Race as a social construct - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

smooth · 09-06-2003, 04:54 PM

Sociologists hold that race is a social construct. That is, the attributes social actors choose to define particular 'races' are arbitrarily chosen based upon social norms and common perceptions.

For example, in another thread, one poster claimed that the typical classification of races into three categories--caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid--is a natural and logical seperation of peoples.

However, anthropologists and sociologists dispute such claims with research that show there are no concrete, identifiable traits that hold across cultures. That is, even in our culture, if we placed every person in a line, with the "white-est" people on one side spanning to the "black-est" people on the other, we would not find a consensus among the observers as to where Negroid traits began and Caucasoid traits began.

In Brazil, as another example, we find the population divided into six races and in which eye color takes a prominant role in racial determination.

Thus, race is a social construction. While all societies have racial categories, the various societies have different criteria for how they differentiate between them. Our racial categories of negroid, caucasoid, and mongoloid are based on historical and cultural opposition to various subcultures and have absolutely nothing to do with genetic traits and are not logical conclusions to phenotypical variation.

debaser · 09-06-2003, 05:57 PM

Just for the record the other poster stated that the separation into three races was not logical, but that certain people could be more readily identified with other people based on traits that visibly express, such as dark skin, wide noses, and short, curley hair in the case of Negroids.

Straight, dark, hair, as well as shorter stature and rounded features characterizes mongoloids.

Lighter complection and more angular features typifies caucasiod peoples.

In light of this I beg to differ with your statement that:

Quote:

Our racial categories of negroid, caucasoid, and mongoloid are based on historical and cultural opposition to various subcultures and have absolutely nothing to do with genetic traits and are not logical conclusions to phenotypical variation.

Now there are individuals, and in some cases entire ethnic groups that blur the lines of these major destinctions, but if one must identify a person by race (a practice I frown upon, personally), I see no reason to deny the very obvious differences, phenotypicaly speaking, of peoples originating from sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, and the Caucasus Mountains.

So what we really seem to have is an argument between the social anthropologist, the biologist, and the realist. What is undeniable is that groups native to similar parts of the world display similar traits.

smooth · 09-06-2003, 08:08 PM

You didn't refute my statement so much as you confirmed it. You just classified two outgroups based on arbitrary and selective features.

Applying your 'negroid' criteria, for example, to "white" people would make us question why pasty skinned, slope nosed, red haired people weren't in a racial category of their own instead of being lumped with brown skinned, long, straight nosed, brown haired people.

chavos · 09-06-2003, 09:08 PM

find irish man. find an sudenese man. stand them next to each other. the ideas of race have reality behind them....

the fact is that for some time, there were groups that were largely endogomous, and did not have offsrping with other groups. they are genetically destinct. with increasing intermarriage...it is possible that race will cease to be a scientific reality, but that has not yet come to pass.

smooth · 09-06-2003, 09:29 PM

Race has already ceased to be a 'scientific' reality. We are trying to pass that realization on to the non-scientists. They aren't and were never genetically distinct. Are you claiming that three seperate groups formed independently of one another in ancient history and have only recently merged?

I'm not disputing that the concept of race has reality behind it. I explained that such concepts are social constructions.

That is, place a Mexican person in between the Irish person and the Sudanese person and the Mexican's classification will depend on who is looking at them and what that person chooses to seperate races by moreso than actual differences between the observed.

Why would the person of Mexican descent be classified along with the Irish person given his or her dark skin and dark, curly hair?

chavos · 09-06-2003, 11:15 PM

Take group 1. measure likelyhood "n" of high melanin count. Take group 2. Rinse, wash, repeat. Compare N1 and N2. Tell me there isn't something distinct. Race is not a hard line...but its still a meaningful term. and just because i opted to bifurcate my example does not mean you get to disprove it by noting that that's a simplification. obviously there are mexicans...and i know this. Go take a look in a bird guide. If you place several different kinds of warblers in a line, you might be able to construct a continuum of warblers so that they gradiate from one coleration to another. They may in fact be able to interbred, and thus be of the same species. But, if in certain areas there are high numbers of certainly colored birds,you say that's a social construction?

Dragonlich · 09-07-2003, 12:16 AM

Research recently showed that there is more genetic diversity between average members of the same "race" than there is between average members of two different "races". Hence, the distinction humans make based on the colour of a skin is purely arteficial.

The way I see it: "race" is indeed a social construct because of the way humans see and interact: it's just easier to describe someone as having a different skin tone than saying he has slightly longer toes. This doesn't mean that there's no such difference in skin colour, just that it's not too important genetically.

Personally I divide humanity in two groups: people I like, and people I dislike. I don't care about your particular genes.

Lebell · 09-07-2003, 12:37 AM

I fully support the idea that 'race' is more of a social construct and while it is possible to draw broad divisions along classical racial features, doing so has traditionally been a precurser to racial segregation and discrimination.

Hence, I myself am moving away from traditional racial characterizations.

smooth · 09-07-2003, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by chavos
But, if in certain areas there are high numbers of certainly colored birds,you say that's a social construction?

I don't say that the fact they have different colors is only a social construction.

I'm saying that your belief system, language, and experience would lead you to differentiate between birds with blue tinges on their wingtips while I might differentiate between yellow crests on their heads.

That's the social construction part--that our culture will lead us to pay attention to certain things and not others.

The second part of the claim is that, with people we have negative experiences with or those we don't understand, we are more likely to select and define from the larger group a particular set of features in order to distinguish between in-groups and out-groups.

chavos · 09-07-2003, 07:15 AM

Quote:

I don't say that the fact they have different colors is only a social construction.

So genetic differentiation isn't a construct, but we can't study it because we're too prejuidiced to do so fairly? Just as in birding...it is both useful and scientifically sound to note genetically isolated or distinct populations...

Moonduck · 09-07-2003, 09:51 AM

Race is a social construct.

My father is half 'caucasian', half 'mongoloid' in that his father was an American (blonde hair, blue eyes, pale skin) and his mother was Japanese living in Japan when they met. My father is obviously not specifically a "white" man, though you have to know Asians well to read Japanese lines in his face (ie he has no epicanthic fold to his eyes). I am not particularly Asian looking at all, though my skin tone is darker than the average "white" person, and my facial structure does betray a hint of 'otherness' as I do have a slight epicanthic fold to my eyes. This is all background to my pithy anecdote.

My father is former US Army, 24 years. In the Army, race matters less than rank, even amongst the Army Brats like myself. It was far more important what rank my father held than what race he was. As such, I never paid much attention to the racial issue. Quite a few of my friends were from racially mixed marriages anyway, as those seemed more common in military families. At the tender age of 8 or 9 years old, we were asked what race I was for school registration purposes. The answer came slowly, so the counselor taking the information explained that, by state law, anyone with 1/8 of their ancestry being something other than "white" wasn't "white". Because my grandmother was Japanese, I was Asian.

I was shocked, to be honest. Race had never been an issue, yet now I had someone telling me that I wasn't "white". Regardless of the fact that I'd never thought of myself as "white", or anything else for that matter, I was rather stunned. Additionally, the manner in which the woman stated it was mildly insulting. In today's age, she would've been out of a job and the school system would've been rather harshly sued. Back then (late 70's), I sucked it up like the little man I was and moved on.

The point is, there was no intrisic race to my upbringing. There was no intrinsic "otherness" to my make-up, yet the state we lived in informed me that I had a race and that it was, at that time, "Other". Do I consider it scarring? Hell no. I consider comments made later in life to be more insulting. I rather jokingly call myself a minority and have had other minority types tell me that "asians aren't a real minority". Whatever. I don't gain any slight or advantage from my late-realized status of minority-ness. It's just another thing that society has 'taught' me.

On a scientific level, there is ever so much more empirical difference biologically between people of different blood types than different races. It's a social construct.

CSflim · 09-08-2003, 03:48 PM

Shades of grey. That's all it is. But bear in mind that existence of all the possible shades of grey doesn't invalidate the existence of black and white. (excuse the unintentional pun).

sapiens · 09-09-2003, 01:31 PM

Racial categories do sometimes convey useful information about people. When diagnosing a patient, doctors often consider race. For example, this person has fatigue, breathlessness, rapid heart rate, bone pain. Knowing that they are black might decrease the time it takes to diagnose them as suffering from sickle cell anemia (more common in african american populations than European Americans), leading to quicker treatment.

prosequence · 09-10-2003, 11:15 AM

Would the same go for sex?

smooth · 09-10-2003, 08:28 PM

prosequence,

I'm not sure if your question is whether sex is a social construct or if sex gives us useful information.

If the former, then the answer is that sex is not a social construct as it is based on physiological differences that hold across all cultures. That is, all cultures differentiate between whether a man has a penis and a woman does not.

Gender, however, is a social construct. Numerous cultures actually have more than two genders and what we consider man's work or women's work differs by culture, as well (although 'women's work,' whatever it might be in a given culture, is almost universally given lower status than 'man's work').

raeanna74 · 09-11-2003, 08:43 AM

Intersting Moonduck about that state law of anyone with 1/8 of their ancestry being something other than "white". On the basis of that I would be American Indian. Any of you who've seen my pics on the Tilted Exhibition board know that I look nothing like the traditional picture that we imagine of an American Indian. It doesn't make sense that people can define you by 1/8th of your ancectry while 7/8ths is still another type. Intermarriage is beginning to make race less and less important. As far as medical perspectives I think it can be usedful in terms of those who are native to South America make have certain genetic tendencies other than those who are native the tribes in Africa. Beyond that I think it's useless. Socially we have yet to adapt to the changes taking place. I would say it's a socal contruct based on differences that are becoming outdated as a result of intermarriage.

Depending on your personal philosophy I suppose you could say we all had the same grandfathers Adam and Noah. If we all came from the same source why should we recognise differences now.

cynic · 09-11-2003, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CSflim
Shades of grey. That's all it is. But bear in mind that existence of all the possible shades of grey doesn't invalidate the existence of black and white. (excuse the unintentional pun).

Black and white is a social construct.

prosequence · 09-11-2003, 03:35 PM

Thanks smooth, I think that answer was great.

mac Daddy · 09-12-2003, 04:58 PM

Take it for this. The three types of races is based on the histories of white men. Until the expansion of the western world was there more with the natives from North and South America. Then again how come the people of India are classified as Asian. Last time I checked they didn't look like anyone from China, Japan, Korea, etc.

debaser · 09-13-2003, 03:23 PM

Sorry I have been gone for the week.

Race is not a social construct. There are very obvious physical similarities between people indiginous to a particular locale.

The reaction to race is a social construct, and a poor one at that. For one to judge a persons worth based solely on those physical traits is folly.

smooth · 09-13-2003, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by debaser
Sorry I have been gone for the week.

Race is not a social construct. There are very obvious physical similarities between people indiginous to a particular locale.

The reaction to race is a social construct, and a poor one at that. For one to judge a persons worth based solely on those physical traits is folly.

The culture you grew up in dictates what you find as 'obvious' features. Features you think are obvious similarities are likely due to the inability or non-desire to differentiate between individuals of a different group.

If the features were obvious in fact and not in belief then various cultures would differentiate between races according to the same features. They don't--different cultures seperate different groups of people according to features we think are inconsequential--and vice versa.

I already cited the Brazilian belief system which grants significance to eye color along with other features to differentiate between races. That's just one example. Every culture differentiates between races according to features their respective cultures deem important. Those features are usually developed by the dominant group to differentiate the outgroups from the ingroup.

In short, your initial argument that a tri-racial differentiation is only held to by Western cultures. But I don't want to keep going back and forth--I've already stated most of this. I would much prefer you to answer the issues I raised in regards to the contradictory categorizations we already have.

09-06-2003, 04:54 PM	#1 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Race as a social construct Sociologists hold that race is a social construct. That is, the attributes social actors choose to define particular 'races' are arbitrarily chosen based upon social norms and common perceptions. For example, in another thread, one poster claimed that the typical classification of races into three categories--caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid--is a natural and logical seperation of peoples. However, anthropologists and sociologists dispute such claims with research that show there are no concrete, identifiable traits that hold across cultures. That is, even in our culture, if we placed every person in a line, with the "white-est" people on one side spanning to the "black-est" people on the other, we would not find a consensus among the observers as to where Negroid traits began and Caucasoid traits began. In Brazil, as another example, we find the population divided into six races and in which eye color takes a prominant role in racial determination. Thus, race is a social construction. While all societies have racial categories, the various societies have different criteria for how they differentiate between them. Our racial categories of negroid, caucasoid, and mongoloid are based on historical and cultural opposition to various subcultures and have absolutely nothing to do with genetic traits and are not logical conclusions to phenotypical variation.

09-06-2003, 08:08 PM	#3 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	You didn't refute my statement so much as you confirmed it. You just classified two outgroups based on arbitrary and selective features. Applying your 'negroid' criteria, for example, to "white" people would make us question why pasty skinned, slope nosed, red haired people weren't in a racial category of their own instead of being lumped with brown skinned, long, straight nosed, brown haired people. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

09-06-2003, 09:29 PM	#5 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Race has already ceased to be a 'scientific' reality. We are trying to pass that realization on to the non-scientists. They aren't and were never genetically distinct. Are you claiming that three seperate groups formed independently of one another in ancient history and have only recently merged? I'm not disputing that the concept of race has reality behind it. I explained that such concepts are social constructions. That is, place a Mexican person in between the Irish person and the Sudanese person and the Mexican's classification will depend on who is looking at them and what that person chooses to seperate races by moreso than actual differences between the observed. Why would the person of Mexican descent be classified along with the Irish person given his or her dark skin and dark, curly hair? __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 09-06-2003 at 09:39 PM..

09-07-2003, 12:37 AM	#8 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I fully support the idea that 'race' is more of a social construct and while it is possible to draw broad divisions along classical racial features, doing so has traditionally been a precurser to racial segregation and discrimination. Hence, I myself am moving away from traditional racial characterizations. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

09-08-2003, 03:48 PM	#12 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	Shades of grey. That's all it is. But bear in mind that existence of all the possible shades of grey doesn't invalidate the existence of black and white. (excuse the unintentional pun). __________________

09-06-2003, 09:08 PM	#4 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	find irish man. find an sudenese man. stand them next to each other. the ideas of race have reality behind them.... the fact is that for some time, there were groups that were largely endogomous, and did not have offsrping with other groups. they are genetically destinct. with increasing intermarriage...it is possible that race will cease to be a scientific reality, but that has not yet come to pass.

09-06-2003, 11:15 PM	#6 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	Take group 1. measure likelyhood "n" of high melanin count. Take group 2. Rinse, wash, repeat. Compare N1 and N2. Tell me there isn't something distinct. Race is not a hard line...but its still a meaningful term. and just because i opted to bifurcate my example does not mean you get to disprove it by noting that that's a simplification. obviously there are mexicans...and i know this. Go take a look in a bird guide. If you place several different kinds of warblers in a line, you might be able to construct a continuum of warblers so that they gradiate from one coleration to another. They may in fact be able to interbred, and thus be of the same species. But, if in certain areas there are high numbers of certainly colored birds,you say that's a social construction?

09-07-2003, 12:16 AM	#7 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Research recently showed that there is more genetic diversity between average members of the same "race" than there is between average members of two different "races". Hence, the distinction humans make based on the colour of a skin is purely arteficial. The way I see it: "race" is indeed a social construct because of the way humans see and interact: it's just easier to describe someone as having a different skin tone than saying he has slightly longer toes. This doesn't mean that there's no such difference in skin colour, just that it's not too important genetically. Personally I divide humanity in two groups: people I like, and people I dislike. I don't care about your particular genes.

09-07-2003, 09:51 AM	#11 (permalink)
Moonduck Junkie Location: SE USA	Race is a social construct. My father is half 'caucasian', half 'mongoloid' in that his father was an American (blonde hair, blue eyes, pale skin) and his mother was Japanese living in Japan when they met. My father is obviously not specifically a "white" man, though you have to know Asians well to read Japanese lines in his face (ie he has no epicanthic fold to his eyes). I am not particularly Asian looking at all, though my skin tone is darker than the average "white" person, and my facial structure does betray a hint of 'otherness' as I do have a slight epicanthic fold to my eyes. This is all background to my pithy anecdote. My father is former US Army, 24 years. In the Army, race matters less than rank, even amongst the Army Brats like myself. It was far more important what rank my father held than what race he was. As such, I never paid much attention to the racial issue. Quite a few of my friends were from racially mixed marriages anyway, as those seemed more common in military families. At the tender age of 8 or 9 years old, we were asked what race I was for school registration purposes. The answer came slowly, so the counselor taking the information explained that, by state law, anyone with 1/8 of their ancestry being something other than "white" wasn't "white". Because my grandmother was Japanese, I was Asian. I was shocked, to be honest. Race had never been an issue, yet now I had someone telling me that I wasn't "white". Regardless of the fact that I'd never thought of myself as "white", or anything else for that matter, I was rather stunned. Additionally, the manner in which the woman stated it was mildly insulting. In today's age, she would've been out of a job and the school system would've been rather harshly sued. Back then (late 70's), I sucked it up like the little man I was and moved on. The point is, there was no intrisic race to my upbringing. There was no intrinsic "otherness" to my make-up, yet the state we lived in informed me that I had a race and that it was, at that time, "Other". Do I consider it scarring? Hell no. I consider comments made later in life to be more insulting. I rather jokingly call myself a minority and have had other minority types tell me that "asians aren't a real minority". Whatever. I don't gain any slight or advantage from my late-realized status of minority-ness. It's just another thing that society has 'taught' me. On a scientific level, there is ever so much more empirical difference biologically between people of different blood types than different races. It's a social construct.

09-09-2003, 01:31 PM	#13 (permalink)
sapiens Junkie Location: Some place windy	Racial categories do sometimes convey useful information about people. When diagnosing a patient, doctors often consider race. For example, this person has fatigue, breathlessness, rapid heart rate, bone pain. Knowing that they are black might decrease the time it takes to diagnose them as suffering from sickle cell anemia (more common in african american populations than European Americans), leading to quicker treatment.

09-10-2003, 11:15 AM	#14 (permalink)
prosequence Psycho Location: YOUR MOM!!	Would the same go for sex? __________________ And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

09-10-2003, 08:28 PM	#15 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	prosequence, I'm not sure if your question is whether sex is a social construct or if sex gives us useful information. If the former, then the answer is that sex is not a social construct as it is based on physiological differences that hold across all cultures. That is, all cultures differentiate between whether a man has a penis and a woman does not. Gender, however, is a social construct. Numerous cultures actually have more than two genders and what we consider man's work or women's work differs by culture, as well (although 'women's work,' whatever it might be in a given culture, is almost universally given lower status than 'man's work'). __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

09-11-2003, 08:43 AM	#16 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	Intersting Moonduck about that state law of anyone with 1/8 of their ancestry being something other than "white". On the basis of that I would be American Indian. Any of you who've seen my pics on the Tilted Exhibition board know that I look nothing like the traditional picture that we imagine of an American Indian. It doesn't make sense that people can define you by 1/8th of your ancectry while 7/8ths is still another type. Intermarriage is beginning to make race less and less important. As far as medical perspectives I think it can be usedful in terms of those who are native to South America make have certain genetic tendencies other than those who are native the tribes in Africa. Beyond that I think it's useless. Socially we have yet to adapt to the changes taking place. I would say it's a socal contruct based on differences that are becoming outdated as a result of intermarriage. Depending on your personal philosophy I suppose you could say we all had the same grandfathers Adam and Noah. If we all came from the same source why should we recognise differences now. __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

09-11-2003, 03:35 PM	#18 (permalink)
prosequence Psycho Location: YOUR MOM!!	Thanks smooth, I think that answer was great. __________________ And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

09-12-2003, 04:58 PM	#19 (permalink)
mac Daddy Upright Location: Cali	Take it for this. The three types of races is based on the histories of white men. Until the expansion of the western world was there more with the natives from North and South America. Then again how come the people of India are classified as Asian. Last time I checked they didn't look like anyone from China, Japan, Korea, etc.

09-13-2003, 03:23 PM	#20 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	Sorry I have been gone for the week. Race is not a social construct. There are very obvious physical similarities between people indiginous to a particular locale. The reaction to race is a social construct, and a poor one at that. For one to judge a persons worth based solely on those physical traits is folly. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.