Race (human categorization) Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! == Views across disciplines over time == === Anthropology === The concept of race classification in physical anthropology lost credibility around the 1960s and is now considered untenable.<ref>{{cite book |title=A Companion to Biological Anthropology |editor-last=Larsen |editor-first=Clark Spencer |publisher=[[Wiley-Blackwell]] |date=2010 |isbn=978-1-4051-8900-2 |pages=13, 26 |quote='Race' as a typological characterization of human variation was to become a dominant theme in physical anthropology until the mid-twentieth century. ... Controversies over race did not end in the 1960s ... but there is a general sense in physical anthropology that the earlier use of race as a unit of study or as a conceptual unit is no longer viable and that this transition came in the 1960s.}}</ref>{{sfn|Lieberman|Kirk|Corcoran|2003}}<ref name="Sauer 1992"/> A 2019 statement by the [[American Association of Physical Anthropologists]] declares:<blockquote>Race does not provide an accurate representation of human biological variation. It was never accurate in the past, and it remains inaccurate when referencing contemporary human populations. Humans are not divided biologically into distinct continental types or racial genetic clusters. Instead, the Western concept of race must be understood as a classification system that emerged from, and in support of, European colonialism, oppression, and discrimination.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web|url=https://physanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-race-and-racism-2019/|title=AABA Statement on Race & Racism|website=physanth.org}}</ref></blockquote>Wagner et al. (2017) surveyed 3,286 American anthropologists' views on race and genetics, including both cultural and biological anthropologists. They found a consensus among them that biological races do not exist in humans, but that race does exist insofar as the social experiences of members of different races can have significant effects on health.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wagner |first1=Jennifer K. |last2=Yu |first2=Joon-Ho |last3=Ifekwunigwe |first3=Jayne O. |last4=Harrell |first4=Tanya M. |last5=Bamshad |first5=Michael J. |last6=Royal |first6=Charmaine D. |date=February 2017 |title=Anthropologists' views on race, ancestry, and genetics |journal=American Journal of Physical Anthropology |volume=162 |issue=2 |pages=318–327 |doi=10.1002/ajpa.23120 |pmid=27874171 |pmc=5299519}}</ref> Wang, Štrkalj et al. (2003) examined the use of race as a biological concept in research papers published in China's only biological anthropology journal, ''Acta Anthropologica Sinica''. The study showed that the race concept was widely used among Chinese anthropologists.<ref name="racechina1">{{cite journal |last1=Štrkalj |first1=Goran |last2=Wang |first2=Qian |date=2003 |title=On the Concept of Race in Chinese Biological Anthropology: Alive and Well |url=http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/on-the-concept-of-race-in-chinese-biological-anthropology-alive-and-well.pdf |journal=Current Anthropology |publisher=University of Chicago Press |volume=44 |issue=3 |page=403 |doi=10.1086/374899 |s2cid=224790805 |access-date=12 November 2013 |archive-date=12 November 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131112174202/http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/on-the-concept-of-race-in-chinese-biological-anthropology-alive-and-well.pdf }}</ref>{{sfn|Black|Ferguson|2011 |p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=306ruTniZmcC&pg=PA125 125]}} In a 2007 review paper, Štrkalj suggested that the stark contrast of the racial approach between the United States and China was due to the fact that race is a factor for social cohesion among the ethnically diverse people of China, whereas "race" is a very sensitive issue in America and the racial approach is considered to undermine social cohesion – with the result that in the socio-political context of US academics scientists are encouraged not to use racial categories, whereas in China they are encouraged to use them.<ref name="racechina2">{{cite journal |last=Štrkalj |first=Goran |date=2007 |title=The Status of the Race Concept in Contemporary Biological Anthropology: A Review |url=http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/T-Anth/Anth-09-0-000-000-2007-Web/Anth-09-1-000-000-2007-Abst-PDF/Anth-09-1-073-078-2007-422-%20%8Atrkalj-G/Anth-09-1-073-078-2007-422-%20%8Atrkalj-G-Tt.pdf |journal=[[The Anthropologist]] |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=73–78 |doi=10.1080/09720073.2007.11890983 |s2cid=13690181}}</ref> Lieberman et al. in a 2004 study researched the acceptance of race as a concept among anthropologists in the United States, Canada, the Spanish speaking areas, Europe, Russia and China. Rejection of race ranged from high to low, with the highest rejection rate in the United States and Canada, a moderate rejection rate in Europe, and the lowest rejection rate in Russia and China. Methods used in the studies reported included questionnaires and content analysis.<ref name="nih10" /> Kaszycka et al. (2009) in 2002–2003 surveyed European anthropologists' opinions toward the biological race concept. Three factors – country of academic education, discipline, and age – were found to be significant in differentiating the replies. Those educated in Western Europe, physical anthropologists, and middle-aged persons rejected race more frequently than those educated in Eastern Europe, people in other branches of science, and those from both younger and older generations. "The survey shows that the views on race are sociopolitically (ideologically) influenced and highly dependent on education."<ref name="anthropologists" /> ==== United States ==== Since the second half of the 20th century, [[physical anthropology]] in the United States has moved away from a typological understanding of human biological diversity towards a genomic and population-based perspective. Anthropologists have tended to understand race as a social classification of humans based on phenotype and ancestry as well as cultural factors, as the concept is understood in the social sciences.{{sfn|Caspari|2003}}{{sfn|Lieberman|Kirk|Corcoran|2003}} Since 1932, an increasing number of college textbooks introducing physical anthropology have rejected race as a valid concept: from 1932 to 1976, only seven out of thirty-two rejected race; from 1975 to 1984, thirteen out of thirty-three rejected race; from 1985 to 1993, thirteen out of nineteen rejected race. According to one academic journal entry, where 78 percent of the articles in the 1931 ''Journal of Physical Anthropology'' employed these or nearly synonymous terms reflecting a bio-race paradigm, only 36 percent did so in 1965, and just 28 percent did in 1996.<ref name="Lieberman, Kirk, et al. 2003" /> A 1998 "Statement on 'Race'" composed by a select committee of anthropologists and issued by the executive board of the [[American Anthropological Association]], which they argue "represents generally the contemporary thinking and scholarly positions of a majority of anthropologists", declares:<ref name="AAAonRace" /> {{blockquote|In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species. ... With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, ... it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. ... Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances.}} An earlier [[Statistical survey|survey]], conducted in 1985 {{harv|Lieberman|Hampton|Littlefield|Hallead|1992}}, asked 1,200 American scientists how many ''disagree'' with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species ''Homo sapiens''." Among anthropologists, the responses were: * [[physical anthropologist]]s: 41% * [[cultural anthropologist]]s: 53%<ref name="presentations2005" /> Lieberman's study also showed that more women reject the concept of race than men.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Reynolds |first1=Larry T. |last2=Lieberman |first2=Leonard |title=Race and Other Misadventures: Essays in Honor of Ashley Montagu in His Ninetieth Year |publisher=Altamira Press |date=1996 |isbn=1-882-28935-8 |page=[https://archive.org/details/raceothermisadve0000unse/page/159 159] |url=https://archive.org/details/raceothermisadve0000unse/page/159}}</ref> The same survey, conducted again in 1999,<ref name="Lieberman 2001" /> showed that the number of anthropologists disagreeing with the idea of biological race had risen substantially. The results were as follows: * [[physical anthropologist]]s: 69% * [[cultural anthropologist]]s: 80% A line of research conducted by Cartmill (1998), however, seemed to limit the scope of Lieberman's finding that there was "a significant degree of change in the status of the race concept". [[Goran Štrkalj]] has argued that this may be because Lieberman and collaborators had looked at all the members of the American Anthropological Association irrespective of their field of research interest, while Cartmill had looked specifically at biological anthropologists interested in human variation.<ref name="Štrkalj 2007" /> In 2007, [[Ann Morning]] interviewed over 40 American biologists and anthropologists and found significant disagreements over the nature of race, with no one viewpoint holding a majority among either group. Morning also argues that a third position, "antiessentialism", which holds that race is not a useful concept for biologists, should be introduced into this debate in addition to "constructionism" and "essentialism".<ref name="MorningSocial">{{cite journal |last=Morning |first=Ann |date=November 2007 |title='Everyone Knows It's a Social Construct': Contemporary Science and the Nature of Race |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_sociological-focus_2007-11_40_4/page/436 |journal=Sociological Focus |volume=40 |issue=4 |pages=436–454 |doi=10.1080/00380237.2007.10571319 |s2cid=145012814}}</ref> According to the 2000 [[University of Wyoming]] edition of a popular physical anthropology textbook, [[forensic anthropology|forensic anthropologists]] are overwhelmingly in support of the idea of the basic biological reality of human races.{{sfn|Gill|2000a}} Forensic physical anthropologist and professor [[George W. Gill]] has said that the idea that race is only skin deep "is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm" and "Many morphological features tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones. This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc. (For example, more prominent noses humidify air better.)" While he can see good arguments for both sides, the complete denial of the opposing evidence "seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all". He also states that many biological anthropologists see races as real yet "not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship".{{sfn|Gill|2000a}} In partial response to Gill's statement, Professor of Biological Anthropology [[C. Loring Brace]] argues that the reason laymen and biological anthropologists can determine the geographic ancestry of an individual can be explained by the fact that biological characteristics are [[cline (biology)|clinally]] distributed across the planet, and that does not translate into the concept of race. He states: {{Blockquote|text=Well, you may ask, why can't we call those regional patterns "races"? In fact, we can and do, but it does not make them coherent biological entities. "Races" defined in such a way are products of our perceptions. ... We realize that in the extremes of our transit – Moscow to Nairobi, perhaps – there is a major but gradual change in skin color from what we euphemistically call white to black, and that this is related to the latitudinal difference in the intensity of the ultraviolet component of sunlight. What we do not see, however, is the myriad other traits that are distributed in a fashion quite unrelated to the intensity of ultraviolet radiation. Where skin color is concerned, all the northern populations of the Old World are lighter than the long-term inhabitants near the equator. Although Europeans and Chinese are obviously different, in skin color they are closer to each other than either is to equatorial Africans. But if we test the distribution of the widely known ABO blood-group system, then Europeans and Africans are closer to each other than either is to Chinese.{{sfn|Brace|2000a}}}}The concept of "race" is still sometimes used within [[forensic anthropology]] (when analyzing skeletal remains), [[biomedical research]], and [[race-based medicine]].<ref name="Gill; Armelagos; et al." /><ref name=Witzig/> Brace has criticized forensic anthropologists for this, arguing that they in fact should be talking about regional ancestry. He argues that while forensic anthropologists can determine that a skeletal remain comes from a person with ancestors in a specific region of Africa, categorizing that skeletal as being "black" is a socially constructed category that is only meaningful in the particular social context of the United States, and which is not itself scientifically valid.<ref name="anthropology" /> === Biology, anatomy, and medicine === In the same 1985 survey {{harv|Lieberman|Hampton|Littlefield|Hallead|1992}}, 16% of the surveyed [[biologist]]s and 36% of the surveyed [[Developmental psychology|developmental psychologists]] disagreed with the proposition: "There are biological races in the species ''Homo sapiens''." The authors of the study also examined 77 college textbooks in biology and 69 in physical anthropology published between 1932 and 1989. Physical anthropology texts argued that biological races exist until the 1970s, when they began to argue that races do not exist. In contrast, biology textbooks did not undergo such a reversal but many instead dropped their discussion of race altogether. The authors attributed this to biologists trying to avoid discussing the political implications of racial classifications, and to the ongoing discussions in biology about the validity of the idea of "subspecies". The authors concluded, "The concept of race, masking the overwhelming genetic similarity of all peoples and the mosaic patterns of variation that do not correspond to racial divisions, is not only socially dysfunctional but is biologically indefensible as well (pp. 5 18–5 19)."{{harv|Lieberman|Hampton|Littlefield|Hallead|1992|pp=316–17}} A 1994 examination of 32 English sport/exercise science textbooks found that 7 (21.9%) claimed that there are biophysical differences due to race that might explain differences in sports performance, 24 (75%) did not mention nor refute the concept, and 1 (3.1%) expressed caution with the idea.<ref name="presentation" /> In February 2001, the editors of ''[[Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine]]'' asked "authors to not use race and ethnicity when there is no biological, scientific, or sociological reason for doing so".<ref name="Rivara, Finberg 2001" /> The editors also stated that "analysis by race and ethnicity has become an analytical knee-jerk reflex".<ref name="nih" /> ''Nature Genetics'' now ask authors to "explain why they make use of particular ethnic groups or populations, and how classification was achieved".<ref name="profiling" /> Morning (2008) looked at high school biology textbooks during the 1952–2002 period and initially found a similar pattern with only 35% directly discussing race in the 1983–92 period from initially 92% doing so. However, this has increased somewhat after this to 43%. More indirect and brief discussions of race in the context of medical disorders have increased from none to 93% of textbooks. In general, the material on race has moved from surface traits to genetics and evolutionary history. The study argues that the textbooks' fundamental message about the existence of races has changed little.<ref name="reconstructing" /> Surveying views on race in the scientific community in 2008, Morning concluded that biologists had failed to come to a clear consensus, and they often split along cultural and demographic lines. She notes: "At best, one can conclude that biologists and anthropologists now appear equally divided in their beliefs about the nature of race."<ref name="MorningSocial" /> Gissis (2008) examined several important American and British journals in genetics, epidemiology and medicine for their content during the 1946–2003 period. He wrote that "Based upon my findings I argue that the category of race only ''seemingly'' disappeared from scientific discourse after World War II and has had a ''fluctuating yet continuous use'' during the time span from 1946 to 2003, and has even ''become more pronounced from the early 1970s on''".<ref name="autogenerated" /> 33 health services researchers from differing geographic regions were interviewed in a 2008 study. The researchers recognized the problems with racial and ethnic variables but the majority still believed these variables were necessary and useful.<ref name="operationalization" /> A 2010 examination of 18 widely used English [[anatomy]] textbooks found that they all represented human biological variation in superficial and outdated ways, many of them making use of the race concept in ways that were current in 1950s anthropology. The authors recommended that anatomical education should describe human anatomical variation in more detail and rely on newer research that demonstrates the inadequacies of simple racial typologies.<ref name="biological" /> A 2021 study that examined over 11,000 papers from 1949 to 2018 in the ''[[American Journal of Human Genetics]]'', found that "race" was used in only 5% of papers published in the last decade, down from 22% in the first. Together with an increase in use of the terms "ethnicity", "ancestry", and location-based terms, it suggests that human geneticists have mostly abandoned the term "race".<ref>{{cite journal |title=Geneticists curb use of 'race' |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |volume=374 |issue=6572 |page=1177 |date=3 December 2021}}</ref> The [[National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine]] (NASEM), supported by the US the [[National Institutes of Health]], formally declared that "researchers should not use race as a proxy for describing human genetic variation".<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |date=14 March 2023 |title=Researchers Need to Rethink and Justify How and Why Race, Ethnicity, and Ancestry Labels Are Used in Genetics and Genomics Research, Says New Report |url=https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2023/03/researchers-need-to-rethink-and-justify-how-and-why-race-ethnicity-and-ancestry-labels-are-used-in-genetics-and-genomics-research-says-new-report |access-date=17 April 2023 |website=National Academies}}</ref> The report of its Committee on the Use of Race, Ethnicity, and Ancestry as Population Descriptors in Genomics Research titled ''Using Population Descriptors in Genetics and Genomics Research'' was released on 14 March 2023.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kaiser |first=Jocelyn |date=14 March 2023 |title=Geneticists should rethink how they use race and ethnicity, panel urges |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/geneticists-should-rethink-how-they-use-race-and-ethnicity-panel-urges |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |volume=Online |doi=10.1126/science.adh7982}}</ref><ref name=":7">{{Cite news |last=Zimmer |first=Carl |date=14 March 2023 |title=Guidelines Warn Against Racial Categories in Genetic Research |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/14/science/race-genetics-research-national-academies.html |access-date=17 April 2023 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> The report stated: "In humans, race is a socially constructed designation, a misleading and harmful surrogate for population genetic differences, and has a long history of being incorrectly identified as the major genetic reason for phenotypic differences between groups."<ref name=":8" /> The committee co-chair [[Charmaine Royal|Charmaine D. Royal]] and [[Robert O. Keohane]] of Duke University agreed in the meeting: "Classifying people by race is a practice entangled with and rooted in racism."<ref name=":6" /> === Sociology === {{see also|Sociology of race and ethnic relations}} [[Lester Frank Ward]] (1841–1913), considered to be one of the founders of American sociology, rejected notions that there were fundamental differences that distinguished one race from another, although he acknowledged that social conditions differed dramatically by race.<ref name=":2">{{cite journal |last=Frazier |first=E. Franklin |date=1947 |title=Sociological Theory and Race Relations |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_american-sociological-review_1947-06_12_3/page/265 |journal=[[American Sociological Review]] |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=265–271 |doi=10.2307/2086515 |jstor=2086515}}</ref> At the turn of the 20th century, sociologists viewed the concept of race in ways that were shaped by the [[scientific racism]] of the 19th and early 20th centuries.<ref name=":0">{{cite book |title=Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory |last1=Appelrouth |first1=Scott |last2=Edles |first2=Laura Desfor |publisher=[[Sage Publishing]] |date=2016 |isbn=978-1-4522-0362-1 |location=Thousand Oaks, California}}</ref> Many sociologists focused on African Americans, called [[Negro]]es at that time, and claimed that they were inferior to whites. White sociologist [[Charlotte Perkins Gilman]] (1860–1935), for example, used biological arguments to claim the inferiority of African Americans.<ref name=":0" /> American sociologist [[Charles Cooley|Charles H. Cooley]] (1864–1929) theorized that differences among races were "natural", and that biological differences result in differences in intellectual abilities<ref>{{cite journal |last=Cooley |first=Charles H. |date=May 1897 |title=Genius, Fame and the Comparison of Races |journal=Annals of the [[American Academy of Political and Social Science]] |volume=9 |issue=3 |pages=1–42 |url=https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Cooley/Cooley_1897.html |via=Brock University |doi=10.1177/000271629700900301 |hdl=2027.42/66770 |s2cid=144674315 |hdl-access=free }} Republished as: {{cite book |chapter=Genius, Fame, and Race |date=1995 |pages=417–437 |title=The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions |editor1-first=Russell |editor1-last=Jacoby |editor2-first=Naomi |editor2-last=Glauberman |location=Toronto |publisher=Random House}}</ref><ref name=":2" /> [[Edward Alsworth Ross]] (1866–1951), also an important figure in the founding of American sociology, and a [[Eugenics|eugenicist]], believed that whites were the superior race, and that there were essential differences in "temperament" among races.<ref name=":2" /> In 1910, the ''Journal'' published an article by [[Ulysses G. Weatherly]] (1865–1940) that called for white supremacy and segregation of the races to protect racial purity.<ref name=":2" /> [[W. E. B. Du Bois]] (1868–1963), one of the first African-American sociologists, was the first sociologist to use sociological concepts and empirical research methods to analyze race as a social construct instead of a biological reality.<ref name=":0" /> Beginning in 1899 with his book ''The Philadelphia Negro'', Du Bois studied and wrote about race and racism throughout his career. In his work, he contended that [[social class]], [[colonialism]], and [[capitalism]] shaped ideas about race and racial categories. Social scientists largely abandoned scientific racism and biological reasons for racial categorization schemes by the 1930s.<ref name=":3">{{cite book |last=Fitzgerald |first=Kathleen J. |title=Recognizing Race and Ethnicity: Power, Privilege, and Inequality |date=2014 |location=Boulder, Colorado |publisher=Westview Press}}</ref> Other early sociologists, especially those associated with the [[Chicago school (sociology)|Chicago School]], joined Du Bois in theorizing race as a socially constructed fact.<ref name=":3" /> By 1978, [[William Julius Wilson]] argued that race and racial classification systems were declining in significance, and that instead, [[social class]] more accurately described what sociologists had earlier understood as race.<ref>{{cite book |last=Wilson |first=William Julius |date=1978 |chapter=The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions |pages=765–776 |title=Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective |editor-first=David B. |editor-last=Grusky |location=Boulder, Colorado |publisher=Westview Press}}</ref> By 1986, sociologists [[Michael Omi]] and [[Howard Winant]] successfully introduced the concept of [[Racial formation theory|racial formation]] to describe the process by which racial categories are created.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |chapter=Racial Formation in the United States |last1=Omi |first1=Michael |last2=Winant |first2=Howard |title=Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective |edition=4th |publisher=Westview Press |date=2014 |editor-last=Grusky |editor-first=David B .|location=Boulder, Colorado |isbn=978-0-8133-4671-7 |page=683}}</ref> Omi and Winant assert that "there is no biological basis for distinguishing among human groups along the lines of race".<ref name=":1"/> [[Eduardo Bonilla-Silva]], Sociology professor at Duke University, remarks:<ref>{{cite book |title=Race, Class, and Gender in the United States (text only) |edition=7th |first=P. S. |last=Rothenberg |page=131}}</ref> "I contend that racism is, more than anything else, a matter of group power; it is about a dominant racial group (whites) striving to maintain its systemic advantages and minorities fighting to subvert the racial status quo."<ref name="autogenerated2006">{{cite book |first=Eduardo |last=Bonilla-Silva |title=Racism Without Racists |edition=2nd |date=2006 |publisher=[[Rowman and Littlefield]]}}</ref> The types of practices that take place under this new color-blind racism is subtle, institutionalized, and supposedly not racial. Color-blind racism thrives on the idea that race is no longer an issue in the United States.<ref name="autogenerated2006" /> There are contradictions between the alleged color-blindness of most whites and the persistence of a color-coded system of inequality.{{citation needed|date=November 2016}} Today, sociologists generally understand race and racial categories as socially constructed, and reject racial categorization schemes that depend on biological differences.<ref name=":3" /> Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page