A critique of the discipline of sociology and of racist societies through a systematic examination of  the impact and influence of Black sociologists

Davidson, Douglas

English

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst

Contributions in Black StudiesA Journal of African and Afro-American StudiesVolume 1 Inaugural Issue Article 4January 1977Black Sociologists: A Critical AnalysisDouglas DavidsonAmherst CollegeFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cibsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Afro-American Studies at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted forinclusion in Contributions in Black Studies by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contactscholarworks@library.umass.edu.Recommended CitationDavidson, Douglas (1977) "Black Sociologists: A Critical Analysis," Contributions in Black Studies: Vol. 1 , Article 4.Available at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cibs/vol1/iss1/4Douglas DavidsonBLACK SOCIOLOGISTS:A CRITICAL ANALYSISI should state at the outset that I do not consider myself to be anexpert on Black sociologists. I have not read all of their works; noram I familiar with their personal histories. The following com-ments are based on a familiarity with some of the research theyhave published. The fact that I am not an expert and that myknowledge of their contributions is limited reflects the subordinatestatus they occupied in the profession. In addition, it reflects theprofessional chauvinism and covert racism rampant within theprofession. That is, it is a gross contradiction of sorts that I, aBlack sociologist, am relatively ignorant of the contributions ofthe preceding generation. I am more familiar with the works ofDurkheim, Weber, Marx, Parsons, Merton, Homans, etc., than Iam of Ira Dea Reid, Charles S. Johnson, W. E. B. DuBois, OliverCox, E. F. Frazier, etc. This is due primarily to the type of trainingsociologists receive during their tenure as undergraduate andgraduate students. This reflects who the profession or "science"considers important-that is, who made a significant contributionto the field. It is obvious from my university experience, thatBlack sociologists were insignificant for I rarely, if ever, encoun-tered their works as part of any instructor's reading lists. In racerelations courses, some of their works may have been included asa part of the "supplemental" reading list, but it was not required.These practices led me and other young Black sociologists to con-clude that our predecessors were second-rate, mediocre membersof the profession. I am certain that they had a similar effect onyoung white sociologists also. As my knowledge and understand-ing of the profession increased, I became convinced that this wasno oversight. That is how Black sociologists were perceived andtreated and consequently indicated how I and other youngerBlack sociologists could expect to be treated. However, the factthat Cornell is sponsoring this series of colloquia on Black sociol-1Davidson: Black Sociologists: A Critical AnalysisPublished by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst, 197746 Douglas Davidsonogists, and the fact that other institutions and prominent pro-fessionals in the discipline are currently expressing a great dealof interest in them might be viewed as an indication that thediscipline is attempting to rectify some of its past crimes of omis-sion. At any rate, this paper is not supposed to present a criticalanalysis of the discipline, but of a racial segment of the discipline.Thus, I shall attempt to do that based on my admittedly limitedknowledge of its subject matter. However, it will become appar-ent as I proceed that it is impossible, as I see it, to assess criticallythe impact and influence of Black sociologists without assessingcritically the larger society and the politics of the discipline whichpurports to study that society.Cruse argued quite persuasively in his book, The Crisis of theNegro Intellectual, that past Black creative artists and intellec-tuals suffered from the lack of a cultural ideology. Consequently,they usually embraced ideologies, theories, and philosophieswhich were not reflective of the realities of the Black community.That is, they did not develop unified, systematic, theories andideologies based on the historical experiences and current reali-ties of their racial group. Cruse noted further that they tended toembrace a liberal integrationist ideology and methodology withoutcritically assessing the implications of such a commitment. Cruseasserted that Black intellectuals and creative artists acceptedthis ideology because it was consistent with their own experiences.That is, as Milton Gordon and others have noted, a considerableamount of racial integration on a social level occurs among in-tellectuals and artists. In essence, they tend to form their ownsub-community. Gordon asserted that this phenomenon occurs asa result of the marginal status intellectuals from racial minoritiesoccupy vis-a.-vis their own ethnic/racial worlds. Since they findthe experience stimulating and interesting, they tend to assumethat this type of cultural ethnic "democracy" would be good for thecountry as a whole.Gordon observed further that although Black intellectuals werenot fully integrated into this intellectual-artistic class, they didbecome alienated from their communities. This detachment,Cruse argued, led to Black creative intellectuals and artists' ac-ceptance of integrationism as the dominant concept of what thesocial order should be about. In essence, they believed that whatwas relatively good for them could be good for everybody. In so2Contributions in Black Studies, Vol. 1 [1977], Art. 4https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cibs/vol1/iss1/4Black Sociologists: A Critical Analysis 47doing, according to Cruse, they contributed to the fragmentation,stagnation, exploitation, and cultural paralysis of the Blackcommunity.Now, one may legitimately ask, how is all this related to Blacksociologists? It is my contention that they too accepted theideology/goals/tactics of integrationism. As such, they wereguilty of the same mistakes as the creative intellectuals and artistsCruse discussed in his provocative analysis of the Harlem Ren-aissance. That is, they did not develop a viable cultural identitythat adequately and accurately defined the Black community'spolitical and economic existence in the United States. As Cruseso cogently pointed out:. . . without a cultural identity that adequately defineshimself (emphasis Cruse), the Negro cannot even identifywith the American nation as a whole. He is left in the limboof social marginality, alienated and directionless on the land-scape of America, in a variegated nation of whites who havenot yet decided on their own identity. The fact of the matteris that American whites, as a whole, are just as much indoubt about their nationality, their cultural identity as areNegroes. Thus, the problem of Negro cultural identity is anunsolved problem within the context of an American nationthat is still in process of formation. (Harold Cruse, 1967),pp. 12-13.Cruse's observation concerning white America's cultural ambiv-alence is especially true of white intellectuals, including whitesociologists. This phenomenon manifests itself most clearly amongthe white sociologists who had the greatest influence on Blacksociologists-liberals and Marxist-socialists. White liberal sociol-ogists and Marxist oriented sociologists maintain a similar posi-tion regarding the issue of cultural and racial identity. That is,both groups accept the concept of universalism or the theory thatregional, ethnic, or racial differences must be eliminated or ab-sorbed in order to create a harmonious, rational, smoothly func-tioning social system. For those committed to the liberal ideology,the existence of ethnic subcultural identities, religious identities,or racial identities are inductors of "cultural lags" within society.Liberals and Marxists are committed to the notion of evolutionarysocial progress. Groups within the society which identify withtraditional values, religion, their local community, and the like3Davidson: Black Sociologists: A Critical AnalysisPublished by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst, 197748 Douglas Davidsonare viewed as the source of social problems because their emanci-pation from the past is incomplete.In dealing with the issue of race, the liberal ideology assertedits bankruptcy. It argued that color was an accident of birth. Inthe truly rational, liberated progressive social order, color andrace would have no empirical correlates. The advocates of theliberal ideology, including Marxist oriented sociologists and non-Marxist liberals, acknowledged the gap between reality and theirdesired norm, but they actively opposed reality. The corollary ofthe white liberal ethic which asserted that white sociologistsshould negate Black culture and Black identity was the proposi-tion that Black sociologists should negate themselves and theircommunities also. Obviously, the advocates of the liberal ideologyunderstood the relationship between science and ideology whichwas so cogently stated in an article by Brother Abd-al Hakimu(alias Gerald McWorter):"Science is inevitably a hand-servant of ideology, a tool forpeople to shape, if not create reality." (Abd-al Hakimu,1969), p. 28.In all fairness to Black sociologists, one must emphasize thefact that their acceptance of the liberal ideology evolved out of theracial climate of their time. The preceding generation of Blacksociologists had to contend with the realities of the United Statesduring the late '20's, 30's, and 40's. This was the period of legalJim Crow segregation in the South, and illegal Jim Crow segre-gation in the North. It was a period characterized by Ku KluxKlan lynching of Blacks in the South, the mass migration ofBlacks to urban ghettoes in the North, and race riots in majornorthern urban centers. It was a period of intense labor agitationand the Communist Party was quite strong and active in the Blackcommunity. As a friend of mine once remarked: "At that time, theCommunist Party was the most active and concerned group whichappeared to be focusing on the needs of our people." Black sociol-ogists also had to contend with the Social Darwinist theoreticianswhose "scientific" efforts were directed toward justifying andrationalizing the subordination and subjugation of Blacks on thegrounds of their alleged biological inferiority. Given these real-ities, Black sociologists' acceptance of liberal ideology was aradical, progress.ive stance even though the implications and po-4Contributions in Black Studies, Vol. 1 [1977], Art. 4https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cibs/vol1/iss1/4B lack Sociologists: A Critical Analysis 49tential consequences for the Black community were not wellthought out.The consequences of accepting the liberal ideology-the Marxistor non-Marxist version-is most vividly reflected in the works ofE. Franklin Frazier and Oliver Cox. Although Frazier and Coxdiffered in their political-economic analysis of the Black com-munity, both saw integration/assimilation as the only viable goalfor Blacks. In essence, both accepted the liberal ideological prem-ise that there was no viable Black culture worth retaining.Frazier lamented over the demise of Black folk culture in hisNegro Family in the United States and in Black Bourgeoisie. Hewas concerned that the Black migration into the Northern andWestern urban centers was destroying that authentic folk culture.He seemed to assume that culture was something people coulddiscard as they do old clothes. He failed to realize that as Blackpeople moved to the Northern urban centers, they brought theirculture with them. This was most vividly revealed in ClaudeBrown's excellent biography-Manchild in the Promised Land.Frazier failed to detect this phenomenon because he had acceptedthe non-Marxist liberal ideological perspective which saw onlysocial pathologies within the urban ghettoes. Thus, the "cultureof poverty" thesis had its genesis in the works of Frazier and otherBlack and white non-Marxist liberals studies of the Black urbanghetto.Cox, on the other hand, did not focus on the issue of culture atall. As Cruse noted, this is the usual practice of Marxist liberals.That is, they emphasize the importance of political and economicfactors while neglecting or glossing over the cultural factors.Thus, while Cox was very critical of the Park liberal theories ofrace relations, he still concluded that Blacks would ultimatelyassimilate into the American mainstream in the same manner asother immigrant ethnic groups. Cox apparently ignored the factthat other immigrant groups were never totally assimilated intothe mainstream since they still retained many of their culturaltraditions. If Andrew Creely is correct, they appear to be expe-riencing a cultural renaissance of their own as a consequence oftheir experiences on these shores. Cox also appeared to bestrangely optimistic concerning white America's ability to riditself of the persistent racism which permeates the Americansocial structure. The racist policies and practices inherent in the5Davidson: Black Sociologists: A Critical AnalysisPublished by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst, 197750 Douglas DavidsonAmerican social order has and continues to serve as impermeablebarriers to the assimilation of Black people.The primary failure of Black sociologists, then, was their ac-ceptance of this liberal ideology. In so doing, they contributed tothe cultural negation of the Black community. They, as well astheir white peers/mentors/sponsors, denied the existence ofBlack culture. In their efforts to convince the dominant society thatBlack people were human beings, they had to deny the existenceof anything that made Black people different. In order to accom-plish this objective, they had to indicate to the power structurethat the obvious differences in the life-styles of Blacks and whiteswere due to the socio-economic conditions of the Black community.That is, the differences were due to inadequate, unequal, or thetotal absence of educational training. Their works for the mostpart, concentrated on demonstrating to the dominant society thatby increasing the educational resources allocated to the Blackcommunity, these differences would be eradicated. After all, Blackpeople were just white people with dark skins.Again, in all fairness to Black sociologists, they unintentionallyperformed some excellent socio-cultural studies of the Black com-munity. However, they did not emphasize the strength, beauty,vitality, and resiliency so characteristic of Black culture. Had theydone this more consciously they would have made a substantialcontribution to the current generation of Black sociologists andto the evolution of a Black sociological perspective.Of course, one could argue that Black sociologists had no alter-native. They were pioneers during a period when racism outsideand inside the sacred walls of academe were more overt, vicious,and blatant. In addition, they had, just as we have, to conform tothe standards imposed upon them by their white sociologicalsuperiors. They had to prove themselves to their white allies inthe profession who were often taking a risk by assisting Blacks toenter the profession. Then, as now, there were many whites whowere of the opinion that Blacks could not perform academically aswell as they. Thus, they had to suffer the insults, indignities, andisolation peculiar to pioneers. In order to prove their competence,they had to demonstrate a mastery of the discipline which ex-ceeded that of many of their white peers and colleagues. In otherwords, their work had to conform more to the prevailing scientificnorm than that of their white colleagues. This often led to an in-6Contributions in Black Studies, Vol. 1 [1977], Art. 4https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cibs/vol1/iss1/4B lack Sociologists: A Critical Analysis 51ordinate concern with methodology, formal correctness andorthodoxy of content and conclusion. As members of a subor-dinate, powerless, allegedly biologically inferior racial group,their status within the white academic world was a reflection andmanifestation of the status of the Black community within theUnited States. They were, as we are, the colonized elite of theirhistorical period.Black sociologists were also dependent upon the largesse andliberalism of influential whites in order to acquire professionalreputation and prestige. The publishing houses, professionaljournals and magazines, and professional associations were whitedominated and controlled. In order to get anything published orto present scholarly papers, they had to conform to standards andcriteria of excellence imposed by this ruling elite. One cannotminimize the effects such control has on the structure and contentof their scholarly efforts. The fact that several of them survivedthe rigors of graduate school, obtained their Ph.D.'s and pub-lished several excellent research monographs was no small accom-plishment. Thus, while I have been quite critical of their inade-quacies, I am most humble and appreciative of their efforts. Forhad it not been for their pioneering efforts, I, possibly, wouldnot be here, making these remarks and observations. I would liketo emphasize the fact that my criticisms are not intended to conveyany lack of respect. Rather, they have evolved from my contentionthat a people must critically assess their past and learn from theirmistakes so as not to make the same mistakes in the future.7Davidson: Black Sociologists: A Critical AnalysisPublished by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst, 1977

Black Sociologists: A Critical Analysis

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&amp;context=cibs

Black Sociologists: A Critical Analysis

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst