Option 1: Identify a tension or contradiction in EBS’s structural theory of racism and the constructivist ontology — as articulated by Chandra, Loveman and or Brubaker. Illustrate the moments of tension with explicit evidence from the texts and explain the significance of this tension for our understanding of identity conflict.
Option 2: Critique EBS’s structural theory of racism using the constructivist ontology — as articulated by Chandra, Loveman and or Brubaker. Illustrate your critique with explicit evidence from the texts and refine EBS’s argument based on your critique. Note: You could also do the opposite. You could critique Chandra/Brubaker/Loveman using EBS’s structural theory.
Option 3: Walk through a case of identity conflict and identify the moments of agreement and tension between how EBS would explain this identity conflict and how Loveman/Brubaker/Chandra would explain this conflict. Argue the strengths and weaknesses of analyzing the case of identity conflict through each approach.
Option 4: Explain why the apparent tensions that Loveman identifies between Bonilla-Silva’s theory of structural racism and constructivism are not tensions at all. Illustrate your argument against Loveman’s critiques using evidence from both texts.