Oswy
8th August 2007, 20:36
Here's my take on biological race after I did a little research on the topic:
The biological race concept is one which claims to recognise a small number of divisions or categories within which human beings ‘fit’ by virtue of some recognisable feature or features biologically inherited. These divisions or categories are then identified as the ‘races’ referred to. Theories based on the biological race concept came to their zenith in the nineteenth century in Europe and America, but thereafter came under increasing examination, questioning and criticism; accelerating in the light of discoveries in the science of genetics. Now, in the early twenty-first century, the biological race concept is defended by very few academics, rejected and criticised by most. Mainstream thinking and research in both the sciences and humanities have produced a rejection of the idea that biological races are a discovery and instead a recognition that they are an invention of bad science and of poor (and prejudiced) reasoning.
We should already be alerted to the problem of the biological race concept by the fact that several competing theories emerged in the late eighteenth century and throughout the nineteenth century. Theories emerged which posited the existence of 3 races, 4 races, 5 races, 7 races and so on. There have been biological race theories which claimed to identify 32 races or even 64. Even for the ardent defender of the biological race idea, they clearly can’t all be correct; yet they all rely on the same kind of ‘logic’ to defend their legitimacy.
Human biological ‘races’ are, in fact, not a simple matter of scientific discovery but are imaginatively constructed through the arbitrary selection of criteria for validating preconceived notions of where one ‘race’ should end and another begin. This is why it’s possible to make up the number of ‘races’ which exist and make up the rules which determine which ‘race’ a person belongs to. While human phenotypic variations are real, and have much of their origins in geographically based ancestry, such variations exist in complex continuums; as an array of differences across a spectrum of observable, and unobservable, characteristics.
We should acknowledge the fact that ‘racial’ appearances, as they are claimed, represent only a small number of the many genetically determined characteristics which make for human biological existence. We should acknowledge the fact that even the genetic origins which these privileged ‘racial’ appearances are identified as being based on, exist clinally and continuously across continents and island chains. There are no actual lines in nature which draw a distinction between ‘white’ and ‘black’ races, or ‘Caucasoid’ and ‘Mongoloid’ races. Just as the criteria for determining what makes for the signifier of biological race is an invention, so the criteria for determining the points of division between such races are also a matter of invention. Just as crippling to the biological race concept is the fact that many genetically inherited characteristics which are not visible, like blood factors and enzyme types, also vary across populations, and do so independently of those phenotypes regarded as ‘racial’ indicators. Such characteristics, like the blood factors mentioned, exist neither in parallel nor in concordance with the visible characteristics which are promoted by the biological race believer as signifying race identity.
The science of genetics has discovered that the overall differences between alleged ‘races’, say between Africans and Europeans, are no greater than between those in different parts of those continents. It is possible to talk of clusters of populations which show like phenotypic expression in relation to specific genetic factors, but as already highlighted, such phenotypic characteristics (and the specific genetic factors which are their root) have to be imaginatively isolated and privileged to be given ‘race’ value, something which cannot be regarded as scientifically justified. In fact, such privileging can be seen as motivated by social and political agendas of a racist nature.
Biological race categorisation ‘works’ in a highly circular way. Any number of races can be established simply by choosing which expressed characteristics or genetic variations are to determine the ‘race identity’. Then a further choice is made, again, imaginatively, where those characteristics (or variations) stop representing one alleged ‘race’ and start representing another alleged ‘race’. Once a biological race paradigm liker this is established, an individual’s racial status is merely a matter of measuring the ‘important’ characteristics (or variations) to see whether they fit one of the consequentially fabricated ‘races’. This is precisely how forensic anthropologists determine racial categories through skull and bone measurements – it is also the reason why this aspect of forensic anthropology has come under much mainstream criticism.
The biological race concept is one which claims to recognise a small number of divisions or categories within which human beings ‘fit’ by virtue of some recognisable feature or features biologically inherited. These divisions or categories are then identified as the ‘races’ referred to. Theories based on the biological race concept came to their zenith in the nineteenth century in Europe and America, but thereafter came under increasing examination, questioning and criticism; accelerating in the light of discoveries in the science of genetics. Now, in the early twenty-first century, the biological race concept is defended by very few academics, rejected and criticised by most. Mainstream thinking and research in both the sciences and humanities have produced a rejection of the idea that biological races are a discovery and instead a recognition that they are an invention of bad science and of poor (and prejudiced) reasoning.
We should already be alerted to the problem of the biological race concept by the fact that several competing theories emerged in the late eighteenth century and throughout the nineteenth century. Theories emerged which posited the existence of 3 races, 4 races, 5 races, 7 races and so on. There have been biological race theories which claimed to identify 32 races or even 64. Even for the ardent defender of the biological race idea, they clearly can’t all be correct; yet they all rely on the same kind of ‘logic’ to defend their legitimacy.
Human biological ‘races’ are, in fact, not a simple matter of scientific discovery but are imaginatively constructed through the arbitrary selection of criteria for validating preconceived notions of where one ‘race’ should end and another begin. This is why it’s possible to make up the number of ‘races’ which exist and make up the rules which determine which ‘race’ a person belongs to. While human phenotypic variations are real, and have much of their origins in geographically based ancestry, such variations exist in complex continuums; as an array of differences across a spectrum of observable, and unobservable, characteristics.
We should acknowledge the fact that ‘racial’ appearances, as they are claimed, represent only a small number of the many genetically determined characteristics which make for human biological existence. We should acknowledge the fact that even the genetic origins which these privileged ‘racial’ appearances are identified as being based on, exist clinally and continuously across continents and island chains. There are no actual lines in nature which draw a distinction between ‘white’ and ‘black’ races, or ‘Caucasoid’ and ‘Mongoloid’ races. Just as the criteria for determining what makes for the signifier of biological race is an invention, so the criteria for determining the points of division between such races are also a matter of invention. Just as crippling to the biological race concept is the fact that many genetically inherited characteristics which are not visible, like blood factors and enzyme types, also vary across populations, and do so independently of those phenotypes regarded as ‘racial’ indicators. Such characteristics, like the blood factors mentioned, exist neither in parallel nor in concordance with the visible characteristics which are promoted by the biological race believer as signifying race identity.
The science of genetics has discovered that the overall differences between alleged ‘races’, say between Africans and Europeans, are no greater than between those in different parts of those continents. It is possible to talk of clusters of populations which show like phenotypic expression in relation to specific genetic factors, but as already highlighted, such phenotypic characteristics (and the specific genetic factors which are their root) have to be imaginatively isolated and privileged to be given ‘race’ value, something which cannot be regarded as scientifically justified. In fact, such privileging can be seen as motivated by social and political agendas of a racist nature.
Biological race categorisation ‘works’ in a highly circular way. Any number of races can be established simply by choosing which expressed characteristics or genetic variations are to determine the ‘race identity’. Then a further choice is made, again, imaginatively, where those characteristics (or variations) stop representing one alleged ‘race’ and start representing another alleged ‘race’. Once a biological race paradigm liker this is established, an individual’s racial status is merely a matter of measuring the ‘important’ characteristics (or variations) to see whether they fit one of the consequentially fabricated ‘races’. This is precisely how forensic anthropologists determine racial categories through skull and bone measurements – it is also the reason why this aspect of forensic anthropology has come under much mainstream criticism.