The Ontological Reality of Race

The idea of a social construct, does not necessarily mean that a phenomenon is not real. What it does mean is that although something does not necessarily exist in an empirical sense, there is nevertheless a consensus regarding its existence. In other words, society makes a phenomenon real by how it is perceived and by the actions of social actors. For example, families are real. However, a family is not something you expect to trip over, whilst walking along the High Street. We construct the meaning of what constitutes a family, and it is that consensus which informs our understanding of what a family actually is. Therefore, the family has an ontological reality, as society gives meaning to things that ‘exist out there’, which are not always material and physically tangible.

The concept of race is also a social construct: another example of an ontological reality. Scientific evidence reveals that at the level of the genome, human beings are more biologically similar than any other species on earth. Moreover, there can be more genotype variance within groups who classify themselves as being physically similar, than those who appear different due to the colour of their skin. As such, the concept of race has no scientific basis. However, racism – i.e. the consequences of actions informed by the perception that races exist – is nevertheless real.

Certain ideas regarding identity, belonging, inclusion and exclusion are socially constructed around meanings attached to variances in phenotype differences. Skin colour to some extent is also a signifier of cultural differences, just as ethnicity is often accepted as a pseudonym for race. In capitalist societies, race cannot be examined in isolation of the power relationships that exist between dominant and subjugated racial groups. As such, the consequences of racism are real and therefore have measurable impacts. Disparities in relationships of power between ethnic groups can be distinguished by measuring variances in the treatment of racialised minorities over time and space. This is especially in terms of analysing ethnic differences in their access to life-changing resources such as education, employment, housing and health. It is in this way that patterns and trends in the effects of racism can be reliably measured and, the validity of its detrimental impacts on racialised groups in society, can be seen to be real.

Comment on the above blog by posting your responses to the questions below:

Has science got it wrong and is the concept of race real?
Identify a UK legislation [i.e. an Act of Law] or policy that reinforces the reality of race.
Explain how the idea of hierarchies in the social order is normalised by the social construction of the nuclear family. Now apply the same ‘logic’ to the concept of racial groups, to explain how racial hierarchies are normalised and to some extent accepted in society.

Democracy or Tyranny?

The concept of democracy – government by the people, for the people – is supposedly the bedrock upon which the values of modern Western societies are constructed. Democratic rule by government replaced the tyranny of historic kingdoms, in which the subjects of kings had no individual rights or freedoms. However, it can be argued that the future of modern society is going back to the past, as elected officials are acting more like tyrannical kings than honest brokers. Although politicians make promises to their electorate, there is no way of holding them to account when they break them. It can therefore be argued that lies and tyranny have replaced truth and democracy in maintaining social control. Consequently, the rights and freedoms of individuals in society are being eroded by a new politics of fascism and authoritarianism. Political parties in opposition will say whatever they think is necessary to gain populist support. Truth is merely collateral damage in the pursuit of power, whilst morality and integrity have lost all meaning. It seems that government is more concerned with empowering the affluent and powerful few, whilst disempowering the impoverished and disenfranchised many. Examples of authoritarian and fascist rule, and the impact both have on perpetuating inequality in society, has been demonstrated by the recent actions of political leaders in the UK, Europe and especially the US.

Respond to this post:

State whether or not you agree or disagree with the above post and why;
Provide an example of authoritarian or fascist politics, happening in the UK, Europe or the US;
Identify at least one social group that is being silenced or disadvantaged by the current political climate and explain why it is the case.

What is going on with the world?

In recent years, the sight of Union Jack flags flying across the UK has become more ubiquitous. Yet, what was once a symbol of national pride is now increasingly tied to a certain kind of rhetoric that has seeped into mainstream politics, one that centres on a deeply polarising issue: immigration. While some claim that their flag-flying is a simple celebration of British identity, for many, it has come to represent something far more sinister – a declaration of exclusion, a symbol of nationalism that is often used to justify policies that harm the most vulnerable.

But the issue here isn’t just about the flying of flags; it’s about what these flags are representing. Immigration is not the only policy that should define a nation’s values, yet in the current political climate, it often feels like it is. It’s as though entire societies, cultures, and identities are being boiled down to a single issue, one that is consistently used to divide and vilify the most marginalised groups. Immigrants, refugees, and people of colour are disproportionately represented as ‘the problem,’ painted as threats to social stability, to jobs, to the very fabric of what is deemed ‘British.’ It is a cruel misrepresentation, one that hides the very real, very human people behind the stereotypes and scapegoating.

What gets lost in this hyper-focus on immigration is the fact that many of those shouting the loudest about ‘taking back control’ are also the same people whose policies fail the working class. We are told to fear the outsider, while our own people – working-class Brits – continue to face stagnant wages, insecure jobs, and cuts to vital public services. The same politicians who wave the flag so proudly are the ones pulling the rug out from under those most in need. It’s a smokescreen, a diversion to keep the poor divided and distracted, while those at the top continue to profit.

Flying the flag is one thing, but it’s become increasingly clear that behind it lurks an undercurrent of fear and bigotry. It’s intimidating, not just because of the flag itself, but because of what it has come to represent. It’s not just about pride; it’s about power. The implication is that to be British, you must conform to a certain image, a certain idea of what it means to belong. And if you don’t fit that mould – whether due to your race, your nationality, or your heritage – you’re left to feel like an outsider in your own home.

This is where it becomes deeply dangerous. The people who are behind this rhetoric, the ones who raise the flag in their own twisted vision of ‘Britishness,’ are often the same ones who turn a blind eye to the reality of the working class. They are the ones who would rather use immigrants as scapegoats than confront the systemic issues that lead to inequality and exploitation. And in doing so, they perpetuate a climate where racism, xenophobia, and hatred thrive. They know exactly what they’re doing. This isn’t about protecting a culture or securing a future for the working class – it’s about consolidating power and preserving privilege for the few.

But let’s not forget: we are all human. We don’t own this land. The Earth does not belong to any one group of people, no matter how much we like to think that our borders are sacred. Every inch of land we stand on has been fought over by people far before us, and will continue to be contested by future generations. The idea of “owning” land, of claiming it for one group or another, is absurd when you stop and think about it. It’s a man-made concept, a product of colonialism, and it’s the root of so much of the violence and division we see today.

Take Gaza, for example. People there are fighting and dying over a piece of land that none of us truly own. The bloodshed, the suffering, the loss – it’s all because we’ve convinced ourselves that one group of people has a right to a particular place on Earth. It’s the same rhetoric that drives wars, divides communities, and breeds hatred. And yet, no one truly owns the land. We are simply temporary inhabitants of a planet that we’ve never had the right to claim as our own.

This isn’t just about borders; it’s about recognising the inherent humanity in all of us. Immigrants aren’t ‘taking our jobs’; they’re human beings, often fleeing unimaginable horrors, seeking safety, stability, and the chance for a better life. To turn them into villains, to use them as pawns in a game of political power, is an abomination.

We need to start asking the difficult questions. Why are we so quick to turn against each other? Why do we allow the powerful to divide us, to pit us against one another, based on lines drawn on a map that no one truly owns? Immigration, race, culture – these are not the problems. The problem is a system that thrives on division and exploitation. The problem is a world where those in power continue to profit from the suffering of the most vulnerable, all while we are distracted by flags and rhetoric that serve to keep us in line.

It’s time to stop being intimidated. It’s time to remember that we are all human, that we are all on this planet together. And no matter how many flags you fly or how loudly you shout, you cannot own the Earth. It’s time to fight for a world where we care more about each other than about borders, where we recognise the humanity in everyone, regardless of where they come from. Because that’s the only way we’ll truly create a better future for all.

i. Respond to this post by suggesting ways in which we can encourage the idea of a collective conscience in society, by being inclusive to all, rather than exclusive to some.

ii. What have the examples of ‘patriotism’, especially pride in the flag, articulated in the post above, has to do with Empire and the loss of it?

Agency and Media [Mis]Representation

According to Althusser (1971) the media is part of the ideological state apparatuses [ISAs]. These are the mechanisms used by the ruling-class to control ideas, which support their interests and maintain their power in capitalist societies. The media influences the way in which the poor and working-classes are perceived by the public as lazy, worthless and welfare dependent. Although Althusser’s theory was published in the 1970s, it is still relevant in today’s neoliberal capitalist society. This is demonstrated in Jensen’s (2014) concept of poverty porn and Tyler’s (2015) notion that the material predicament of the poor has become TV entertainment for the masses. The public generally believe what they see, hear and read in the legacy mainstream media. However, the concept of ISAs overlooks the power that new social media platforms have to change how the public see and think about the poor.

i. Refer to two real-life examples that demonstrate how the media demonises some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society.

ii. Is the current system of welfare benefits so generous that it undermines work by handing out ‘free’ payments, or is that a myth? Support your response with evidence, rather than simply writing down your opinions.

iii. How can social media be used to change public opinion about the poor, and in doing so also improve government welfare policies?

The Tension Between Democracy and News Values

In the context of nineteenth century America, Alexis De Tocqueville suggested that freedom of the press is necessary for the objective functioning of a democratic society. Without that freedom there is a danger of unaccountability, as government might not always act in the interests of the public. De Tocqueville also contended that tyranny, of the majority members of a society, could only be constrained if the press were free from private commercial interests.

In the post-truth age of the twenty-first century, relativism – which suggests there are many truths, rather than a single objective reality – informs the interests of the modern media. As such, the traditional mass media presents the news in a simplistic binary of good/bad, which overlooks the complexity of social and political interactions in society.

The news value of the good/bad dichotomy appeals to the public’s respectable fears. This is the idea that society is generally good but there are some bad actors out there. However, the truth does not support the media’s good guy/bad guy news value inventory. Fear is good for the production of news.

Media news values are not necessarily democratic nor are they objective. They are mediated and driven by corporate, commercial, political and private interests. Consequently, truth, integrity and the principles of democratic freedoms are idealistic casualties, in how the news is portrayed to the public. The truth only becomes apparent if it can be tied into wider public and commercial interests.

Identify two contemporary examples that suggest news values is – or is not – in the best interests of the public.

Race, Class, Gender and Victimhood in the Media

A victim is a social construct, in a similar way that crime is understood as an act that breaks the law in society. However, the understanding of what constitutes a crime is not universal, as it differs according to time, place and context. Murder carries the maximum punishment of a life sentence, and who is murdered is generally perceived as a victim. However, this is not always the case. The State makes laws, which regulate public perceptions of an act, and can therefore decide who should be given the status of victim. According to Weber, the governmental State has the monopoly on violence. In this context it is the power to confer violence by deciding who is labelled a victim and who should be denied that status. Women and children are generally considered to be vulnerable and innocent and are therefore deserving of the label of victim. However, this is not always the case. An example is Child Q who was denied her rights as a child by the police and subsequently treated as an adult and offender. This is an example of adultification.

The denial of victimhood by the State is also an example of structural violence. Wacquant defines structural violence as violence from above. These are inequalities such as patriarchy and racism, which go unchallenged by the State. The media is also complicit in the process of structural violence by its misrepresentation of demonised females in society. For example, media news values portray welfare dependent working-class females as pathological and deviant. No consideration is given to how their agency is constrained by patriarchy or economic exploitation in the labour market. Motherhood often means they are trapped in part-time poorly paid work. However, the lived-experiences of White working-class females are framed in the context of them making the wrong lifestyle choices. This is especially where having children outside of marriage is concerned.

Race also intersects class where universal acknowledgement of victimhood is concerned. This can be seen in the media portrayals of the murders of Sarah Everhard, Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman. All three females were young, middle-class victims of male violence, and serving police officers were either directly or indirectly involved in their murders. However, Sarah was White, whilst Bibaa and her sister Nicole were Black. It can be argued that the factor of race contributed to differences in the media coverage of their murders. There was considerably more public sympathy and subsequent protests on behalf of Sarah, but a distinct lack of media outrage on the part of Bibaa and Nicole. This suggests that racial difference is a significant factors in how the media and its public audience define what constitutes the ideal-type victim.

i. Using at least one real-life example, explain what are the characteristics of an ideal victim to the media.

ii. What is the problem with the media’s simplistic definition of what constitutes a victim (i.e. the problems that such representations overlooks or hides). Refer to race, class and gender differences in your response

iii. Define what is meant by adultification and explain the problem of adultifying children, by referring to an example.

The New Hope-Less Class in Neoliberal Britain

What hope is there for the working-classes in neoliberal Britain, particularly when poverty, unemployment and uncertainty about the future is the norm, rather than the exception? Sixty to seventy years ago, when British industry was driven by manufacturing and production processes, the working-classes were perceived as the backbone of the economy. However, under the current modes of financial capitalism, unskilled and semi-skilled work are generally considered as surplus to the requirements of the neoliberal labour market. Sociologically, workers at the lower end of the occupational class structure are now viewed as the precariat. This is because of the precarious nature of their insecure employment positions, such as agency work and zero-hour contract jobs. However, their unemployed counterparts are demonised and labelled as the underclass by the political classes. The underclass are viewed as underserving, feckless, lazy, work-shy and welfare dependent. Stereotypical images of the unemployed poor are commodified by the media for the purpose of entertainment, which is often referred to as poverty porn. This negative portrayal of the poor overlooks the impact that structural violence has on maintaining poverty in society.

As the rich get richer, and increasingly more of the unemployed get prison, the media reinforces the victim-blaming notion that the so-called underclass are the architects of their own misfortune. Consequently, due to the way in which contemporary capitalism is organised, it seems that we can no longer speak of a work[ing]-class with any certainty. A reason being is that those whose precarious lives leave them tottering on the brink of society are ascribed as the less: the worth-less; the work-less; the job-less; the home-less; the future-less and hope-less. The poor in neoliberal times are conceived as less deserving than their middle-class or in-work counterparts. In contrast, society’s strivers are conveyed to the public as those who made the right choices and are consequently able to engage with the markets of neoliberal capitalism; whereas the predicament of society’s skivers is explained by the poor choices they have made. We have become used to the idea that the poor amongst us are the causal factors of everything that is wrong in society, rather than seeing them as victims of mass economic changes, which are beyond their control.

Refer to your lived-experience, or those of a social group that you identify with. Respond to this post by explaining how an example of your [or their] material [i.e. financial/poverty] situation, might be seen [by the wider public or the State] as a consequence of poor individual lifestyle choices.

The Truth is Not Free in the Post-Truth Society

Sapere aude: dare to know. In Marten Luther King’s speech concerning the so-called “race problem in America” he referred to John 8: 32 – ‘the truth shall set you free’. However, that is not necessarily the case in late modernity, as merely knowing the truth is not enough to obtain freedom from injustice. Without the means to change the unequal balance of power in society, the acquisition of knowledge can be like an iron cage. Simply knowing the truth, without the power to contest false truth claims, can constrain the agency of those who are demonised by the lies of the powerful as they pursue their capitalist interests.

In 1835 de Tocqueville contended that freedom of the press is necessary for democracy in America. Implicit in his statement is that the truth must be pursued as an objective reality, as it is fundamental to any society that prioritises the freedoms of its members. However, in contemporary society the truth is not the primary concern of the media, nor is social justice. The truth is only prioritised if it supports the media’s capitalist news values, especially where making money out of political scandal is concerned.

The idea that the media is part of what Althusser refers to as the ideological state apparatus is demonstrated in the case of Julian Assange. The truth did not set him free, but instead it incarcerated him. Assange’s imprisonment by the repressive state apparatus [RSA] is an example of the tension between real news and its suppression by the legacy mass media, in the post-truth age. He used the WikiLeaks media platform to provide the public with evidence of atrocities committed by the American State, against the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan. However, freedom to publish comes at a cost. In Assange’s case, the price of the truth was his personal liberty.

How can we use our social media platforms and digital devices, to weaponize the truth and hold the powerful to account, in the war against injustice and inequality in society?

The Network Society and Simulacrum

Castells contends that in the network society, of modern consumer capitalism, technology increases social engagement. To Castells, online communications merely initiate subsequent social relationships. Therefore, technology neither reduce nor replace human relationships. An example of Castell’s theory in practice is online dating, which begins in virtual space. However, the aim of such relationships is to fulfil intimate physical desire in the real world. Castells theory is supported by research, which reveals that the stigma once associated with online dating is now a phobia of the past. It is now generally accepted that intimate relationships exist in a market. As such, finding the partner of your dreams is no longer a matter of luck. Dating and mating have effectively become a science, driven by the free market principles of competition and consumer choice. Algorithms ensure compatibility and therefore the likelihood of customer satisfaction and happiness increases. Desire is a commodity in our ‘pay-as-you-go’ network society. However, it can also be argued that the certainty of science is also reducing the spontaneity of intimacy in modern life. Society stagnates when its members do not have the freedom to make choices and learn from their lived-experiences, especially where personal relationships are concerned.

What kind of society will be have in the future, if our capacity for intimacy depends on a network connection? Consider who will be excluded, who will be included and why?

Technological dependence also supports Baudrillard’s concept of simulacrum, which suggests that the boundary between the virtual and real world is becoming increasingly blurred. Baudrillard contends that modern society exists in a hyper-reality, in which modern life is a representation of the virtual. Hence, the virtual is real and the real is also virtual. As such, society’s fetish with the body is also a simulacrum and a commodity for consumer capitalism. This is demonstrated in the way that there is a market for surgical procedures where females [and males] can be surgically transformed to resemble a Barbie doll – a representation of an exaggerated reality. Lips, buttocks, noses, breasts, faces and even biological sex, can be adapted to conform with changes in trends, and individual choice.

Does the simulation of reality [a hyper-reality] signify happiness, or is it evidence of increasing normlessness and alienation in modern society?

The Neoliberal Governmental State: The Unaccountable and Clandestine Rogue Actor

The media is a key site of struggle; it is the arena of liberal pluralism in which political ideologies and their social impacts are contested. It can be argued that the media commodifies public concerns by creating moral panics and constructing folk devils, who appear to be the cause of wider social problems. However, the media also constrains the tyranny of the majority. It holds the powerful to account by highlighting inequalities experienced by marginalised groups, which would have otherwise gone unnoticed. An example of this is Amelia Gentleman’s investigative journalism that brought the Windrush Scandal to public attention. Nevertheless, we should not overlook that the media accumulates capital by appropriating our feelings, thoughts and attention:, psychologically, physically and sociologically.

The mass media is adept at sensing our feelings of inertia, and has the power to change our priorities and refocus our concerns, regardless of whether a significant issue has been resolved. Consequently, the media entertain us by converging our gaze as we passively drift from one scandal to another: from Windrush to contaminated blood, to postmasters . However, in all the injustices mentioned above, the media often downplays the clandestine role played by our absent or unaccountable State, in precipitating serious harms on the public. A reason why we might overlook the inability of government to govern, is that all our respectable fears concerning the maintenance of the social order, are built on the need to believe that our rulers are fundamentally decent, democratic and accountable to the public who they ‘supposedly’ serve. Although a ‘few bad apples’ might slip through the political net from time to time, believing in the general good of government suppresses our existential fears about the future. However, neoliberal governmentality takes a laissez-faire stance, and its philosophy of social and economic individualism aligns with the news values of the media. Therefore, the pursuit of truth and social justice are not necessarily objective aims of our news agencies.

With no government to steer the ship on course, the public will do one of two things: i. bring down its veil over the signs and symbols that indicate the disintegration of society’s moral tapestry, and subsequently sleepwalk into impending disaster; or ii. subject the ‘folk devils’, who they perceive to be the source of social strain, to the tyranny of the majority. Unaccountable governmentality = MOB RULE! Which side of this equation is the media on?