![]()
1 Cultural explanation and the question of intergroup life
The nature of intergroup relations and inequality varies significantly across multiethnic or pluralist societies, a phenomenon that has constituted a matter of long-standing and lively sociological interest. This has been especially the case in the United States, where the resurgence of sociological, anthropological, and historical scholarship in this area since the late 1960s attests to the continuing relevance of this problem in social studies and to its persisting presence in the social milieu. Some three decades after the momentous changes in the American legal system that led to the dismantling of the Jim Crow system of race segregation, discriminatory and segregationist practices as well as prejudicial feelings and attitudes against "nonwhite" minority groups still persist in American society, and even gathered strength through the 1980s. This phenomenon is, indeed, "a commonplace of empirical verification," says one observer (Gordon, 1964:114), and it invokes the same dilemma addressed by Gunnar Myrdal in the 1940s in his celebrated and now classic study An American Dilemma. There has been a steady reawakening of public and scholarly attention to the problem of intergroup relations, particularly as concerns race and ethnicity. This heightened societal sensitivity to this problem results precisely from the fact that, despite the progressive social, economic, and political incorporation of racial and ethnic minorities since the late 1960s, the deep cleavages which separate the dominant and subordinate ethnic groups in this society have not disappeared. Not only does race remain the main regulative principle of social relations, but also, racism continues to be a conspicuous feature of social organization. It is expressed in the presence of de facto inequality and segregation in the workplace, housing, the educational system,1 and the legal system, as well as in the informal sectors of social life (Willie, 1978). It is the basis for the upsurge of ethnic consciousness among minority-group members in recent years.2 Lastly, it is seen in the racially-motivated turmoil and conflict that have erupted in the past decade on campuses and on the street, ranging from interpersonal harassment to more serious forms of conflict. In the single year of 1982, there were more than 500 documented cases of racist violence against blacks by white teenagers alone, which included "cross burnings, vandalism, arson, physical assaults, and murder" (Ofari, 1984). A specific example could be cited for 1987, the Howard Beach incident of Queens, New York, which involved the unprovoked beatings of some black teenagers by white teenagers. Of much greater proportions and more dire consequences were the April 1992 events of Los Angeles, following the acquittal of four white police officers who had been charged with extreme police brutality against a black man who had led them on a car chase on the highway. This legal outcome sparked days of full-scale rioting, looting, and burning of buildings, in which some people ended up dead and hundreds injured. The atmosphere was one of greatly exacerbated interracial tension.
The present analysis looks at this issue in a comparative framework, contrasting the cultural models of Brazil and the United States, two societies where, notwithstanding the remarkable similarity in their patterns of ethnic history and development, interethnic/interracial relations in each one have developed along clearly divergent lines. Exploring the intergroup problematic in comparative perspective can be highly effective for revealing dimensions and possibilities of social action that may remain obscured in single-case analysis. The conventional posture in comparative study, however, is to assume that, given the development of certain social institutions - for example, the economy - social practices will be manifested rather uniformly across societies. Hence, the analytical focus tends to be on the commonalities and repeatabilities of these practices in different societies.3 In this study, the emphasis is shifted to the conceptual instability or diversity of social phenomena such as ethnic inequality and ethnic prejudice, which at first glance may be seen as homogeneous crossnationaily, because of perceived structural isomorphisms that have to do with the process of economic and political evolution of the society, but in fact may be in important ways quite dissimilar, due to the historical and cultural variability between societies.
The approach emphasized here may be termed a culturalist one, in the sense that its point of departure is the concern with and focus on cultural forces and cultural change, and how these elements affect the larger architecture of integroup life. The intent has been to illuminate specifically the manner and degree in which the element of culture accounts for the emergence and maintenance of collective patterns of action, whereby cultural norms and beliefs are concretely externalized as social arrangements and practices, a service not usually provided by sociologies that treat ideas as mere epiphenomenal expressions of social structure. The present analysis addresses the specific problem of intergroup relations by considering the type of cultural system of the society, thematized here on the basis of a tripartite model of assimilation, comprising the following interrelated aspects: dominant-minority cultural interaction, cultural identity, and kinship formation (miscegenation and intermarriage). These are aspects which, despite being an integral part of the larger process of migrant-group assimilation, tend to be denied systematic attention in conventional analyses. They are introduced here as an alternative conceptual and methodological yardstick for assessing the nature and dynamics of dominant-minority ethnic relations, especially in hemispheric or crosscultural perspective. In this capacity, the culturalist position deviates from, but also complements, nonculturalist strategies, which mainly stress "structural" aspects, such as those of political economy on the one hand, or strictly quantitative ones on the other. In the race and ethnicity literature, this has meant a basic analytical bifurcation whereby the focus is directed either to social stratification aspects derived from "class" standing (e.g., Cox, 1948; Horowitz, 1964; Blauner, 1972), or from the distribution of the population among different social positions, regarding socioeconomic status, education, occupational rank, political representation (e.g., Gottfredson, 1981; Gardner, Robey, and Smith, 1985; Tuch and Martin, 1991), either in single-case or comparative context. The reduction of the dynamics of intergroup life to economic and political power relations, or its abstraction into strictly quantitative schemes, leaves much to be desired. In comparative studies, this has the effect of "homogenizing" the multiethnic experience, thus neutralizing the comparative focus through the idea that, despite the crosscultural variations stemming from the cultural and historical specificity of each society, patterns of intergroup relations in different multiethnic social systems are fundamentally similar. Riesman (1967:xxii) addresses this problem in stating that the traditional materialist position dictates that in order "to interpret reality one need not inquire into the motives of men, but rather notice that the situations they face are much alike, that the power of modern technology and science, modern economic organization, modern ideological and party organization is such that a single style of society becomes possible everywhere It might be added to his commentary that this approach tends to perpetuate a false dualism between material and nonmaterial influences in social causation, as if these were mutually exclusive entities. The position taken in this analysis concerning the relationship between material and nonmaterial forces is that it is unitary, in the sense that material arrangements are essentially concrete externalizations of dominant ways of thinking that have become institutionalized. The two elements are therefore assumed to be like two sides of the same coin. Arbousse-Bastide emphasizes this point: "Material elements are only signs of other realities, more difficult to grasp, but more fundamental ... material objects, from this perspective, are not meaningful or interesting except in the degree that they translate nonmaterial realities, worldviews, beliefs, prejudices, ideas" (1940:xiv; my translation). Thus, in this light, the material aspects of social life are more important in what they symbolize, not for what they are in themselves. They are indispensable signifiers or mediating aspects that facilitate the understanding of nonmaterial realities which, as noted, are even more fundamental to social knowledge and thus must be unearthed and brought to full view. To maintain a sharp distinction between material and nonmaterial elements in the understanding of social events, as traditional approaches tend to do, is to obscure the processes that help shape these events.
Regarding the matter of the formation of social phenomena - the specific phenomena in question here are interethnic conflict and inequality traditional investigative approaches typically do not account for the forces and mechanisms responsible for establishing the character of ethnic relations in a given society, and for creating integration or separation of group interests and tendencies at the level of the society as a whole. This omission in sociological scholarship has been increasingly evidenced in recent times in societies like the United States, where the systematic formal rectification of legally and socially sanctioned injustice against minority ethnic groups, starting in the 1960s, has failed to eliminate interethnic and interracial separatism and antagonism. As already indicated, this problem has in fact intensified since the early 1980s, for reasons that will be addressed subsequently. Structural and cultural separatism, which remained the dominant feature of life in U.S. society for about 70 years, from the time of the 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson Supreme Court decision and the installation of the Jim Crow system of race-based segregation to the 1960s, have been gaining strength again, only this time the legal mechanisms that supported the manifestation of structural and cultural separatism in the various spheres of social life have been removed. However, in parallel fashion to the former pattern, the separatist impulse continues to be stimulated officially and unofficially, indeed ever more vigorously, through the multiculturalist movement, which has been in operation and gaining momentum in the society over the past decade, and which hinges on the recognition and preservation of minority-group difference, with the end result being of this difference being crystallized as an end in itself.
The impact of material change
The importance of material or formal change, such as legal reform, for bringing equality and harmony to the interethnic sphere is not to be denied. Legislative reform is a crucial element in the abrogation of institutionalized arrangements and practices of segregation and discrimination, inasmuch as this type of change is normally followed by the structural assimilation of minority-group members into the occupational, political, and educational sectors of social life (see, e.g., Marger, 1991:118-9). The problem is that this phenomenon may come to be widely perceived (as in the case of U.S. society) as the definitive resolution of the long-standing interethnic problem, the dawning of a new, enlightened era of ethnic relations, when "race" and "ethnicity" are no longer regulative considerations. The assumption in this respect is that the establishment of parity in the formal sectors of social life is all that is needed for eradicating intergroup conflict and harmonizing intergroup relations. In the same vein, analysts of the interethnic problem may consider the abolition of the formal circumstances of ethnic inequality, as when the latter is expressed in the gross underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in the upper economic, political, and educational strata, to be the most logical and reliable indicator of intergroup progress or retardation across multiethnic societies.
Additionally, it is generally assumed that the structural or institutional assimilation of groups need not be accompanied by society-wide cultural integration. In other words, the latter is not seen as a conditio sine qua non for achieving the unification of formerly antagonistic ethnic segments of the society and drastically reducing social inequality between them, because, first of all, its structural counterpart appears to be all that is required for bringing together physically in the public sphere - the workplace, the schools, public establishments - under conditions of apparent equality, groups which had been kept rigidly apart in the past. This type of large-scale institutional alteration in the society is also regarded as providing formal safeguards that will insure the further expansion of this new mode of intergroup relations. Secondly, the former attitudes of mutual aversion and belligerence have mostly dissipated over the last couple of decades of institutional change, having been replaced by those of toleration and civility, when not open cordiality. In connection with this, even though institutional and interpersonal separatism are as a rule drastically reduced with the removal of the framework of legal legitimation, it is possible that the patterns of separatism which formerly governed the symbolic (i.e., cultural and psychosocial) and biological dimensions of intergroup life will persist. This latter form of separatism is tolerated because it is not judged incompatible with the assimilative processes under way in the economic, political, and educational spheres. In fact, it may happen, as in the case of U.S. society, that, as the process of structural assimilation of minority segments advances, systemic tendencies may emerge which promote the coexistence of the opposing elements of structural assimilation and sociocultural separatism, as evidenced in current multiculturalist trends).
Although the extension of civil rights to the entire citizenry is the essential precondition for the construction of a just social order - in the context of ethnic relations it unquestionably represents a necessary level of progress towards that goal - this is not a sufficient condition by itself. In time, the society may come to realize that although this legislative change in very large measure eliminates the formally-sanctioned, overt subjugation of ethnic subcultures, it fails to produce the root-and-branch overhaul of the fundamental patterns of intergroup stratification and conflict. While it is true that civility in intergroup relations has a generally beneficial and reassuring effect, it is scarcely a sufficient measure and guarantee of intergroup concord, stabilization, and unity, let alone equality. The precariousness of this aspect in insuring these outcomes becomes obvious when we consider interethnic developments in American society over the past couple of decades. Specifically, the old divisive ethnic and racial enmities and prejudices, as well as patterns of separation and inequality, so readily associated in the public mind with the arrangements and practices of the Jim Crow period, have begun to resurface, ever more assertively and ubiquitously, in all areas of social life. The formal trappings of this phenomenon are, of course, gone. Nevertheless, it should be plain to all that the fundamental problem persists, and that the transformations wrought by legislative reform have fallen short of a real resolution and/or eradication of interethnic conflict. The specific limitation of the law in this area of social life has long been recognized. In the beginning of this century, James Bryce (1968:246) remarked that in situations where the fusion of different ethnic communities is rendered impossible because of deep-going racial antagonisms, this "presents a problem which no Constitution has solved."
It appears, then, that too much is made of the "quantitative" dimension of ethnic stratification, that is to say, of the actual, measurable degree of formal rectification of structural inequalities pertaining to the economic, educational, and political inclusion of minority-group members. The excesses in this regard have reached the point where this has become the standard of choice for assessing the progress made by multiethnic societies towards interetlmic integration and equality. Yet, it seems clear that in dealing with this issue, particularly in comparative context, if one is to judge the modernization of multiethnic societies by the strides made by these societies towards the reduction of formal inequality between the hegemonic and subaltern ethnic components of the population, and this type of progress still does not translate into the disappearance of the "ethnic problem" - that is, if it still fails to weed out deep-rooted interethnic divisions and animosities - then we ought to be searching elsewhere for additional insights into how and why this problem is being perpetuated. It is argued here that reducing the investigation of cultural/intergroup processes and aspects to quantitative cross-sectional studies with time as an index variable (Abbott, 1991:205), or to the discourse of political economy, will substantially limit the understanding of the interethnic dynamics, and that greater heuristic benefits concerning this part of social life may be had if the focus is shifted to the domain of culture, that is to say, to qualitative aspect of the problem.
Culture as analytical frame of reference
The view of culture adopted in the present work is generally compatible with standard treatments, from the earliest conceptions by the 19th century British anthropologists (Tylor, 1871, in particular) to the subsequent formulations by the American anthropologists in the first half of the present century (e.g., Wissler, 1923; Cooley, Angeli, and Carr, 1933; Lowie, 1934; Kroeber and Parsons, 1958; Kluckhohn, 1962), among whom the definitions of culture put forward by their British predecessors had gained wide acceptance. All of these conceptions tend to be amply comprehensive in meaning, subsuming under the rubric of "culture" all material and nonmaterial elements of society, "all modes of life," in the words of one writer (Azevedo, 1971:2), "the entire social heritage of man," in the words of another (Malefijt, 1968:3). To cite some examples: Wissler (1923:1-3, 49) saw culture as "... this round of life in its entire sweep of individual activities," including all the objective manifestations such as artifacts and collective forms of behavior, methods of securing the material necessities of life, as well as a core of ideas and beliefs. These "in the aggregate" form the total culture complex of the group, although Wissler did see the ideational aspects of culture as the "unifying element, in the culture-complex." Herskovits's definition (1966:305-6), though maintaining the separation of "culture" from the "raw materials ... from which it derives," treats the concept broadly, as "all the elements in man's mature endowment that he has acquired from his group by conscious learning or by a conditioning process-techniques of various kinds, social and other institutions, beliefs, and patterned modes of conduct."
This study has two parts, a descriptive one, where two models of culture and interethnic relations are ideal-typically contrasted, and an explicative one, where this crossnational difference is accounted for in terms of the influence of the dominant religious ideology. Although the present analysis is generally compatible with the inclusive meaning of culture found in these earlier anthropological viewpoints, there is a twofold intent here, which is, first, to distinguish the elements conventionally understood as "cultural," that is, those which are expressive of, and more directly tied to, social relationships, from those associated with the means and relations of production, or, more broadly, with the material framework of the society and its technology.4 Secondly, to direct attention to the role of nonmaterial (i.e., symbolic) factors and to explore their heuristic potential. This concern with the explanatory value of the nonmaterial elements of culture is especially pertinent to part II of this work, which deals with historical explanation. The symbolic material involved here has been referred to as "representative culture" (Tenbruck, 1989:22), and comprises beliefs, understandings, images, ideas, and ideologies. Another writer views "the cultural" as pertaining to "issues of ritual and symbol, belief and ideology, [and] meaning and moral order" (Wuthnow, 1987:3). This emphasis on the symbolic, ideational, and representational dimensions of cultural life is also found in Geertz's conception of culture as a symbolic system (1973, 1987), "an ordered system of meaning and symbols in terms of which social interaction takes place" (1973:144, 363). Overall, the ideational view of culture has the advantage, according to Mayntz (1922:219-220), of affording greater flexibility in terms of allowing the concept of culture to be formulated and circumscribed in different ways. In the context of this investigation, this ties in with the analysis of religious ideology and symbolism as the principal cultural force shaping the character of social and individual life as a whole, therefore shaping interethnic practices.
This study also takes into account current debates on the persistently ambiguous nature of the concepts of "society" and "culture," and acknowledges the problematic character of the assumption, common in mainstream social science (sociology, in particular), that society and culture are rigidly separate unitary totalities. Nevertheless, without denying the existence of problems of terminological specification, or treating culture and society as mutually exclusive entities, proper and specific attention to the aspect of culture remains indispensable, a "crucial requisite" (Tenbruck, 1989:16), in social inquiry, if we are to probe the dynamics of social life for its fullest significance. We have only to remind ourselves of the concern and active research involvement of the founders of the sociological discipline - Marx, Weber, Durkheim - and other scholars who have followed in their footsteps, with problems of culture, and their recognition of the relevance of these problems for social investigation (see Wuthnow, 1987:1). The focus on culture has the effect of counteracting the widespread tendency to assess th...
