Search

Michael Banton's paper provides fascinating insights into his long-running intellectual disagreements with John Rex, the other major post-war figure in the sociology of ‘race relations’. Published work and personal recollections are supplemented by a series of communications by letter to flesh out the precise nature of these debates. They reveal differing views on the ontological status of ‘race’, race relations and racism, as well as a number of criticisms of Rex's work. He argues that Rex was wrong to put so much faith in the ability of classical sociology to address these concerns, and that there was a disjuncture between theory, methods and substance in his empirical work. There is also a suggestion that Rex played down the significance of racism. The greatest difference between them, however, lay in their divergent views on the role of sociology and the sociologist. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This is a report on the British Sociological Association Race and Ethnicity Study Group Conference ‘Mapping the Field: Contemporary Theories of Race, Racism and Ethnicity’, which took place at Newman University on Friday 31 January 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper argues that both Michael Banton and John Rex were ‘children of empire’, albeit in starkly different ways, and that these differences were at the core of their querulous exchanges over their long careers. The larger issue, however, concerns the impact of colonialism on sociology, especially in its formative years, and conversely, the role of sociology in providing erudite justification for colonialism. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

An introduction is presented which discusses the symposium section of the journal on the article "John Rex’s Main Mistake," by Michael Banton on topics, including race and ethnicity in Great Britain and British sociology.

This article is an appreciation of the contributions to ethnic and racial studies and to British sociology in general of Michael Parker Banton. It reviews his career and also his major publications, including also arguments against him made by his principal critics and his responses to these. It points out the specificity of his contributions and argues for his unique importance in defining and developing the field of ethnic and race relations in British sociology during the second half of the twentieth century and into the present century. It also mentions his many contributions to public life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Banton and Rex's differences in their analysis of race and ethnic relations rest not so much on the contrast between ‘prophet’ and ‘scientist’, but rather on two quite different perspectives on the nature of sociology itself. Each in their own way has much to offer the field, which explains their continuing relevance to this area of study. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Science progresses by the discovery and correction of mistakes in the interpretation of data. John Rex sought ‘to distinguish among the various studies made by sociologists those which are distinguishable as race relations studies’. He examined them from the standpoint of classical sociological theory. His main mistake was his continued but unsuccessful attempt to synthesize two quite different kinds of sociological knowledge. He underestimated the importance of differences in the criteria for the validation of causal explanation and for the projection of historical trends. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article argues for a public sociology of ‘race’ that can respond to Weber's injunction that sociology should ‘meet the demands of the day’. While the author's version of these demands – for a society of autonomous individuals and groups, living as equals – is utopian, the main argument offered here is that a sociology of ‘race’ should be a modified version of Burawoy's ‘public sociology’. Adopting Bauman's notion of a sociology of interpreters, a further suggestion is that this type of sociology needs to be reflexive and affective. Based on an analysis of his own sociological education in the late 1960s, his participation in social and political movements in which ‘race’ was key, and with brief reference to the sociology of ‘race’, the author argues that the emotions that circulated in each arena need to be examined, acknowledged and incorporated if theoretical and practical progress is to be made. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]