Race and Class in the Southwest - Mario Barrera

Mario Barrera’s Race and Class in the Southwest, analyzes Chicano inequality in the North American Southwest from economic, social, political and historical perspectives (Lillydahl 1980:439). The majority of this work is a historical outline of the Chicano experience followed by a critique of existing racial inequality theories and concluded with Barrera’s own theory that synthesizes internal colonialism and class segmentation theories. Written in 1979, this book remains a major contribution to the understanding of the Chicano experience and represents a turning point in the development of Chicano studies (Almaguer 1981:30).

The Mexican-American War concluded in 1848 awarding the United States a terrestrial expanse we now call the Southwest which includes present day Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and southern California. At the time of US annexation, scores of Mexican nationals, Native Americans and “Mestizos” occupied the area living mainly as pastoralists, subsistence farmers and nomads. Once the land title transitioned from Mexican to American hands, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed and among other things, ensured that the occupants of the territory would have a claim to their land. These populations, living in their traditional lands suddenly under different ownership, are what Barrera refers to as “Chicanos”(Barrera 1979:4).

Soon after the termination of the war, the treaty’s land ownership stipulation was short lived and a process of land transition from Mexican to Anglo hands began in earnest. Due to greater familiarity with language and laws (among other factors), Anglo capitalist and land speculators migrating to the area were in perfect position to dispossess Chicanos from the lands they had previously controlled (Barrera 1979:33). Class status, changing population densities and geographic isolation all played a role in the rate of dispossession across the territory. While the pace was varied the general trend was consistent (Barrera 1979:18).

The result of this land transfer is multi-fold; dispossession of traditional lands upset the cultural conditions of the region, disrupted the economic system that connected villages and towns, impaired local governances and placed the existing population into a subordinate position within a new structure.

Land transfer and a subordinate position in a new society led directly to the creation of a labor system that further perpetuated the downward mobility of this increasingly exploited population. Much of Race and Class in the Southwest is dedicated to the causation and description of what Barrera refers to as a colonial labor system. “A colonial labor system exists where the labor force is segmented along ethnic and/or racial lines, and one or more of the segments is systematically maintained in a subordinate position” (Barrera 1979:39).

The new labor system of the Southwest was in direct reaction to the transfer of land and an upswing in the economy due to exploitation of land via intensive agriculture, mining and railroad construction. First, the new opportunity of the Southwest further hastened the displacement of Chicanos as greater numbers of Anglos moved to grab hold of the economic momentum. Next, displaced Chicanos then entered the labor market out of necessity and in disadvantaged positions (Barrera 1979:35). For agriculture, a system of subsistence quickly gave way to commercial enterprise and Chicanos found themselves leaving their family farms (that families engaged in for generations) for a labor force, working for wages. In mining, Chicanos founds themselves working familiar jobs for unfamiliar ownership among a large labor force designed to restrict their mobility and hold them in powerless positions. The transcontinental railroads brought in new minority populations that competed directly with Chicanos for rail labor jobs. Black, Chinese and Japanese laborers all migrated to the area to support rail and formed part of the racially stratified labor system.

Barrera offers five aspects of the labor system that independently, and in aggregate, served to hold minority populations in a system that benefited employers at the detriment of the labor force. They are labor repression, the dual wage system, occupational stratification, Chicanos as reserve labor force and the buffer role (Barrera 1979:40).

Labor repression as a concept is summed up best by Barrera’s example of mining companies in Arizona. Scores of Chicanos moved to relatively remote locations to take mining jobs. Due to the location, goods and services were only supplied by a company store. Workers, Chicanos among them, had little choice but to buy everything (food, gas, etc.) from this store. The company paid extremely low wages and held prices high enough to recoup the wages they paid out. Low wages and high cost of living pushed labor populations into perpetual debt. This system of labor repression was also used in one form or another on ranches, farms and businesses (Barrera 1979:41).

The dual wage system is the practice of paying one wage to minority workers and another to non-minority workers who perform the same task. Often termed “cheap labor,” the dual wage system is still pervasive today. An example in the Arizona mines illustrates this concept in action. The Arizona mine of Santa Rita, around 1870, paid Mexican miners from $12 a month to $1 a day, depending on the job, plus a weekly ration of flour. American workers, for the same positions, received $30-$70 a month plus board (Barrera 1979:42). It is important to note that citizenship played no role. The “Mexican Rate” applied to Mexican-Americans, resident Mexican aliens and Mexican nationals. Segregating the Mexican and Anglo workers, whose communities were then further segregated by downstream socioeconomic status, made it easier for companies to practice their discriminatory policies while fostering social divisions (Barrera 1979:40).

Occupational stratification is the practice of classifying certain jobs as suited for minorities and others as suited for non-minorities (Barrera 1979:43). The result is that minority works become concentrated into a certain classification of work that are most often the least desirable jobs. Racially stratified labor was prevalent in every important economic sector of the Southwest. Occupational stratification increased with mechanization; many of the labor positions were replaced, and new positions created by the innovations went to Anglos. A discriminatory wage system teamed with occupational stratification to marginalize Chicano laborers to restrictive menial and dangerous jobs.

Chicanos as a reserve labor force provided two functions; it gave elasticity to the labor force and provided employers leverage in bargaining or controlling existing workers. Elasticity is advantageous because as the demand for labor increases the work force can be expanded without having to compete for labor and drive up wages. As for leverage, since the work is often menial, workers are expendable and employers can reduce their power (Barrera 1979:47). This is most commonly seen when employers use migrant labor to break worker strikes.

Minorities as buffers provided employers with shock absorbers to the ebbs and flows of the economy. Minority workers were always the last hired and the first fired. Again advantageous for employers, minority workers were powerless, unable to defend themselves and therefore were expendable. This helped reduce discontent among non-minority workers who had power, choices and organizations to defend them (Barrera 1979:48).

Overall, business owners created a colonial labor force to keep costs to a minimum - a racially segmented labor force allowed greater control of the labor supply, a reserve labor force accounted for the elasticity in business and furthermore, the reserves allowed the employers to apply downward pressure on wages across the board while simultaneously thwarting worker strikes. Finally the use of buffer workers served to pacify non-minority workers in periods of excess labor (Barrera 1979:50). Most importantly, segmenting the labor force created divisions among the workers and helped prevent the emergence of class consciousness among them. They were truly divided and conquered.

Mario Barrera, after an exhaustive history lesson, introduced competing theories of racial inequality that fall into three major categories: deficiency theories, bias theories and structural discrimination theories.

Deficiency theory is “the contention that racial minorities occupy an inferior economic, social and political status because of some deficiency within the minority groups themselves” (Barrera 1979:174). There are three subsections of deficiency theory, each based on a particular type; biological, structural and cultural. Biological deficiency has been discredited completely. More commonly cited are structural and cultural deficiencies, however, each have fatal flaws according to Barrera. Structural deficiency, as a means of explaining racial inequality, has been unsuccessful as it does little more than identify certain intervening variables. In essence, structural deficiency is a symptom rather than an absolute cause (Barrera 1979:176). Cultural deficiency theory is a very difficult process. Barrera believed that the only approach to proving this is by taking an exhaustive cultural inventory of both the disadvantaged group and the majority non-disadvantaged for comparison. Any degree of plausibility would come only after the positive and negative traits of both groups were established and a clear balance in favor of one group emerged (Barrera 1979:180). According to Barrera, this has simply not been done.

Bias theories put the onus on the majority versus the minority population. Prejudice and discrimination are the main players as unequal status is a function of racial discrimination that is a product of white prejudice (Barrera 1979:182). Barrera saw these theories as incomplete rather than wrong. Generally, these theories only address racial prejudice and do not pursue its origin and lacks any historical perspective.

Theories that fall under the structural discrimination category attempt to locate the source of minority disadvantage in the social structure of society. Structure in this case refers to the regular patterns of human interaction. These theories see discrimination built into the structure. They do not locate the ultimate source of racial discriminations, rather, they look for how the structure perpetuates it (Barrera 1979:184).

Barrera combined competing racial inequality theories with the historical record to formulate his own theory. The synthesis of internal colonialism and class segmentation approaches creates the core of his theory (for which there is no title). These approaches, according to Barrera, are the most comprehensive and accurately reflect historical patterns of persistent racial inequality. His model is consistent with a view of capitalist society as class segmented, in which the dominant class exercises disproportionate influence on all aspects of the system (Barrera 1979:212). In keeping with colonialism, the hegemonic system had been established to serve the interests of merchants, industrialists and would be landowners. Safeguards in the structure protect the interests of the dominant classes.

The system ultimately harms the entire working class, minorities and non-minorities included. In a racially segmented working class, each group operates on false consciousness; the system pits racially divided workers against one another and specifically, Anglo workers identify the manipulated minority workers as the enemy. Anglo workers perceive a benefit from this internal colonialism and collude to perpetuate the system. However, historical examination reveals that while Anglo workers avoid undesirable jobs, they suffer from the downward pressure exerted on wages by the segmented labor market, increased job competition and strike-breaks provided by the minority reserve labor force (Barrera 1979:213).

In this system, employers gain across the board; dual wage structures lower labor costs, buffers concentrate the impact of recessions on the most vulnerable and politically disenfranchised segment of workers, reserve labor forces allow for expansion and reduction of labor as needed while providing leverage against the demands of employed workers. Ultimately, the greatest gain for employers “has to do with the divisions that are created among the workers as a whole, since this allows capitalists to promote what is after all their ultimate interest, the perpetuation of class society itself” (Barrera 1979:213).

The Mexican-American War is often cited as the beginning of Chicano history and the Chicano experience. According to Barrera, the imperial expansion of the United States into the Southwest, and subsequent colonial experience of those that lived there, links Chicano history to other Third World populations of colonized areas such as Africa and South America. As the American dominant class asserted their interests, Chicano control of land was expropriated. Linked to both expropriation and the exploitation of Chicano labor, a system of class segmentation was created that bound Chicanos and other minorities to structurally subordinate position in the society. The segmentation line has painted the Chicano experience from its inception to the present day. According to Barrera, “The [future] politics of the Chicano community can be expected to revolve around both class and colonial divisions in a complex manner whose outlines we can only dimly perceive in the current period of confusion and redefinition” (Barrera 1979:219).


Works Cited:

Almaguer, Tomas
1981 Review of Race and Class in the Southwest. In Contemporary Sociology 10(1):27-30.

Barrera, Mario
1979 Race and Class in the Southwest. London: University of Notre Dame Press.

Dela Garza, Rodolfo O.
1981 Review of Race and Class in the Southwest. In The Journal of Politics 43(2):574-575.

Lillydahl, Jane H.
1980 Review of Race and Class in the Southwest. In International Migration Review 14(3):439.

Sheehan, Michael F.
1982 Review of Race and Class in the Southwest. In The Journal of Economic History 42(2):480-481.