Reflections on Michael Banton’s

contribution to race and ethnic

studies

Rohit Barot

Abstract

My association with Michael Banton and his contribution to the field ofrace and ethnic studies developed more than three decades ago whenI bought a copy of his Race Relations (1967) at the University ofCalifornia Berkeley Bookshop. At the time it was impossible to imaginethat my study via Berkeley and London would take me to a lecturing postin the Department of Sociology that Michael Banton had established atthe University of Bristol nor did I envisage then that I would be hiscolleague for the two decades leading up to his retirement. It is in thiscontext of both professional and personal associations that this tributeoffers some reflections on his intellectual biography, along with hiscontribution to what has come to be known as the race relationsproblematic, his thoughts on what was subsequently identified as theracism problematic, his critical interest in linking rational choice theoryto race and ethnicity and his remarkable concern with international lawand human rights.

Michael Banton: his academic and intellectual biography.

Michael Banton, Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University ofBristol, was born on 8th September 1926 and reaches his 80th birthdayin September 2006. His academic journey began at the LondonSchool of Economics after he had served in the Royal Navy as aSub-Lieutenant, RNVR towards the end of the Second World War.His personal tutor Edward Shils encouraged him to read TheProtestant Ethic, Crime and Custom and Sex and Repression in SavageSociety along with Le Suicide and Street Corner Society with readingson the Chicago school and more on Max Weber. Shils also encouragedhim to do some anthropology and he did a paper called Ethnology inthe LSE Anthropology Department. Shils also recommended thatBanton should listen to Karl Popper, who inspired him to pursue an

Ethnic and Racial Studies Vol. 29 No. 5 September 2006 pp. 785�796

# 2006 Taylor & FrancisISSN 0141-9870 print/1466-4356 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01419870600813827

academic career that was committed to the advancement of knowl-edge. After graduating from the LSE, Banton secured a researchassistantship in the Department of Social Anthropology at theUniversity of Edinburgh, where he was eventually appointed to anew lectureship in social anthropology. Under Kenneth Little’s head-ship and with Nuffield Foundation grants, Banton published his threebooks The Coloured Quarter (1955), West African City (1957), andWhite and Coloured (1959) which were based on research that wasconducted to study the settlement of colonial immigrants in Britain.The Policeman in the Community (1964) reported research that Bantonhad undertaken into police-community relations in Scotland and inthree cities in the USA. With his increasing participation in theAssociation of Social Anthropologists and a Readership in Anthro-pology at Edinburgh, Banton eventually came to establish theDepartment of Sociology at the University of Bristol with hisappointment as Professor of Sociology in 1965, a position that heheld until he retired in 1992.

In the early 1970s, the Social Science Research Council appointedBanton to head its Research Unit on Ethnic Relations, then located inBristol. This development was to stimulate Banton’s interest in boththeory as well as specific issues which concerned the presence ofsignificant South Asian and African Caribbean populations in Britain.Post colonial changes in Africa presented a particular set of problemsfor the British state, as it had to deal with the forced migration ofKenyan Asians as well as the expulsion of Ugandan Asians who hadchosen to remain British subjects and whose plight had beeninvestigated by Mike Bristow of the Research Unit on EthnicRelations. Popular animosity towards admission of Kenyan andUgandan Asians saw a rise of hostility towards East African Indiansand a significant growth of the National Front. It was in thissomewhat dynamic political context that Banton began to pursue achallenging task of building a social science research institution whichwould provide a platform for better understanding of ‘race’ and ethnicissues in Britain. Recruitment of researchers (some of them reachingprofessorial rank in their later careers) including Robin Ward, RobertMiles, Annie Phizacklea, Roger Ballard, Avtar Kaur Brah, PeterWeinreich and Sandra Wallman constituted a group of scholars withdiverse research interests and perspectives. Banton headed the Unit fora period of eight years till 1978. Subsequently the Unit was to find ahome, first at Aston University and then at the University of Warwickunder the new title of the Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations.

Banton’s 1959 research in police and community relationshad already drawn his attention to some of the practical issuesof policing a rapidly changing Britain. Issues which concernedsustaining a consensual policing and social order were explored in

786 Rohit Barot

his The Policeman in the Community (1964). Besides his services toBristol as a Justice of the Peace (1966�92), Banton also remainedactive in what many would describe as a policy field. He was a memberof the Royal Commission on Civil Disorders in Bermuda in 1978 andtook an active part as a member of the UK Royal Commission onCriminal Procedure in 1978�81. He also served on Home OfficeCommittees concerned with race relations research and police trainingin race relations. The most important position that he held was as amember of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination ofRacial Discrimination. He was a Chairman of the Committee from1996�98 and Rapporteur from 1990�96 and from 1998�2001.I explore this aspect of his work later in relation to the developmentof his intellectual ideas but it is sufficient to note here that this interestwas to see publication of two books, International Action againstRacial Discrimination in 1996 and The International Politics of Racein 2002.

Race Relations Problematic

Even before theories of racial and cultural purity had led to thedehumanisation of minorities and the horrors of the Holocaust,Huxley and Haddon had already expressed more than a sense ofdiscomfort with the scientific concept of race (1935). Soon after theSecond World War, although the UNESCO statement on race haddenied the scientific basis of concept of race (UNESCO 1968), thelanguage of race had become a prominent feature of the world beforeand after the Second World War, especially in response to theHolocaust but also to apartheid in South Africa and the post-warstruggle for equality in the US as well as in the UK. During the Britishcolonial and imperial times, ‘race’ and ‘race relations’ had becomeways of describing and analysing relations which were seen to arise outof the perception of physical and cultural differences betweenpopulations. Therefore it was not particularly unusual that a wholerange of scholars should use ‘race’ and ‘race relations’ as a basis fortheir account of visible physical differences between categories ofpeople. Scholars like Michael Banton and John Rex were no exceptionto this more general pattern in the immediate post war period.

As the presence of Commonwealth immigration became an issue inpolitics, sociologists also focused on theories and concepts which wouldimprove understanding of what was seen to be the question of ‘racerelations in Britain’. Sami Zubaida’s edited book based upon a BSAconference, Race and Racialism (1970) had a number of essays on theconcepts of race and racism. Both Banton and Rex contributedchapters to this volume. Along with others, these chapters not onlyprovided a focus for differences in perspectives and argument about

Michael Banton’s contribution to race and ethnic studies 787

‘race relations’ but also created a theoretical debate that was to lastfrom the early 1970s right up to the beginning of the 1990s. Banton andRex were the key figures to start with, until Robert Miles book Racismand Migrant Labour offered a critique of ‘race relations’ approach andbrought about a shift in the ideology of racism as a key variable in anyanalysis of ‘race relations’. In order to outline the critique that Milesoffered, first of all it is necessary to set out briefly how Banton and Rexapproached the question of ‘race relations’ in Britain.

Micro and Macro Sociological Explanations

As Professor of Sociology in the University of Bristol, Banton hadentitled his inaugural lecture ‘Race as a Social Category’, showing howphysical features were used as signs of roles which were assigned toindividuals or which they adopted for themselves. In his book Roles(1965) Banton connected his interests in race to theories of symbolicintereactionism. When Banton was invited to offer a brief summary ofhis main argument for a multiple review of his work in CurrentAnthropology, he highlighted the idea of race as a role sign whichindicated the ways in which actors will utilise differences in physicalappearance to draw boundaries between themselves and others.Although Banton’s perspective had stressed the importance ofperceived physical differences, he did not see the perception of suchdifferences as being grounded in objective physical differences betweengroups. The nature of the connection between physical characteristicsand their social significance constitutes an important dimension to sixorders of race relations which Banton outlined in Race Relations(1967:68�76). These orders refer to peripheral contact, institutiona-lised contact, acculturation, domination, paternalism, integration andpluralism. As his discussion suggests, racial orders combine con-sciousness of race and the nature of power relations between differentgroups in a wide range of societies such as the United States, SouthAfrica and Brazil. In examining social order in different societies,Banton deployed a comparative perspective which was to have alasting influence in his writing.

Although Banton’s six orders of race relations outlined macro-sociological pressures, it was not easy to relate them to the use of racein interpersonal relations. Was it better to start from the macroprocesses and work downwards or from the micro processes and workupwards? Banton’s solution was to start from the micro. He followedMax Gluckman in maintaining that the macro forces can be revealedin the analysis of micro situations. He tried to exemplify this in RacialMinorities (1972) which he regarded as a posthumous tribute toGluckman’s stimulating research. However, it should be stressed thatthe methodological distinction between micro and macro was not

788 Rohit Barot

treated as a watertight dichotomy in Banton’s work. For the six ordersof race relations were bound to indicate that these orders could notexist for individuals without the presence of institutional realities.

It is doubtful if Banton and Rex had hoped for radically differentoutcomes for Commonwealth immigrants who were settling in Britain.Although their common concern was welfare and inclusion of migrantpopulation in British life, their approaches were rooted in differenttheoretical traditions and presuppositions. The categories whichBanton used were not free from political implications, but scholarshiprather than politics was the driving force of his argument. In otherwords, Banton held that concern with political issues should not leadto a neglect of intellectual problems.

In his ‘The Concept of Race in Sociological Theory’, Rex hadentitled his opening section as ‘The Political Importance of aTheoretical Problem’ which reflected Rex’s South African backgroundand his concern for rights of those whose discrimination andexploitation he had witnessed there. His ‘race relations’ perspectivewas to see colonialism and history of the West as a critical feature inthe emergence of race relations in class-based stratification of urbansystems in modern societies. While history and politics were moreimplicit in Banton’s formulation, they emerge as major dimensions inthe conception of ‘race relations’ that Rex developed. The firstparagraph of his essay also emphasizes a notion of conflict as hesays, ‘. . . in the pattern of international history that is being wovenfor our future, the overriding theme seems to be that of race war’(1970: 35).

This statement was significant given the struggle for freedom andemancipation in South Africa and former Rhodesia concernednationalism that was geared to end white supremacy in both thestates.. However, there were several issues on which both Rex andBanton held similar Weberian views. Both of them had affirmed thatrace as a category had no basis in science and that the question of raceand race relations was primarily a matter of negative and unfavourablemeaning that was attached to dark or black skin colour. While Bantontook the individual as a starting point of his analysis, John Rexadopted a historical perspective that was rooted in the power of theWest in creating unequal stratification systems based on the perceptionof race and colour.

Study of ‘race relations’ in the second half of the twentieth centurywas increasingly under pressure from emergence of other concepts.Authors like Barth, Cohen and Moynihan were bringing in ethnicityas a major focus in their study. The influence of Marxism on the studyof race relations and immigration was raising some importanttheoretical issues about the relationship between class and ‘race’ asdemonstrated in Sivanandan’s initial writing to be followed by notable

Michael Banton’s contribution to race and ethnic studies 789

contributions to this debate by Stuart Hall, Annie Phizacklea andRobert Miles with scholars such as John Solomos, as it were, waiting inthe wings. Both ethnicity and class were to impinge on debates on‘race’ relations. In addition, publication of Rushdie’s The SatanicVerses combined with the effects of the first Gulf War was alreadyraising issues which were going to make an impact on Muslims inEurope and America, leading to the conception of Islamophobia, anidea which became an important feature of the debate especially afterevents of 9/11, followed by invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.Intellectual and political concern with diaspora was rapidly advancingin history and sociology. Among these various threads, theoreticalideas about the emergence of ethnicity and Marxism were going tomake an impact on study of what had been designated as ‘racerelations’ for past decades.

Racism Problematic

Marxist scholarship on race had been inspired by Oliver CromwellCox’s study which had argued that race was an aspect of capitalism ifnot just a mirror reflection of class, an argument that was to appear indifferent forms and with different degrees of sophistication in the1970s and 1980s. Those who took the primacy of capitalism as a keyfeature of ‘race relations’ did not share common ground with thosewhose point of departure was the race and its significance inpostcolonial societies.

However a study with a Marxist perspective changed the terrain ofdebate when Robert Miles, who had worked with Michael Banton atthe Bristol Unit for Ethnic Relations in the early 1970s, publishedRacism and Migrant Labour in 1982. In this publication Robert Milesoffered a critique of what he identified as ‘race relations problematic’.The main burden of this critique concerned Banton and Rex use of‘race’ as an analytical and theoretical category when evidence since theUNESCO statements on race had suggested that race did not have anyfoundation in science. Extending this argument to the realm ofsociology of ‘race relations’, Miles suggested that there was afundamental problem in the use of ‘race relations’ as a categorywhen it was most likely to reify the idea of race as something that wasreal when it did not have a basis for discrete existence and gavecredibility to those who wanted to foster the idea of race as a biologicaland cultural entity. In the second chapter of his book ‘Race Relations’:a mirage refracted’, Miles criticized both Banton and Rex for theirfocus on ‘race relations’ as if it defined a distinctive field of inquiry.Miles reasserted his argument about race as a scientific error andtherefore continued use of ‘race’ and ‘race relations’ as problematicand unsatisfactory. He argued that this usage was as an impediment to

790 Rohit Barot

a better understanding of conditions faced by visible migrantpopulation. Following a familiar thread in Marxism, he contendedthat the concept of ideology was more illuminating. According to thisargument, neither ‘race’ nor ‘race relations’ but the concept of racismas an ideology was likely to offer a better understanding of the rangeof inequalities faced by visible migrant communities. Making adistinction between phenomenal and essential aspects of reality, Milesargued that to focus on phenomenal component of ‘race and racerelations’ gave credibility to the idea that relation between whites andblacks was primarily a matter of race and physical differences and thussupported false reification of race in sociology. In his criticism ofBanton’s concern with ‘race and race relations issues’, Miles arguedthat Banton was not breaking away from the mould of ‘race relationsproblematic’. Intellectual heritage of ‘race and race relations’ had beentoo well-institutionalized to decline from the domain where ‘race’retained a powerful influence both in theoretical writing as well as inpublic debates on issues like immigration.

In responding to this criticism, Banton explored the terrain ofdifferences between Marxist and non-Marxist views on the signifi-cance of race in a series of publications. In a chapter entitled‘Epistemological assumptions in the study of racial differentiation’(Rex and Mason, 1986) Banton traced contrasting approaches withrace relations to philosophical and epistemological differences betweenKant and Hegel and demonstrated how the differences betweenKantian view of science and Hegelian view of history had given riseto contrasting philosophical traditions. The difference between thesetraditions shaped assumptions about reality and led to the distinctionbetween value freedom and value laden knowledge. In his essayentitled ‘The Racism Problematic’ (Barot, 1996, 20�43) Bantonresponded to these issues and extended his argument about compara-tive merits and limitations of perspectives stemming from a historicaland class-based approach to racism. However, he did not abandon the‘race relations problematic’ as he argued that the notion of race livedon in perception as well as in public policy, especially through RaceRelations legislations. At the same time he did not dismiss criticism of‘race relations problematic’. To his credit, he indicated that,

The race concept’s career has followed an erratic socially disruptivepath, acquiring new meanings without losing most of the old ones.Among its illegitimate offspring has been the expression ‘racerelations’ , which has implied for many that such relationsare distinctive because of the biological constitution of the partiesrather than because of the social significance vested in physicaldifferences. Those who have written of ‘race relations’ have notalways handled these problems as well as they might have done.

Michael Banton’s contribution to race and ethnic studies 791

The changes entailed by taking racism as a starting point have beenpolitically constructive in focusing more sharply upon prejudice anddiscrimination within the majority and upon the interrelationsbetween their underlying causes (Banton, 1996, 41 emphasis added).

Although Banton’s position was grounded in his Kantian methodol-ogy, he wore no blinkers and had the intellectual openness to recognizethe criticism of his work as well as the contribution that this criticismmade to the debate on race and race relations in sociology. In rejectingthe logic of arguments based on philosophical monism and collecti-vism associated with Hegel and Marxists, Banton had developed acritical and comparative appraisal of what he called the ‘racismproblematic’ in his contribution to this volume. He shows some of thelimitations of the ‘racism problematic’ and argues that the differencesbetween ‘race relations problematic’ and ‘racism problematic’ raisedifferent kinds of questions depending on the perspective that anindividual scholar decides to apply.

However, in his quest to find a theory that would satisfy the Kantianexpectation of science, Banton began exploring rational choice theorythat focused on the individual as the unit of analysis in intergrouprelations. In examining the propositions of rational choice, Banton wasable to take account of the subjective meanings that actors brought tobear on their perception of race and culture. Although he relatedrational choice to race and ethnicity, these categories were not in anyway an inevitable part of his theoretical framework. For he was awarethat in many situations the actors may not attach any racial or ethnicmeaning to their choice and this may create a basis for non-racialinteraction. His concern with perception of race and ethnicity did notlead him to exclude those encounters which were free from burdens ofrace and ethnicity. However, his focus was on rational choice as it wasinfluenced by subjective attribution of race and ethnicity. Heconcentrated on micro-sociology of how did actors make choiceswhen they were self-conscious of physical and cultural differences.

Rational Choice and its application to ‘racial’ and ethnic relations

Using the study of role-relationships, Banton argued that it linked upeasily with models of social behaviour as transactions between personsexchanging goods and services. Banton had picked this idea up fromGeorge Homans’s work. In 1976 he saw how it could be the foundationof a synoptic theory of racial and ethnic relations. To state this theoryproperly was going to be a long task, so he first published an outline asa working paper. It was entitled Rational Choice: a theory of racial andethnic relations (1977). Choosing a name for the theory was not easy.He knew that the one he eventually chose would mislead some people

792 Rohit Barot

into thinking that it was a theory of rational choice only, when thatwas not his intention. The neo-classical economics Banton had studiedat the LSE used rationality as a criterion for the analysis of behaviour,enabling the economist to calculate the costs of sub-optimal decisions.The same principle could be applied in studying the readiness ofpeople to identify with racial or ethnic groups. Subsequently heconcentrated on the theory of rational choice, most evidently so withthe publication of Racial and Ethnic Competition (1983), where heindicated that he had moved from the position he had reached in RaceRelations (1967). He wished to analyse issues of race and ethnicity interms of a single theory. This was to be called ‘Rational Choice Theoryof Racial and Ethnic Relations’ (1983:12) which suggested that‘competition is the critical process shaping patterns of racial andethnic relations’ (1983:12).

The notion of rational choice seemed to undermine the primarysignificance of race. Instead, competition, rational choice and itsconsequences gained more importance in his inquiry. In other words, itwas not the social significance of race that was to determine thepattern of relationships, but the rational calculation according towhich the individuals would compete for goods and services in orderto maximise their personal gain. As David Mason has stated, therational choice theory ‘is self-consciously individualistic and assumesthe theoretical primacy of individual actors rather than pre-existentsocial groups’ (1986, 1988, 16�17). Banton outlined the mainpropositions of rational choice theory as follows:

1 Individuals use physical and cultural differences to create groupsand categories by the processes of inclusion and exclusion. Ethnicgroups result from inclusive processes and racial groups fromexclusive processes.2 When groups interact, processes of change affect their boundariesin ways determined by the form and intensity of competition. Inparticular, when people compete as individuals, this tends todissolve the boundaries that define the groups; when they competeas groups, this reinforces those boundaries. (Banton 1983:100�139;1995, 478�497).

Banton applied his theoretical formulation to the study of discrimina-tion in housing to show that individual buyers and sellers would bringto bear particular preferences (including a preference for skin colour)(1979:416�426). Individuals from a visible minority population mayfind paying a higher price for housing, a ‘colour tax’ that couldfacilitate their entry into the housing market. In treating rationalchoice theory as a set of propositions which can be tested in a situationwhere actors make a particular set of choices as opposed to others,

Michael Banton’s contribution to race and ethnic studies 793

Banton was advancing rationality of decision making as a criticalprocess in competition between individuals from different groupsand backgrounds. Distinct from theorists whose ideals were prescrip-tive, Banton wanted to focus on competition in real situationsto demonstrate the working of the rational choice paradigm andthe effect it could have not only on constraints and exclusion but alsoon opportunities which could facilitate venues of economic andsocial mobility for migrants and their families, a theme of carefulscientific examination that would have sustained Banton’s Popperianinclination.

Human Rights Problematic

To many scholars familiar with Banton’s work, it may seem as if hisinterest in human rights and international law largely stemmed fromhis nomination or appointment on the United Nations Committee onthe Elimination of Racial Discrimination in the 1990s. In a paneldiscussion on the ‘The Life Course’ at the British SociologicalAssociation Conference in 2005, he observed,

Looking back, I see my interest in human rights, and in racialdiscrimination in particular, as the development of an orientationformed before leaving school and shaped by the doctrines I studiedat LSE.

Although Banton asserts that he did not have a conception of humanrights before he became involved in the UN, the context of his researchin colonial and postcolonial Britain already had an internationaldimension. At the end of the imperial rule after the Second World War,Britain was already dealing with migrations from the nations of bothold and new Commonwealth in what could be identified as a realm ofinternational relations. In my assessment, his study of settlement ofcolonial immigrants in the 1950s clearly demonstrates this theme.Although enhanced global self consciousness of human rights asa distinctive issue may have come about in the second half of the20th century, Chapter 10 ‘‘The Conclusions for Social Policy’’ in TheColoured Quarter, signals the emergence of concern with the welfare ofcolonial immigrants along with potential for legal measures againstdiscrimination and human rights. For example, there is a reference toL. G. Green’s ‘Human Rights and the Colour problem’ (Banton 1959,p. 243) and a clear statement that ‘the writers of the United Nationsmemorandum on Discrimination come out unequivocally in favour oflegislative action’.At the very least this indicates that such concerns,although not spelled out in global terms familiar in the last quarter of

794 Rohit Barot

20th century, were already not too far from the awareness of scholarsafter the Second World War.

Service with the UN gave Banton opportunities to explore theinternational dimension of racial discrimination and the tension thatlead to violation of human rights. ICERD or International Conven-tion on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965(entered into force 1969) refers to this issue on its web page.

This Convention requires countries to condemn all forms of racialdiscrimination, whether based on race, colour, descent, or nationalor ethnic origin, and to pursue a policy of eliminating racialdiscrimination. Countries must guarantee everyone’s right to equal-ity before the law, and to various political, civil, economic, socialand cultural rights. The ICERD recognizes that affirmative actionmeasures may be necessary to achieve these ends. Unfortunately, theConvention does not make any specific reference to discriminationagainst women in the context of race discrimination. The Conven-tion establishes the Committee on the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination, which is empowered to consider complaints fromother countries about violations of the ICERD and, in certaincircumstances, individual or group complaints. Its role is also tomonitor progress towards full implementation of the Convention inthe countries that have ratified the convention.

As a member Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination(CERD) from 1986 to 2001 and its Chairman from 1996�98, Bantonplayed an important part in getting the states to comply with theirinternational obligations as parties to this convention and to provideinformation needed to demonstrate compliance. Although he has sofar been the only UK national to be elected to chair a UN humanrights treaty body, and this has been his main career distinction, hisacademic associates, his students and policy-makers who wereinfluenced by him will always remember Michael Banton as an astutescholar who contributed to both intellectual and policy dimensions ofrace and ethnic studies.

References

BANTON, M. 1955 The Coloured Quarter, London: Cape

** 1957 West African City, Oxford: Oxford University Press

** 1959 White and Coloured , London: Cape

** 1964 The Policeman in the Community, London: Tavistock

** 1965 Roles, London: Tavistock

** 1967 Race Relations, London: Tavistock

** 1972 Racial Minorities , London: Fontana

Michael Banton’s contribution to race and ethnic studies 795

** 1977 Rational Choice Theory of Race and Ethnic Relations , Bristol: Research Unit on

Ethnic Relations, University of Bristol

** 1979 ‘Two theories of racial discrimiantion in housing’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2,4

pp.416�427

** 1983 Racial and Ethnic Competition , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

** 1988 ‘Chapter 2 Epistemological assumptions in the study of racial differentiation’, in

Rex J. and Mason D (eds), Theories of Race and Ethnic Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, pp. 42�63

** (1991) ‘The Race Relations Problematic’ British Journal of Sociology, Volume No 42,

No.1, March 1991, pp. 115�130

** 1996 ‘Chapter 1 Racism Problematic’, in Rohit Barot (ed.), The Racism Problematic:

Contemporary Sociological Debates on Race and Ethnicity, Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen

Press, pp. 20�43

** 1996 International Action against Racial Discrimination , Oxford: Clarendon Press

** 2002 The International Politics of Race, Cambridge: Polity Press

BAROT, R (ed.). (1996) The Racism Problematic: Contemporary Sociological Debates on

Race and Ethnicity, Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, pp. 20�43

HUXLEY, J. and HADDON, A.C 1935 We Europeans, London: Cape

ICERD (2006) http://www.iwtc.org/ICERD.html

MILES, R. 1982 Racism and Migrant Labour, London: Routledge

REX J and MASON D. (eds) (1986) Theories of Race and Ethnic Relations Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

UNESCO Statement on Race and Racial Prejudice (1968) Current Anthropology, Volume 9,

No. 4 (October 1968) pp. 270�272

ZUBAIDA S. (ed) (1970) Race and Racialism . London: Tavistock

ROHIT BAROT is Visiting Fellow, Department of Archaeology andAnthropology, University of Bristol.ADDRESS: Department of Archaeology & Anthropology, Universityof Bristol, 43 Woodland Road, Clifton, Bristol BS8 1UU. Email:B/rohitbarot@bristol.ac.uk�/

796 Rohit Barot