LAUSR

projects as shaped by a pragmatic viewpoint, one that does not result in a paradox since it confines itself to using a political and legal framework for addressing race, steering clear from a scientific perspective. However, in his overview of conceptions of racism in writing history, teaching philosophy, and teaching sociology (including the approaches found in major textbooks), he concludes that theoretical advance has been stymied by emphasizing political purposes at the expense of scientific goals. When he turns to the concept of ethnicity, which gained currency in the 1940s as a less polemical alternative to race, nation, and minority and has witnessed considerable theoretical attention since then, Banton concludes that a consensus about precisely what the concept means is still lacking. Near the end of the book, in seeking to point the discipline he has contributed so much to in what he considers to be a more intellectually promising direction, Banton turns to Weber’s writings on closure and ethnic groups, which he considers to be a useful starting point. The challenge, as he sees it, is formidable. To advance the field, the sociological community must be firmly grounded in an institutionally embedded tradition, building on it but also correcting it. This tradition, as he sees it, “can be read as a sequence of efforts to find a better framework”, concluding that “[n]one of the attempts so far has succeeded” (153). I suspect that there will be readers who might not be so inclined to agree with Banton on many particulars or even be convinced that there is a paradox needing to be resolved. Nevertheless, I suspect that most will agree that if they join him on this reflective journey, they will be rewarded.