A Reflection of Bonilla-Silva and Loveman’s Arguments on Race

In “Rethinking racism: Towards a structural interpretation,” Bonilla-Silva argues that current racism study lacks an inadequate theoretical foundation for understanding racial phenomena. The lack of a structural theory of racism is the main problem for the current study. Without a structural view, any analysis of racism is ungrounded and irrational. Bonilla-Silva suggests that racism should be studied from the viewpoint of racialization, and this racialization needs to develop itself after the society becomes racialized (Bonilla-Silva “Rethinking”475). Racial phenomena should be regarded as the normal result of the society, and it is essential to establish a racialization framework and take this framework as the theoretical basis for further researches.

However, Loveman doesn’t agree with Bonilla-Silva’s opinion totally. In the article “Is ‘race’ essential?” Loveman argues that Bonilla-Silva’s structural theory of racism is not the best analytical framework due to its limitations and pitfalls, like “confounding categories with groups, reifying ‘race,’ and maintaining the unwarranted analytical distinction between ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’” (Loveman 891). Thus, Bonilla-Silva’s theory is not practical and useful. In order to understand the relations between “race” and social relations, race should be abandoned as a category of analysis. The attention should be focused on an analytical framework of the process, maintenance, and decline of the boundary construction in the society.

Furthermore, in “The essential social fact of race,” Bonilla-Silva argues back Loveman’s disagreement. Loveman accuses Bonilla-Silva of confounding race as a category of race as a social group. Bonilla-Silva explains that “races exist as a social phenomenon wherever a racial structure is in place” and “racial consciousness is always a contingent matter in all social collectivities” (Bonilla-Silva “The essential” 900). Also, Loveman misunderstands Bonilla-Silva’s reifying races as things. Instead, Bonilla-Silva describes races as relations and the effect of racial practices. As for the distinction between race and ethnicity, Bonilla-Silva explains that these two terms overlap most of the time, but they are different due to their different historical origins.

The main reason for Bonilla-Silva and Loveman’s different positions is their different centralities and perspectives of race in the modern world. Bonilla-Silva examines race-related phenomena from a structural perspective. He contends that racial stratification is hierarchical. Thus, in order to have a full understanding of race and racism, it is essential to understand this racial structure. As long as the racial structure of the society is established, race-related phenomena will get a detailed research. Otherwise, any theoretical study of race is ungrounded. On the other side, Loveman considers the race-related problem from the sociological perspective, taking race as a socially constructed category. The race is a contingent phenomenon and changes accordingly to the social environment. The racial study should be established on the basis of the social study because race alone doesn’t have associational significance and it is usually historically-bounded.

From my perspective, I agree with Bonilla-Silva’s argument. The race is not simply a social phenomenon, like gender or class. Though history plays an important role in its development, race has its own law of development. The race is a social phenomenon under a racial structure. The current study of race is based on the “common sense” on racial matters for more than 50 years. The study is from the sociological perspective, and subsequent studies are based on the current recognition. However, Bonilla-Silva takes an original structural perspective and challenges the current study. Though his proposed theory may have some impractical points and even pitfalls, he brings a new perspective for the future study and another possible way to complete the current theoretical system of race. Loveman’s argument is based on this “common sense” and too critical for this new perspective. She refuses to admit that social orders may be stratified along racial lines and establish a hierarchy. Also, Bonilla-Silva explains one by one about Loveman’s disagreement and misunderstanding, which proves the practicality and rationality of his theory.