Race is a social construct

[sqbr]

EDIT: this is a criticism of race as an "objective" biological categorisation. I do have arguments against (or at least about) race as a social phenomenon, but they are outside the scope of this "short" post. Sorry for being unclear!

A while ago there was a post on debunkingwhite challenging people to talk on their ljs about how race has no basis in biology. I added it to my "queue of topics to make thinky posts about" (I find it best to let things stew for a while there, and anyway was feeling sick and stupid ¹) and today got around to reading other people's responses.

Anyway, I reserve the right to make a long thinky post later, but this post and comment in particular really helped crystalise it for me personally:

So. Human beings are not genetically uniform. Different populations have observable genetic differences in their average makeup (ie the percentages present of various genes) and these result in observable differences (and presumably, also more subtle ones we haven't noticed) in things like skin colour, susceptibility to particular diseases etc.

There is also the historical/social concept of "race", which divides the world into fairly strict categories (asian, african etc) based on physical, geographical, and cultural markers, and which associates various traits (intelligence, criminality etc) to each race.

These two divisions, the genetic and the racial? Have pretty much no relationship to each other what-so-ever.

A fact which I have long thought that everyone who makes generalisations about "black people" needs to be hit over the head with is this: there is significantly more genetic variation between groups of black africans than there is within the entire rest of the world. If we were to divide the world into fairly broad genetic "races" in any objective way, we would have a hundred or whatever² african groups, and one "Other" group, which would cover asians, europeans, arabs, native americans etc as one big effectively homogeneous group.

Instead, "race" as it is constructed in practice is a historical artifact of colonisation and conquest and was created to separate the haves from the have-nots, like the class divisions in the feudal system. It has no basis in biology. Does this mean "race" doesn't exist? No, it exists as much as any other socially constructed category, like class, nationality or religion³, and like them it has major effects which can't be ignored. It just doesn't make any sense as a biological categorisation.

It's also worth noting that while average genetic differences do exist between certain ethnic groups, the spread of genetic diversity inside those populations is much larger than the differences between populations and so means diddly-squat at an individual level (and racism usually relies on making assumptions about individuals)

(1)Sidenote: it may be a coincidence, but I took sonnlich's advice to take zinc tablets and I feel SO much better.
(2)Number chosen at random since I can't be bothered looking it up. Most of the other posts went to effort of giving references, I say lazily :)
(3)I'm not talking about religious belief, I'm just saying there's no bioliogical difference between, say, catholics and protestants. Religious belief as a social construct is a very interesting topic but again, well beyond the scope of this post!

Comments

[alias_sqbr]

Absolutely, I was unclear: race makes no sense as a biological categorisation. As a social categorisation it makes a certain amount of sense, though it's very self contradictory and arbitrary, and obviously I disagree with the way people tend to view it (ie I acknowledge that aboriginal australians are more likely to be poor, but not that they're more likely to be lazy etc)

I agree that race (and gender etc) myths can become self fulfilling prophecies, though I don't think it's usually quite as straightforward as the examples you give. But that's a complex topic for another time :)

[nico-wolfwood.livejournal.com]

Oh, the examples were deliberately clear-cut, but I don't think the myths that people tell themselves and each other have to be complicated. Religious/spiritual versions can be as simple as "I put this blanket on my head = can't see monster in closet = monster in closet can't see me" (from when I was 6). It's the relationship between the initial idea and the later trend to believe in a God because he will smite nasty supernatural beasties sent to get you (me currently) that's complicated. Likewise, the link (if there is one) between Asian parents telling their kids they're too smart not to go to a top school and the, proportionally speaking, high admission rates of Asian Americans to top US universities is complicated and debatable.

[alias_sqbr]

Oops, the other thing I was going to clarify is that I wasn't saying religious belief is a social construction (that's hardly an "obvious" statement I can just chuck in as an example to support my argument!), just that there's no biological basis for the differences between, say, catholics and protestants.

I mean, as a materialist atheist I do believe religion is a social (and personal) construction, but I wouldn't compare it to race, it works in a very different way and is (on the whole) much more constructive and positive (and personal)

I may have more to say on this later but I need to get it straight in my head.

[nico-wolfwood.livejournal.com]

I don't think religion's necessarily relevant to this discussion except that it was central to the work of the anthropologist whose ideas I was attempting to apply.

Of course, if you want to discuss religion as a social construct, I'm up for that too. :)

[alias_sqbr]

Ah, right, you were using it as an example independently of me using at as an example. I think.

My brain is currently occupied trying to deal with an annoying commenter below :/