Culture Not Race Explains Human Diversity Summary

Culture, Not Race, Explains Human Diversity, Mark Nathan Cohen, Chronicle of Higher Education, April 17, 1998, pp.B4-B5. The term race refers to a biological subdivision of a species. At one time, scientists held that there were as few as three such subdivisions in the species Homo sapiens: Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid. Mark Anthony Cohen points out that this is an antiquated view, yet it lingers as a common belief in society. Mark Nathan Cohen makes an interesting point in his article “Culture, Not Race, Explains Human Diversity”. While the article does deal wholly in the realm of the opinion, it is supported by numerous scientific facts. In fact, Cohen’s usual method of drawing in a reader is to make a blanket statement and then “beef it up” with several scientific facts.

Case in point: the main argument, which is the title of the work.

After Cohen makes the claim that culture explains human diversity, he follows it by stating several facts about how race isn’t fit to explain human diversity: it has been scientifically proven that various traits such as skin color come in infinite variations, the genes of two different-colored people are most likely 99.9% alike, and no gene is known to control differences in specific behavior. Cohen maintains that greater efforts need to be made in educating the public as to the fact that we are all of the same race, and that what we perceive as racial differences are in fact, largely cultural differences. While anthropologists continue to study how and why humans vary biologically, it is apparent that human populations differ from one another much less than do populations in other species because we use our cultural, rather than our physical differences to aid us in adapting to various

environments.
Cohen then goes on to define what he means by “culture”, his main analogy being that it is similar to language. Like language, culture comes in many diverse forms, some of which are related, but others of which are wholly different. Culture defines social and personal “norms”, codes of conduct that are sometimes specifically unique to the culture itself. It has been proven, more or less, that culture has a profound impact on sexuality, aggression, perception, and even susceptibility to disease. Culture, he says, shapes sexuality, aggression, perception, and susceptibility to disease, which were all at one time thought to be strictly biological determinations. This problem is still evident in schools. An example Cohen uses is the use of analogy problems to test student's skill in logic. The results of this test are then defined as genetically driven intelligence, which, it is argued by some, varies by race. However, Cohen points out that solving the problems involves categorizing, and the categories an individual uses are cultural, not genetic.
Cohen ends his article by focusing on the previous point and taking it to its logical conclusion: Cohen reinforces the idea that culture was a defining feature of humans, which is an important facet to understanding the development of man. He hopes that by educating the public about cultural differences and the non-existence of races, we will be able to quell racial discrimination, and become more tolerant of other cultures.when one culture has a different norm than another culture, human diversity is born. Cultural relativism is needed in order to take something one culture sees as a bizarre trait of another culture and put it into context. Cultural relativism doesn’t give humanity a “blank check” to do whatever they want and then hide under the “it’s my culture, who are you to judge?” bandwagon. However, it is a necessary step in learning to understand and appreciate certain societal norms that may come into conflict with your own. When we learn to understand other cultures, truly understand them, instead of letting them have the “it’s my culture” excuse, that is when we’ve really accomplished something in the fight against racism and bigotry.