Re: Richard's apology for sexism, racism and capitalism

Mine,

I have been reading your contributions with interest. You 
are certainly right in saying that "Race and gender are 
social categories, not biological givens. This can be 
scientifically proven if we really WANT to do so. Race and 
gender are determined by the social and historical 
environment we live in."

However, I want to argue with you when you say: "The idea 
that people differ because they differ genetically or 
biologically is called RACISM AND SEXISM." This seems to 
reflect a debate in the sociology of racism which took place
in Britain in the 1980s, though it is fairly well known in 
other countries in Europe and possibly in the US (but I 
don't know about this). Martin Barker, in his book "The new 
racism" (Junction Books, p.4), defined racism as theories or
arguments which see "as biological, or pseudo-biological, 
groupings which are the result of social and historical 
process".

This was countered by Robert Miles ("Racism", Routledge, 
p.65), who wrote: "In order to define the arguments of a 
particular faction of the Conservative Party as an instance 
of racism, Barker inflates the definition so as to refer to 
all arguments which mistakenly identify a group as being a 
biological or pseudo-biological entity when it has been 
constituted socially. Thus, nineteenth and twentith century 
arguments which assert that, for example, the French people 
have a natural set of common characteristics which justify 
their constituting a nation is an instance of racism. And 
do is the claim that women are the weaker sex. In other 
words, Barker's definition of racism eliminates the 
distinction between racism and, respectively, nationalism 
and sexism."

Your argument seems to make the same conflation, but it 
also conflates racism and racialisation. In other words, 
positing "natural" differences between "races" is a 
mistake, but it is not racist (in my view) until it creates 
a negative image of the racialised Other, or makes a 
negative judgement or statement about them.

So far, it could be argued, this is mere pedantry, arguing 
about definitions when racism is a real problem which 
causes people to suffer. However, there is a political 
significance to these definitions of racism. If racism is 
defined too broadly, then people will start to think that 
racism is relatively normal, and racism will become 
relatively acceptable. After all, it is difficult to 
roundly condemn someone for confusing pseudo-biological 
categories with historical process, and if this is racist, 
it is equally difficult to condemn racism.

Of course, the opposite problem exists as well. If racism 
is defined too narrowly, racists can get off the hook (e.g. 
by saying "I'm not racist, I believe everyone is equal, but 
I think THEY should be sent back home where they belong"). 
However, it seems to me that you have made the first of 
these mistakes. If you are implying that Richard Hutchinson 
is racist and sexist (and I don't know if you are implying 
this or not), I think this would be the same mistake.

I hope this is helpful, and I look forward to reading 
further contributions which you might have to this debate.

Best wishes,

Malcolm.

----------------------
Dr Malcolm Brown
Department of Sociology
University of Exeter
Amory Building
Rennes Drive
Exeter EX4 4RJ
U.K.

Telephone +44 (0)1392 263307
Fax +44 (0)1392 263285

Visit www.thehungersite.com