John Stone on Ethnicity and Race: The Facts of the Past Are the Bricks of the Present

Humanity is divided and organized according to the ideal type of the nation-state. However, no nation-state exists that is entirely homogeneous or monocultural anywhere in the world. Every attempt to erase ethnic and/or racial groups, whether native, immigrant or both, has failed and will continue to fail. This is why it is crucial to revisit the insights and perspectives of John Stone, a remarkable sociologist, a scholar of nationalism, who incisively brought two historically and globally significant concepts into contemporary debate, concepts that manifest in conflict across all corners of the world: race and ethnicity. One of John Stone's enduring contributions, as a meticulous observer and scholar of diversity, was his ability to articulate how sociological traditions could be directed toward populations marginalized and oppressed due to their cultural, linguistic and physical differences. Notably, one of his most significant contributions was reintroducing Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859) into the discussion. Tocqueville, the 19th-century French thinker and diplomat, travelled to the United States to study its penitentiary system and later authored the renowned treatise Democracy in America (1835; 1840). He was also a scholar who, with profound humanism, rejected the ideology of Arthur de Gobineau (1816–1882), the European progenitor of racist thought, expressed in his Essai sur l'inégalité des races humaines (1855). Tocqueville did not require external theoretical–sociological validation to forcefully assert: 'I saw with my own eyes several of the cases of misery which I am describing; and I was the witness of sufferings which I have not the power to portray' (Stone 1980: 329–330). This statement alone sufficed for him to denounce the subjugation of Indigenous and Black peoples by the White population as a corruption of democratic ideals. Such deep inequalities could never lead to a true democracy. The Black slave was deprived of freedom from birth; the Native American, though dispossessed, remained free but would never be accepted, neither as an individual nor as part of a collective, original or first nation (Stone 1980: 325–327). John Stone highlights the significance of race and ethnicity in two key publications. In the first 'Race Relations, Slavery, and Colonialism' (Stone 1980: 320–347), he revisits Tocqueville's critique of Gobineau, where one finds a compelling and insightful denunciation of the suffering inflicted upon Indigenous and Black populations due to the greed of White colonizers. In the second, 'Max Weber on Race, Ethnicity and Nationalism' (Stone 2003: 28–43), Stone integrates the political sociology of German scholar Max Weber (1864–1920) into the discussion, particularly his foundational concepts of power, domination, status and legitimacy—frameworks essential for understanding the dynamics of exclusion and subordination. In these works, Stone's analysis of race and ethnicity demonstrates how both Indigenous and Black populations were systematically subjugated and exploited under colonialism, only to be subsequently erased and rendered invisible under capitalism. Following the colonial era and its monarchical structures, the nation-state assumed a dominant role in the profound neglect of these subordinated groups. My objective in this paper is to examine a fundamental question posed by Max Weber, one that John Stone emphasized should not be overlooked: Why do ethnic groups persist? (Stone 2003:33) According to Stone, Weber did not dismiss the significance of race and ethnicity in sociological analysis. Although Weber did not explicitly formulate a theory on this issue, his work offers critical insights and contextual frameworks that remain relevant without requiring substantial reinterpretation. From a Weberian perspective, Stone raises central sociological questions: What factors contribute to the visibility of an ethnic group at a specific historical moment? What determines the markers of ethnicity? How are the boundaries of an ethnic group defined and maintained? Under what conditions do these boundaries dissolve or become assimilated into new social formations? The study of ethnicity and race, as consequences of colonization, has led to the development of disciplines characterized by rigorous methodologies, epistemologies and theoretical frameworks with broad sociopolitical relevance, such as anthropology, ethnography and linguistics. However, it was not until relatively recently, in the 1960s and 1970s that sociology began to focus on excluded and peripheral groups based on race and ethnicity. The founding of Ethnic and Racial Studies in 1978 by John Stone would be a milestone in this development (Husbands 2018: 1014) This delay can be attributed to the dominant tendency within the discipline to frame sociology as a field primarily concerned with studying the elite, those who hold power, authority and legitimacy, while marginalizing the experiences of subordinated groups. The depth of this observation, as developed in his 'Max Weber on Race, Ethnicity and Nationalism' (Stone 2003: 32), lies in the fact that social science traditions, dominated by Western perspectives that uphold whiteness, among other hegemonic modes of thought, have largely failed to account for the margins, peripheries and excluded spaces where all layers of ethnicity and race accumulate. Tocqueville observed that the presence of race and ethnicity, witnessing Native Americans, Afro-descendants and White populations, exists because skin colour allows for the reproduction of superiority and the right to dominate. This inevitably leads to conflict, which is why Weberian concepts of power, domination and authority remain critically relevant. There remains a significant gap in the analysis of actors and contexts, specifically, how subordinated, excluded and peripheral groups have developed critiques of power and authority from their own conceptual frameworks, as will be examined later. John Stone's intellectual legacy lies in bringing two central authors, Tocqueville and Weber, into the contemporary sociological debate forcefully to demonstrate the significance of ethnicity and race. In the first quarter of the 21st century, it is impossible to ignore the multiple and widespread manifestations of ethnicity and colourism across all nation-states. On the one hand, nation-states, via public policies, have attempted to forcibly eliminate ethnicity through assimilation, acculturation, family separation and various prohibitions systematically imposed on Indigenous peoples as part of the nation-building efforts—examples are well-known globally. On the other hand, physical and symbolic divisions have been implemented to glorify racial segregation in public and professional spaces, reinforcing painful antagonisms between White and Black populations. Efforts to eradicate ethnicity and race have led, and continue to lead, to large-scale atrocities, including genocide, ethnic cleansing, border militarization, forced sterilizations, disappearances, persecution, lynchings and the construction of walls and barricades, all aimed at preventing contact and proximity between groups. What is ethnicity? Ethnicity is a collective cultural construct; it encompasses perception and subjectivity but is asymmetrically subordinated. Typically, under conditions of domination, it remains marginal and often lacks power. It can be expressed through language, worldview, representations of reality and social interactions. Race, on the other hand, constitutes a physical barrier imposed by skin colour and other immutable physical traits that cannot be assimilated. While ethnicity can, to some extent, be assimilated or even extinguished, physical characteristics cannot be erased, washed away or made to disappear. To ensure that subordinated groups were acknowledged within Weberian theory, thanks to John Stone, it is essential to highlight the concepts of subgroups and pariah groups (Stone 2003:35). These contributions by Max Weber provide a framework for understanding the precarious condition of ethnic and racial groups, who, most importantly, face severely restricted prospects for social mobility within the intricate structure of capitalism. As a result, ethnic groups can be analysed from two perspectives. On the one hand, they impose restrictions on themselves, form internal bonds and exhibit endogamous relations, with family and community playing a central role. An ethnic, national or ethnonational group constructs and reproduces its own characteristics through language, historical continuity, territorial belonging, religious beliefs, mythology and symbolic representations of its origins, continuity and destiny (Smith 1986). On the other hand, dominant groups in positions of superiority impose certain external characteristics on ethnic groups, defining them through labels such as inferiority, weakness, incapacity, promiscuity, savagery and even animalistic traits. These denigrating classifications generate structural and symbolic poverty, leading to exclusion, racism and classism. From a Weberian perspective, these forms of imposed subordination arise from the perception that resources are either scarce or not intended for equal distribution, leading to their monopolization by dominant groups as a means of excluding others (Stone 2003:34). To enforce exclusion, an economic and symbolic structure is imposed, manifesting in hierarchy, segmentation and subordination. These markers of exclusion are neither arbitrary nor incidental; they apply to social class but gain even greater strength when intertwined with ethnicity and race. The pariah group consists of the dispossessed and the excluded, those who lack land, money and education and, consequently, are unaware of their own condition, existing in a state of social oblivion. There is nothing more degrading than living under total domination. Yet, these groups have been tolerated because they serve economic functions, despite being considered disposable and devoid of intrinsic value. This was precisely the case for Black populations following the abolition of slavery in 1865. Complementing the discussion on ethnicity, we must now turn to race. It is undeniably evident that racism persists, expands and diversifies within nations. This is precisely why John Stone asserted that the worst approach is to deny or conceal racism. Scientifically, races do not exist, just as there is no such thing as blue blood, yet the issue lies in what people believe or are led to believe. This belief, once embedded in both public and private spheres, generates profound suffering through exclusion and discrimination exercised by some groups against others. Race is fiction, but what truly matters is the power of belief—a notion that stands as a fundamental principle of Weberian sociology (Stone 2003:36). Slavery, segregation, servitude and apartheid are all forms of racial oppression, sustained by deeply entrenched racist ideologies and highly elaborate pseudoscientific constructs. Another theme in Max Weber's work, explored by John Stone, concerns power and domination. How could these concepts not be relevant when ethnic and racial markers construct inequalities that sustain privileges and perpetuate exclusion? The issue of domination is particularly striking. Every sphere of social action is deeply shaped by structures of domination that exert power (Stone 2003:37). If this is the case, it is inevitable that racial and ethnic relations are profoundly affected. Weber was particularly concerned with this issue, which is why he developed the concept of status group (Stone 2003: 34). Even within economically disadvantaged populations, a poor White individual maintains a higher status than Black people, Indigenous populations or migrants. In Weberian analysis, status groups are defined by prestige, lifestyle and social worth. Therefore, an analysis based solely on economic class fails to capture the Weberian perspective, which seeks to explain the social, cultural and symbolic dimensions that sustain ethnic and racial barriers, reinforced by economic inequalities. As the saying goes, there is nothing new under the sun. Feminist theorists have made significant contributions to the advancement and consolidation of the concept of intersectionality, which integrates multiple variables in a relational and situated framework, none of which can be fully understood in isolation. After all, can gender truly be explained on its own? (Yuval Davis 2024: 87). John Stone was a committed critic of racism as an ideology of oppression and of ethnic conflict, grounding his analysis in Tocqueville's observations and the foundations of Weberian sociology. Once again, we return to the question of the persistence of Indigenous and Black communities. Ethnicity, throughout history, has been subjugated, transformed and diversified, yet never irreversibly erased or extinguished. Survival requires not only consciousness but also the dignity that emerges from historical resistance manifested through collective experiences and subjectivities, whether in the form of mythologies, symbols, legends or narratives (Smith 1991). This accumulated body of lived and shared experiences largely constitutes the strength of ethnocentrism as it is expressed in identity. However, identity as a system of information must be recognized by others and must have the ability to engage with those others. This has been made possible by the emergence of an Indigenous intellectual elite since the past century. Like all intellectuals, Indigenous and Black scholars can articulate their perspectives, engaging with hegemonic structures, and establishing their own methods of representation, a development that neither Tocqueville, Weber, nor Stone foresaw. Educated and professional Afro-descendants have historically been more visible compared to Indigenous intellectuals, writers and creators, who have operated from various spheres, media, education and now academia, defending their knowledge, findings and data. Indigenous communities are actively emancipating themselves from the structural and symbolic domination imposed over centuries. In a study about Indigenous intellectuals, I argued that education, teaching and other professional fields in the hands of Indigenous people are the result of state-promoted modernity (Gutiérrez 1999:156). Today, we see Indigenous individuals integrating into bureaucratic institutions to influence policymaking from within, as well as lawyers advocating for constitutional reforms to secure inclusion on their own terms to build up multicultural national projects. Others are developing conceptual frameworks to structure the right to autonomy and free determination, which, in theory, signifies breaking away from acculturation, tutelage and paternalism, an objective that can only be fully realized within a broad and inclusive democracy. The greatest tribute to John Stone is recognizing that the persistence of ethnicity and race will not be as pariah groups or marginalized subgroups. Instead, they will be redefined within a new phase of recognition, restructuring, fusion and intercultural construction. Today, Black and Indigenous peoples have agency and a voice. As we enter 2025, with a far-right administration leading the world's most powerful economy, racist supremacy poses a global threat, expelling and criminalizing non-White migrants, destabilizing geopolitics and reviving ideological discourses that normalize subjugation. John Stone's legacy remains vital, as it places race, ethnicity and status group as historical legacies of the past which are at the centre of contemporary debate. No objective analysis can disregard them. Their endurance remains central to sociological inquiry. Across the globe, we see undeniable evidence of their resilience, not as vanishing constructs, but as enduring forces that will persist, a phenomenon which Max Weber once analysed with great clarity, and John Stone reinterpreted and reaffirmed.