More handpicked essays just for you.
Is race a biological or social construct
Is race a biological or social construct
Race a biological or social construct
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
What is the difference between a biological and a social view of race? There is a difference between a biological and a social view of race. Biologically, race is seen as genetic, unchanging, and distinct categories of people; this includes physiological differences within different races. A social view of race is not simply scientific, but also includes the societies where people live, how race affects social hierarchy as well as psychographic and geographic traits. Excluding your immediate family members, are you more likely to be genetically like someone who looks like you or someone who does not? You are more likely to be genetically like someone who looks like you more than someone who does not, because some traits such as skin color and height are determined genetically. Therefore, people who share similar genes look more alike than people with completely different genetic makeups. Why is it impossible to use biological characteristics to sort people into consistent races? Review some of the concepts such as “non-concordance” and “within-group vs. between group variation.” It is impossible to use biological characteristics to sort people …show more content…
The film presents scientific and biological evidence that people of different races are not genetically distinct from each other; the comparison of DNA sequences was able to clearly show that this idea of races being biologically different from each other is false. This was able to show that the belief of distinct differences between races is the effect society has had on us, because of the inequality and social injustice present. This shift will be difficult, because people are so used to seeing people being treated differently due to their race and have been exposed to people of different races being represented
In America, essentially everyone is classified in terms of race in a way. We are all familiar with terms such as Caucasian, African-American, Asian, etc. Most Americans think of these terms as biological or natural classifications; meaning that all people of a certain race share similarities on their D.N.A. that are different and sets that particular race apart from all the other races. However, recent genetic studies show that there’s no scientific basis for the socially popular idea that race is a valid taxonomy of human biological difference. This means that humans are not divided into different groups through genetics or nature. Contrary to scientific studies, social beliefs are reflected through racial realism. Racial realists believe that being of a particular race does not only have phenotypical values (i.e. skin color, facial features, etc.), but also broadens its effects to moral, intellectual and spiritual characteristics.
Biological advancements such as Darwinism and Mendelian genetics had a profound impact on the study of race in the scientific community. These new concepts eventually led some scientists to question the validity of traditional notions about race. The resulting debates continue even today. The idea of race, especially in citizens of this country, evokes strong feelings because of the enormous social implications associated with racial identity. The social connotations of racial categories have had a profound influence on the way scientists understand human variation. Early ideas of race were colored by these connotations, and they still play a critical role in the way we understand race today. This paper will explore, with an emphasis on historical context, the current debates over whether to continue to inlude race in scientific, and especially medical, studies.
“Black, white and brown are merely skin colors. But we attach to them meanings and assumptions, even laws that create enduring social inequality.”(Adelman and Smith 2003). When I first heard this quote in this film, I was not surprised about it. Each human is unique compared to the other; however, we are group together based on uncontrollable physical characteristics. Eyes, hair texture, and skin tone became a way to separate who belongs where. Each group was labeled as having the same traits. African Americans were physically superior, Asians were the more intellectual race, and Indians were the advanced farmers. Certain races became superior to the next and society shaped their hierarchy on what genes you inherited.
Social reality of race simply refers to the fact that people still believed that races are based on physical traits such as skin color or hair texture to judge others. However, what they are doing is stereotyping which lead to discrimination and racism. Also, their actions denied the fact race is culturally constructed, meaning people have different customs, religions, and values from culture to culture. The patterns of biological variation among humans are extremely complex and constantly changing. All of us could be classified into a number of different "races", depending on what genetic traits are emphasized. For example, if you divide people up on the basis of stature or blood types, the geographic groupings are clearly different from those defined on the basis of skin color. Focusing on such deceptive distinguishing traits as skin color, body shape, and hair texture causes us to magnify differences and ignore similarities between people.
In the past, races were identified by the imposition of discrete boundaries upon continuous and often discordant biological variation. The concept of race is therefore a historical construct and not one that provides either valid classification or an explanatory process. Popular everyday awareness of race is transmitted from generation to generation through cultural learning. Attributing race to an individual or a population amounts to applying a social and cultural label that lacks scientific consensus and supporting data. 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.
“Since the human genome has been mapped, debates within the scientific community about race have intensified. When you look at the human genome, you cannot find race…” (Freeman). Biological evidence suggests there are genetic codes for everything from eye and hair color to how tall someone will grow. Those genetic codes are based on inheritance and where family history has brought them. According to scientists there are no genetic codes that group humans into specific racial categories. According to the Department of Epidemiology and public health, “There is more genetic variation within than between races, and the genes responsible for morphological features such as skin color (which are the basis of racial groupings) are few.” (Senor, 327). It has been seen in numerous studies that genetically someone who identifies with the African- American race, has the potential to carry the same genetic markers as someone of the Caucasian race, or any other racial grouping. If race is not verifiable by scientific or biological means, then it’s origin must be from another
“Differentiated races are fixed either by nature or God. You cannot escape your racial classification (Weidman, 2006).” This is the fifth basic belief of ideology and instantly establishes a basis on why race has survived in the twentieth century. There will always be scientists, philosophers, doctors and historians examining the origins and the continuation of race. By examining their research we are able understand this color line and how it has impacted the twentieth century.
Broadly speaking, race is seen or is assumed to be a biologically driven set of boundaries that group and categorize people according to phenotypical similarities (e.g. skin color) (Pinderhughes, 1989; Root, 1998). The categorical classification of race can be traced back to the 16th century Linnaen system of human “races” where each race was believed to be of a distinct type or subspecies that included separate gene pools (Omi & Winant, 1994; Spickard, 1992; Smedley & Smedley, 2005). Race in the U.S. initially began as a general categorizing term, interchangeable with such terms as “type” or “species”. Over time, race began to morph into a term specifically referring to groups of people living in North America (i.e. European “Whites”, Native American “Indians”, and African “Negroes”). Race represented a new way to illustrate human difference as well as a way to socially structure society (Smedley & Smedley, 2005).
Jeffrey M. Fish’s article “Mixed Blood” gives evidence to race as a social construct rather than a biological entity. The first piece of evidence that insists that race is not biological is the fact that human are a single species. Despite having physical differences, all humans are able to mate with “others… and produce fertile offspring” (Fish 250). This evidence indicates the humans are more biological similar than we let on. Despite many beliefs that humans are separated by physical characteristic, through scientific evidence it is clear that we are one species. While many people point out that certain characteristics are shared by certain groups of people it is important to note that these differences are evolutionary characteristics that allowed our ancestors to survive in varied conditions (Fish 250). A common example of this is the differences in skin color of people indigenous to different parts of the world. A person with roots in Scandanavia, a cold area, is likely to have much lighter skill than a person whose ancestors were from an equatorial African nation. Fish also introduces the psychological factor of people of a particular race believing their race to have more variation. This is an interesting concept because it is heard throughout pop culture and daily life. This article explains the occurrence as being an environmen...
However, Cashmore goes on to argue that the terminology of race has been used to reflect changes in the understanding of physical and cultural differences (1988:235). Cornell and Hartman argue the characteristics that constitute a definition for the concept of race are complex. The authors claim that race can be categorised in social and physical terms. Race is a “human group defined by itself or others as distinct by virtue of perceived common physical
Although we often use race to classify, interact, and identify with various communities, there is a general consensus among scientists that racial differences do not exist. Indeed, biologists such as Joseph Graves state, "the measured amount of genetic variation in the human population is extremely small." Although we often ascribe genetics to the notion of race, there are no significant genetic differences between racial groups. Thus, there is no genetic basis for race. Our insistence and belief in the idea of race as biology, though, underlines the socially constructed nature of race. Racial groupings of people are based on perceived physical similarities (skin color, hair structure, physique, etc.), not genetic similarities. Nevertheless, we are inclined to equate physical similarities with genetics. Sociologists also use a temporality to argue that race is a social construct. The notion of race results from patterns from the signification of certain traits to different groups of people. However, these patterns (and societal notions of race) change over time. For example, the 20th century belief that "In vital capacity… the tendency of the Negro race has been downward" is certainly not commonplace among individuals today. Notions of race also differ across societies. Racial attitudes towards blacks, for example, are inherently different between the United States and Nigeria. These arguments all suggest that race is socially constructed. The lack of a universal notion of race means that it is not a natural, inherent, or scientific human trait. Rather, different societies use race to ordain their respective social
During the 18 century, people divided humans based on where they live and skin color like Europeans as “white”, Africans as “black”, Indians as “red”, and Asians as “yellow”. For example, in Haiti, color has been the dominant force in social and political life. Skin texture, facial feature, hair color, and socioeconomic class together play a role in placement. The anthropological perspective define race as members of a society have similar biological traits. These members are diverse from other members of society because of these traits. In the end, the race concept is not acceptable to humans but it is used as a cultural classification. ...
Reflecting directly on the cultural attitudes and sociocultural messages explained throughout this course, it is clear that race, gender, and sexuality are all socially constructed in one way or another. Contrary to popular belief, race is actually almost completely socially constructed, it is not biological. Further, a human’s DNA does not differentiate at all to create any specific race. However, society has categorized certain things, such as skin color, to determine the race of individuals. In simpler terms, there are not specific genes that parents pass on to their offspring that determine their race; society categorizes people into specific races when they are born based on their
THESIS: Scientists and other intellectuals recognize the modern concept of "race" as an artificial category that developed over the past five centuries due to encounters with non-European people. Even though people still attempt to organize humans into categories according to their race, these categories have been shown to have no scientific basis.
Race, in the sense that I will be addressing it, is popularly defined as: "1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics," or "2. Biology. a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies." (1) But what if we could not distinguish a more or less distinct group through genetically transmitted differences? Imagine how the definition of race would need to change if the very idea of a "geographically isolated population" become a rare occurrence? For too long, racial categories have had too forceful an impact on our understanding of human variation. Many findings i...