Race, ethnicity, and the Weberian legacy.by John StoneMax Weber was one of the most prominent sociologists who conducted extensive research on group behavior. However, Weber has been criticized by many scholars for his failure to focus on racial, ethnic and national conflicts. Although these scholars have their own basis for their criticism, a closer analysis of Weber’s findings reveals implicit reference to racial and ethnic conflicts. For instance, Weber observed the general tendency of social groups to establish monopolies and oligopolies. His observation led to the development of a new perspective on ethnic group formation.© COPYRIGHT Sage Publications Inc. 1995The whole conception of ethnic groups is so complex and so vague that it might be good to abandon it altogether.Max Weber (1922/1968) Economy and Society[The present century has witnessed] explosions of nationalism, [of] racism and, in places, of religious bigotry, which, interestingly enough, not one among the most perceptive social thinkers of the nineteenth century had ever predicted.Isaiah Berlin (1992) The Crooked Timber of HumanityFew writers in the sociological tradition can be compared to Max Weber as a prophet of the most fundamental social and political trends of the 20th century. His remarkable ability to focus on the central issues of the modern era, not to mention his increasing recognition as a precursor of some of the major themes that constitute the "postmodern" debate, are acknowledged by admirers and critics alike.(1) Weber’s analysis of the cultural foundations and contradictions of capitalism, his skeptical vision of the future of socialism, his concern about the pervasive intrusion of bureaucracy in everyday life, and his seminal discussion of the complex interplay among economic, social, and political power are contributions that are generally recognized and are documented extensively (Gerth & Mills, 1948; Parkin, 1982; Runciman, 1978; Wrong, 1970). It might even be argued that much of the most valuable controversy in social theory during the past four decades has been, to rephrase Zeitlin, a "debate with the ghost of Weber."(2)Nevertheless, Weber may be criticized, along with almost every other social thinker from the time of the French Revolution until the outbreak of World War I, for failing to give sufficient weight to racial, ethnic, and national conflicts.(3) He cannot, however, be accused of having ignored these issues, and much of his sociological analysis, even when it was not focused specifically on racial and ethnic groups, can be adapted to the study of race and ethnic relations without significant modification. In this essay, I outline Weber’s own attempts to incorporate race and ethnicity into his sociological writings. Then I consider some of the principal ways in which aspects of the Weberian legacy have been adopted by a broad range of sociologists and other scholars concerned with race and ethnic relations.(4) Finally, I argue that a Weberian perspective still offers some of the most important insights into the enduring problems of racial and ethnic conflict.Following in the footsteps of other prominent European social thinkers such as Tocqueville and Beaumont, Harriet Martineau, and James Bryce,(5) Weber found that contact with the United States greatly heightened his interest and sensitivity toward race and ethnic relations. In 1904, during a crucial visit to the Congress of Arts and Sciences of the Universal Exposition in St. Louis, Missouri, Weber not only derived inspiration for the completion of his most celebrated work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, he was also brought face to face with what he began to realize was America’s most serious problem. At this time, the specter haunting Europe appeared to be that of the class struggle, the dress rehearsal for the Bolshevik Revolution was only a year away, and the latent national rivalries, about to break out in global warfare during the next decade, were still masked by the waning years of Pax Britannica.The situation in America was starkly different. Northern cities teamed with the ethnic diversity generated by the trans-Atlantic migrations combined with the movement of African Americans from the southern states. It was impossible for any perceptive observer to overlook the central significance of racial and ethnic diversity for American society. Weber was fascinated by the situation he observed in New York and Chicago:The Greek shining the Yankee’s shoes for five cents, the German acting as his waiter, the Irishman managing his politics, and the Italian digging his dirty ditches . . . the whole gigantic city . . . is like a man whose skin has been peeled off and whose entrails one sees at work. (Gerth & Mills, 1948, p. 15)Like Tocqueville, who visited America some 70 years earlier, Weber was particularly struck by the contrasting status of African Americans and Native Americans (cf. American Behavioral Scientist Jan 1995 v38 n3 p391(16) Page 1- Reprinted with permission. Additional copying is prohibited. -G A L E G R O U PInformation IntegrityRace, ethnicity, and the Weberian legacy.Manasse, 1947, p. 198).(6) Why was it that the former were treated with so much more hostility and contempt than the latter? He noted that this could not be attributed to physical differences, because both groups were clearly and visibly distinct from the majority White population. Nor could it be argued seriously that there was a natural repulsion between Blacks and Whites, as many southern Whites claimed, because of the large number of mixed-race offspring from interracial unions and sexual relationships. And yet it could be seen that the smallest trace of observable African ancestry would relegate an individual to a subordinate social status whereas significant amounts of "Indian blood" did not. Weber’s explanation for this strange differential rested with the institution of slavery, which was, of course, unique to the Black experience in America. Paradoxically, the strength that Blacks had demonstrated by surviving the physical and psychological trauma of slavery (unlike the Indians, who generally could not adapt to these terrible conditions) led to their association with despised manual labor. This, according to Weber’s interpretation, reflected the almost feudal contempt for such work found in southern White society.Weber’s views on American race relations were influenced by the contacts he made