ego-enhancement as the polar coordinates.

The pull factors are active sports environment, unique natural environment, safety, sunshine, inexpensiveness, cultural activities, entertainment, sightseeing, local culture, different culture and cuisine and uniqueness of small towns/villages/mountains.

From the above descriptions of anomie and ego-enhancement, it should be clear that not only does travel represent the fulfilment of certain basic needs in the potential tourists, but that in so doing it offers him an alternative world to that in which he daily lives. It can be argued, for instance, that in the monotony of suburbia, the faceless city or the public village, life only becomes tolerable with the thought that there are chances of periodic escape from such an existence, and that travel provides the ideal outlets.

Tourist Motivation

Human society, once so sedentary, has begun to move. Today a hurried mobility has obsessed most of the inhabitants of the industrialized nations. One seizes every opportunity to free oneself. To escape the boredom of everyday life as often as possible: short jaunts during the week or week-end, long trips during vacations. Nobody wants anything more fervently for their old age than a secondary residence. Above all, one does not want to stay home but to get away at any price (Krippendorf, 1987).

The subject of tourist motivation involves questions about why people travel. However, identifying clearly the relationships between an individual’s motivations and selection of a destination is a difficult task. Krippendorf (1987), for instance, identified a number of tourist motivations, including:

Recuperation and regeneration;

Compensation and social integration;

Escape;

Communication;

Broadening the mind;

Freedom and self-determination;

Self-realisation;

Happiness.

Collectively, these motivations reflect that ‘the traveller is a mixture of many characteristics that cannot be simply assigned into this category or that one’ (Krippendorf, 1987: 28). He furthers states that, man spends part of his leisure time in mobile leisure activities, that is in travel, which opens a window to the world of the ordinary. This departure or escape is typified and conditioned by specific influences, motivations, and expectations. The purposes of travel constitute the polar opposite of daily life: they represent the non-ordinary. In this context, it is especially interesting to examine the behaviour and experiences of travellers, the circumstances and environment of the people visited (the hosts), and the encounters between travellers and other travellers, especially between travellers and hosts.

The system of work – habitat – leisure – travel is enclosed in a large framework and influenced by the force which governs it. One can distinguish four major domains of these forces, which are connected to each other by numerous interactions: society with its value system (sociocultural subsystem); the economy and its structure (economic subsystem); the environment and its resources (ecological subsystem); the government and its policies (political subsystem) (Rotach, Mauch, and Gueller 1982: 35ff).

Krippendorf believes that the main motive for tourism is to escape from something that we feel is wrong in our daily lives. In today’s highly technological world we feel trapped in routines and commitments over which we have no control, says Krippendorf.

Nowadays, the need to travel is above all created by society and marked by the ordinary. People leave because they no longer feel at ease where they are, where they work, and where they live. They feel an urgent need to rid themselves temporarily of the burdens imposed by the everyday work, home and leisure scenes, in order to be in a fit state, to pick the burden up again. Their work is more and more mechanized, bureaucratized, and determined without regard to their wishes. Deep inside, they feel the monotony of the ordinary, the cold rationality of factories, offices, apartment buildings, and the highway infrastructure, the impoverishment of human contact, the repression of feelings, the degradation of nature, and the loss of nature (Krippendorf, 1987).

Kripendorf highlights, besides the motivation, the society has simultaneously furnished to its members the means of carrying out this escape: money, in the form of higher income; and time, thanks to more and more limited work schedules. But most important of all, industry has developed the true prime mover of mobile society. The car and, to a lesser extent, the airplane have ushered in the mobile leisure revolution and have brought it to today’s state in scarcely two decades and at an amazing speed.

The society makes available the recreation industry, which plays in a sense the role of friend and advisor. This industry has taken over free time. It provides not only various kinds of gratification, but also creates, if necessary, the corresponding wishes and desires (Traitler 1971: 28). Many works to a large extent, in order to be able to take vacations, and he needs vacations to be able to go back to work (Krippendorf, 1987).

The work ethic has allowed many achievements: especially the much hoped for material well-being, the elimination (or nearly so) of poverty, and the reduced work week. But next to this undeniable progress, the ethic has also brought major problems which weigh more and more heavily in the scales and which are felt by a growing number of people: the loss of meaning in one’s job (as a consequence of mass production and of the extreme division of labour), an ever diminishing satisfaction with work and with life (Yankelovich, 1978; Noelle-Neumann 1983), the rigid and immutable organization of time, the phenomena of stress and boredom and the growing “medicalization” of lives (Isopublic 1982; Opaschowski, 1983), and most especially, the increase in unemployment (Kenward, 1983).

Social Tourism

The benefits of participation have prompted many governments to promote access to leisure travel as positive social and economic activities. However, government provisions to ensure equality of access to tourism are not universal ranging from tacit support to direct investment in the provision of services in the form of social tourism (European Commission 2001). In Europe active support for social tourism can be traced back to the Christian movement in France and Switzerland, the early youth movements in Germany and workers educational collectives. However, there are political, cultural and moral dimensions to the debates based on different perspectives on the ideological and fundamental role of the state in the provision of holiday services that has resulted in diverse provision of holiday services that has resulted in diverse provision of access to tourism opportunities.

In the UK for example, the European model has not been followed and there is concern about an ‘over-work’ culture (Bunting 2004). Similarly, the US has witnessed both long-term erosion in leisure time and a propensity for shorter holidays (Schor, 1991) whilst in Japan, holiday time has traditionally been even more scaring (Richards 1999). Therefore cultural attitudes towards holidaymaking could affect political support for social tourism as a policy tool.

Social tourism can be described as “the relationships and phenomena in the field of tourism resulting from participation in travel by economically weak or otherwise disadvantaged elements of society” (Hunzinger, “Social tourism, its nature and problems,” quoted in ETB and TUC 1976, 5). It involves the provision of vacations for people who can afford them only with the aid of a third party. Although the aim of social tourism is Unitarian in philosophy-to extend the benefits of vacations to a broader segment of society-it is expressed in a variety of forms.

Trade unions in industrialized nations have long sought and won paid vacation time for their members, and by example, have won similar rights for most industrial and service workers. In Europe and Japan some companies help, pay for a substantial portion of vacation costs. Most workers in West Germany receive Urlaubsgeld (holiday money), a bonus that cna equal 45 per cent of their regular vacation pay. In France, the state-owned Renault Company contributes to the operation of thirty family vacation villages for its workers (Time 1981).

Social agencies such as the YMCA, Boy scouts, and church groups support many summer camps which offer subsidized vacations to the young, poor or handicapped. In the United States there is evidence of “social tourism” with a twist, according to Lundberg (1976, 170). He notes that social tourism is designed to subsidize vacations or facilities for the working class, but points out that recent resort development in certain state parks is really social tourism for the middle class. These resort park projects offer country club quality and settings at a subsidized price, and have proved to be very popular attractions.

In recent years there has been a re-emergence of research on issues related to social justice and welfare issues in tourism (Higgins-Desboilles 2006; Hall and Brown 1996, 2006) including the concpt of social tourism. Haulot (1982) defines social tourism as a ‘the totality of relations and phenomena deriving from the participation of those social group with modest incomes-participation which is made possible or facilitated by measures of a well-defined social character’ (40). Although there are diverse interpretations of what constitutes social tourism and how it can be implemented, Minnaert, Maitland and Miller (2007) differentiate between visitor-and host-related forms of social tourism.

The literature linking social tourism to social welfare issues from a social policy perspective is limited (Minnaert, Maitland and Miller 2009). Social tourism in the UK is largely dependent on the charities sector, although there are a few studies on the structure and organization of support (Local Government Association 2001). The social policy literature has given limited consideration to the issue of tourisms role in current debates despite a one-wee holiday being included in the indicators of exclusion for some time (Hazel 2005) and tourism being increasingly perceived as a social ‘right’ (Richards 1998). The UK has not adopted the European model of policy provision on social tourism such as the World Tourism Organization (1980).

In the UK the largest factor for non-participation in a holiday was affordability (Corlyon and La Placa, 2006). In 2006-07 there were 2.9 million children living in income poverty in the UK, a figure which rose by 100,000 for the second year running (Department for work and Pensions 2008; see also Palmer, Carr and Kenway 2005). The main social groups who are most at risk from social exclusion from tourism include those who are: disabled; ill; older; at fear of persecution or other risk factors; suffering from poverty; lack time due to work or caring commitments, ethnic minority groups. Further, it is not clear how non-participation in tourism may impact upon the costs of health and social care provision (ODPM 2005).

According to McCabe, holiday space does not contain referents to family problems, and it is free of negative associations, stress and barriers to novel experiences. The holiday offers people a chance to live differently, individually and as a family, allowing a change in routines, to try new activities and experiences, for children to experience freedom, and to live at a different pace of life. Furthermore, holidays provided opportunities for positive and active behaviours in relation to sport and exercise, positive recreation as opposed to passive leisure forms, and issues which has been highlighted by Roberts in relation to leisure consumption and social exclusion (2004).

Further McCabe states, that, analysis of the application forms indicates that people are very often aware of the problems and issues which they face in their lives which can often lead to a sense of guilt. Given the opportunity of time and space away from the home environment, people have the chance to actively solve their own issues without the intervention from others. They have a chance to build or heal relationships and recover from past difficulties and an opportunity to reassess issue and face the future in a positive way.

Conclusion

Travel motivation studies attempt to answer the question ‘why people travel’ or ‘why people visit a particular destination’ because the underlying assumption is that motivation is one of the driving forces of behaviour. Understanding specific tourist motivations and/or the nature of travel motivation can help destination managers and marketers do a better job of product/service planning, marketing communication and visitor attraction and retention.

Travel motivation is a psychological construct which holds a multidimensional underlying structure. People travel to various places to meet different needs. Individuals travel motivations are influenced by their culture, background and previous experience. Of the motivational forces, pull factors are destination attributes, which are under a great deal of control of the destinations.

All the three authors talk about the push / pull factor of tourism but in different concept, Dann focuses on anomie and ego-enhancement, whereas Krippendorf talks about working class people needing to take holiday, with McCabe it is about social tourism for the people who are excluded from the society and cannot afford holiday. Each author explains the same in different ways and logic.

How would you feel if someone came to your house, took your dog and told you that the breed was dangerous and they had to put it to sleep? And before that your dog had been a good dog, never bothered anyone. But they put it to sleep anyway. Sounds like a nightmare right? Well in some states this is becoming a reality for some families. In certain states Pit Bull owners are having to give up their best friends and pets, because of the actions of other irresponsible owners. Because of some irresponsible people who decided to fight this beautiful dogs the responsible loving owners are losing their pets. Pit Bulls are an amazing, loyal breed of dog, But dog fighting has given them a bad name. BSL( breed specific Legislation) laws are not the solution to the dog fighting problem.

Pit bulls are the most misunderstood breed in the canine world, but most people don’t understand what the real pit bull breed is about. “Pit Bull” is not actually a breed of dog, it several breeds all put into one group. The most recognizable breed is the American pit bull terrier, when most people think of a typical pit bull this is what comes to mind. Second there is the American Staffordshire terrier, and lastly the Staffordshire bull terrier. All these dogs are very similar but are different breeds of dog according the AKC registration. The one thing all these dogs have in common is that they are all part of the bull dog family, same as the English bull dog and the boxer. But yet the “Pit Bull” breed is the most unwanted breed around. But why is that? Probably because there are a lot of myths and rumors that surround this breed. One of the most recognizable rumors is that pit bulls bite more people than any other breed. “The biggest problem with this rumor is that people have a difficult time properly identifying a true “pit bull” breed. The fact that pit bulls are also a very popular breed also changes this statistic. Viewing older statistical reports for the center of disease control, one will see that trends in breed popularity reflect in the number of bites attributed to a specific breed during a specific period of time. Another rumor about “pit bulls” is that because pits have a tendancy to be aggressive towards other animals that they are also aggressive towards people. Other dog aggression and human aggression are entire different. ” historically, humans were always in the pit, handling the fighting dogs” in those times if a pit bull was human aggressive then it was impossible to fight and had nothing to offer. Those same ideas apply to dog fighting today and so human aggression was never bred into these dogs.

Dog fighting has been around for hundreds of years. In England in the early 1800’s “the poor people of England and Ireland started to focus on dog fights because they were cheaper, easier to stage, and easier to hide. The dog fighting history of pit bulls is probably the most important because it still continues today. It is sickening that people, in our civilized world use two innocent animals tearing one another part for entertainment. In the beginning it was just gang members doing it, “but now children are doing it, cheering dogs in fights to the death. When an animal welfare official visited a fourth grade class recently, he asked the kids ‘who has seen a dog fight?’ every hand shot up. Then he asked, ‘I don’t mean molly slipping out of the yard’ and again every hand shot up.” This is becoming a serious problem in our country. It is bad enough that adults do it but now they are dragging our youth into this heartless and cold act. This is one of the most serious forms of animal abuse. The dogs are forced to fight one another to the death or until one of them is dead or seriously wounded. They are trained their whole lives to fight and even if they are rescued they usually have to be put to sleep because they are to aggressive. And the people who train them to fight made them that way. They never even got a chance to have a good life because their owners never let them. It is even worse when some of our favorite celebrities are also getting in on this horrible act. Rapper Earl Simmons (a.k.a. DMX) got arrested in 2002 for fighting dogs. And most recently football player Michael Vick got caught fighting dogs too. People have turned this horrible act into a sport and they kill these amazing dogs for their own person benefit. In these dog fights people bet money and make a night out of it. These people get friends together have a few drinks, party, and then watch to animals rip one another apart. (overview)

Not only do pit bulls have to fight for their lives in rings but they also have to fight by law. Some pit bulls don’t even get a chance to be good loving dogs. Because people are so fueled by fear, That are completely destroying the breed. They are now passing BSL laws (breed specific legislation). Which means that can make laws on what kind of dogs you can have in certain states, and of coarse the first breed they went for was the pit bull. These laws ban, or put restrictions on pit bull or pit bull like breeds. “In the state of Mashapee, MA, under the guise of a new bylaw claiming to protect children, the owner or keepers of any ‘pit bull type’ dog who has a litter (of puppies) must bring them to the town kennel for destruction.” These are puppies. Newborn puppies. They never even had a chance to be good loving pets and friends. Just because of their breed. In other states “a breed ban usually requires that all dogs of a certain appearance be removed from the area where BSL has been implemented. Breed specific restrictions may require an owner to, muzzle the dog in public, purchiace liability insurance of a certain amount, place ‘vicious dog’ signs outside their residence, and make the dog where a ‘vicious dog tag or other identifying marker.” These laws do take to account how the owner has raised, trained, and managed the dog. These dogs have been torn away from their loving owners and homes to be put to sleep for no other reason than pure discrimination. (what is BSL?)

BSL laws are not an effective solution to the dog fighting problem or dog bites. The way dogs behave and are handled are not the responsibility of the dog. That is up to the dog owner. Banning the pit bull breed is not going to stop the dog fighting problem either. The kind of people who fight dogs are ruthless, heartless, criminals. If the state eliminates the pit bull population these people will just find another breed of dog to torture and kill. Today it is pit bulls tomorrow it will be the rottweiler, then the German Shepard. We should not ban the entire population of pit bulls because of the actions of some untrained dogs and some irresponsible owners. “The most frequent dog bite victims are children” and most of the time the parents blame the dog. But any responsible parent knows that you cannot leave a dog alone with a child. Any breed of dog. It is just not safe. Every breed of dog has a sort of primitive mind. Dogs do not know the difference between rough and to rough, they don’t understand the difference between adults and children, and they are not as sympathetic when something is agitating them. No matter how much we would like to think of our dogs as our equals, dogs do not think like humans. And we need to keep that in mind. All dogs have the potential to bite, or turn on you at any moment. But this has never stopped us from having them as our companions so why should we start now? Why would we put innocent animals to sleep for the way they look? This law is fueled by hate, and fear. Instead of completely eliminating these dogs we need to educate owners on how to handle their pit bulls. We need to educate people on what wonderful dogs these are and how much they have been through. If we could do this, less pit bulls would be put down, and pit bull sanctuaries would not be busting at the seams. Instead of using all that money and effort put into getting rid of these dogs, we need to use all that energy and money to put the people who abuse these animals in jail. Instead of passing laws to ban pit bulls, we should put a higher punishment on animal abuse and dog fighting. (pediatricts)

In conclusion I believe the pit bull has been discriminated against long enough. These dogs have been abused for to long and it is time to give them the love and respect they desirve. We would never kill a person for how they look so why do we do it to our four legged companions? We need to stop the hate, and the fear. We all need to stand up and stop BSL before it is to late for these beautiful dogs. We need to stop punishing the breed and start punishing the deed.

Public Service Announcement is a free of charge message which act like an advertisement. It is used by a Non-Profit Organization or groups to promote event. PSA can be produced in audio, video, and even written form such as television station, radios and newspapers. Generally, the function of PSA in television station and radio station is similar. It must be short, straight to the point and professionally produced. In order to let the public understand the messages delivered, the PSA usually focus on only single idea as making it as clear as understandable. The high exposure of PSA to the public, and capture high attention deserved to have greatest impact (Wisconsin, n.d.). The purpose of PSA’s messages is to disseminate to the targeted audiences in order to serve public interest, increase awareness and educate the people (Wilcox & Cameron, 2009).

“Domestic violence is an abuse of power. It is when one partner, usually a boyfriend or husband, attempts to control and dominate the other, usually a girlfriend or wife through violence, threat of violence, or by controlling the couple’s finances and social life”. There is some evidence shown that 39% of Malaysian women have been abused or assaulted by their partners. Domestic violence is a major, but regularly hidden social problem (WAO, 2012).

These are five types of domestic violence such as psychological abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, economic abuse, and emotional abuse (What is psychological abuse, n.d.). The causes of domestic violence include individual factors, environmental factors, social factors, and economic factors (Causes of domestic violence, 2012). First, the effects of psychological abuse in domestic violence consist of attempts to commit suicide and difficult on concentrating (The effect of psychological abuse, n.d.). Second, the effects of physical abuse in domestic violence consist of anxiety, hearing and vision loss (Side effects of physical abuse, 2012). Third, the effects of sexual abuse in domestic violence consist of depression and shameful (Sexual abuse effect, 2008). Forth, the effects of economic abuse in domestic violence consist of stolen and loss of beloved one asserts through stealing (The impact of financial abuse, 2012). Fifth, the emotional abuse in domestic violence consists of feeling of insecure and often silent (Gluck, 2012).

In Malaysia context, domestic violence is legally bound to Malaysia Domestic Act (DVA) 1994 (act 521). It is an act which provided legal protection over any situation of domestic violence. DVA included the following situation:

Willfully or knowingly placing, or attempting to place, the victim in fear of physical injury. Example, anyone who make someone having a physical injured by purposely. As in physical harm caused to another is an assault. It could be domestic violence.

Causing physical injury to the victim by such act which is known or ought to have been known would result in physical injury. Example, using any weapon to beat someone injury.

Compelling the victim by force or threat to engage in any conduct or act, sexual or otherwise, from which the victim has right to abstain. Example, anyone who causes a victim in physical or mentally injured, like forcing some to become a prostitute.

confining or detaining the victim against the victim’s will; or Causing mischief or destruction or damage to property with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause distress or annoyance to the victim. Example: economic abuse. Force someone to withholding about family running up bills for which the victim is responsible for payment (Malaysia domestic violence act, 2006).

Many women have been abused by her spouse, and it is not easy for abusive relationship, probably they will still hope that things will change. Some of them are afraid of their partner’s action she is trying to leave. No matter how you encouraged them, the victims are still feeling helpless. In order to help them to leave the abusive relationship, there are so many non-governmental organizations which trying to help the victims. Some of the solutions includes one’s can call advice; shelters where one’s can stay; job training, legal services, and childcare (Smith & Segal, 2012).

There are several Non-Government Organizations (NGO) and Non-Profit Organization (NPO) that try to help the women and in their effort to reduce the rapidly occurring domestic violence cases. One of the highly profile NGO in Malaysia has deals with women issues is Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO). WAO was established in 1979 and it was the first NPO refuge for abused women. The services that provided include face to face and telephone counseling, child care Centre, refuge and WAO Centre. Their vision is to create a society that is free of violence against women. WAO’s mission is to promote and create respect, protection and fulfillment of equal rights for women and to work towards the elimination of discrimination against women, and to bring about equality between women and men (WAO, 2012).

1.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

To find out the perception of Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR) students about radio Public Services Announcement (PSA) in Malaysia.

To know the effectiveness of radio Public Services Announcement (PSA) in portraying the issue on domestic violence.

1.2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

How effective is radio Public Services Announcement (PSA) in Malaysia among university students?

How does radio Public Services Announcement (PSA) provides information on preventive measures against domestic violence against women?

1.3 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

There is a positive relationship between student’s perceptions about radio Public Services Announcement (PSA) in getting information.

There is a positive relationship between the effectiveness of radio Public Services Announcement (PSA) in disseminating the issue of domestic violence.

1.4. SCOPE OF STUDY

Malaysia is a democratic country which emphasizes the fair, harmony and education to Malaysian. Therefore, the students in Malaysia are well educated and are able to transform the traditional concept to a modernization. Therefore, the universities students are knowledgeable and can be key person to analyzed and correct the problems. This study was conducted by 250 students of Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR) with the ration of female and male to find out the perception of UTAR student towards the effectiveness of radio PSA on domestic violence. These respondents are knowledgeable and mature enough to respond the survey in this study.

1.5. SIGNIFICANT OF STUDY

This study is aimed to find out the perception of Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR) students about radio PSA in Malaysia; to know the effectiveness of radio PSA in portraying the issue on domestic violence. Cases of domestic violence in Malaysia are on the rise, this study with the motivation of contributing to the society in regards to domestic violence. For instances, the government and organization may enhance the policies such as improving the Malaysia Domestic Act (DVA) 1994 (act 521) is an act which provided for legal protection over any situation of domestic violence. Also, the organization will more easily to understand the limitation and improve the ways of disseminating the message to the public. Again here, the improved policy implication will help to decrease the case of domestic violence and more protect the victims of domestic violence.

1.6. PROBLEM STATEMENT

This research aim to find out the effectiveness of radio Public Service Announcement (PSA) in portraying the issue of domestic violence: A study of Its Effectiveness among Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR) students. The information gathered in this survey would help researchers to identify the perception of the students towards radio PSA and domestic violence. Domestic violence against women is one of the serious problem occurred in Malaysia. Domestic violence is also called as domestic abuse; it is usually happened around the people especially in a close relationship (Ang et al., 2010). According to Women’s Aid Organization (WAO) annual statistics 2010, the statistics has shown that 70.4% of the women have been abuse by domestic violence in Malaysia. In fact, the type of domestic violence has included psychological, physical, sexual, economic, and emotional (Ang et al., 2010).

According to Nielsen (2012), Malaysia is still prominent in radio time expended with 21 hours a week for Asia Pacific region. In fact, it is also getting out to 92% listeners weekly again radio remains to be among the most popular and trendy medium or channel for Malaysia. There are many Non-Government Organization (NGO) such as Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO) and Women Centre for Change (WCC) Penang, is a formerly Women’s Crisis Centre, All Women’s Action Society (AWAM), National Council of Women’s Organizations (NCWO), and People’s Service Organization (Organizations addressing vaw, 2001). They are trying to solve the problem for the women being abused and also provided different kind of PSA for the public to aware of it. For instance, radio PSA by the WAO. There are “Neighbours”, “Office”, and “Stalls”. All in them are English version with 40 seconds, 41 seconds, and 40 seconds. Another example will be United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Malaysia partnering Media Prima Group through Malay and English radio stations such as Hot.fm and Fly.fm in year 2008 using radio PSA for violence against children (Radio networks join in to denounce violence against children, 2008).

“Take Back The Tech!” campaign which began on 25 November, International Day Against Violence Against Women and reach over a period of 16 days ending on 10 December, International Human Rights Day (Ang et al., 2009). It was introduced and Planned by the Association for Progressive Communications, Women’s Networking Support Programme (APC WNSP) (Ang et al., 2009). The talks and trainings which in press interview included Bernama Radio VAW via radio, Radio 24: The Hot Seat on Violence against Women via Radio, Traxx FM: Violence against Women, and BFM which is the business radio station: The bigger picture on 16 Days of Activism (Ang et al., 2009). The purpose is to motivate the Malaysians to voice up against violence and raise awareness in order to construct the organization for a long-standing commitment in the society (Radio networks join in to denounce violence against children, 2008). Even with PSA women violence still happened (Ang et al., 2009).

Besides, the government also determines to protect women from domestic violence with the new law and eventually Domestic Violence Act 1994 launched on 1st June 1996 which is done by after eleven years of research (WAO, 2012). According to Minister Fatimah Sahin, all women deserved protection against violence, and the purpose of the new law is to protect women, family members from violence apparently (WAO, 2012).