Search

The article discusses on Michael Banton's rational choice theory as expounded in his book "Racial and Ethnic Competition." Not long after this appeared, a number of academics, interested in racial and ethnic relations, were invited to comment on Banton's analysis. The use of the term rational will probably make most sociologists at once think of Weber. However, although Banton does draw on Weber, he does not in his book use Weber's types of rational action or the Weberian master concept of rationalization. It is pointed out that people are to be credited with preferences which, in turn, necessitate alternatives for choice. Partly, then, the perspective of rationality rests on the presupposition of a scale of preferences in individual and collective action. In his book, Banton proceeds to a series of models. One of these sets up a fourfold analysis of groups defined by boundary and privilege, a second considers four possible responses of immigrant groups based on their attraction to the sending and receiving societies, and a third considers assimilation in terms of the cultural change of both the immigrant minority and the indigenous majority.

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]

The article discusses the study of race and skin colour and the relationship between them within the field of sociology, particularly focusing upon an article in the journal by sociologist Michael Banton. The author analyzes Banton's thoughts on the difference between the concepts of skin colour and race, Banton's contention that men prefer lighter-complexioned women for sexual partners and that women do not pay so much attention to the skin colors of sexual partners, and empirical evidence concerning human association based on skin colour. The article also examines the concept of utilizing a so-called colour scale to glean empirical sociological evidence. The article also discusses a post-racial approach to sociology.

My association with Michael Banton and his contribution to the field of race and ethnic studies developed more than three decades ago when I bought a copy of his Race Relations (1967) at the University of California Berkeley Bookshop. At the time it was impossible to imagine that my study via Berkeley and London would take me to a lecturing post in the Department of Sociology that Michael Banton had established at the University of Bristol nor did I envisage then that I would be his colleague for the two decades leading up to his retirement. It is in this context of both professional and personal associations that this tribute offers some reflections on his intellectual biography, along with his contribution to what has come to be known as the race relations problematic, his thoughts on what was subsequently identified as the racism problematic, his critical interest in linking rational choice theory to race and ethnicity and his remarkable concern with international law and human rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Kantianism and methodological individualism by no means lead to the substantive conclusions which he suggests but might be used in studies with a quite different problem. The characteristic of a free market as distinct from all other encounters marked by potential conflict is that the sanction used by one bargainers against another are those of threatening to go to an alternative trading partner. Such a system does of course sometimes lead to peaceful exchange based upon what emerges as the market price. But a bargainers may resort to an alternative strategy. He may persuade the alternative trading partners to whom his own partner might go, to collaborate with him and to refuse to deal with his partner. One tradition of Marxism as well as Weber's theory of class is precisely an attempt to explore this place of the development of the market and to explain it in methodologically individual terms. One does not have to hold that in every capitalist industrial society the full process is carried out. But it is legitimate, sensible and even necessary that, along with peaceful exchanges, conflict processes of this kind should be investigated.

The article presets information on the contribution of writer Michael Banton's towards race studies in Great Britain. Banton's position in British academia is pre-eminent. No other author has played such a pioneering role in both the study of race relations and in the promotion of police studies. "Race Relations," set a new British standard for comparative analysis in this and subsequent scholarship has never entirely lost the gain which was established by this perspective. The structure of the book can be summarised according to its five major sections. Race was seen to emanate from conceptions about populations and their relationships. The study probed into nineteenth-century thought in detail and attempted to reveal the social forces at work. Insofar as racial thinking is now understood to derive from the period of empire, Banton's contribution has been consistent and influential. According to Banton, to work for the advancement of knowledge about racial relations, it is therefore necessary to move forward on two fronts simultaneously, improving both historical interpretations and theoretical frameworks.

The article presents information on the use of economists models in Sociology. Michael Banton's book "Racial and Ethnic Competition," is a masterly and stimulating treatment of his subject matter which will repay careful reading and re-reading. When one begins to admit that all actions may not be rational in the sense of procedurally rational one is faced with the decision of what to do with the other types of behavior. By introducing elements of realism into "Rational Choice Theory," RCT one detracts from the powerful simple RCT. These elements make RCT's main virtue, that of prediction, a much more difficult exercise. Banton has to reckon with these consequences of such a move. RCT has been criticised for being individualistic that is, that the theory deals with and pertains wholly and only to individuals often referred to as methodological individualism, it would be of no importance for the analysis of a large number of non-individual level issues therefore. Within the economics discipline this criticism has been voiced loudly by radical and Marxist economists.