I .

Chapter 8
Theories of race and
social action
by Herbert Blumer and Troy Duster
The shifting world-wide developments in race relations since the Second World
War have set anew the challenging task of devising a theoretical scheme that
adequately covers this field of scholarly concern. It is scarcely necessary to call
attention to the critical significance of race as a shaping factor in'human relations
since that war. One can observe its play in the eruption and intensification of im-
portant problems inside of the domestic boundaries of widely scattered nations
and peoples, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, South
Africa, Caribbean countries, and many technologically developing nations,
especially in Africa. In addition, racial considerations have become ofobviously
greater importance in the broaa area of interna.tional as is witnessed in
part by their role in the deliberations. and policies of the United Nations. There
is little to suggest that racial considerations are likely to diminish their influence
on the world scene in the immediate future. On the contrary, reasonable re-
flection points to a continuation of racial problems as serious domestic matters
in many countries. With increasing racial consciousness and a corresponding
readiness to push for social positions consonant with new images, racial groups
in different parts of the world are likely to be strong influences for social change.
Racial alignments on the international scene are likely to become more important
in the years ahead. If, as many competent observers contend, a major line of
world struggle in the next few decades will be between the 'have' and the 'have
not' nations, the racial factor will acquire extraordinary importance .because of
the interesting coincidence of racial difference with the 'have-have not' split.
The few remarks here give only the barest glimpse of the variety, the depth and
the intensity of racial factors in play on the domestic and international fronts.
But the remarks are sufficient to highlight the need of a theoretical unravelling
of what takes place in the area of race relations.
In this we to review the more important contemporary
'.,
'
ill
"
",
"I
'"
",
".

.'1

..,"
.},
."...

212 Herber! Blumer and Troy Duster

.,'
"
,.
"
"
..
"
theories of race relations and to give special attel}tion to one of them that sees
race relations as products of a collective defining process. In carrying out these
objectives we shall be concerned primarily with racial developments in the United
States since the Second World War. These developments embrace not only the
interesting series ofhappenings on the domestic scene but also on the internation-
al scene as reflected in the views and actions of the United States. The particu-
lar theoretical scheme that we propose to develop is closely tied to these two
sets of developments.
The major theories of race relations that we propose to consider can be
grouped under the following six headings: biological determinism; racial preju-
dice; structural-functionalism; assimilation; colonial exploitation; and collec-
tive definition. Some of these theories have been analysed thoroughly by others
and do not require any extensive treatment, whereas some need to be examined at
length.
Biological determinism
The oldest, most common, and most recurring theory of race relations is that
which attributes the relations to the innate biological make-up of the respective
races. Races are seen as distinctive biological groups and their relations are
regarded as set by the differences in their biologiCal make-up. The major lines
of biological difference that are asserted to fashion the relations are intelligence,
temperament, and character. In recent decades intelligence is regarded by far
as the most important of these innate components and hence can be used in the
discussibn as the easiest way of assessing theories of biological determinism.
Fundamentally, the theory is that differences in innate intelligence determine
and explain the positions of racial groups living in association with each other.
The racial group witli the superior innate intelligence comes to occupy the higher
social positions in the society, directing its major institutions and fashioning a
general mode of life that reflects its superior intelligence. Correspondingly, the
racial group with the inferior innate intelligence comes to occupy the subordinate
positions in the society and to develop a texture oflife that is lacking in the marks
of higher culture within the society. The fundamental framework of relationship
is seen, then, as springing from the difference in innate.biological make-up and
as ultimately being forced to abide by that difference. _
It is easy to identify the points of serious vulnerability in the effort to
explain race relations in terms of the biological make-up of the races.
points of weakness are: (i) the difficulty of identifying racial groupS as
ally distinct, (Ii) the dubious validity of the criteria used to establish innate raCIal
differences, and (iii) the irrelevance of supposed biological differences to what
happens in race relations. Let us now spell out briefly each of these three sources
of weakness. .
It is necessary to note and to underline the fact that racial groupS who
see one another in actual life as being 'racially' different and who, accordingly,
treat each other as being different are not the biologically separate groupS tbat
are presupposed by the theory of biological determinism. No lengthy discussion
is needed to establish this fact. It can be illustrated convincingly in the case of
black-white relations in the United States. Under most State laws and certainly
in common practice, persons are classed and treated as blacks if they have any
black ancestry; it makes no sense to refer to someone as being 'part' black.
The result is that multitudes of blacks have part white ancestry. Thus, to treat
blacks and whites as comprising two distinctively different genetic groups for
purposes of theoretical analysis poses a fundamental contradiction. Races as seen
by peoples in association and between whom relations are developed are not the
distinctive biological groups that are presupposed by theories of biological deter-
minism.
The second major weakness is the inadequacy ofthe criteria used to ascer-
tain and establish the alleged innate differences between racial groups. It is well
known that the criteria used in the case ofalleged racial differences in intelligence
are intelligence tests. There is legitimate controversy as to their suitability for
determining something so fundamental as innate intelligence. The point at issue
can be put very simply. If intelligence is seen as the ability to cope with problems,
its test should be cast in terms of the kinds of problems that have to be handled.
Tests for military officers should be cast in terms of military problems, those for
bankers in terms of banking, those for black children in the ghettos in terms of
the situations with which they have to deal, and so on. There can be little question
that intelligence tests in current use, irrespective of their variety, afe incapable of
aligning their content to the nature of the problems that are faced"by the various
racial groups in their respective areas of life. Until this is done, accompanied by
a valid way of making comparisons, intelligence tests are of very questionable
value in determining innate differences between such racial groups.
The third, and in many ways, the most grievous deficiency of theories that
endeavour to explain race relations in terms of the genetic make-up of racial
groups is that they do not begin to deal satisfactorily \vith the variety or r(Olations
and the shifts that may take place in such relations. We are presented here with
the formidable logical problem of having to use a constant factor (biological
make-up) to explain a host of divergent and varying happenings. The arena of
race relations, as we will point out more fully later, is characterized by great
variability and change. Let us point out here just a few of the lines of such
variability and change. A subordinate racial group may at different times be
quiescent, restless, militant, and rebellious in its relations with a dominant racial
group. Great rivalry, struggle and strife may take place inside of a given racial
group with profound impact on its relations with other racial groups. Some
pathways ofinstitutional advancement may open and others may become blocked
in response to the play of economic and political factors, affecting race relations
in a very telling manner. Events and courses ofdevelopment may pit racial groupS
against one another in severe struggle at times and bring them into different rela-
tions at other times. It should take only a slight reflection on these lines of rela-
tionship (they are only a few among many) to make one realize the impotency of
theories of biological determinism to handle the topic of race relations.
Theories 0/ race amtsociaJ aClion 213
,l.-': ..
. :'. ':,'t
\
"1
______. _-c _. __
214 Herbert Blumer QlldTroy Duster
The three fundamental weaknesses that have been designated compel us
to set aside as unsuitable those theories which seek to explain race relations in
terms of the biological differences between the races.
Racial prejudice
The theory that race relations is to be accounted for in terms of prejudice is
still widespread and deeply rooted. It rests on the premise that racial groups
draw lines of acceptance and exclusion between themselves, with these lines
representing the way in,which the racial groups are related to one another and
the way in which they act towards each other. These lines are regarded, in turn,
as arising from feelings of prejudice which members of one racial group have
towards members of other racial groups. Scholars holding to this theory may
differ with regard to the source of racial prejudice. Some see racial prejudice as
arising from the simple awareness of biological differences between peoples;
others consider it to be a product of the different social positions of raciil! groups
that have come into being through different historical lines of experience;
others think of racial prejndice as being due to faulty and inaccurate information
which racial groups have of each other. Our concern here is not with such
different explanations of racial prejudice, even thongh such differences may
be of great importance in determining the way in which scholars address the
problem of racial discrimination. Instead, our concern is with the question as to
whether the make-up of race relations and the happenings that take place inside
of that make-up can be accounted for adequately by the idea of prejudice. Our
jndgement is that prejudice does not explain these matters, for reasons which we
wish now to brie1.lY explain.
By now, it is widely recognized by scholars who work in the area that
members of different racial groups may encouhter one another in many different
situations, (a) where prejudice may be expressed in action but minimally felt, or
(b) where prejudice is strongly felt but minimally expressed. These simple obser-
vations place enormous limitations on the prejudice theory since they set up the
need to account for the innumerable exceptions to the theory and the need to
explain how prejudice works in the light of the fact that itUlay not be ex-
pressed. Any effort to explain these two matters automaticallyrequires the in-
troduction of factors other than that of prejudice, thus reflecting the weakness
of the theory of prejudice. In addition to the two deficiencies noted-I.e., that
many relations involve little if any prejudice or discrimination and that in other
relations prejudice may be checked even though present-attention needs to be
called to vast areas of discrimination against a race, without the exercise of
discrimination arising from feelings of prejudice. It has become customary. 10
recent years to refer to this discrimination as 'institutional prejudice'
stitutional racism'. Scholars differ as to the nature of such institutional prejudice
and as to how it is formed. Some regard it as a transformation of perso?al
judice in which personal feelings recede or disappear, while others
and operates completely outside the domain of personal feelings. This mark
" ~
+
'"
-'
' ..
o
Structuralism
uncertainty as to the relation between personal prejudice and so-called institu-
tional racism, casts further doubt on the suitability of the theory of racial pre-
judice to handle the topic of race relations. Finally, we must note that the idea
of racial prejudice, whether in the form of personal prejudice or institutional
prejudice or a' combination of both, does not explain the shifts or variations in
'race relations. It does not begin to explain what racial groups may do in the face
of instances of prejudice, whether consciously observed or unwittingly ex
perienced. We are faced here, again, with the historic fact that racial groups
in association with each other may shift in their relations, particularly in terms of
how they may act towards each other, when such shifts are not due to changes in
feelings of prejudice. The above reflections on the various crucial points of de-
ficiency in the theory of racial prejudice indicate why we feel it to be inadequate
to cover the field of race relations.

215 Theories ofrace and social action

There is no one person, monograph, or theory that singly captures the essential
properties of the structuralist approach to race relations. It is possible, however,
to isolate a predominant point of view taken by theorists as divergent as the
Marxists or those who adhere to the perspective of functional-structuralism.
What is common to the structuralists is their premise that races are to be seen
as occupying positions inside of a social structure. Their relations ~ determined
by these positions, and their activity consists of what these positions require.
Thus, explanations of race relations and of racial actions are to be sought in the
requirements and the operation of the social structure in which the races are
embedded. Under this scheme of explanation racial groups become essentially
a type of epiphenomenon in that it is not the groups but their social positions
that tell what happens; the racial character of the groups disappears and the
racial groups take on a character that is given bythose parts ofthe social structure
that they constitute. Structural interpretations, at their best, work effectively only
when the 'structure' which is imputed is fixed or firmly established; such inter-
pretations lose their applicability to the extent that the 'structure' is muted or
transformed or to the extent that the given action falls outside of the structure.
Let us illustrate this respectivelyinMarxismand in Parsons's structural function-
alism.
The Marxists point to the inherent structural features of capitalism that
require large masses of cheap labour at the base oCtile occupational structure.
This formnlation posits a need for a supply of labour with high rates of unem-
ployment and worker insecurity and instability. The evidence to be marshalled
on behalfofthis premise can be impressive, e.g., the Irish and the British are both
white-or within England so are both the middle-class and working-class. Here,
not race but the aligmnents set by the capitalist structure are what counts. Yet,
the persistence of a given racial or ethnic group at the base of the structure,
long after structural requirements for its persistence has passed, as occurs in the
case of the blacks in the United States, cannot be explained by structural theory
".
216
Herbert Blumer and Troy Duster
"If
..
"
"
"
Wli
",
.::;.
....,
alorie.It is.tWs problem which led some scholars who had been Marxists early
in their careers to abandon the whole paradigm in favour of a more cnltural
emphasis. The blotting out of the racial factor under structural theory can be
seen also in the Parsonian view that the social structure ofa society is to be seen as
a structure of social roles. Under this view, the activity of'the whites towards
blaeks and of the blacks towards whites in American society is to be explained
iu terms of the roles that are set by the social positions of these two groups in
the social structure; the active factors at work are not the racial.gronps but their
social roles. Yet, how is one to structurally account for shifting role require-
ments?
It shonld be apparent that structural theories of race relations break
down precisely at the points where the relations and their accompanying actions
falI outside of the imputed structure. How are such theories to account for the
folIowing kinds of matters: the divergencies of views inside of a given racial
group with regard to other racial groups; the divergencies between the ways in
which members ofa racial group may, in turn, see themselves; the .shifis in the
ways in which members of a racial group may act towards members of another
racial group witWn a relatively short time period; the activities that emerge
when established sOcial roles between the races break down? These are only a
rew many kinds of operl}ting milieux that may arise outside of the alIeged esta-
blished structure or as aresnlt of a breakdown of the structure. The current
world scene on which races are so vigorously on the move is particularly un
suited to such encompassing structural interpretations. .
Assimilation
The theory of racial assimilation requires a lengthier treatment than the fore-
going theories that we have considered. It isa.theory which has held a central
position in the thought of American scholars of race relations. The theory was
developed primarily by Robert E. Park, who in addition to his eminence as an
American sociologist ranks as one of the foremost studeIits of race relations.
The gist of the theory is that the relations of races who are brought together in a
common society go through a cycle of developmentthat has come to be labelled
the 'race relations cycle'. This cycle consists of a sequence of four processes-
competition,conflict, accommodation and assimilation. Thus, rns coritended
that the original basis of opposition between racial groups takes place in tbe
form of competition between the racial groups, a competition of which the
racial groups are initiallylargely unaware. As the racial groups becomeaware. of .
their competition, conflict relations emerge between tbem; that is to say that the
racial groups consciously struggle to achieve a position of status witb resar?.to
each other. The outcome of tWs struggle for position and for the OPP?rtun
1ues
and privileges which positions yield is the formation of workable
which control and contain the conflict. This is the process of accommodauon, .
marked essentialIy by expediency and workability. Over time, the forms of
commodation which prove to be workable and suitable come to be seen by bo
. ~
"'.-
\. ~ ~ ~ . ~ . _ . . _ ~ . 0_-
1. The figures in brackets refer to the References at the end of this article.
racial groups as natural and proper and thus take on the character of inherent
parts of the prevailing social order; this constitutes the stage of assimilation.
This cycle of social development was based largely on numerous studies of the
historical experience of immigrant groups who had entered into American life.
Park used it as the framework for handling the relations between racial groups
in the United States, many of whom had come there as immigrant groups.
Since the terminal stage of the cycle is constituted by the assimilation of the
racial. group into the society, we refer to the theory as a theory of assimilation.
We should recognize that Park trained a large corps of eminent students of race
relations, including outstanding black sociologists (e.g., E. Franklin Frazier and
Charles S. Johnson), and largely through them his theory became deeply em-
beded in American scholarly thought.
However captivating may be its logic and however neat its fit to the ex-
perience of many immigrant groups in the United States, the assimilation theory
of Park is now known to be inadequate as an explantion of race relations. The
idea that such relations follow the designated four-stage sequence, with each
stage giving way inevitably to its successor, is just not borne out by the record of
historical happenings. Let us recite some of these happenings. With regard to
the long-run period ofassociation between blacks and whites in the United States
it is interesting to note the findings ofa study by Bloch [I]t of the occupational
relations between those two racial groups in the City andthe State of NewYork
over a period of several centuries. Bloch establishes that systematic barriers
were recurrently erected to prevent whites .and blacks from Qompeting in the
market place; trade unions, for example, simply closed off competition by
excluding blacks from membership. Whole trades that had been occupied by
blacks in the late nineteenth century were cut off and reserved for white labour
with the immigration of the early part of this century [2]. In terms of short-run
happenings that belie the assimilation theory, we can point to a series of events
that took place in recent years, events that are still very fresh in oUr memories.
These deserve to be singled out for consideration.
First, let us note that despite s.cores of years of presumed accommoda-
tion, a strong nationalist ideology marked by ethnic pride and a solid separatist
bent developed among blacks during the 1960s. And this ideology was espoused
by the black middle-class leadership. Even the most moderate and conservative
black organization, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP), found that it had to deal with a section ofits membership that
wanted to press more militantly and with a stronger nationalistic orientation.
This is strong evidence of the failure of the assimilation theory, for it should luive
been the NAACP, of all the civil rights organizations, that would display a
diminution of activist, separatist, militant sentiment over time. Yet, for the
first time in its history, the NAACP was faced with a revolt of the 'young Turks'
within its ranks. The militants within the organization did not succeed, but the
Theories ofrace and social act/on 217
.,,\
'-:::-j", ",.-
218 Herbert Blumer and noy Duster
'"
"'I ..

...


"
II.
'"
"
"
"
."
"
"11
to-
UI1l:
!Ill:
1i11I1
i

\:
tlIl
ii'

-"'" -
attack was unprecedented in its force and direction and given the time sequence,
totally at odds with assimilation theory.
Still another indication of .the failure of the assimilation theory is the
recent emergence of black caucuses throughout the country, in institutions
yaryingJrom the House of Representatives in Washington to local police forces,
from telephone operators to middle management at Sears; Roebuck and Com-
pany, from school teachers to government employees. The increasing militancy
of these caucuses in pressing black demands is another body of evidence that just
does not fit in with the assimilation theory.
Another visible and dramatic illustration of the middle-class black shift
toward an anti-assimi!ationist position was the development of black studies
programmes in colleges and universities from 1968 to 1973. Over five hundred
such programmes surfaced, at the demand and insistence of scores of black
students on these campuses. These programmes clearly reflected.an increasing
racial awareness by blacks-not the decreasing racial awareness suggested by
the assimilation theory.
Indeed, most social theorists of race in the United States (and they
subscribed to the assimilation theory) were taken by surprise by such develop-
ments as the Blacj( Power Movement, the black revolts in the cities during the
middle 1960s, the <iiffusive spread of militancy to other ethnic groups, and,
curiously enough, a geJ;leral de-escalation of militancy in the 1970s, to name. but
a few critical events and developments. It was this failure of the assimilation
theory in the 19608 that provided the context for the 'internal colonial model'
as a theory to explain race relations.
Colonial exploitatioJ;l
The 'internal colony' theory of race relations treats the topic in terms of what is
declared to be the typical racial situation to be found in overseas colonies under
classical colonialism. The early writers presenting this theory were Carmichael
and Hamilton [3], Cruse [4], Memmi [5], Fanon [6], Cleaver [7], and Blauner [8].
While some of their writings on the subject had been done prior to the major
urban black revolts of the mid-1960s in the United States, their theory reached
a wider audience and was welcomed in larger. andJarger circles of American
scholarship only after the 'ghetto uprisings'. Several outstanding features of the
internal colony theory seemed particularly applicable to theolack:while racial-----
scene in the United States during the 1960s. Quite unlike the assimilationistJ,
the internal colonial theorists could get a clearer idea as to why middle-clasJ
blacks and Chicanos would turn to militaney in the late 1960s. Notonly could
one observe the increasing nationalistic sentiment among middle-claSs blacks . ---
during the period, but riot research indicated that a sizeable proportion of
rioters .and vocal sympathizers in Watts and Detroit were middle-class. This
seemed to parallel what takes place in colonial situations. It is frequently the
elite among the colonized who reach a point at which they tumnationalistic;.an
d
national liberation movements have been led by the elite, often western-teamed
';
and committed to modernization. The colonial theorists also have a version of
neo-colonialism which serves to account for the diminishing militancy of this
elite once a narrowly-defined political national liberation is attained-another
parallel to the American ,scene. Even more telling was the striking similarity
between the ideological splits to be noted in the colonial racial groups and in
the case of the American blacks. The ideological split was between those who
advocated separation from theoutsidedominant colonial racial group and those
who favoured the adoption of the institntions of the outside group. This kind
of ideological split has been conspicuous in the ideology of the blacks in the
United States for well over a century. It is to be seen in the advocacy of separate
black institntions in the writings of such figures as Delaney, Washington,
Garvey, the early Malcohn X and those espousing Black Power. The opposite
view, envisioning an eventual merger of blacks into the centre of American life,
is to be seen in the case of Douglass, White, Randolph, and the leaders of the
early Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the early Congress of
Racial Equality. We shall have occasion later to consider at greater length this
ideological split. Here we merely wish to note the striking parallel between its
character in the case of a native colonial people and that of the American
blacks. These parallel features had much to do in leading certain American
scholars ofrace relations to !Idopt and apply the colonial theory to the American
scene of black-white relationS.
.' However, the colonial model as applied to black-white relations in the
United States needs to be examined in terms of where it does ftot seem to fit.
Such an examination suggests four significant differences, referring. to what
coloni:ilizing powers seek from their colonies and to what they were prepared
to offer to the colonies. In classical colonialism, the white European colonial
power .wanted something clear, visible, an.d tangible from the colony. It might
have been raw nuzterials such as minerals, ore, diamonds, and native crops. Or
it might have beenhwnan resoUrces, such as a cheaplaboursupply.Or it might
have been that the colonial power wanted a market for its products, arid could
impose this on the colony. Or, as a fourth possiblity, it could seek chiefly to pro-
videprotectionandsovereigil rights for settlers and other citizens from the mother
country. But the present situation ofblacks inthe United States is quite different
on all of these counts. Since the blacks did not possess the land and its resources,
the indigenous population, the whites, cannot be said to have wanted their land.
Thewhites took the land fromthe native American Indians and that was classical
coionialexploiiation. Fromthe seventeenth ceI\tllry until after the Second World
War, the blacks did provide a cheap labour suppi:Y:-So, historically, what the
whites wanted from' the blacks was their slave labour. But with technological
advances and the transfer to an urban economy with tertiary occupations iIi
ascendancy, the desire and need for an unskilled labour sUpply have decreased.
That is not to say that unskilled labour is unimportant, but that its importance
is lessening, a departUre from the colonial model. Finally, there is the colony as
. a purchasing market. With American expansion of her markets around: the
world, reliance upon the iIitemal segment of the black one-tenth of the
"
" .""r'yf';!&"ir,'-A,i<"jd.:,':;;'f ",.... ,,' 'l\:'v;": ,b' 'r't
Theories ofrace and social action 219
, Ii
"
"
I:'
._. " i
.. .,j, ..
l. ' '.
, .
--
220
Herbert Blumer and 7}oy Duster
f-

___ -J

";':.jj
."
"
'II:
,II'
,Ill
1111
","
CUI
II:
....,
...1
population also decreases in importance. Moreover, since the black population
is internal, it is a captive market; businesses do not have to worry about blacks.
dealing with other countries.
Above all, the application of the colonial analogy to black-white relations
in the United States breaks down with regard to the exercise of sovereignty over
the territory occupied by blacks, particularly in the cities. In classical colonialism,
when the colonized people became liberation-minded, nationalistic, and revolu-
tionary, the white colonial power could see that it was costing more to wage
the colonial war than it was worth in extracted resources or in satisfaction of
the allegiance demands of the colonists. Under these circumstances, the colonial
power could choose to end its rule, and grant independence. The white colonial
power could weigh the issue, the costs, the profits and the losses, and decide
when to continue and when to pull out. While it is true that 'saving face' was im
portant to the rightists, the hard-headed economic interests put costs abOVe all
else; de Gaullefor exatnple, pulled out of Algeria despite right wing opposition
and the 'face' problem. In so-called internal colonialism, e.g., the United States,
it is far more difficult to conduct such a hard-headed empirical weighing ofpolice
costs versus resource exploitation. Indeed, this option does not arise since the
territory occupied by the politically-subordinated race belongs to the sovereign
domain of the in the case of the United States, there could be no
surrender of the areas populated by blacks; the dominant white group could not
pull out of all the institu'tions associated with sovereignty and abandon the
territory to the blacks. The absence of such an outcome highlights, above all,
the inapplicability of the colonial model to critical black-white race relations in
the United States.
The distinction between race relations in the classical colonial situation
and black-white race relations in the United States can and should be pushed
further, Jiotoniy in the interests of clarifying the difference but in order to reveal
considerations that need to be incorporated into any effective theory of race
relations. As we compare more deeply the colonial situation with the American
scene, we are forced to note the profound difference established by the factors of
land, occupation, and native culture. In classical colonialism, the land of the
colony originally belonged to the subjugated population. The white European
armies, the missionaries, the merchants and the settlers invaded the land
and superimposed the culture of the European mother country. White Euro-
pean political, judicial, and education systems were grafted onto the land. The
term 'grafted Oil' is important for it communicates the essential character ofthe
difference between classical colonialism and the situation of the blacks in the
United States. In the colony, the indigenous culture generally remains
for the bulk of the population. It was usually only the elite among the colonized
who destroyed their identification with this indigenous culture in the early stages
of colonization. The natives continue to speak the native language, eat the same
foods, retain the same customs and dances, and so forth. It was true that !he
Christian missionaries often tried to destroy or transformcustoms so as. to bODe:
them into closer harmony with Christianity, but their success was, agalD, mu
...
. .;,. .,.,
.' "',.,
CoIlective definition
Any theory of race relations which seeks to .gain scholarly creditability must
obviously be able to cover and explain the siguificant happenings that are to be
noted in the empirical world of race relations. This means that the theory must
be able to identify races and the relations between races; it must be able to handle
whatever may be the diversity of relati0llsexisting between races; it must be able
to explain the variations and shifts that ocCur over time between any two racial
groups; and it must be able to 1II1alyse the interplay of whatever may be racial
factors and other factors in actual ongoing group life. Prevailing schemes of
race relations, such as those which we have considered earlier, fail in one way or
the other to meet this necessary empirical validation. Many of themiguore what
races are and hence do not catch what is centraIly involved in the relations
between races. Many of them fail to see, or else treat too lightly, the variations
that are tobe found in the relations of racial groups. Almost all are incapable of
handling the shifting career lines of relations to be noted over time between
greater, with the elite among the colonized than with the whole population. The
fact that European culture could sink its' roots only partially in the mass of the
population was important for the subsequent liberation struggle. With the
indigenous culture of the. population relatively intact, liberation-minded nation-
alists could readily appeal to the resurrection of that culture as one of the
rallying cries of the liberation struggle. Both native territory as a base and native
culture as a unifying framework made it possible for the colonized racial group
to move readily and relentlessly towards a goal of national liberation.
The situation. of the American blacks is obviously different. Brought to
an alien land as slaves and scattered in a way that never allowed them to develop
a sense of a homeland tribal group or nation, American blacks have lacked the
sense of attachment to a domain of their own. This absence of a land base has
been a source of continuous frustration for those blacks who have struggled at
various times to move along the separatist path. Even more discouraging to such
, efforts has been the absence of a historic native culture shared by the American
blacks. The slave owners consciously destroyed families and friendships among
members of the same African tribes, for they feared the ability of these slaves to
communicate in their own tongue. In so doing, they destroyed the language,
kinship structure and other institutional arrangements which had given unity
and coherence to blacks in their native lands. Thus, American blacks have had to
operate inside of the institutional framework imposed by the whites without the
option of resorting to a body of traditional institutions. As we will note more
fully later, the absence of a native land base and of a native cl1lture has had a
profound influence on the direction and fate of race relations between the blacks
and the whites in the United States. But for the time being, we feel that enough
has been said here to indicate the fragility of the colonial model as applied to
the American scene and hence its limitations as an encompassing racial
theory. .
Theories' olrace. 221
; . -
..
. .
"
.' ..

--....
.
..
...
222
Herbert Blumer and Troy Duster
different racial groups. And many of them are weak in covering the interplay of
racial and non-racial happenings in the developing life of societies, particularly
contemporary societies. In the following pages, we seek to outline a theoretical
scheme which will be faithful to the kinds of empirical events which have been
noted.. We have labelled this scheme 'collective definition' in recognition of what
we believe to be the basic process by which racial groups come to see each other
and themselves and poise themselves to act towards each other; the procesSis
one in which the racial groups are defining or interpreting their experiences and
the events that bring these experiences about. The outcome of this process of
definition is the aligning and realigning of relations and the development and re-
formation ofprospectiv'e lines of action towards one another. It is this process of
definition that we wish to analyse.
A theoretical analysis of race relations should begin with a
the concept of race or of a racial group. It is our belief that the concept of race
must be faithful to the composition of the groups who see each other as racial
groups and who approach each other as racial groups in their association. This
immediately establishes the need for distinguishing between groups who see
. themselves as racial groups, and groups who do not see themselves as such, even
though identified by outside scholars as races; Whatever may be the scholarly
value of classifying people in racial categories inaccordancewithtechnical criteria
(as is done by geneticisd and physical anthropologists), such a perspective fails
to catch the area of race relations in actual life unless the genetic categories coin-
cide with the way in which the acting people classify one another racially. People
in actual life act towards one another on the basis of how they classify and. see
one another and not on the basis of how they may be seen by outside scholars
using techniCal criteria. What is important is how people who are living with
one another classify one another racially (if they do); what kind of pictlll'C
they form of one another in termsof qualities, traits, intentions, etc.; and what
they anticipatefrom one another in terms of such pictures. The actual orientation
of racial groups in association derives from this process in which they classify
each other and themselves. Consequently, this simple point forces us to recognize
the operation and importance of a defining process through which given racial
groups categorize one another and form their pictures ofone another. The area of
race relations is constituted bythis process of definitiiiii; The process of definition
consists_of an interpretation of runs of experience, leading tQ_theJQlJIlation _
judgements-and images. It must be seen as a collective process in that members
ofa racial group help to shape one another's interpretations andjudgements. We
wish to discuss this process of collective definition as it takes place between
racial groups. .... c. . . . _. .
We take as a truism that relations between the races are always caught In
the process of formation. A cross-sectional analysis of race relations at anyone
point in time usually yields some form of a structural account, much as a
graph directs attention to the momentary relations between elements. But if we
were to examine relations between the races at two points in time at very
we would lliscover differences not only in the collective conceptions of rag
iI
,n,
iIi!


."
1lI1::

t
J
J
I
i
i
The Santal
groups towards other racial groups, buftowards themselves as a- race. Indeed,
inside the boundaries of racial and ethnic groups (in technologically-advanced
_and technologically-developing societies), we-believe we can identify two domin-
ant but conflicting organizing principles of interpretation. The conflict, ambival.
ence and persistence of these two tendencies is such that, for the racial group
seen as a unit, there is a confounding dilemma which we have chosen to call
dualism. -
One of the two elements is the concern for the racial or ethnic specialness
of the group. The other element is the concern for the group's relative social,
economic, cultural, and political status. While some members maytry to press
both concerns simultaneously, racial and ethnic groups more frequently witness
a development of two factional camps, in which tension and interaction develop
around one or the other emphasis. Nowhere is this more dramatically expressed
than in the situation of the blacks in the United States. While we will take several
examples from the black situation, our purpose is to illustrate the kinds of prob-
lems confronted by any theory of race that does not take sufficiently into account
this general problem of dualism. In our view, an-analysis of this fundamental
property of race relations helps to explain the generation and ascendancy of
certain theories at different historical moments. It also helps to explain why and
how certain theories fit or fail to flt the empirical regularities of persistence and
change that characterize the relations between races and ethnic groups.
I
!
,I
I
J
Theories 01race and social action 223
"' ",
."
"
,
-
,'I

';,
.'-.
224 'Herbert Blumer and Troy Duster
,
;
,1
j
)
,
j
"
i
j
,
i
IIi!
j

l
,
J

."
an::
il


t
,,'
:11::

j .'."
1
dIll
'I'
"',
all
,Ill
.ltu
",",
",",
lllli
",",
l:Ill
if
mn
II:

The Santa! themselves say that "the diku big and knowing people" and
their demeanor as they interact with Hindus, particularly of high caste,
confirms acceptance in fair measure of their inferior status, Even today,
in a period ofrenewed solidarity, the Santal are striving to raise themselves
to the level of the diku, as they say.. , . '
'To accept inferior status is to accept the attributes of rank of the
superior society, and such acceptance produces a tendency to emulation.
This emulation is an effect of rank concession, and evidence for it as well.
The many examples noted of Santal emulation of the dominant Hindu
society are to be, understood as arising from the universal tendency of
societies which have conceded rank to emulate.' [II].
Orans' basis for the discussion of emulation is therefore clear enough,
but what ofthe notion ofsolidarityand why is it sojuxtaposed against emulation?
He quotes Durkheim:
'Solidarity which comes from likenesses is at its maximum when the
collective conscience completely envelops our whole conscience and
coincides in all points with it. But, at that moment, our individuality is nil.
It can be born only if the community takes a smaller toll of us. There are,
here, two contrary forces, one centripetal, the other centrifugal, which
cannot flourish a,tthe same time. We cannot, at one and the same
time, develop ourselves in two opposite senses. If our ideal is to present
a singular and personal appearance, we do !lot want to resemble every-
body else.' [12].
We shall return to the Santal shortly but since both we and Orans intend
to drawa parallel to the American blacks, it is worth inserting here W. E. B. Du-
Bois' eloquent and often-quoted passage on the dual identity of the American
black, first published at the turnofthe century (1903):
'Mter the Egyptian and Indian, the Greek and Roman, the Teuton and
Mongolian, the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and
gifted with second-sight in this American world-"'-a world which yields
him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see 'himself through the
revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation, this double-
consciousness, this sense of always looking atQllc's self through the
of others, of measuring one's soul by the tape of a world that looks on III
amused ,contempt and pity. One ever feels his twoness'=iin American;
a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two war-
ring ideals in one dark body.' [13].
And later, on the same page: _
' . Here in America, in the few days since Emancipation, the black man s
turning hither and thither in hesitant and doubtful striving has often
made his very strength to lose effectiveness, to seem like absen.ce. of
power, like weakness. And yet it is not weakness-'-it is the
of double aims.' [14]. Id '
'Likeness' can take on an infinite number of substantive forms, from s ,n
colour to tribal heritage to class position to sex. The solidarity that feels
.- ....
The Burakumin ofJapan
Although there is no apparent racial distinction to be made between Burakumin
and other Japanese, both seem to believe racial differences exist, and certainly
act as if they do. The Burakumin are descendants of a pariah caste who were
historically restricted to such occupations as disposing of animal carcasses,
assisting authorities in driving off thieves and beggars, and leather working
[IS, 16). They were forced to live in separate communities and wear distinctive
clothing, and endogamylawswere enforced. The Meiji Government abolished the
pariah status of the Burakurnin in 1871. Japan was undergoing an economiccrisis
during this period, and the small farmers feared the possible competition from
the newly-emancipated group. Like American whites (in relation to lynchings of
the blacks) and European gentiles (in relation to pogroms against the Jews),
the farmers began terror campaigns to intimidate the Burakumin. There were
'Eta hunts' similar to the lynch mobs of the American Reconstruction period
('Eta' is one of the several other names for the Burakurnin, a word that means
'filth').
A diffusion of socialist ideology began among the Burakumin from 1908
with those of 'likeness' or kind is a function of the power of the socio-cultural
meanings of that likeness, both external and internal to the,group. The contlict
for groups (and individuals.inside those groups) at the base of the social, econo-
mic, andpolitical structure, most simply put, is whether to celebrate and retain
their 'likeness' (which some may come to feel consigns them to the base), or
whether to emulate and assimilate. Cultural pluralism and equality of diverse
groups may be a theoretically possible alternative, but the history and experience
of most ethnic and racial and sexual minorities (qua minorities) has been that the
achievement of equality comes through a bitter and protracted struggle against
those who retain the privilege ascribed by birth and political-economic structure.
Thus is joined the basic ambivalence and contlict that confronts any
social and cultural minority. Orans chose to call it emulation v-, solidarity. There
is a direct relevance of his discussion of the Santal to our discussion. Before
turning in greater detail to our own argument, it is worthwhile to pursue
Orans' discussion to its major conclusion. While most Santa! are still tillers of the
soil, indllstrialization came to this section of Iridia in the early twentieth century,
and affected them quite directly. Indeed, the oldest and largest iron and steel
company in India, Tata Iron and Steel, was carved out of the industrial town of
Jamshedpur in 1908, right in the midst ofthe Santal people.
With increasing industrialization,the ~ t tomobility for the Santal was
through the economic adjustments, or through the economic path. Court juris-
dictional encroachment, health protection, the issuance of schblarships, and so
forth, all served to indicate to the Santal that the 'betterment' of their lives were
in the hands of the Hindus and the British. Emulation occurred when the Santal
chose the economic path to individual betterment. Solidarity increased when the
Santal moved towards a political strategy for redressing their grievances.
.'
- .'1

~ ;
"
"
"
"
II
,.,
"
"
"
'f
225 Theories ofrace and s.ocial action
_ C ,
...' ...
""
...
"
",
-,'" ,.<
226 Herbert Blumer and Trqy Duster
-':1
"'I' boi,

...
ell::

" i1
l1
.
."
:"
-II:
Ii,
'"
'I'
.,
'..,
"",
1l!l'
I
lua..
Cn!
,r
OJ!
II:
-"'''j

i
to 1920, and leaders played prominent roles in local and regional strikes [17],
While the earlier leadership had been emulative, the new and younger leadership
scoffed at .trying to raise the level of the culture. Instead, they celebrated the
existing culture (solidarity), wished to preserve it, and opted for a political
strategy that was.'.. an interesting blend of Marxist-Leninism, Kropotkinism,
Christian Socialism, and Buddhism' [18]. The thing that strikes the international
observer of racial and ethnic relations is the parallel between minorities who
move toward the solidarity (the separatist/nationalist) pole ofthe dualistic dilem-
ma. The Burakumin nationalists took over the worst epithet that could be used
against them, 'Eta', and applied it to themselves with a new-found pride:
'Brothers! Our anCestors sought after and practiced liberty and equality.
But they became the victims of a base, contemptible system developed
by the ruling class. They became the manly martyrs of industry. As a
reward for skinning animals, they were flayed alive. " .. They were spat
upon with the spittle of ridicule" Yet all through these cursed nightmares,
their blood, still proud to be human, did not dry up. Yes! Now we have
come to the age when man, pulsing with this blood, is trying'to become
divine. The time has come for the victims ofdiscrimination to hurl back
labels of derision. The time has come when the martyrs' crown of
thorns will be The time has come when we can be proud of being
Eta.' [19].
The American blacks
The Eta did very much the same thing with their previously denigrated status and
customs that the American blacks of the late 1960s were to do when they ap-
plied to themselves the epithet 'nigger'-and changed the status meaning of their
habits and customs:
'Thus the foods ofpoor Blacks, formerly a prime marker oflow status, are
now designated "soul food"; i.e., they symbolically represent that special
quality of Blacks which whites can't quite measure up to; this same
inherent defect is held to account for the relative inability of whites to be
as musically expressive as Blacks. Following the great success of Malcolm
X, men such as Carmichael made use prou<1Jy of certain distinctive
pb:raseSjilidterms of address characteristic of the formerly-despised --
elements of the Black community. And in the case of music, such status
elevation has perhaps been easiest, as sophisticated whites had loog ago
come to admire the superb musical creativity of Black musicians, p.ar-
ticularly in the jazz, blues, folk, and gospel idioms. That this elevatloo
of distinctive traits did not occur earlier seems to coincide rather well
with the fact.thatpreviously the Black elite did not eogage the
.in a cultural movement connected with the building of Black pohtical
. power.' [20]. . .
. Every social theory is grounded in an implicit set of domain assumptiO?S
about the nature of social life. In order to try to better explain as to why certalO
theories gain a foothold and then a popular acceptance in the social sciences and
with the general public we feel it is frnitful to try first to ferret out those assump-
tions and cast them within the larger settings in which they peak and decline as
explanations. Assiniilationist theory was born out of the strong liberal optimism
about the character of racial and ethnic relations in the United States. Thus,
from 1920 to 1965, 'integrationist' assumptions dominated organizationally
inclined progressive and liberal Americans of all colours. IngePoweli Bell's
chronicle of the Congress of Racial Equality (C.O.R.E.) from the early 1940s
to the beginnings of the Black Power Movement is an excellent account in this
context [21]. The popularity ofassimilationist theory was a function of a prevail-
ing hopeful liberalist intervention ideology, paralleling Keynesian economics.
In the political arena, it was compatible with a milieu in which self-profession
of liberalism was a proud and 'normal' act.
In contrast, both the Marxists and the colonialist theories and assump-
tions are grounded in a profound pessimism about the workability of the social
order as presently cast. In periods in which American society appears weakest
and most vulnerable to instability in the economicsphereandundergoing a 'crisis
oflegitimacy' in the political arena, such theories are ripe for ascendancy. The
audience is wider and more receptive to the basic set of assumptions that guide
these theories. Thus, assimilationist and integrationist theories came under their
strongest attack in the late"1960s when they were unable to explain the black
uprisings in the cities, and when these theorists were caught cOjDpletely by sur-
prise by the rising nationalism and militancy of blacks. This was especially em-
barrassing to assimilationist theory because, as we have noted, the militancy and
nationalism was centred primarily in those blacks who according to the theory,
should have been the least nationalistic. The assimilationists were caught com-
pletely offguard and unawares by a black power movement that emerged and
gained strong popular support among both middle- andworking-class blacks.
This was followed by parallel movements among"the"Chicanos,!h.e Puerto
Ricans, and the Asian-Americans, again, with the most theoretically 'assimilable'
among each of these groups frequently more receptive and responsive to the
ethnic/racial identity of the movement than they had been in earlier periods.
Yet, the seventies have witnessed a slowing down of these ethnic/racial
power movements, and a level of surface assimilation in the public arena. Not
ouly do local television stations in the United States feature members of ethnic
and racial groups at the. news-desks, but advertisements, prime time shows,
situation"comedies, and day':time serials all have ntinorities in supporting or even
lead roles as a I)latter of course. In the early 1960s, this was rare. There are other
indications ofpublic assimilation at other levels; minorities were elected to State
and nationaloflices in unprecedented numbers; and they were given scores of
appointments high up in the federal bureaucracies.
However, there has been a notable absence of what Gordon [22] called
'structural.assimilation'. Despite the public flouriSh ofminority assimilation into
the highest visible cultural imagery, racial and ethnic minorities as aggregates
remain basically unassimiIated into the mainstreamofthe workforce, education,
Theo'ries of"ice antIsocial actioll 227
, ". - .'
..
I;"
.'
.'
"
.'

i!1
.'
.'
.'
.'
.!
." ..
228. Herbert Blumer and Troy Duster
'Ilt
"If'
boi.

...
2"::

" .
'lot ..
"Ir"
h.
!II
!ll
III
'"
,,,
'...
'm..

tIll.


CIt

.,
.._------- ---- --------:-
and urban residence. If one looks at the 1970s, it must be asked why the.separa_
tist/nationalist base of the varied power movements eroded and gave way toa
neo-assimilationist position. CORE shifted to black capitalism, SNCC dis-
banded, the Panthers were crushed, and even the Black Muslims became just
plain Muslims with the death of Elijah Muhammad. The colonial model cannot
fully explain this development with neo-colonialism. The assimilationist model
fit better at this given moment, but it can hardly claimto be a comprehen-
sivetheory since it only applies to intermittent time frames.
The only notion which makes sense out of the two periods and, indeed,
out of the last three decades is.a theory that acknowledges the fundamental dual
and ambivalent situation of minorities. That is, rather than conceiving of a
linear progression of ethhic and racial minorities along a single path, the notion
of a dual existence allows us to anticipate and explain the swing of the pendulum
between seemingly contradictory aims. Indeed, this is true for both relatively
short periods of time and in the long historical sweep of 30 to 50 years, and even
centuries. To put it another way, if we must piece together three or four different
theories, they apply like a patchwork quilt to varying historical momenis of the
struggles and strategies of minorities. At certain points, attitudes a:Ad prejudice
may fit the fragmented, isolated instance of the relations between groups, while
at others, structural, legal and illegal, economic and political barriers may be
erected, and these will explain those relationships. However, a theory of
race relations implies that it is more than merely applicable to isolated instances.
A theory of race relations lays claim to a general understanding of the phenome-
non, not a few years ofactivity or inactivity.
While a theory that begins by positing the dual existence ofminorities has
a much better chance of explaining the general phenomenon, it also has the in-
herent danger of being applicable to all situations, and such a theory is not
disprovable.. For example, every time a nationalistic movement arises within a
minority, a theory of dualism could simply note that this was the separatist ele-
ment of the polarity surfacing. Then, during a quiet or assimilationist period,
one could simply note that this was the other part of the polarity surfacing.
Therefore, it is important to note a way out of the potentially closed circularity
of such explanations, which are ultimately nothing more than descriptions of the
varied responses to events and developments that have been noted.
Both tautology and mere description can 'be' avoided by attempting to
locate factors that explain why at any given time one or the othersidc'ofthepoles
of assimilation and separation/nationalism emerge and dominate. Here" we
choose to rely upon particular components of some elements of each of the
theories we have discussed, but only in so far as those theories apprehend what
has occurred in the world. It seems to us that the assimilationist surgeodnclina
oc
,
tion among minorities is greatest under a particular set of structural and cultural
con4itious.
From 1945 to 1954 the United States witnessed a period of relative
quiescence in the public of racial conflict. The dominant organizational
groups. pushing black interests were concerned primarily with gaining equal
rights through the utilization of the prevailing.structures and institutions of the
society. Thus, the NAACP, the Congress of Racial Equality, and the Urban
League, in quite different areas, all pushed for equality of blacks and whites
within existing structures. The NAACP took the road of legal redress, in line with
Gunnar Myrdal's observations that America would face up to the dilemma of
its constitutional injunction once confronted by the charge to be gUided by its
egalitarian ideals [23]. The Urban League pushed labour unions and manage-
ment,again, within the existing economic arrangements, to open up its closed
racial policies and give jobs (that were there) to blacks. Finally, CORE pushed
by tactics of direct action, in the tradition of Gandhi, to get equal treatment for
blacks in public accommodations such as restaurants, motels, barber shops, and
. bowling alleys [24].
During tWs first decade after the Second World War, t,he economy was
expanding and developing at a breathtaking pace. The production of major
industries, like steel, automobiles, and construction experienced a major boom.
Black organizations took very much the same attitude as thatwWchwas adopted
by organized labour. The idea was simple enough. In a booming, expanding
economy, during prosperous times that seemed almost limitless and unending,
as Walter Reuther was to say: 'The issue is no longer whether to bake a different
kind of pie, but how large of a slice to take from the existing (expanding) one.'
Speaking for the United Auto Workers in the late 194Os, Reuther thereby
abandoned the militancy that had characterized the auto workers in.the 19308.
In good measure, the reasons, webelieve, had to do with the economic structural
conditions of the labouring class. Blacks are now and always have been predom-
inantly in the labouring class of Americans. They too, would take the position,
at least through the organizations that acted as the conduits for their political
expression, that the society as constituted could ineorprate them within existing
structures, simply by opening up the gates or lowering the barriers. The problem
to be identified dUring such times, then, is the attitudes, beliefs, and customs of
those who hold power over such structures. Thus, it IS precisely a structural
analysis that leads to a 'conventional wisdom' of a cultural interpretation of
action. It is the structural condition of an expanding economy that leads to an
organizationally-based interpretation that cultural and psychological issues are
the basis for the continued subjugation of minorities. In times of economic
boom and prosperity, cultural assimilation surfaces as the dominant side of the
duality.
From 1954 to 1965, two counter-tendencies developed and vied with
each other. On the one hand, the traditional groups such as the NAACP and the
Urban League increased their strength and membership. In some ways, the
years 1954 and 1965 marked the pinnacle for the NAACP. The first year saw the
victory in the Supreme Court in the landmark integration decision and the last
year the passage of national legislation, the culmination of the legal victories for
blacks on voting rights and pUblic accommodations.
On the other hand, CORE was going through someinternal 'changes' that
symbolically represented the counter-tendency. From 1942 to 1959, CORE had
I

I
,.
I
....
Theoiies o[race and. social action 229
</
<
"", -i
230 'Herbert Blumer and ,Troy' Duster
01::
II.,
:3:
~ ----_.
been predominantly middle-class in membership and in leadership. Organized by
Quakers, pacifists andyoung student intellectuals from the University ofChicago,
the black/white.spirit of co-operation had dominated the national chapters [24J.
However, with the new direct action tactics in the South, of freedom rides and
lunch-counter sit-ins, a new spirit began to take over CORE. By 1964; the
tensions between white liberals and blacks had reached a critical state, and the
final ouster of many whites from positions of leadership in CORE precipitated a
crisis which resulted in a near death-blow of pull-outs of northern white money.
Thus, the nascent nationalism of black organizations in the middle 1960s
can be seen as a reaction to the compelling structural condition of those organiz
.ations losing the financial support of whites, thus imposing a strategy of self-help
and autonomy. We have said that it is insufficient to simply.identify the swing
of the pendulum back and forth between two poles, but rather, we must identify
the grounds and context for that swing if we are to contribute to an understand-
ingof the direction in which it will move in some situations and not in others..
The runs of experience are the result of the play of events in the life of racial
groups.
In their various forms of contact and perception, people are subject to
wide varieties of experience. Much of this experience takes place within the co-
fines of face-to-face relations between members of different racial groups; other
sources ofexperience may be what they hear or read about something happening
elsewhere. The range ,of experience from person-to-person or from circle-to-
circle may be wide or it may be narrow, and the content of the experience may
vary considerably. But one cannot gainsay the presence and occurrence of an on-
going process of 'experiencing' among racial groups in their association with one
another. This experiencing may be at times routine and matter-of-fact, at other
times startling and disruptive, at times personal and at other times impersonal,
at times deep and grievous and at other times slight and remote. A scholar who
is removed from this body of experience or who ignores it is cut off from the
elementary ingredients of race relations.
It is the variable interpretation of these human experiences that is a start
ing point ofsocial theory. In the area ofrace relations, it is important to ascertain
the kinds of objects racial groups form of one another, how they see and judge
their respective positions, and what patterns of behaviour they come to see as
appropriate or necessary in their associations with one another. The formation of
these objects, views, and orientations takes place through a vast collective pro-
cess of definition. We refer to it as vast since it may range from the-dfs(:ussion------ -
ofpersonal experiences with fellow racial members to the characterization ofex-
periences through the media of mass communication. The defining process may
go on in one's home, at work, at meetings, on the street, through thepress,over
the radio and, in many areas these days, through television. The process is col-------
lective in that judgements and interpretations are presented to others and;a1"e
subject to their evaluation; and, in turn, the views of these others enter bacle 1 I l ~
the circle of consideration. Racial groups forge their views of one another, the11"
interpretation of their situations, and their preparations to act out this p r ~

' .
p
the clash and testing of divergent interpretations, the response
to startling and drl\Il1atic events that touch deeply the of this or that
racial group, the ajlitational efforts of this or that group of leaders, aud the
sentiments that are aroused in the process.
There are a number of important observations that need to be made with
regard to the process of collective definition as it takes place in the arena of race
relations. For one thing, the process occurs within each racial group, although its
character may vary greatly from one suchgroup to another. Indeed, in the study
of race relations it is highly important to trace the process in each of the racial
groups since the process will be different in terms of the objects of concern,
the acuteness of concern, the participants who are exercising the greatest in.
fluence inthe formation of the collective definitions, and the lines along which
interpretations are being formed.
A second matter to be noted is the differences in interpretation that may
be in play within each racial group. Differences in interpretation may, indeed,
arise thereby setting into play an internal political process within a racial group.
Sometimes, these differences are minor inthe sense that one line of interpretation
may be dominant, indeed, overdominant; at other times, the differences iu
definition within a racial group may be exceedingly powerful, as we have noted
in the cases ofthe Santal, the Burakamin, and the American blacks. It is obviously
necessary to respect and accommodate such differences in interpretation as they
occur in a given racial group since the differences may have profound repercus-
sions on how the group will become oriented in its relation to other racial groups.
Another matter that clearly has to be taken into account in the study ofthe
process of collective definition is the responsiveness of the process to the play
of events. The process of definition feeds upon the unfolding of events and in-
deed is profoundly influenced by highly-dramatic events. A dramatic event,
such as let us say a well-publicized brutal police action members of a
racial group, or the imminent loss of highly-prized advantages by a superordinate
group, can have an enormous impact on the definitionatprocess that goes on.
The scholar is in no position to grasp what has happened in race relations or
what is happening in nice reilitions ifnO attentionis to the play of events in
the mapping out of views and orientations by the racial groups.
In addition, the scholar ofrllce relations should be sensitive to the shift
in definition that may take placeJrom time to time, or over time, in a racial
group. A racial group may see other racial groups and itself differently at different
periods. Early on in the relationship, a subordinate racial group may view the
superordinate racial group asnodifferent from itself, in terms of inherent ability
but merely as being in.an advantageous position and as having superior qualities
associated only with that position. The superordinate group may be seen
as having noble qualities or as having an evil make-up; it may be seen as pro-
viding paternal care and guidance or it may be seen as exploitive and to be
distrusted.
A final feature of the process of collective definition that calls for the
attention 'of the theorist is the way in which the objective changes in the soc,ial
Theoriesolrqceandsociaraclion 231
I

232 Herbert Blumer and Troy Duster

'"
",
position of racial groups come to be interpreted by them. There are changes in
social positions that may take place independent of the process of collective de-
finition that deserve close scrutiny. As we haye noted by our three examples, a
changed economic condition, the opening to racial groups of positions from
which they had been previously barred, or access to institutional opportunities
previously closed, such as securing higher education, or the gaining of a pre-
viously withheld politicalfranchisecanhaveenormous importance in altering the
forms of relationships between races. Accordingly, they'have to be taken into
account in any scholarly analysis of race relations. Yet it is a grievous mistake
to try to reduce race relations to the play of these objective factors. It is necessary
to bring such objective factors inside of the ongoing process of definition, to
see how the objective change has been interpreted. The interpretation may be
verydifferent, indeed
l
from what seems to be the obvious import of the Objective
change. Thus, an improvement of income and social position may lead to
militancy and a rebellious spirit in place ofpresumed gratitude. Clearly, objective
changes in social position achieve their real significance interms of how they
enter into the definitions made by the races of each other.
On the basis of casual impression, a scholar could be easily led to believe
that the process of collective definition to which we have been ~ r r i n g could
not possibly offer the prospect of a theory ofrace relations.
Ifthese are the kinds of events which take place in the process ofcollective
definition, it would seem that the study of race relations in terms of that process
would lead to confusing variety not subject to theoretical order. Accordingly,
the idea of collective definition could not qualify as a theory. Yet race relations,
certainly in their problematic form, do operate inside of an essentially common
and constant framework. Thus, while the variability that is suggested by the
process of definition may, indeed, take place, it is held within the framework
and takes place along the line that is set by the framework. It is this matter that
we wish now to take up.
It is necessary to identify the kind of setting in which race relations come
to consitute a problem. The setting is known and exists fundamentally in the
form ofa social arrangement in which a given racial group occupies a superordin-
ate or superior position in the social order while another racial group occupies
a subordinate or inferior social position. The superordinate racial group gener-
ally has a monopoly of superior posts in the society and enjoys superior advan-
tages and opportunities in comparison to the subordinate racial group. The
superordinate racial group tends to regard the subordinate racial group as
generallyinferior and having no claim to the posts, the position and ihe advan-
tages possessed by the superordinate racial group. In addition, the disposition of
the superordinate racial group is to regard the subordinate racial group as an
alien people. The relegation of the subordinate racial group to an inferior social
position and to an alien status gives rise to a line of exclusion, frequently referred
to as a 'colour line' or a 'colour bar'. This line of exclusion demarcates the con-
tact of the racial groups, establishing their respective positions in the social
order and setting the modes of conduct at the various points of contact. As long
'. '
' .

233 Theories ofrace and social action

as the line of exclusion is observed or as long as the respective racial groups
stay within their prescribed social positions, the relations are essentially orderly
andpeacefuI. However,when the respective social positions are upset, and
especililly when the subordinate racial group challenges the superior social
position of the superordinate race, the racial groups enter into conflict. Then,
race relations are perceived as a 'social problem'.
The sketch which has just been given is usually found to some degree in
most theories of race relations. it is on the whole a valid generic characterization,
In contributes very little, however, to an understanding ofrace relations precisely
at the points where the subordinate racial group challenges the position and
claims of the superordinate racial group and at the points where the superordin-
ate group pushes its dominion beyond what had been set previously by the line of
exclusion. Yet it is precisely at these points where race relations have become a
scholarly and political concern as well as a social problem, And it is at these
points that race relations may be said to cluster today. We wish to extend our
analysis to what takes place at these points.
Let us repeat that the points at which conflict takes place are those points
at which the subordinate racial group seeks to break through the line of exclusion
or where the superordinate group seeks to extend its domain at the expense of the
subordinate racial group. In the first case, that of the pressures from the subord-
inate racial group, we have the recurrent picture of efforts of this group to gain
the rights and opportunities from which they have been excluded. Thus, there
may bepressures to securebetter employment, the trainingnecessary for suchem-
ployment, access to institutions such as those ofhigher education, political rights,
ownership of property, rights of residential location, recoghition of achieve-
ments, common rights and liberties of citizenship, and so forth. But such efforts
encounter resistance. The resistance may employ, on occasion, brute physical
repression and at other times may take the more exasperating form of stubborn
paternal indifference to what t)1e challenging group treats as thoroughly just
demands. In the light of this resistance and its accompanying insensitivity to
human considerations, members and representatives of the .subordinate racial
group may come to feel that nothing substantial can be expected to' ever corne
from the dominant group; hence such persons turn towards a separatist direc-
tion. They come to believe that their efforts to escape from their social plight and
to achieve the better life which they seek can be done only be developing their
own order of life in place of trying to fit inside of that dominated by the super-
ordinate racial group. Yet, on the other hand, these subordinate group members
may find that they do not have the resources or facilities to move in such a
separatist direction. Thus,. they find themselves in the dilemma of not being able
to break through the line of exclusion as they wish nor of being seemingly able
to break away from their unfavolired position by developing their own separate
institutional world. It is this ambivalent condition that provides the framework
for the defining process that takes place inside of the subordinate racial group,
setting its two major divergent directions of effort (the assimilationist and the
separatist orientations) and the flip-flopping from one to the other that is so
-",:" - .. ,,:'
; . :;,'/2 " ,' . ',c '. ."""":\r ..

..

, .
'. _ _ :;..;,. __. ...-O:" .< i, '.. " =-
234 Herbert Blumer and Troy Duster
1l1llU


Illlil..

frequently noted. To round out the picture; we must now call attention to the
,parallel kind of ambivalence present in the superordinate racial group.
We have already noted that the position, of the superordinate racial group
is one of distinct advantage because of monopolistic access to the superior posts
of the society and control of the major institutions. It is easy to understand the
desire and intention ofits members to retain these posts and their advantages and;
accordingly, to resist efforts which seem to threaten such possession and USe.
The resistance may reqnire little more effort than to keep closed the doors of
access to the posts yielding the advantages. In addition to such protection of its
position, the superordinate racial group (or parts of it) may be led into aggressive
expansion ofits area of advantage, ifpropitious opportunities arise. The concern
with protecting its position and, on occasion, expanding its domain constitutes
obviously a chief prol?elling interest of the dominant racial group. But we also
have to note that there may be elements within the superordinate group who
do not feel themselves to be threatened by the demands or efforts of the subord-
inate racial group and who, indeed, may find it desirable to aid such effortS. Thns,
two opposing sets of propulsions are brought into play in the superordinate
group, giving rise to an inner political process and yielding uncertainty as to the
directions to be taken.
Having sketched the stark features of the social setting or arrangement
inside of which race relations typically take place, we wish to trace some of the
more important happenings and consequences. We have provided some empirical
illustrations ofthe general process ofadjnstment of the racial groups inside of the
setting. It must also be kept in mind that the setting provides for the play of
two sets of antagonistic forces, one set operating in the subordinate racial group
and the other in the superordinate racial group. Obviously, each of the two sets
is infiuenced by what is taking place in the other; thus the arena of race relations
is caught up in the play of four major forces or propulsions. The interaction of
these fourforces through a process of definition constitutes what is happening
in the area of race relations. The antagonistic pair of forces on the side of the
subordinate group consists of intention and effort to gain adjustment inside of
established institutions (the assimilationist orientation) and of intention and
effort to develop a separate institutional world (the separatist orientation). The
antagonistic pair of forces on the side of the superordinate racial group consists
of the intention and effort to hold onto-and sometimes extend-social advan-
tages (the exclusionary orientation) and the intention and effort to open the
doors to such advantages for subordinate group members (the gate-opening_
orientation). The career ofrace relations is set by the play of these four forces
and takes different turns as one or another of them enters into a given period of
dominance. Thus, the dominance of the gate-opening orientation on the part of
the superordinate racial group encourages the assimilationist orientation on the
part of the subordinate group; the dominance of the exclusionary orientation
fosters the separatist orientation; the dominance of the assimilationist
tion on the part ofthe subordinate group can arouse the exclusionary orientati?n
on the part 'of the superordinate group; and the dominance of the separatist
Conclusion
Thesefew and brief accounts ofrace relations suffice to show the importance of
the defining process in shaping and setting race relations. We repeat that the de-
fining process must be seen as central in the career of race relations. When one
speaks of race relations, it is obvious that one must refer to the ways in which
people adjust to each other by virtue of classifying each other as members of this
or that racial group. This simple point calls attention to the need for seeing what

.
235
Theories ofrace and social action
orientation (in relative terms rare except in the case of colonial liberation) has,
so far, an indeterminate record of consequences. The play of these four forces
introduces instability into race relations, weakening the line of exclusion at
different points in time, and strengthening the line at other times, with advances
and retreats in the gaining of advantages. Let us consider some of the more im-
portant consequen<;es of the interaction of these four forces.
One significant consequence is to implant in the subordinate racial group
the split in orientation to which we have previously referred, the split represented
by assimilation and separation. The split itself tends to be unstable in that the
racial group wavers back and forth between the two directions, shifting between
the leadership offered by the proponents of one or the other direction. Even the
leaders, themselves, may reflect this ambiguity in their positions and views at
differing times. We have illustrated the play of this split in the career of the black
minority in the United States.
A second important consequence of the play of the four forces is the un-
certainty as to whether gains can be held onto by the subordinate group. Even
though the subordinate group may have a record of steady advancement over a
period of time in new areas, there lurks the constant fear of the loss of these
gains as a result of displacement from their acqnired positions.
A third consequence of significance is the political process that is set in
play within the superordinate racial group. This political process is marked by
uncertainty in its line of happening. As mentioned previously, the threat of
challenge to their established positions may not be felt at all by certain segments
of the dominant racial group; they not only welcome the assimilationist pushes
ofthe subordinate group but tend indeed to espouse them. However, their efforts
along this line may encounter stiff resistance from those portions of the super-
ordinate group who perceive a threat to their position orwhoshrink from institu-
tional changes even though such changes may not reduce their own advantages.
Obviously, the alignments in the inner political process and the direction which
this process may take will vary from one setting to another. If the threat of loss
is widely and deeply felt in the superordinate group, e.g. the Afrikaaners in
South Africa today, strong adherence to the exc1usioni.st position is to be ex-
pected. In other racial settings. the superordinate racial group may feel no
threat of losing political control and hence may be much more- disposed to
follow an open-gate orientation. The variations in the internal political process
in dominant racial groups become a matter of great importance.
"'1
,
.>-
-'" '.

" 0" -, _ ,'" '--:-",":

_ ...__ . cr . 1i ",' 1":\ "
.1
,.

236 Herbert Blumer and Troy Duster

.
enters into this process of classification as it takes place in a society of divergent
racial groups, The process is obviously a process, one in which.indivi-
duals and groups are using their runs of experience to form images and views of
one another as racial groups, and to mould images of their respective social
positions. This defining process is a collective process in that participants, by
voicing their own views, help to define and shape the views of one another. Out
of this defining process as it takes place in each racial group' come the images of
others and of oneself that are used by racial groups in their association. These
images set the ways in which members of a racial group are prepared to act to-
wards other racial groups.
The process of collective definition as it takes place in race relations is by
no means a simple development, arising in response to a fixed causal
factor or a set of such factors and preordained to move in ordered sequence to a
given destiny.
Respect for empirical happenings requires us to see the changes and
shifts that take place in the ongoing process of definition. In response to (a)the
play of events, some ofwruch may be highly dramatic, (b) the shifts in Objective
social positions. brought about by the economic and political and (c)
the variations inside of the inner discussions that go on-definitions can change
and shift, sometimes drastically.
A racial group may become outraged and burst out into impulsive action,
or it may smoulder with repressed resentment, or it may move into a state of
quiescence, or it may develop highhopes and enthusiasms, to mention just a few
of the positions it may adopt in the course of adjustment. Scholars of race.rela-
tions cannot afford to ignore the great variability that can take place in the process
of collective definition. Yet, as we have sought to show, the defining process is
relentlessly brought inside of a common framework, a framework whichforces
the definitions to deal with the basic orientations of the racial groups. The
framework is set by the fact that the racial groups fall into a dominant-subordin-
ate relationship, with the inevitable drawingofa line of separation and exclusion
between them. This fundameutal relationship brings logically into being thi: two
sets of antagonistic forces which we believe to be so vital in the formation of
adjustments between the racial groups. The subordinate racial group is caught
in the recurring dilemma of whether to move in the assimilationist or the separa-
tist direction or the dilemma of how to adjust these. l\Vo opposing orientations.
The superordinate group, on its side, is caught in the contest between the ex-
clusionary tendency and the gate-opening disposition, a
become profoundly political under certain sets of circumstances and in response
. to certain kinds ofevents. The play of these sets ofantagonistic forces constitutes
the core happenings in race relations. In our judgement, they should form th
e
_
stuff of primary scholarly concern. "-'--_'-._-_.
We may be allowed a few final observations in the light of our thesis of
the central importance of the defining process. First, it seems reasonable to ex-
pect an expansion and intensification of racial relations in the present epoch
of world development. With their increasing sophistication and awareness of
References
the larger outside world, people will be led increasingly to classify one another in
racial categories and, correlatively, will be led to see real and imaginary lines
.Of betweenthem. The direction and extent of this pro-
cess of rllcial categorization as it takes place in the years ahead around the world
mil be a matter deserving the closest 8Crutiny. Second, 8cholars of race relations
alert to the changes in the defining process that may occur as a result
of the power play between nations on the international scene. Heretofore, events
in the areas of racial relations were mostly confined to the play of domestic
forces, or in colonial situations weie limited to the interaction of the natives and
the colonial power. Today, it would seemthat these domestic and colonial arenas
are becoming increasingly open to the intrusion of outside ponderable inter-
national influences. Thus, major nations may find it advisable, politically, to
use their power to shape race relations in countries in which they have no sover-
eign rights. Further, there are increasing tendencies for subordinate racial groups
to solicit and use the influence of outside groups on the international scene.
Finally, there is the growing alertness and responsiveness of international bodies
to racial alignments and racial happenings. The study of how these varied forms
of international intrusion affect the defining process in areas of race relations
should become a matter of great scholarly interest.
I
BLOCH, H. D. The circle a/discrimination. New York, New York University Press,1969.
-.Ibid.
CARMICHAEL, S.; HAMILTON, C. Black power. New York, Vintage, 1967.
CRUSE, H. Crisis a/the Negro intellectual. New York, Morrow, 1967.
MEMMI, A. Tire colonizer and the colonized. Boston, Beacon, 1967.
FANON. F. Wretched a/the earth. New York, Grove, 1963.
CLEAVER, E. Soul on ice. New York, Dell Publishing Co., 1968.
BLAUNER, R. Internal colonialism and ghetto revolt. Social problems (Notre Dame, In.),
vol. 16, no. 4, 1969. p. 393-408.
ORANS, M. Race and class conflict in cross-cuItural perspective. Urban affairs annual
reviews (Beverley Hills), vol. S, 1971. p. 1-68.
REDFIELD, R.; SINGER, M. The cultural role of cities. Economic development and cul-
tural change (Chicago), vol. 5, no. I, October 1954. p. 53-73.
ORANS, M. op. cit. p. 7-8.
DURKHEIM, E. On the division oflabour in society. New York, Macmillan, 1933. p. 130.
Translated by G. Simpson.
DUBOIS, W. E. B. The souls afblarkfalk. New York, Fawcett, 1961. p. 16-7.
-.Ibid. p. 17.
WAGATSUMA. a.; TOlTON, G. Emancipation, growth and transformation of a political
movement. In: DEVOS, G.; WAGATSUMA, H. (eds.) Japan's invisible race. Berkeley,
Unlversity of california Press, 1966. p. 33-67.
WAGATSUMA, H. The pariah caste in Japan: history and present self-image. In:
DEREuCK, A.; KNt(iHT, J. (eds.) Caste and race: comparative approaches. London,
Churchill, 1967. p. 118-40.
WAGATSUMA, H.;, TOlTON, G. op. cit.
ORANS, M. op. cit. p. 38.

, .
I
!I
II!
;lll
Y: 1
'.'li II
" j
I
II i,
III
,.j
Ii
II .
,J!11
IL'1
'I
'ill II
I < t
H
" "
itll'!
"
iW11
"I
lili!
I'll i
01'
11,,1
111"
'1'1
1
I
q
237 Theories ofrace and social action
I.
2.
3.
4.
"
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
..
'\.
' ..
J?
.1Ii
"
"
238. Herbert Blumer and Troy Duster
19. WAGATSUMA, H.; TOTION. G. op. cit. p. 43.
20. ORANS, -M. op. cit. p. 57.
21. BELL, I. P. COREand the s/rategyo!non-vio!ence. New York, Random House, 1968.
22. GORDON, M. M. Assimilation in American life, New York. Oxford University Press, 1964.
23. MYRDAL, G.,_ et al. An American dilemma. New York, Harper, 1944.
24. BELL, I. P. op. cit.
I.