Talk:Racial formation theory

[Untitled]

is it possible to reduce the redundancy in the references section by listing only the page number of the quote? Bonusbox (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Bonusbox, this sounds like a very appropriate thing to do.--Topher Hunt (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

done -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

SUGGESTIONS AND MATERIALS FOR IMPROVING THIS ARTICLE.

Hi. Blind visionary here, merely an aficionado. Thanks for starting this page, and I would like to eventually contribute my two cents. Unfortunately to do that I think we must begin with a critique of what we have. Please understand these comments as constructive criticism. If I cannot motivate you to work more on this important entry, eventually I will produce some paragraphs myself, but that will have to wait. Some suggestions below may be helpful for the originator(s) to continue with this important work.

(1) While the section is titled Racial Formation Theory, it relies too much on the structure of Omi and Winant's text "Racial Formation in the US." That is fine, but then it should be titled like the text (see for example the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_structure_of_scientific_revolutions) and the exposition -maybe- should follow the text's structure more closely. The text is already pretty dense and to follow its scheme -I think- would facilitate its description and analysis.

(2) As an entry about the text and the theory it is an excellent beginning but, I'm sure you understand, it comes short and needs improvement. For example your first section should be a summary or overview, as is demanded from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_structure_of_scientific_revolutions : "consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's [book] key points." Following the book's structure may be helpful here because we would go, as the book does, from a critique of ethnicity, class and nation theories, then briefly extend into a historical exploration of the forms that ideas of race have had (in the "evolution of racial awareness"), to reach the conclusion that what we have so far is not sufficient and thus a new theory of race is needed, which O&W will then provide. They will go on to provide the elements of the theory (e.g. definitions of race, racism, racial dictatorship, hegemony, the trajectory of racial politics --this later one showing how in the specific case of the US conflict has shaped the evolution of ideas of race, the role of the state, the role of social movements, the lack of a central institution dedicated to racial matters, etc). In the final section they do an application of the theory in order to try to understand where are we in terms of race in contemporary times (up to the time of the 2nd edition), and more importantly, they leave open the field for other social scientists to apply the theory and really flesh it out and test it.

(3) Your introductory sentences begin well ("is an analytical tool in sociology") but soon run into trouble: (a) Your citations are not accurately reflected in the text (pages 61 and 66 do not exactly refer to what you say they refer (-unless you explain more clearly what the citations refer to); (b) there are many references in Wikipedia by other social scientists to race as "socially constructed identity," so that is not exactly distinctive of O&W; (c) The phrase "content and importance of racial categories is determined by social, economic, and political forces" is too general and does not reflect the authors' idea of conflict being one of these forces; (d)Your second sentence glosses over the introduction and the first three chapters ("other traditional race theories" -- you should at least name which theories you speak about) where the critique is that the other theories tend to ignore the study of race and they "reduce" it to the concepts of ethnicity, class and nation. By now it becomes necessary to introduce the idea of race as having a micro (identity) and a macro component and then, your quoted phrase makes sense: Race pervades everything from our identities to the largest of social structures.

(4) You follow with some sections that are not in the text ("Functions and origin of racial discrimination" and "Origin of racism as a justification for ethnocentrism") or of they are, that leave it at too general a level. For example: in section "Race is a social concept" you introduce ideas about the macro and the micro that you should take advantage of to explain how O&W define race, what is a racial project and what's the role of the micro and the macro in such definition (you would find more synthetic info from the sources here: http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/Omi-Winant.html).

Instead you rely on an explanatory strategy that consist in stating your understanding of some aspect of the theory and then relying of a quotation for support. This does not quite make it because, like I said above, the text is complicated to understand, so by giving the reader a summary and a quote you leave open the possibility that, if you got an incomplete understanding of something, or, (a remote possibility) if you misunderstand something, practically you leave them blinder than they were when they arrived. It would be much better that the material they find here made the original text more understandable than it actually is.

For example, You say: "In the above definition, the "micro-level" social relations refer to "the ways in which we understand ourselves and interact with others, the structuring of our practical activity in work and family, as citizens and as thinkers",[4][and then, you give your interpretation =] basically, a person's individual interactions with other people...." failing to point out the key idea of "identity" that this micro aspect refers to, in addition to yes, interaction.

(5) The above suggestions refer to the article as pertaining the particular book "Racial Formation in the US." If the article refers to Racial Formation theory, then you need to (a) step away from this text, or not focus exclusively on it, because it is not the only text referring to the theory; (b) find other sources (for example and excellent one is Winant (2000) "Race and Race Theory," which you may find an the Jstor database; another is Yen Espiritu on Asian Panethnicity....; And (c) You may need to expand the list of authors working in this vein (see for example a number of people interested on it here: http://waynemorsecenter.uoregon.edu/Racial_Formation_09/home.html.)

In Winant (2000) "Race and Race Theory" you may find many of the themes explored in the book above repeated or explored sometimes in more detail, the theory itself explained (to the degree that they are able to explain) more succintly, and an important section that refers to "what's needed in a contemporary theory of race." These are conditions that according to Winant any theory of race must meet to be adequate. Racial formation does that more or less. The points are: Study race in a comparative, historical way, pay attention to the links between the micro and the macro, and consider the field in which racial understandings are shaped, including social movements and the state. The list may be longer.

IF YOU USE MATERIALS FROM THE ABOVE, I HOPE THAT YOU WILL REWORK IT AND NOT JUST CUT AND PASTE.

I leave you with that to mull over for now. Wishing you the best!

Blindvisionary (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC).

Wiki Education assignment: Understanding Intersectionality

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 1 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ValTis5, AdelineMcQuade (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ninafedorko, Lillian paige4, Annaromo.15.

— Assignment last updated by JaxC135 (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)