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 paper asserts that academics, unless they work for or in malign regimes, do not make ‘mistakes’, but work within their own historical period using their knowledge of past thinking. Thus, debates on race, ethnicity, race relations and so on, and the plethora of competing definitions and approaches, take place within specific historical times. The paper notes that for John Rex, racism was always the problem, to be defined and explained. It reviews the research carried out in Handsworth, Birmingham 1974–78, Rex's use of classical social theorists, and it refutes Banton's assertion that Rex did not engage with his critics. It concludes that Rex may well have been prophet in foreseeing the permanence of issues of race, ethnicity, multiculturalism, migration, integration, citizenship and a ‘war on terror’ in a global era. [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 on the articles within the issue responding to books and papers, including the books "Culling the Masses: The Democratic Origins of Racist Immigration Policy in the Americas," by David Fitzgerald and David Cook-Martín, "The Declining Significance of Race," by William Julius Wilson and the paper "John Rex’s Main Mistake," by Michael Banton.

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]