6 indeed objectively and vividly “plural” in that it is composed of radically different ethnic groups; descriptively, therefore, the term has a certain justification. But as an analytical concept, plural society is both misleading and wrong-headed in our opinion. It is misleading in that it posits as its logical opposites a unitary society which no longer exists — if indeed it ever did. It is wrong-headed in that it focuses attention upon the largely historical differences among the various ethnic groups rather than where the emphasis belong if we are to understand them in terms of dynamic developments upon the processes and circumstances which have brought them into interaction’.
23
Criticisms of the plural society argument came from three directions. First, Marxists (and neo-Marxists) were unsatisfied with the concept and tried to present one in which the interaction of class and race was given primary emphasis. In effect, class power, its power over legislation that had differential impact on ethnic groups and domination are not addressed adequately or if taken up not done so comprehensively.
24
Second criticism has come from scholars who propose a ‘theory of minoritisation’. Dotson and Dotson argue for such a theory in order to capture the status of power in the ‘meaning and processes of ethnic domination and subordination’.
25
They present their argument in eight propositions
