Race & Ethnic Relations: Cross-Cultural Perspectives || AN ANALYSIS OF MAX WEBER'S THEORY OF...

Department of Sociology, Humboldt State University

AN ANALYSIS OF MAX WEBER'S THEORY OF ETHNICITYAuthor(s): Maurice JacksonSource: Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, Vol. 10, No. 1, Race & Ethnic Relations: Cross-Cultural Perspectives (FALL/WINTER 1982/83), pp. 4-18Published by: Department of Sociology, Humboldt State UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23261855 .

Accessed: 10/09/2013 15:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Department of Sociology, Humboldt State University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Humboldt Journal of Social Relations.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.209.6.50 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:41:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=humboldtsocio

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23261855?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


4

AN ANALYSIS OF MAX WEBER'S THEORY OF ETHNICITY

Maurice Jackson

Department of Sociology University of California, Riverside

ABSTRACT

Max Weber's theory of ethnicity is analyzed by means of a paradigm. It shows the comprehensive nature of his theory and offers some sug gestions for research relative to the theory. The paradigm can be used to evaluate other theories in race and ethnicity specifically and

sociology generally.

INTRODUCTION

Max Weber is well known for his general theory of social action and for

specific theories of stratification, organizations, authority, power, and religion. Yet far less is known about his treatment of ethnicity. Fortunately, it is possible to gather a framework for interpreting his theory of ethnicity from a number of translated works (Weber, 1946; 1947; 1949; 19&; 1971; 1973; and 1978) and

secondary sources (Mannesse, 1967) and (Hechter, 1976). This paper relies

heavily on these sources. This study is an analysis of the Weberian theory of ethnicity in terms of con

cerns that an adequate theory of race and ethnicity must address. They may be divided into those matters that 1) relate to racial and ethnic groups, 2) specify their relationships to other groups, and 3) provide directions foF further perti nent research. 1) With regard to the study of groups, first of all, it is necessary to define racial and ethnic groups and, secondly, distinguish them from other

groups. Third, the origin and bases of the groups must be explained. Fourth, the theory of race and ethnic groups must be related to an explicit general systematic theory of social behavior, in this case social action. Fifth, the theory should explain how the groups engage in action.

2) Race and ethnic relations address a different set of concerns. First, the

theory should specify the nature of the relationships. Second, it must explain

HUMBOLDT JOURNAL OF SOCIAL RELATIONS — VOL. 10 NO. 1 — FALL/WINTER 1982/83



5

the persistence of the relationships. Third, it must account for the way they change.

3) The theory should provide directives for research pertaining to it. These theoretical concerns of Weber can serve as guidelines for the develop

ment of theories of race and ethnic relations. At the same time, they can serve as criteria for evaluating current theories. For example, the popular theories in

race and ethnic relations do not relate to explicit general theories of human ac

tion. This, then, is an area that requires much attention if our knowledge of

these groups is to be enhanced significantly.

RACE AND ETHNIC GROUPS

Definitions of Ethnicity

Despite some efforts at ethnic theory-building, the many different modern definitions of ethnicity and ethnic groups point to the need for theory, as well as research, to determine their significance. It is useful to examine these defini tions of ethnicity in order to place Weber's definition in some perspective. More importantly, the definition of ethnicity should have implications for the rest of the theory which, as will be seen later, is true of Weber's theory.

Weber defined ethnicity, as the belief of social actors in common descent based on racial and cultural differences, among other factors. Ethnicity, then, includes both race and ethnicity as currently understood. He thought it impor tant to define ethnic groups, as simple observation reveals, as groups of people who identify themselves in terms of whom they believe their ancestors to be, whether they act on that basis or not. The term "ethnic" is intended to describe such facts. So, an ethnic group is not a spontaneously developed community, or a group with a specific geographical location, but a group of people who believe they have ancestors in common from the past. An ethnic group is also not identical with people who are actually related, a kin group, but with those, kin or not, who believe they are related in the sense of a presumed common

past. A number of other concepts stress this past orientation: ethnicity as pre

sumed common origin, Greeley (1974), and Mitzman (1970); common descent, real or imaginary, Meister (1974); ancestry, Burkey (1978) and DeVos (1975); European origin, Weed (1973); ethnic heritage, Rose (1976); and cultural

heritage, Mindell (1976). Contrasting with this set of definitions are those which have a present orien

tation: for example, ethnicity as ascription, Barth (1969); Burkey (1978);

HUMBOLDT JOURNAL OF SOCIAL RELATIONS - VOL. 10 NO. 1 - FALL/WINTER 1982/83



6

Despres (1975), and Hoetnik (1975); emerging, Yancey et al. (1976); belonging and pride, Glazer and Moynihan (1975); felt consciousness of kind, Bell (1974); self identification, Enloe (1973); feelings of belonging, Woods (1956); sense of

identification, Davis (1978); sense of peoplehood, Gordon (1964); self

ascription, Barth (1969); and sentiments based on culture, Hechter (1974). A final few definitions combine past and present emphasis: belonging

together by virtue of common descent, Francis (1976); identification and sense of history, Parsons (1975); perceived alike by self and others because of common ancestry—real or imaginary, Shibutani and Kwan (1965); shared

history and physical traits, Nie et al. (1974) associations; identification with common origins, Haller (1973); and descent by birth formed by structure of ex

change of marriage, goods and services, and messages between groups, Keyes (1976).

According to Weber (1968), what is important in ethnicity is the belief in, and not the fact of, common descent. After all, commonality of descent is impossi ble to determine, precisely, because parents, grandparents and other ancestors have different lines of descent and also because people of the same descent may identify themselves differently. These difficulties have not deterred people from

deciding who are their most important ancestors. For instance, in the United States there are simple rules for making the decisions about one's ancestors, e.g. the father's line of descent is given priority over that of the mother while

any amount of black blood is thought to make one black. These social defini tions, then, become matters of social belief. While they do not solve the dif ficult problem posed by the fact that immediate lines of descent are dual, and that more distant lines of descent are multiple, they provide rules to follow.

This brings us to another major feature of ethnic groups. Weber asserted that they are not groups in the strict sense of the word and they are not com munities, which means that they are not composed of individuals engaged in social action or social interaction. Ethnicity is a presumed identity among ac tors which represents a potential for group formation, communal relations, and social action. Put another way, Weber thought ethnicity, belief in common des

cent, represents categories of individuals not individuals or groups in action. To the extent that ethnicity is a potential, it can be reactivated time and time again, if certain conditions prevail. Modern sociologists, following Weber, would be more involved in trying to determine the conditions under which ethnicity does or does not transform into action, rather than in debating whether ethnicity is new and emergent, or persistent and enduring.

Ethnic Groups and Similar Groups

In defining any phenomenon it is useful to distinguish it from similar




7

phenomena. Weber classified ethnic groups, along with households, kinship groups, religious groups, and political groups, as relatively universal groups (Weber, 1968). Yet he asserted that ethnic groups are not kinship groups since

members of the former believe in common descent while those of the latter

believe they belong together. Even more instructive is his comparison of ethnic groups and nations since he

thought the two to be more similar than ethnic groups and the other groups mentioned above. For Weber, the concept of nation tends to overlap with that of ethnicity in that whatever is felt to be common in nations is thought to derive from common descent. Yet, people who consider themselves to be of the same nation may not be completely related by common descent, and differences of

nationality may exist among groups related by common descent. In Weber's view a nation is more than an ethnic group in a way, in that a na

tion requires loyalty from its members in confrontations with other groups. This powerful political community of people also may "share a common

language or religion, or common customs, or political memories..." (Weber, 1968:398).

Bases and Origins of Ethnicity

According to Weber (1968), ethnicity is based on physical types or customs or

both, or memories or colonization or migration. His understanding was that race and customs, or culture, are equally important in generating the belief in common ethnicity. This is not to underplay the significance of race, but to say that any difference can be used as the source of beliefs. In the United States, race is determined by ancestry. Blacks, for instance, are defined in terms of the color of skin, and other physical characteristics, which are seen as indicating the existence of a black ancestor or ancestors. Sociologists, on the other hand, consider race to be important for social reasions, not physical ones.

Although Weber defined race in terms of inheritance of physical traits, as ex

pected, he stressed subjective meanings and beliefs. He concluded that it is not

important whether racial differences are seen as based on biological heredity or cultural tradition. Even an emphasis on blood relationship does not necessarily derive from actual kinship. It is also not important whether racial differences are based on biology or culture, insofar as relationships between ethnic groups are concerned. Almost any similarity or contrast can lead to affinity or dis

affinity that attracts or repulses members of different ethnic groups. Between

groups, race is one of the factors of closure, social attraction and repulsion. These aspects of race, Weber argued, might be measured by determining

HUMBOLDT JOURNAL OF SOCIAL RELATIONS - VOL. 10 NO. 1 — FALL/WINTER 1982/83



8

whether sexual relationships between groups are preferred or rare, are perma nent or temporary and whether intermarriage does or does not occur. What makes physical similarity or contrast important is that it is recognized as

important. In the United States, in the early 1900s, Weber observed that Indians had

greater esteem than blacks. He reasoned that it was not due to the greater cultural achievement of Indians or to less physical differences, or less physical repulsion to them. The great numbers of mUlattoes was evidence to him that

repulsion due to physical characteristics could not be true. As an example, the

major reason for the lesser esteem of blacks, he concluded, was that they had

been slaves and were disliked because of "the feudal contempt" held by white

Americans for the hard physical labor performed by slaves (Weber, 1946). Weber also felt that a variety of customs had generated the feeling of com

mon descent. Among these are: shared political memories, a persistent attach ment to old cult-communities, the continuing strength of kinship ties and other

groups (shared by old and new communities), and other enduring relationships with a continuing emotional basis (Weber, 1978:365).

Weber was of the opinion that any small and minor differences in customs

(language, religion, clothing, housing and so on) could become the bases of

ethnicity. As a matter of fact, he pointed out that what matters in the develop ment of ethnicity is "precisely those things which may appear to be of only minor social importance" (Weber, 1978:366).

Common and shared customs are not more important than different customs in creating ethnicity. For instance, he claimed that shared language and ritual, based on shared religion, played an exceptional part in "creating feelings of ethnic affinity" (Weber, 1978:366). Despite these hypotheses, he also argued that marked differences in dialect and religion do not rule out feelings of com mon ethnicity. In fact, he concluded that striking differences in economic life

also play a part in creating feelings of ethnic identity. On a final point, Weber spoke directly about the tenacity of ethnicity and its

relative independence from factors which produce it. While he felt that among communities it is primarily the political communities which inspire the belief in

ethnic identity, the latter may survive the downfall of the community.

Ethnicity and the Theory of Social Action

Since ethnicity is a potential for social action, it can be transformed into social action. Hence, it is important to describe the theory of social action brief

ly in order to understand the result of this transformation. It is also important




9

to understand social action theory, as it is Weber's principal theory. Weber defined social action as behavior with subjective meaning attached;

which means that in studying social action the point of view of the social actor

must be taken into account by the sociologist. Subjective meaning refers to

social meaning while objective meaning is that sought by sociologists. Social ac

tion, further, is action which is meaningfully oriented to the behavior of other

actors, not to the non-actor environment. However, not every contact is

social—only the contacts invested with meaning by the actor are social. This is

just the beginning of a very complex notion, since social action is not always open to view. It may be hidden and difficult to observe. Finally, social action can be characterized by acts of failure as well as success.

Weber defined social action in such a way that some theories in contem

porary sociology such as those which emphasize adjustment and reaction would

be excluded. This is true because social action is not necessarily action influ

enced by the behavior of others. Therefore, it is not reaction. It is the actor, not

others who attach the subjective meaning to behavior. So, Weber turned away from the approach which emphasizes the way in which external factors affect

individuals so that they are merely responsive and therefore, may be concep tualized as the end-product of these factors. Many facts from other people

impinge upon the actor who acts in relation to those to which he or she assigns

meaning. Social action is a dynamic perspective in which the typical actor

oriented to other actors can determine, in part, the character of the social world to which he/she is oriented and within which he/she acts. In turn, other actors and he/she are oriented in dynamic action toward each other in terms of the behaviors to which they have assigned subjective meaning. The sociologist may be aware of many influences beyond the awareness of the actor, but none is im

portant until the actor attaches meaning to it. Further, the action takes place without full consciousness of the actor. The meaning is the social reality. Ac

tion, however, may be causally determined by the action of others, but not

meaningfully. This point can be illustrated by the thesis of the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Both concepts involve meaningful social action, but they are causally not meaningfully related.

Also, social action is not the imitation of the actions of others. If it were, it

would not be meaningfully oriented to the actor(s) being imitated.

Social action furthermore, does not necessarily refer to similar behavior on

the part of many people. Similar behavior lacks the meaningful orientation to

the behavior of others to the extent that individuals act similarly because of

common needs (in modern terms perhaps common stimuli). Most generally, Weber saw the action of an actor being more important than

interaction or exchange in explaining social phenomena because the latter two




10

explanations are based implicitly upon actors who are partners to the inter action or exchange. If so, it is necessary to be explicit about the character of each partner, especially if the interaction or exchange is not reciprocal. Therefore, the sociological analyst is logically forced into a dissection of the ac tion of the individual actor, which, again, is the Weberian unit of study. The transition into psychology which is possible here is avoided by the development of typical action and actors, through the construction of ideal types. This makes the individual case an instance of a type rather than a unique phenomenon.

Weber also distinguished between rational social action (wertrational and

zweckrational) and irrational social action (affectual and traditional). One type of rational action, wertrational action, refers to an orientation to an absolute value which involves the conscious formulation of the values and planned at

tempts to realize that value. Zweckrational action is an orientation which

employs appropriate means to an end, which have been consciously weighed against others. Affectual and traditional action are irrational. Affective action stresses an orientation based on emotional impulses. Finally, traditional social

action, the most important for the purposes of this paper, is an orientation based on habituation and settled custom.

Many scholars have stressed Weber's great concern with rationality. However, he was quite clearly interested in both rational and irrational social action. For instance, he said:

"This (sociological) increase in clarity...can be achieved most com pletely in the case of rational concepts and laws...But the sociologist seeks also to comprehend such irrational phenomena as mysticism, prophecy, inspiration and emotional states..." Weber, 1978; 23).

His characterization of the rationalization and bureaucratization of the '

Western world, among other things, evidenced his interest in rational social ac tion. Yet, his studies of irrational social action cannot take second place to this.

Among these studies are those involving the Protestant ethic (the irrational base of the rational capitalistic spirit), the world's great religions, charismatic and traditional authority, status groups, and parties.

Ethnicity has implications for irrational social action, particularly the tradi tional orientation. This means, simply, that when ethnicity is changed into social action it will tend to be irrational and traditional. It is evident that Weber

thought the irrationality of ethnicity was derived from the difficulty posed by its multiple origins and the great importance that often is granted to small, or

insignificant, differences.




11

The importance of this theory of social action for other components of

Weber's theory is not widely recognized. Both his theories of types of authority and orders of stratification rest clearly on types of social action. Traditional

authority and the status order are based on traditional action. Here, we witness

the consistency in the theory of ethnicity between the definition of ethnicity and those of traditional order and authority and with the status order. All of these

aspects of the theory emphasize the past. To complete this discussion, it must be noted that both rational authority

and the class order rest on rational action. Charismatic authority and the party order follow from charismatic action. These correspondences will be treated in more detail at the appropriate place.

Translation of Ethnicity into Social Action

In discussing the way in which ethnicity becomes social action, Weber

claimed, first of all, that ethnic groups engage in communal social action rather than associative social action. Communal social action is based on feelings of

belongingness. In contrast, associative social action is characterized by rational interests. Weber did, however, posit an important relationship between

ethnicity and interests in his statement that

"a comprehensive societalization (focus on interests) integrates the ethnically divided communities into specific political and communal actions" (Weber, 1946:189).

Hence, for example, as certain activities such as hostilities with another society become a matter of concern to the entire society, ethnic distinctions between

groups become suspended as the entire society engages in political and communal action.

Weber did say that it is difficult to determine, in the individual case, what in fluence specific ethnic factors have on the formation of communities. (Weber, 1968) Further, the content of communal action on an ethnic basis is indefinite

or, put another way, belief in common descent, when it is transformed into social action, results in substantively indefinite communal action.

Not only this, but ethnically conditioned action is very complex

..."the notion of 'ethnically' determined social action subsumes

phenomena that rigorous sociological analyses...would have to

distinguish carefully: the actual subjectivity of those customs condi tioned by heredity and those determined by tradition; the differential




12

impact of varying content of custom; the influence of common language, religion, and political action, past and present upon the for mation of custom; the extent to which such factors create attraction and repulsion, and especially the belief in affinity or disaffinity of blood; the consequences of this belief for social action in general, and specifically for action on the basis of shared custom or blood rela tions, for diverse sexual relations, etc." (Weber, 1968:394).

Having given Weber's treatment of racial and ethnic groups, we now turn to his answers to the three momentous questions that have formed the core in terest of this area of study. What is the basic relationship between racial and ethnic minority groups and the majority group? Why do these relationships persist? Can the relationships be changed? If so, how does change occur?

RACE AND ETHNIC RELATIONS

Nature of Race and Ethnic Relations

Part of understanding racial and ethnic minority groups involves their rela

tionship to dominant groups in the society. Weber saw ethnic groups as special once within the status order of society, often having a caste relationship with more powerful groups. The status order, and the class and party orders are

components of the stratification system, the distribution of power within

society. By way of understanding the caste relationship it is necessary to discuss status

groups within the status order. The fates of members of these groups are deter mined by a specific, positive or negative social estimation of honor (Weber

1947:187). The social honor is expressed in the expectation that a specific style of life can be found among everyone who aspires to the same social circle. This

contrasts with classes whose members have common economic interests in

goods and opportunities, and parties whose members seek social power. Although ethnic groups are also found within the status order they differ

from status groups in normally not being communities. There is, however, a

similarity. Ethnic group members also have a sense of honor which is based on a belief in their own excellence. Not only that but as long as ethnic relations are horizontal each ethnic group can "consider its own status as the highest" (Weber, 1946:189). Understanding this view would have alerted modern

sociologists to the fact that members of American racial and ethnic groups possess dignified views of themselves. Otherwise how could blacks, for




13

example, have remained motivated, and, often, very highly motivated despite living in very difficult situations.

The relationship of status groups is one in which more powerful groups usurp or monopolize status honor. When monopolization becomes more or less com

plete, the ethnic group becomes a caste, the usual form of ethnic community. At this point, the sanctioning of ethnic group members by disapproval is re

placed by legal sanctioning enforced by a staff of people. Status distinctions, Weber said, become guaranteed by rituals or religious sanctions as well as by conventions and laws. All physical contact with a member of a caste seen as in ferior is considered a matter of ritual impurity by the 'superior' caste which must be cleansed by a religious act. (Weber 1947:188-189)

In short, castes tend to occur only where there are underlying ethnic dif ferences. The members of these ethnic communities, which Eire closed to out

siders, believe in blood relationships and exclude exogamous marriages and social intercourse.

Yet ethnic segregation is not the same as status segregation transformed into a caste. Ethnically segregated groups co-exist in a state of mutual repulsion and disdain. Yet each considers its honor the highest. The caste structure results in subordination of one group and a greater sense of honor in the privileged group. However, even this does not mean an absence of social honor among negatively privileged groups. Only the bases differ.

By including ethnic groups within the status order, Weber implied that monopolization of honor and styles of life occurs before economic exploita tion. He did not assume as proponents of contact theory do that subordination of racial and ethnic minority groups follows competition over scarce resources. Instead, social degradation and humiliation of groups of independent people with honor occur first. Following this, the groups are subordinated, making economic exploitation and political oppression possible.

Persistence of Race and Ethnic Relations

The most important question, variously phrased, in the study of race and

ethnicity has been and is: how are the relationships between racial and ethnic minorities and the majority group maintained? Why are minorities subor dinate? Different? Why can they not be like other people? Various answers have been given to this question ranging from responsible minority characteristics such as intelligence, personality, and family life to responsible majority characteristics such as prejudice, authoritarianism, racism, self pro tection, capitalism, and colonial orientations. Weber's answer, derived from




14

his translated works, is remarkable in that it runs counter to the long estab lished tradition in sociology and other social sciences, based on literally thousands of studies. While the typical explanations tend to be negative Weber's is positive.

He reasoned that social order exists because members of the order grant it

legitimacy, see it as moral, just, and right. In his view, there are two types of order based on different authority structures, which relate back to social ac tion. These are rational and traditional orders that are characterized by rational and traditional authority and action respectively. Authority is the probability that commands will be obeyed by followers because they believe that the com mands are legitimate. Traditional authority is characterized by a belief in the

legitimacy of customs and traditions; rational authority by a belief in the

legitimacy of rules.

Ethnicity, an irrational phenomenon, typically is found in traditional orders. Yet it can occur within a rational order to the extent the order is experiencing a breakdown of social relationships and a high degree of social mobility.

So, race and ethnic relations, part of the order of society, are maintained because the followers of the traditional authority structure believe they are

legitimate not because of deficiencies within either minority or majority groups. The relationships have endured a sufficiently long time so that they are typically believed to be right.

These relationships can also be maintained in a rational organized system to the extent there is a high degree of social and geographical mobility. Again the

relationships are thought to be legitimate the way they are.'

Race and Ethnic Relations and Social Change

If race and ethnic relations are considered to be legitimate, how is it possible for them to be changed? Typical answers range from change in either the ma

jority groups or selected members or in the minority groups. Weber's answer is different in assuming that the traditional order or a type of

rational order in which ethnicity is typically found changes. Only an authority thought to be above legitimate orders can bring fundamental change about. This authority is charismatic authority. This type of authority is that in which persons thought to be exemplary are granted legitimacy to give orders which are

typically obeyed. (Weber, 1947) Charismatic authority Weber considered to be revolutionary and opposed to

all routine orders like traditional and rational. It cannot remain stable, and, hence, becomes transformed into either traditional or rational order through a




15

process of routinization. Ethnicity, typically part of traditional authority struc tures, may disappear if charismatic authority becomes routinized into rational authority. On the other hand, charismatic authority may be routinized into traditional order in which case ethnicity may be highlighted.

RESEARCH DIRECTIVES

Finally, a theory of race and ethnic relations must give direction to the kind of research necessary to elaborate it more fully, to test it, and, generally, to

develop knowledge about them. Perhaps, the most fitting way to introduce the research directives that follow from Weber's theory is to quote his own

specification of research that needs to be undertaken. He claimed it is necessary to

"distinguish carefully: the actual subjective effect of those customs conditioned by heredity and those determined by tradition; the dif ferential impact of the varying content of culture; the influence of common language, religion, and political action, past and present, upon the formations of customs; the extent to which such factors create attraction and repulsion, and especially the belief in affinity and disaffinity of blood; the consequences of this belief for social ac tion in general; and specifically for action on the basis of shared custom or blood relationship, and for diverse sexual relations, etc. (Weber, 1968:394).

In addition, this analysis of the Weberian theory of ethnicity suggests a number of important research leads that need to be investigated:

1) the characterization of ethnic groups from the viewpoint of minority group members as well as those of members of the dominant group,

2) the actor's world of meanings and beliefs, 3) the social meanings and beliefs as they indicate social action, and their im

plications for social relations and social order, 4) the conditions under which people turn to the past rather than the present

for orientation, 5) the advantages and disadvantages of characterizing ethnicity as a poten

tial,

6) the conditions under which ethnicity is transformed into social action, 7) ethnicity as promoting irrational, traditional social action rather than ra

tional social action,




16

8) the characterization of ethnically determined social action from the point of view of minority social actors as well as majority ones,

9) the aspects and basis of ethnic honor, 10) the degree of change in the monopolization of social power and honor

and accompanying consequences, 11) the relationship of ethnic groups to other groups in the different orders

of society, class and party, 12) and the ebb and flow of ethnic groups.

CONCLUSION

The analysis employed in this paper demonstrates the comprehensive character of Weber's theory of ethnicity, even though it can be developed more

fully. The approach can be useful in evaluating other theories of race and

ethnicity as well as other sociological theories. Such comparisons will indicate the strengths and weaknesses of the various theories and by so doing advance the state of theoretical knowledge.

REFERENCES

Banton, Michael. Race Relations. London: Tavistock. 1967.

Barth, Fredrik (ed.) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 1969.

Bell, Wendell, and Walter E. Freeman (eds.) Ethnicity and Nation-Building. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. 1974.

Burkey, Richard M. Ethnic and Racial Groups: The Dynamics of Dominance.

Menlo Park: Cummings Publishing Company. 1978.

Despres, Leo A. "Toward A Theory of Ethnic Phenomena." pp. 87 117 in Ethnicity and Resource Competition in Plural Societies. The

Hague: Mouton Press. 1975. De Vos, George and Lola Romanucci-Ross, (eds.) Ethnic Identity. Palo Alto:

Mayfield Publishing. 1975.

Enloe, Cynthia E. Ethnic Conflict and Political Development. Boston:

Little, Brown and Company. 1973.

Frances, E. K. Interethnic Relations: An Essay in Sociological Theory. New York: Elsevier. 1976.

Glazer, Nathan and Daniel P. Moynihan, (eds.) Ethnicity: Theory and Experi ence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1975.




17

Haller, Mark H. "Recurring Themes." pp. 277-291 in Allen F. Davis and

Mark Haller (eds.) The Peoples of Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Temple

University Press. 1973.

Hechter, Michael. "The Political Economy of Ethnic Change." American Journal of Sociology. (1974) 79:1151-1178.

"Response to Cohen: Ethnicity and Ethnic Change." American Journal of Sociology. (1976) 81:1162-1168.

Hoetnik, Harmannus. "Resource Competition, Monopoly, and Socioracial

Diversity." pp. 9-25 in Ethnicity and Resource Competition in Plural

Societies, Leo A. Despres (ed.) The Hague: Mouton Press. 1975.

Keyes, Charles F. "Towards a New Formulation of the Concept of Ethnic

Group." Ethnicity. (September, 1976):202-213. Mannesse, Ernst Moritz. "Max Weber on Race." Social Research 14 (June 1947): 191-221. Mindell, Charles H. and Robert W. Habenstein (eds.) Ethnic Families in

America: Patterns and Variations. New York: Elsevier. 1976.

Mitzman, Arthur. The Iron Cage. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1970.

Nie, Norman H., Barbara Currie and Andrew M. Greeley. "Political Attitudes Among American Ethnics." pp. 186-216 in Andrew M. Greeley, Ethnicity in the United States. New York: John Wiley. 1974.

Parsons, Talcott. "Some Theoretical Considerations on the Nature and Trends of Change in Ethnicity." pp. 53-83 in Nathan Glazer and Daniel P.

Moyihan (eds.) Ethnicity: Theory and Experience. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press. 1975.

Shibutani, Tamotsu and Kian M. Kwan. Ethnic Stratification: A Comparative Approach. New York: The Macmillan Company. 1965.

Weber, Max. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Edited and translated by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press. 1946.

The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Edited by Talcott Parsons and translated by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press. 1947.

. The Methodology of the Social Sciences. Translated and edited

by Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch. New York: Ree Press of Glen coe. 1949.

. Economy and Society. Volume I, edited and translated in part by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Totowa. New Jersey Bedminster Press. 1968.

"Max Weber on Race and Society." Social Research 38 (Spring 1971):30-41.




18

"Dr. Alfred Ploetz and W. E. B. DuBois." Sociological Analysis (Winter 1973) 34:308-312.

Selections in Translation. Edited by W. G. Runciman and trans lated by Eric Matthews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1978.

Weed, Perry L. The White Ethnic Movement and Ethnic Politics. New York:

Praeger Publishers. 1973.

Yancy, William L., Eugene P. Erikson and Richard N. Juliani. "Emer

gent Ethnicity: A Review and Reformula." American Sociological Review

(1976) 43 (4):391-403.

HUMBOLDT JOURNAL OF SOCIAL RELATIONS - VOL. 10 NO. 1 — FALL/WINTER 1982/83



Date post:	14-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	maurice-jackson
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

Race & Ethnic Relations: Cross-Cultural Perspectives || AN ANALYSIS OF MAX WEBER'S THEORY OF...

Documents