Introduction
The term race was initially used to categorize individuals based on their roles in the society. In the 15th century England, for instance, phrases such as ‘the race of bishops’ or ‘the race of saints’ were commonly used (Suzuki and Von Vacano 142). In essence, this word was synonymous with ‘kind’ or ‘type’. Nonetheless, the meaning changed as from the 16th century when the British imperialists started using it to sort and rank various inhabitants of their colonies (Saini 144). The English people had traditionally sought to separate themselves from foreigners they regarded as inferior (Murray 323). Although Lentin insists that race is a biological attribute (84), Holst notes that a majority of the contemporary scientists perceive it as a reflection of cultural underpinnings (181). It is more plausible to consider it as a social construct rather than genetically determined.
The usage of race in biology
The manner in which biology has been used to explain race has changed overtime. Between the 1700s and the end of WW2, anthropology was employed to advance scientific racism (Lee and Tapia 655). This was particularly facilitated by such pseudo-disciplines as craniology and anthropometry (Suzuki and Von Vacano 97). The former refers to the drawing of conclusions about people on the basis of the measurement of their skulls (Saini 143). The latter defined and categorized individuals through the systematic quantification of their bodies (Lentin 99). The results of these processes were anthropological typologies in which human populations were classified into distinct groups based purely on their physical features.
Scientific racism has been discredited and is now regarded as obsolete. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that concepts which emerged from pseudo-disciplines are still being used to validate discrimination (Murray 528). The hierarchy that categorizes some individuals as inferior and others as superior has no genetic basis (Lee and Tapia 656). Race is now regarded as a sociopolitical phenomenon, and this is a consensus among physical anthropologists and other professionals who specialize in inherited characteristics (Suzuki and Von Vacano 191). Considering that these were the parties who initially perpetuated the myth about people’s differences, the rest of the society should embrace the new understanding.
Biology has actually helped invalidate the myth once reinforced by craniology and anthropometry. Anthropologists now believe that the size and shape of someone’s head is influenced by the environment, and not by genetics (Holst 183). Indeed, in his study in 1912, Franz Boas found that skull dimensions are determined nutrition during childhood (Saini 71). Later scientists have reanalyzed the data collected by Boas and conducted further meta-analysis on this subject (Suzuki and Von Vacano 102). It is noteworthy that they have consistently identified a connection between nourishment and a person’s physical stature (Lentin 64). Biology has, therefore, helped in refuting a view that it initially informed.
The usage of race in sociology
The mainstream view at the moment is that race is more likely to be a social construct than a biological one. Sociologist William Edward Burghardt Du Bois is reputed as having been a proponent of this opinion (Murray 334). He insisted that placing people into such discrete groups as Black and White tended to disregard the range of human diversity (Lee and Tapia 647). According to Holst, scientists have not discovered clusters of genes which would be deemed to be definitive of a certain category of people (184). It is rational to assume that such characteristics do not exist.
Categorization of people is inconsistent because the same individual would be classified differently depending on the society they live in. For instance, some of the individuals considered to be Black in the US may be thought of as White in Brazil (Saini 99). If they were in South Africa, they would be deemed to be colored (Suzuki and Von Vacano 188). Being described in a certain way compels people to embrace a corresponding attitude in life, and this is referred to as the stereotype threat (Lentin 74). Therefore, race is a fluid concept, and it would not be the case had it been a biological phenomenon.
Impact of racism on development
The colonialists needed a moral justification and a framework for stratifying the societies they conquered. As from the 16th century, therefore, the concept of race was meant to differentiate between individuals who could be exploited and oppressed from those who viewed themselves as masters (Lee and Tapia 659). The fact that this notion was perpetuated over several centuries makes it difficult to wholly dissipate (Saini 153). The intolerant find it convenient to propagate the invalidated view that someone’s ethnicity is hereditary (Suzuki and Von Vacano 57). In that case, anyone considered to be inferior on account of their race has no chance of being emancipated.
Historically, various racial groups in the US have faced stark discrimination. For instance, Blacks and American Indians have been denied social, educational, political, economic, and civil opportunities enjoyed by the members of the White community (Murray 138). This tradition has caused significant disparities in employment, income, housing, health, and criminal justice (Holst 190). Even if racism was to be completely eradicated, the impact of the past injustices is bound to continue (Lentin 124). Nonetheless, it is still morally right to seek ways and means of ensuring access to equal opportunities by all citizens irrespective of their backgrounds.
Differences between two concepts
Biological race is a concept based on pseudoscientific beliefs which hold that there is empirical evidence in support of the differences in between groups of people. Although the view originally received credence within the scientific community, it has since been invalidated (Murray 225). It is actually irreconcilable with the modern research on genetics (Suzuki and Von Vacano 72). Besides, it has been determined that the proponents of the idea were motivated by a sense of their own superiority which they saw as the justification to discriminate others.
The environment influence how healthy people are throughout their life. It does also play a significant role in predetermining the outcome of someone’s biological make-up and behavior (Holst 181). At its core, nonetheless, are the social dynamics which develop as a result of the cumulative experiences of a group of people (Lentin 156). Communities are essentially manmade, and so is the background in which a person lives (Saini 103). An individual’s surrounding may, however, not be of their own choosing. They may, for instance, be living under the subjugation of the powerful (Lee and Tapia 645). If this is continued for a long time, distinctive attributes emerge.
Traits as aptitude and intelligence have a lot to do with how someone was raised than who their ancestors were. In 1930, John Watson argued that it was possible to raise any infant into a professional of any kind (Lentin 87). He added that the perceived individual talents, penchants, and the demographics of the parents do not matter (Murray 148). According to Saini, other scientists have collaborated Watson’s views (119-120). Therefore, those who have been disenfranchised for long may appear to be unintelligent and unable to establish a career, but these problems are environmental and not biological.
The environment also affects the color of the skin as well. According to Holst, individuals who have lived in the tropics for a significant period of time have darker complexions than those who inhabit the Arctic regions (176). People’s abilities have nothing to do with the variations in the pigmentation of their skins (Murray 321). The citizens of the Kingdom of Kush used relatively advanced technology and they were proficient in medicine and mathematics, and yet they were Black (Lee and Tapia 642; Saini 151). Had they not been conquered and subjugated, it is likely that their civilization would have continued to flourish (Suzuki and Von Vacano 92). Therefore, the mantle of science may no longer be utilized to justify differences between human beings.
Conclusion
The fact that race is predominantly influenced by manmade environments, the concept is artificial. It may appear to be genetic as some aspects of it are inherited by from someone’s ancestors, but they are initially activated through social means. If people are treated equally and have access to similar opportunities, there would be insignificant differences between them in the end. Therefore, the resolution of the challenges associated with discrimination and intolerance necessitate social approaches rather than biological remedies.
References
Holst, John D. “Toward a Theory of Race, Change, and Antiracist Education.” Adult Education Quarterly, vol. 70, no. 2, 2020, pp. 175–192. Web.
Lee, Tamara L., and Maite Tapia. “Confronting Race and Other Social Identity Erasures: The Case for Critical Industrial Relations Theory.” ILR Review, vol. 74, no. 3, 2021, pp. 637–662. Web.
Lentin, Alana. Why Race Still Matters. Wiley, 2020.
Murray, Charles. Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class. Grand Central Publishing, 2020.
Saini, Angela. Superior: The Return of Race Science. Beacon Press, 2019.
Suzuki, Kazuko and Diego A. Von Vacano. Reconsidering Race: Social Science Perspectives on Racial Categories in the Age of Genomics. Oxford University Press, 2018.