Make an argument that analyzes the compatibility or conflict between Eduardo Bonilla Silva’s (EBS) “racialized social systems” approach to identity conflict and the constructivist approach to identity conflict as articulated by Kanchan Chandra (“Cumulative Findings in the Study of Ethnic Politics”), and/or Mara Loveman (“Is ‘Race’ Essential?”), and/or Rogers Brubaker (Ethnicity without Groups). Use evidence from EBS and at least one other constructivist (Chandra/Loveman/Brubaker) to defend your claim. 3-4 pages double-spaced. 90 points
Your essay should include:
A clear thesis statement articulating the relationship between EBS’s theory and the constructivist theory of at least one other constructivist (Chandra/Loveman/Brubaker)
Direct evidence (i.e. quotations) from sources from our course. Evidence must be interpreted in light of the essay’s thesis statement.
Clear and accurate definitions for related key terms (e.g. ontology, constructivism, “idealist view of racism”, “racialized social systems”, “social closure”, “ethnicity as cognition”, etc. — the terms in this list are neither required nor exhaustive of possible key terms).
Proper in-text and bibliographic citation.
A clear, descriptive title.
There are many possible directions for you to take this essay. I have included some of the possibilities below. Feel free to borrow them directly, modify them based on your interest, or go your own way!
Option 1: Identify a tension or contradiction in EBS’s structural theory of racism and the constructivist ontology — as articulated by Chandra, Loveman and or Brubaker. Illustrate the moments of tension with explicit evidence from the texts and explain the significance of this tension for our understanding of identity conflict.
Option 2: Critique EBS’s structural theory of racism using the constructivist ontology — as articulated by Chandra, Loveman and or Brubaker. Illustrate your critique with explicit evidence from the texts and refine EBS’s argument based on your critique. Note: You could also do the opposite. You could critique Chandra/Brubaker/Loveman using EBS’s structural theory.
Option 3: Walk through a case of identity conflict and identify the moments of agreement and tension between how EBS would explain this identity conflict and how Loveman/Brubaker/Chandra would explain this conflict. Argue the strengths and weaknesses of analyzing the case of identity conflict through each approach.
Option 4: Explain why the apparent tensions that Loveman identifies between Bonilla-Silva’s theory of structural racism and constructivism are not tensions at all. Illustrate your argument against Loveman’s critiques using evidence from both texts.
