COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
WARNING
This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of
Deakin University in accordance with section 113P of the Copyright Act 1968 (Act).
The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further
reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright
protection under the Act.
Do not remove this notice
Course of Study:
(ASC233) International Migration and Multicultural Societies
Title of work:
Race and racism in Australia, Third edition. (2006)
Section:
Racism: concepts, theories and approaches pp. 40--51
Author/editor of work:
Hollinsworth, David.
Author of section:
D Hollinsworth
Name of Publisher:
Thomson/Social Science Press
■ Three
Racism: concepts, theories and
approaches
We have established that the idea of race developed in scientific and popular thought
over several centuries, to a point where races were thought to be fundamental to
the course of human history. Howevet� as explained in the previous chapter, races
are social constructions, not categories based on actual biological differences.
That is, we don't actually see races; we obsen e particular combinations of real
1
and imagined bodily and cultural characteristics that are given meaning and
signific ance through racial discourses. The particular characteristics regarded
as marking race and the meanings of particular racial markers are specific to
a certain time and place, and often specific to particular classes or institutional
settings.
These ever-changing perceptions and shifting meanings make impossible
the development of a single, comprehensive theory or explanation for racism.
This chapter presents a number of different approaches to assist us in thinking
through the different forms of racism: for example, individual, institutional and
ideological. We will review some of the theoretical insights and approaches that
have emerged over the past thirty years, examining what each can contribute to
our understanding of racism in its various manifestations. Rather than seeking to
discover a single answer, we will hope to untangle the confusing mix of insights
�nd theories, so that we can better analyse the specifics of each situation, includihg
those where the racial component is concealed or denied.
In examining these specific situations, it is important not to uncritically accept
the 'reality' of the problem as understood and expressed by the participants. The
language and labels used to explain social behaviour are embedded in ideological
representation or discourse, and therefore often fail to reveal the underlying
dynamics that bring about such problems. Therefore, rather than studying relations
between races, it is important to study how and why certain social situations are
understood as occurring between races, and how these understandings come to be
seen as natural, normal or obvious:
If 'races' are not naturally occurring populations, the reasons and
conditions for the social process whereby the discourse of 'race'
is employed in an attempt to label, constitute and exclude social
collectivities should be the focus of attention rather than be assumed to
be a natural or universal process (Miles, 1989: 73).
Racism: concepts, theories and approaches 41
The power relationships mobilised and structured around this process of
racialisation are never stable or completely effective. Relations of power are
complex and contested. Similarly group categories and their boundaries are not
simply drawn by the dominant group and imposed on an oppressed minority.
Accompanying such designation by the dominant, those being designated may
respond by rejecting, contesting, appropriating and re-working the categories and
their significance (Morris, 1989; Brah, 1996; Parker & Song, 2001).
Defining and explaining racism
One of the biggest difficulties when trying to define and understand racism is the
many contradictory positions and approaches various writers have suggested.
Not only are there differences in terms of the academic disciplines involved (for
example, psychology versus sociology versus politics), there are also marked
differences between different countries, and the political and intellectual
positions of various authors (Mac an Ghaill, 1999). Also it is common for
stances to critique each other. Such diversity can be confusing but is common
in the social sciences. Remember that you should grow more confident as you
work through this literature and that contradictions can be positive as they can
generate new insights.
One way to distinguish between theories and approaches to racism is by
identifying what is the object or focus of study. Some approaches see racism as
located in or expressed by the attitudes and behaviours of individuals and groups.
This focus is particularly pronounced in some psychological approaches but is
also found in some �nteractionist or ethnographic studies (Henriques, 1984; Bobo
& Fox, 2003).
Contrasting studies of racist actors are those that stress structures, underlying
assumptions, and institutions. Such analyses regard the overarching relationships
and social contexts as much more important than the actions of the individuals
or groups involved. Sometimes such studies are criticised as 'race relations'
approaches in that they can take for granted the existence of the groups or 'races'
whose relations they examine (Miles, 1993). Many such studies are found in
sociology, politics, legal studies and cultural geography.
A third significant cluster of approaches focuses on the ideas and beliefs
through which racism is expressed and sustained. Such approaches question the
distinction between ideas or ideologies and the material reality of structures and
practices. They are sometimes called post-structural in rejecting the emphasis
on things as opposed to words and ideas. That is, the emphasis is on the ways
in which language creates and constructs discourses and representations. These
approaches characterise cultural studies (including media and literary studies) and
are increasingly influential in other social sciences (Grossberg, 1992; Chambers,
1994; During, 1999).
42 Race and racism in Australia
Preiudice, bigotry and psychology
Prejudice is one of the most frequently used terms referring to social conflict
between groups. Prejudice means a decision or attitude taken without sufficient
evidence on the basis of prior opinion. While one can be prejudiced favourably
towards Thai cooking or the Wilderness Society, it is more usual to think of
negative prejudices, especially when discussing racial or ethnic prejudice (Gaines
& Reed, 1995).
The most influential (1954) study of prejudice by the American psychologist
George Allport defined 'ethnic prejudice [as] an antipathy based upon a faulty and
inflexible generalisation. It may be directed towards a group as a whole, or toward
an individual because he is a member of that group' (1979: 9). This definition
highlights the negativity of racial or ethnic prejudice towards both the group
and individual members, the false or inadequate basis for these beliefs and, most
importantly, the inflexibility of such attitudes. The concept, however, ignores the
representation of the 'self that considering the 'other' evokes in a racist person.
'They' are dirty and immoral while 'we' are clean, upright and righteous. These
self-concepts are as critical in explanations of racist behaviour as is prejudice
towards others.
All of us carry around false or unsubstantiated beliefs about the world we
inhabit. In most cases, however, when confronted with new information that
contradicts such errors, we can change our minds without serious difficulty
or trauma. Prejudices are highly resistant to amendment unlike most of our
assumptions (Augoustinos et al., 2001; Dovidio, 2005).
Allport regarded prejudice as a universalised tendency in all humans. Prejudice
was seen as closely connected to ethnocentrism, defined as a preference for one's
own group and its values and culture. Most writers who use the term assume
that ethnocentrism is universal, a kind of positive prejudice. In the next section,
we will question whether such preferences can be considered 'natural', and if
any inherent process of identifying 'our own kind' can be said to exist outside cif
social and political histories. Allport suggested that ethnocentrism led to group
prejudice because of the lack of significant inter-group contact combined with
crude categorisations developed to handle masses of information in modern
societies. No� all people who hold prejudiced beliefs will act them out, although
frequently racially discriminatory behaviours are based on or justified by such
attitudes (Bobo & Fox, 2003).
Following on from theories that regarded prejudice as normal, studies focused
on extreme examples of racist violence especially lynchings in the United States
and the genocide against Jews and others in Russia and in Nazi Germany. In this
work racists (sometimes called bigots) were anti-social individuals whose racism
was the result of a mental illness or personality disorder. Some of these studies
identified a particular personality type ('the authoritarian') as very likely to hold
hostile views towards assumed ethnic difference and as likely to act upon those
Racism: concepts, theories and approaches 43
views (Duckitt, 2000; Sears et al., 2000). Consequently only extremes of behaviour
come under scrutiny, deflecting attention from everyday racism.
How was it that people are capable of committing such crimes against their
fellow human beings? How can political and military leaders persuade ordinary
citizens that some in their communities are not really human or at least not worthy
of treating humanely? Such questions are as pressing today as they were in the
1950s, but require analysis that goes beyond the labelling of certain individuals
or groups as evil or deranged (Eisenstein, 1996). Indeed, a significant question is
whether we would resist such groupthink were we caught up in genocidal events?
(Zimbardo, 2004 ).
There may be some people whose bigotry and intolerance is best understood
as a form of obsession derived from psychosis or their own experiences of abuse.
However, while such idiosyncratic factors may encourage violence and hate
crimes, they are not useful in explaining the ways in which the intensity of racial
hatred (and the selection of targets in any society) responds to shifting social and
economic forces and political movements (Reynolds & Turner, 2001).
Many psychological studies of authoritarianism and xenophobia (fear and
l oa t hing of foreigners) have been distorted by class biases and a refusal to recognise
similar attitudes or feelings in ourselves. They usually fail to acknowledge the
extent to which cultural or ideological racism is seen as commonsense and
unquestioned in many societies (see Hendriques, 1984; Augoustinos & Reynolds,
2001). We need to focus on this mundane, routine or everyday form, rather than the
exceptional and pathological. This focus is important because when most people
claim not to be racist, it is this extreme or exaggerated form to which they refer. It
is more important (and challenging) to concentrate on those factors that produce
'mundane racism', which impacts on all of us (Sears et al., 2000). Therefore, we
will concentrate on the social and historical forces which give rise to specific
ideologies and institutions which construct and reproduce commonsense racism
rather than the presumed ignorance or insanity of isolated (often themselves
relatively powerless) persons.
Ethnocentrism and racism
Ethnocentrism can be defined as the belief in the superiority and desirability
of one's own culture. Ethnocentrism almost invariably assumes that all other
cultures are by comparison inferior as are, to some extent, those who belong to
those cultures. Such beliefs are obviously useful in maintaining group loyalty and
ensuring the smooth socialisation of the young and any adult recruits into the
ways of the society.
Because of the cultural basis of group superiority in ethnocentric beliefs,
writers have in the past stressed the differences between ethnocentrism and racism,
where the alleged inferiority of groups is believed to be caused by biological or
genetic differences. Typical of such views, Pierre van den Berghe argued that:
44 Race and racism in Australia
It is important to stress that racism, unlike ethnocentrism, is not a
universal phenomenon. Members of all human societies have a fairly
good opinion of themselves compared with members of other societies,
but this good opinion is frequently based on claims to cultural superiority.
Man's claims to excellence are usually narcissistically based on his own
creations. Only a few human groups have deemed themselves superior
because of the content of their gonads. Of course racist cultures have been
ethnocentric, and some people have held the theory that their cultures
were superior because of their superior genetic pool. But the reverse
is not true; many, indeed most societies have exhibited ethnocentrism
without racism (1967: 12).
What is noticeable about this quote, apart from its gendered language, is the
assumption that one can clearly distinguish between a natural and acceptable
ethnocentrism, and an unacceptable racism which presumes a genetic cause of
group difference. We have previously examined the circumstances that encouraged
scientific racism and in particular, social Darwinism in the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries. It is to these theories van den Berghe refers but, as we saw,
beliefs and ideas about biology, culture, morality, law and destiny were constantly
blurring and influencing each other before, during and since this era. As Paul
Gilroy notes: 'Racism does not, of course, move tidily through time and history.
It assumes new forms and articulates new antagonisms in different situations'
(1987a: 11).
This distinction between biology and culture as the basis for group identity
is often marked by the use of the terms race and ethnicity respectively. However,
when people refer to ethnic groups, they usually have a mental picture of those
who bear particular ethnic cultural traits. For examples, just look at television
advertising featuring hardworking Chinese laundry women or 'pine fresh' Swedes
selling hair shampoo or deodorants. Conversely the physical features associated
with races are almost invariably seen as marking cultural and moral differences.
This conflation of culture and biology results in the cultural characteristics bf
minority groups being seen as inherent, fixed and unaffected by historical or social
factors. When culture is viewed in this way, it falsely becomes 'essentialised'; that
is, understood as being a fixed quality inherent in certain groups. Not only does
such an assumption ignore social and historical factors, it has parallels with older
discredited explanations such as, that races are genetically different. As Gilroy
notes:
The absolutist view of black and white cultures, as fixed, mutually
impermeable expressions of racial and national identity, is a ubiquitous
theme in racial 'common sense', but it is far from secure (1987a: 61).
For this reason, Anthias and Yuval-Davis (1992) suggest that 'race' be regarded
as a special case of the broader phenomenon of ethnic division, given the constant
blurring of cultural, racial and national criteria. 1
Racism: concepts, theories and approaches 45
The apparent increase in ethnic conflict or rabid nationalism in recent times
has reinforced ideas that hostility to foreigners is natural and universal (van den
Berghe, 1986; Vanhanen, 1999). Stuart Hall rejects the argument that racism is
either universal or a permanent feature of some other social formation such as
capitalism:
It is not a permanent human or social deposit which is simply waiting
there to be triggered off when the circumstances are right. It has no
natural and universal law of development. It does not always assume the
same shape. There have been many significant different racisms - each
historically specific and articulated in a different way with the societies
in which they appear. Racism is always historically specific in this way,
whatever common features it may appear to share with similar social
phenomena (1978: 26).
Laura Stoler reinforces this specificity of racist discourse, arguing that:
[R]ace is a discourse of vacillations. It operates at different levels and
moves not only between different political projects but seizes upon
different elements of earlier discourses reworked for new political ends
(1995: 72).
It is this changeability of racism that makes the application of a single theory
problematic. To understand specific racisms, insights from many approaches may
be needed.
New racism and nationalism
In recent decades, influential writers and politicians have used arguments about
cultural difference and a 'natural preference for one's own kind' in debates about
immigration, national identity and multiculturalism. 2 Frequently such arguments
explicitly state that they do not assume any biological superiority, and therefore
deny being racist. Rather they are presented as defensive proposals designed to
preserve 'our way of life' from external threat or internal subversion.
The new racism, therefore, may be summarised as a cluster of beliefs
which holds that it is natural for people who share a way of life, a culture,
to bond together in a group and to be antagonistic towards outsiders
who are different and who are seen to threaten their identity as a group.
In this, the proponents of the new racism claim that they are not being
racist or prejudiced, nor are they making any value judgements about the
'others', but simply recognising that they are different. Whether people's
fears about the 'threat' from outside are justified does not matter. What
matters is what people feel (Gordon & Klug, 1986: 22).
Here ethnicity combines with narrow concepts of national identity to exclude
or marginalise those from immigrant or indigenous backgrounds in terms of
essentialised cultural or moral distinctions (Pettman, 1988b and 1995; Anthias &
Yuval-Davis, 1992). This is why I broaden the use of the term racism to include
beliefs where the distinctions between groups are expressed in cultural or social
46 Race and racism in Australia
terms when these cultural characteristics are regarded as inherent or essential.
Remember that the notion of an ultimate cultural or ethnic essence that transcends
historical and cultural boundaries and contexts, is referred to as essentialism. 3
As we will see in later chapters, such exclusionary constructions frequently
act to deny or make conditional, the status of indigenous people and the locally
born descendants of immigrants as genuine citizens. This culturalist discourse of
exclusion is often called 'new racism' (Barker, 1981), but its newness is an illusion
created by the preceding dominance of biological determinism in European
racial thought, especially social Darwinism. Parallels between nation and race
have already been made in relation to the ideological functions these 'imagined
communities' perform (Anderson, 1991). Howeve1� while they emerged together
and their discourses intersect, they are not synonymous. 'As concepts, race and
nation are largely empty receptacles through and in the names of which population
groups may be invented, interpreted and imagined as communities or societies'
(Goldberg, 1993: 79).
Emotional and cultural correspondences bet\veen nation and 'the people' are
crucial in nation building, and in citizenship and settlement policies (Anthias &
Yuval-Davis, 1992). Arguments to defend an endangered 'way of life' from the
impact of 'foreigners' can be designated as a 'new racism'. However the apparent
'newness' of such campaigns 'lies in the capacity to link discourses of patriotism,
nationalism, xenophobia, Englishness, Britishness, militarism and gender
difference into a complex system which gives 'race' its contemporary meaning'
(Gilroy, 1987a: 43). Once the notion of national culture becomes essentialised, it is
possible to conduct politics and everyday life in racially segregated and exploitative
ways without explicit reference to race. Essentialised notions of national cultures
have shaped discourses on immigration, crime, sexuality and citizenship in
fundamental ways, especially in the shift from seeing communities as complex
entities, and regarding some as 'other' within it (Cohen, 1988 and 1999; Back et
al., 1999; ADB, 2003).
Etienne Balibar locates the rise of new racism within global shifts in political
economy that supposedly ended the old empires but recreated them through the
importation of the once colonised as migrant workers:
The new racism is a racism of the era of 'decolonisation', of the
reversal of population movements between the old colonies and the
old metropolises, and the division of humanity within a single political
space .... It is a racism whose dominant theme is not biological heredity
but the insurmountability of cultural differences, a racism which, at first
sight, does not postulate the superiority of certain groups or peoples in
relation to others but 'only' the harmfulness of abolishing frontiers, the
incompatibility of life-styles and traditions; in short, ... a differentialist
racism (Bali bar, 1991: 21).
Balibar makes much of this shift to a non-biological and non-hierarchical
discourse. Historical examination of a wide range of racial, national and regional
Racism: concepts, theories and approaches 47
discourses of difference suggests that differentialist or culturalist racisms are
cornrnon, and strictly biological forms the exception (Mac an Ghaill, 1999;
Jayasuriya et al., 2003).
Institutional racism
To help analyse and understand racism as a shifting yet often denied feature of
modem societies, various writers have developed models of different forms of
racism. One of the first was the distinction between individual and institutional
racism where individual racism refers to the expression of racist attitudes in the
behaviour of individuals in face-to-face situations, and institutional racism, which
refers to covert effects of complex social structures. This insight provided a way
of describing the insidious and more powerful effects of structures and processes
that function to maintain racial inequality largely independently of the intentions
of individuals. As Jan Pettman defined it:
Institutional racism refers to a pattern of distribution of social goods,
including power, which regularly and systematically advantages some
ethnic and racial groups and disadvantages others. It operates through
key institutions: organised social arrangements through which social
goods and services are distributed (1986: 7).
While institutional racism can be explicit and official (as in legislation that
discriminated against indigenous Australians until the 1970s or South Africa's
apartheid laws), most is unofficial, unnoticed and unintended. Social institutions
like schools, the judicial system and health care have their own cultures, specific
ways of operating based on narrow understandings of what is normal or proper.
These values, beliefs and practices may be derived from a very limited social base
but are universalised as the only or best way of functioning. Such structures and
processes become taken-for-granted and their consequences in maintaining racial
inequalities go largely undetected.
The Macpherson report into the inadequacies of the police investigation of
the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence defined institutional racism as:
The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and
professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic
origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour
which amounts to discrimination through unwitting prejudice,
ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage
minority ethnic people (1999: chapter 6.4).
Such a view penetrates the asymmetrical nature of racialised power
relationships, which partly accounts for the situation where members of the
dominant group are oblivious of any racial implications when they exercise what
they regard as normal, professional duties according to established procedures.
Those who do not share the values and priorities expressed through these structures
and processes may interpret these 'reasonable' decisions and actions as hostile
48 Race and racism in Australia
and inhumane. The minority group members' understandings are informed by
their own experiences of racist antagonism and by shared social responses to their
marginalisation (Carter, 1988).
The concept of institutional racism can assist in demonstrating the
implications of taken-for-granted procedures and help dominant group members
become aware of racial disadvantage. Commissioner Elliott Johnston relied
heavily on this notion to explain to those non-indigenous people incredulous
at the claims of indigenous witnesses to the Royal Commission into Aboriginal
Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC) of constant experience of racism:
[the] pinpricking domination, abuse of personal power, utter paternalism,
open contempt and Lota! indifference with which so many Aboriginal
people were visited on a day-by-day basis (RCIADIC, 1991, volume 1:
20).
As Cowlishaw notes this is increasingly important, as many racist practices
are de-linked from explicit hierarchical racist beliefs yet continue to produce and
reproduce racial inequality.
[P]ractices which support racism are more commonly associated with
the denial of racist beliefs than with the expression of racial hostility
because essentialising racial categories are invoked and reproduced in
various bureaucratic and institutional forums, even when the stated
intention is to ameliorate racial inequality (1990: 49).
Table 3.1: Examples of individual and institutional racism in education
Individual racism Institutional racism
Assuming that Aboriginal children A high school redraws its
lack motivation, a teacher doesn 1t catchment area to exclude a
Overt
set or assess homework. primary school with a large
Intentional
proportion of lndo-Chinese
children.
In counselling students and parents Concerned that Asian children
on subject choices, a head teacher outperform others in Maths, the
Covert limits students 1 options in line with principal arranges the timetable to
Intentional her expectations of what different set them longer hours in English,
'races' and nationalities are thereby preventing those children
capable of achieving. doing Advanced Maths.
A teacher assumes that the refugee Admission to a university course
child, who won't look her in the is solely via Year 12 PEB scores
Unintended eye and doesn't seek help whe_n irrespective of cultural and class
he doesn't understand, is not biases in assessment by such
interested in learning. exams.
Racism: concepts, theories and approaches 49
such 'mundane' racism operates in innumerable interactions between
minority group members and the state. A key site where the state interfaces with
minority groups is the schooling system, where the cultures of teaching, learning
and assessment recognise and misapprehend, listen and ignore, reward and
punish in patterns which are often unnoticed by teachers and managers ( Gill et
al., 1992; McCarthy & Crichlow, 1993; Rizvi, 1994; May, 1998; McCarthy, 2000;
Ladson-Billings & Gillbom 2004). Cultural, linguistic and behavioural departures
by children are often seen as deficits or disabilities that need to be overcome or
eliminated. Ambivalence by children or their families to such re-making in the
name of education is labelled as incompetence o:!:· resistance. When this occurs
among minority children, culturalist explanations are often resorted to rather
than interrogating accepted practices and values (Rizvi & Crowley, 1993).
The concept of institutional racism has been criticised by some writers as,
firstly, failing to clearly distinguish between racism and related forms of inequality
and, secondly, as ignoring the significance of actions and inactions by those who
work in social institutions (Rizvi, 1993 ). The notion of institutional racism has
been criticised as falsely implying coherence to social institutions and failing to
account for change and inconsistencies (Williams, 1985; Miles, 1989). In some
versions, institutional racism appears so entrenched and so penrasive that no one
can be held accountable and resistance seems futile (Mac an Ghaill, 1999: 61-4).
Many accounts fail to distinguish between institutional racism as outcome and
institutional racism as cause (Wight, 2003). In others, such as Macpherson (1999),
institutional racism is the unwitting result of the cumulative effects of individuals'
actions. Obviously, such conceptual lack of precision and conflation can reduce
our ability to effectively combat institutional racism. Nevertheless the concept
has proved very helpful in alerting us to how broad and penrasive such systemic
racism can be (see Chapter Nine).
The idea of the state is extremely complex. The state can be seen as equivalent to
the nation, to specific territory, and/or as a set of centrally coordinated institutions
and practices (Mac an Ghaill, 1999: 85-7). Despite its representation as a neutral
umpire or governing force, the state is patriarchal and racial (Pettman, 1992a). As
Omi and Winant explain:
... the state is inherently racial, Far from intervening in racial conflicts,
the state is itself increasingly the pre-eminent site of racial conflict ...
Every state institution is a racial institution, but not every institution
operates in the same way. In fact, the various state institutions do not
serve one co-ordinated racial objective; they may work at cross-purposes.
Therefore, race must be understood as occupying varying degrees of
centrality in different state institutions and at different historical
moments (1994: 82-3).
A contemporary example in Australia is the widening of access to university
study through, on the one hand, the provision of Austudy and Abstudy allowances
and special entry schemes, while on the other hand, increased RECS fees and
50 Race and racism in Australia
expectations of postgraduate qualifications foreclose the opportunities of many
of those admitted. Fazal Rizvi notes the example of greater credentialism in the
employment market beyond actual job requirements:
... the ideology of 'credentialism' often works against the interests of
women and minorities. Its growth has increasingly become a selection
device even where the credentials are not technically relevant to the
job, disproportionately affecting those students who do not stay on in
schools and colleges. The levels and kinds of formal education have
become definers of social status and boundaries, disproportionately
affecting those minority youth whose cultural experiences do not match
the symbolic capital in which schools deal (Rizvi, 1994: 205-6).
In a similar way, unproblematic use of notions of personal merit have
reinforced individualism and undermined support for affirmative action
and compensatory strategies aimed to reduce inequalities between groups
(Augoustinos et al., 2005).
Often the existence of institutional racism is only revealed through statistical
differences between groups such as in rates of unemployment, imprisonment
and in health outcomes such as life expectancy or infant mortality. An excellent
example is the RCIADIC's analysis of the reasons for indigenous over-representation
in custody discussed in Chapter Six. Such outcomes are often hard to directly
link to covert discriminatory practices; reminding us of the distinction between
institutional racism as cause and as outcome discussed above. Alternative 'blame
the victim' explanations are often put forward for these unequal life chances.
People working in such institutions can be quite varied in terms of their tolerance
of cultural difference and still act in ways that have racist effects. They frequently
find it very difficult to recognise that they are implicated in maintaining racist
inequalities, operating as they usually do from a prejudice model that regards as
racist only intentionally abusive behaviours by individuals. It is for this reason
that exploration of the idea of the fluctuating combinations of language, discourse
and social construction is essential in understanding how people comprehend
their experiences.
The concept, then, of institutional racism is very helpful in shifting discussions
of racism and exclusionary practices away from the adversarial attack and
defence of 1ndividual racism. 4 Also for those of us who work in such institutional
settings, the term does express the problems of corporate momentum, inertia and
denial. It emphasises that organisations have their own cultures and powerful
processes of normalising and naturalising practices, which can be exclusionary
and discriminatory while at the same time appearing neutral and commonsense.
We can avoid what Rizvi termed an oversimplified model of a self-replicating
institution, by recognising the importance of unexamined racism embedded
in its discourses and practices. To assist in focusing on the specifics, and the
contradictions, of racism within particular structures and processes of domination
Racism: concepts, theories and approaches 51
and subordination, a third concept was developed of ideological5 (or sometimes
cultural) racism.
Ideological racism
The taken-for-granted nature of much institutional racism is grounded in
commonsense understandings of group differences and 'the way things are'. These
meanings and understandings can be described as ideological racism. As Pettrnan
explains:
Racism as an ideology expresses social myths about other racial and
ethnic groups. It devalues others, asserting and 'explaining' their
inferiority or disadvantage in ways which blame the victim .... Racism as
an ideology thus furnishes common sense explanations about inequality,
which distracts attention from the workings of those institutions which
may systematically disadvantage people from minority racial or cultural
groups (1986: 6).
Racist ideologies typically compound and conflate combinations of real and
imagined physical, social and cultural characteristics (both significant and trivial)
in ways which are ahistorical, over-generalised and which ignore structural
conditions in order to create images of changeless, primordial and inherently
different (and often opposed) groups.
Over time, ideological racism can be seen as developing a particular grammar
that structures the relationships within racialised discourse. Goldberg argues:
. . . racialised discourse does not consist simply in descriptive
representations of others. It includes a set of hypothetical premises
about human kinds (e.g. the 'great chain of being', classificatory
hierarchies, etc.) and about the differences between them (both mental
and physical). It involves a class of ethical choices (e.g. domination and
subjugation, entitlement and restriction, disrespect and abuse). And it
incorporates a set of institutional regulations, directions, and pedagogic
models (e.g. apartheid, separate development, educational institutions,
choice of educational and bureaucratic language, etc.) (1993:47).
Understanding ideological racism is particularly important in education
and the media (Ferguson, 1998; McCarthy, 1998). Public institutions such as
museums, art galleries and wac memorials frequently present official versions
of the history of a nation or people, in ways which ignore the contribution of
minorities or conceal racial conflict and oppression (Balibar, 1991 ). Often these
celebratory and exclusivist histories are contested by the memories and stories of
those they silence. The intense debates about versions of Australian history and
their implications for indigenous rights discussed in Chapter One provide critical
examples of these struggles. The notion of ideology, used by many of the writers
discussed so far, is linked to that of discourse. Both focus our attention on their
capacity to actively construct our understanding of the world and our ability to
