British Racial Discourse: A Study of British Political Discourse About Race and Race-related Matters

295 Pages·1984·2.991 MB·English

by  Frank Reeves

Comparative ethnic and race relations
British racial discourse
Comparative ethnic and race relations series
Published for the SSRC Research Unit on Ethnic Relations at the University of Aston in
Birmingham
Edited by
Professor John Rex Director
Dr Robin Ward Deputy Director
Mr Malcolm Cross Deputy Director
This series has been formed to publish works of original theory and empirical research on the
problems of racially mixed societies. It is based on the work of the SSRC Research Unit for
Ethnic Relations at Aston University -the main centre for the study of race relations in
Britain.
The first book in the series is a textbook on Racial and Ethnic Competition by Professor
Michael Banton -a leading British sociologist of race relations and the former Director of the
Unit. Future titles will be on such issues as the forms of contact between majority and minority
groups, housing, the problems faced by young people, employment, ethnic identity and
ethnicity, and will concentrate on race and employment, race and the inner city, and ethnicity
and education.
The books will appeal to an international readership of scholars, students and professionals
concerned with racial issues, across a wide range of disciplines (such as sociology,
anthropology, social policy, politics, economics, education and law), as well as among
professional social administrators, teachers, government officials, health service workers and
others.
British racial
discourse
A study of British political discourse about
race and race-related matters
FRANK REEVES
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge
LondonN ew York New Rochelle
MelbournSey dney
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore,
Silo Paulo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/978052ll24386
© Cambridge University Press 1983
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 1983
This digitally printed version 2009
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 83-7273
ISBN 978-0-521-25554-7 Hardback
ISBN 978-0-521-12438-6 Paperback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or
accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in
this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is,
or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
Contents
List offi gures and tables page VI
A ck no wledgments vii
Objectivity viii
Introduction
The meaning of 'racism': its limitations when applied to the
study of discourse dealing with race relations 7
2 The meaning of 'ideology' and its relationship to discourse 28
3 The economic foundations of racial division 45
4 The state, levels of political articulation, and the discourse of
the Conservative and Labour Parties 61
5 British political values and race relations 93
6 The nature of discoursive deracialisation l 72
7 Deracialised justifications: a case study (an analysis of the
parliamentary debates on immigration) 204
8 Conclusion: ideology and British race relations 240
Appendix I Nomenclature 255
Appendix 2 Ideological eristic 259
Appendix 3 Examples from colonial history of discoursive
deracialisation 263
Appendix 4 Further examples of popular sanitary coding 265
Bibliography and references 268
Name index 279
Subject index 282
v
Figures
1 Racial symbol and referent page 10
2 Observer's and actor's accounts of social structure 45
3 The square of alienation 48
4 The metropolitan/colonial square of alienation 49
5 Logical and non-logical levels 89
6 Ideological integration 90
7 The identification of ideological deracialisation 179
8 The identification of strategic deracialisation 181
Tables
1 Types of discourse 29
2 Differences between specialised political and general
discourse 78-9
3 Party values 88
4 List of argument forms and rhetorical modes 21O
5 Percentage distribution of argument forms in the par-
liamentary debates on immigration 239
VI
Acknowledgments
I am indebted, above all, to Professor John Rex, without whose help and
constant encouragement this project would never have been undertaken,
sustained or completed. Professor Rex acted not only as an academic
patron, but went out of his way to help me solve the practical and financial
problems arising from prolonged research of this kind. I am also grateful to
colleagues at the Research Unit on Ethnic Relations, University of Aston,
for providing a stimulating and critical academic environment.
The emotional, intellectual, and domestic support I received from my
wife, Melhado Chevannes, was indispensable. While I was attempting to
write detachedly about white racial discourse, she frequently found herself
on the receiving end of its most pernicious manifestations. The contri­
butions of my baby daughters, Toussaint and Spartaca need also to be
acknowledged, but I am uncertain as to whether the interludes they forced
on me have added or subtracted from the book. Should I have unduly
neglected their constant wish to play, I beg their forgiveness.
I should like especially to acknowledge the help of my old friend, Sydney
Peiris. I have spent many enjoyable hours with him discussing race and
politics. He also bears some responsibility for locating the more obscure
and esoteric references used in the text.
Among the many people who, in a variety of ways, supported my
precious project, I should like to mention Ron Cook, the late Frank Noble,
and Charles Critcher of the Open University West Midland Regional
Office, Jenny Williams, Ivan Henry, Mark Johnson, Trevor and Jackie
Coote, Ken and Brenda Purchase, Keith and Peta Wymer, and David and
Joan Grabh am.
Finally, I should specially like to thank (another) Jenny Williams, Marci
Green, Margaret Reeves (my sister), Christine Dunn, Annabel de Meza
Arslan and Gwen Morris who, at various stages, contributed to the typing
of the manuscript.
vii
Objectivity
A neighbour came to Nasrudin for an interpretation on a point of law.
'My cow was gored by your bull. Do I get any compensation?'
'Certainly not. How can a man be held responsible for what an animal
does?'
'Just a moment', said the crafty villager. 'I am afraid I got the question
back to front. What actually happened was that my bull gored your cow.'
'Ah', said the Mulla, 'this is more involved. I shall have to look up the
book of precedents, for there may be other factors involved which are
relevant and which could alter the case.'
!dries Shah, The Pleasantries of the Incredible Mu/la Nasrudin, Picador.
viii
Introduction
The overall aim of this book is to provide some explanation for the kinds of
discourse used in dealing with racial issues. The central task throughout is
to combine the insights offered by a theory of ideology with an analysis of
examples of actual discourse about race and related matters. Because of the
immensity of the task of trying to account for all kinds of racial expression,
the study is confined, in the main, to an examination of political discourse,
and further, to the political discourse of a limited number of national
politicians belonging either to the Conservative or to the Labour Party.
There are a number of reasons for selecting political discourse about race
and race-related issues as a subject for study. Such discourse is related to
decision-making or to the absence of decision-making, which gives it a little
more significance than that of a casual conversation in a public bar. Also, it
is the language of persons who are accustomed to making public
pronouncements and are aware, to some degree, of the likely consequences
of their utterances. And, because of the ideological setting in which it
occurs, political discourse may reveal more consistency and regularity of
feature than other kinds of speech. Force of circumstance probably
encourages politicans to develop, enlarge upon, and systematise their views
on various topics. There is also likely to be variation between different
schools of political thought, enabling useful comparisons to be made. For
reasons, then, of its association with significant decision-making, its
regularity of feature, and the availability of comparative and contrasting
data, political discourse was chosen as the focus for the project.
The study is further limited to an examination of what Conservative and
Labour politicians have to say about race - thus omitting the more
sensational racial declarations of Right-wing groups such as the National
Front. For similar reasons (though without implying, in the manner of
psychologists such as Eysenck, that Right-and Left-wing attitudes should
be classified in tandem), the strong anti-racist stances of communist and
Trotskyist groups are neglected. This does not mean that the menace posed
to the black community* by the National Front's vicious, Right-wing
*For a discussion of the terminology used in this study to refer to racial minorities, see
Appendix I.
2 Introduction
propaganda and other action is unrecognised. Rather, the central purpose
of the study is to concentrate on the mainstream of British politics in the
shape of the Conservative and Labour Parties, which must be held
responsible, inasmuch as responsibility can be attributed in this sphere, for
making (by inclusion or omission) most of the political decisions that have
affected race relations and racial minority groups. This state of affairs is
likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. And yet, while
there is much literature on fascist ideology, including a recently published
Fascists: A Social Psychological View of the National Front (Billig, 1978)
surprisingly little has been written by social scientists generally, and
sociologists in particular, about British Conservative or Labour Party
ideology, and even less about those ideologies in relation to racial matters.
One common view is that party political consensus has removed race as
an electoral issue, yet within their parties and to their electorate politicians
are forced to justify their action or inaction to pressure groups and
individuals that challenge them. The aim of the study is to examine the
regular features of the justificatory systems adopted by mainstream
politicians. Such a study has political relevance: it should provide insights
into the relationship between racial and other party values, into the
stability of the ideological structure as a whole, and into whether there is
much potential or room for further policy initiative in the field of race
relations within the present political context.
Despite the decision to limit the study to an examination of political
discourse, the task was still sufficiently grandiose to require further focus.
This was accomplished by the choice of theory and by the selection of
particular cases for analysis.
The explanatory theory adopted was drawn extensively from current
sociological studies of ideology with a heavy emphasis on the tradition
developed from Marx and Engels's Feuerbach: Opposition of the Material­
ist and Idealist Outlooks (1973). In particular, there is an attempt to relate
racial discourse to the general process of capitalist state legitimation
described by Habermas (1976). But ideas are also drawn eclectically from
the works of Pareto, Gramsci, and Shils, to provide a theory of ideological
levels in which the specialist discourse of politicians can be distinguished
from the discourse of the general population. It is recognised that the
discourse of politicians has an important justificatory function which, in
the examination of empirical data, best serves to exemplify its ideological
nature.
A series of logical and philosophical distinctions is also employed. The
sentences that go to make up an ideological complex are classed as
descriptive, evaluative, or prescriptive, while the process of explanation is
carefully distinguished from justification. Many arguments in the area of