The meaning of race relations differs across national frames of reference

Evidence

The first paper by Michael Banton takes up an approach that has been at the heart of social scientific debates about race and ethnicity, namely, race relations. Banton’s account traces the emergence of this commitment and its implications. He shows that the various meanings associated with the notion of “race relations” order not only academic but political and policy agendas as well. Banton’s account necessitates that we pay attention to how race and ethnicity are spoken about in everyday language. Here, the contrasting experiences of countries such as Britain, the United States, and Germany are especially revealing, for their differentiated modes of reference order how racial and ethnic matters are referenced in each society, and what can be achieved or what is silenced politically and at the level of policy. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 641

Categorization

  • XREF: Banton’s “race relations” as an approach connects to how Omi & Winant’s racial formation theory positioned itself against the race-relations paradigm it sought to supersede. — connects to: Race’s meaning shifts with prevailing social conditions across regions; The same person is classified as different races across national contexts — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1171; Postwar UNESCO race statements legitimized racial mixture as national ideology — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race: Reflections on…, 1167 (+8 more)

Broader Connections