Race Reconciled?: How Biological Anthropologists View Human Variation (original) (raw)

The Human Race (Anthropology News 2002)

Anthropology News , 2002

The Science of Difference. Anthropology is the science of human difference, although at present it is a rather shamefaced, ambivalent science. No other field of inquiry has expanded and systematized our understanding of human diversity to the extent that anthropology has accomplished. Yet, like a timid host, we find ourselves stammering apologies for what we do best: "I really didn't mean to suggest that people are all that different. .. certainly, despite cultural variation, people share a fundamental nature, etc., etc." For decades we have been caught up in a dilemma: our heartfelt urge to celebrate a human diversity we have done so much to establish is brought up short by our duty to avoid supplying material for racists and demagogues to feed upon. An anthropological discussion of the concept of race puts us on the horns of this intellectual and moral dilemma. We react in a typically ambivalent manner by proclaiming an underlying uniformity of human nature while emphasizing the cultural diversity of human groups. Either way, we manage to cling to a politically correct egalitarianism.

Human Nature, Anthropology, and the Problem of Variation

In this essay, I begin with an overview of a traditional account of natural kinds, and then consider David Hull’s (1986) critique of species as natural kinds and the associated notion of human nature. Second, I explore recent "liberal" accounts of human nature provided by Edouard Machery (2008) and Grant Ramsey (2013) and criticized by Tim Lewens (2012). They at- tempt to avoid the criticisms offered by Hull. After examining those views, I turn to Richard Boyd’s (1988; 1999) Homeostatic Property Cluster account of natural kinds which is flexible but detailed enough to avoid Hull’s criticisms but also those affecting the more recent views. We then consider what I call the "problem of variation." Fourth, I consider two case studies – the basic emotions and facial expressions and inbreeding avoidance and incest taboos. I argue that the former is a component of a Boydian human nature but the latter is not. The conclusion is that if there is a human nature, it must be argued for on a case-by-case basis. And, one of most discussed cases thought to be part of our nature is simply not.

Moving Anthropology Beyond the Race Concept

2007

■ Montagu referred to race as ‘man’s most dangerous myth’, while Lévi-Strauss called it ‘the original sin of anthropology’. Although persuasive arguments against the concept of race were made throughout the 20th century, race remains a particular problem for anthropologists who deal in the classification of human populations. Racial terminology has been perpetuated within anthropology largely owing to the fact that, historically, race formed the very core of anthropological study. Despite the conceptual inadequacy of race, the anthropological enterprise has yet to move beyond it as an explanatory tool for understanding human biological variation because of the lack of a conceptual and/or methodological replacement. This article re-analyses historical anthropological literature on ethnicity and biocultural interaction as a replacement for the race concept, and recasts it in the context of modern philosophical and psychological perspectives on population variation.

Race and Anthropology: A Core Concept without Consensus

Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 1989

Race, once a core anthropological concept, is no longer supported by a majority of members of the discipline. The history of the concept is briefly reviewed. Results of a survey are presented indicating acceptance by 50% of biological anthropologists and 31 % of cultural anthropologists, while 42% of the former and 52% of the latter reject the concept. Alternatives for teaching about human biological and cultural variation are discussed. Ethnicity is suggested as an alternative for teaching about folk taxonomies that arose in the colonial era, while cline, or geographic variation, is proposed for human biological variation.

Race: Scientific nonproblem, cultural quagmire

The Anatomical Record Part B the New Anatomist, 2004

The matter of biological differentiation among human beings has been a perennial concern of physical anthropologists, whose profession grew out of the monogenist/polygenist debates of the 18th century, and who periodically feel impelled to issue sonorous pronouncements on the subject. In spite of (or perhaps because of) the extensive and difficult cultural ramifications of the race issue, such pronouncements have usually presented the matter of race as one that requires extensive bioanthropological exegesis. In reality, however, race is the most banal of biological issues. Within any species, including Homo sapiens, two biological processes are possible: physical differentiation (as routinely occurs in small population isolates) and reintegration (should the resulting differentiated populations come together in the absence of any barrier to mating). The history of Homo sapiens reflects both of these processes: initial differentiation among small, scattered populations in the later part of the Pleistocene, and subsequent reintegration as the human population expanded and these populations came together once more. It is for this reason that, while certain modal physical types can be recognized on any urban street today (differentiation), it is impossible to recognize any clear boundaries between them (reintegration). All of this is perfectly unremarkable in evolutionary terms, and requires no special explanation. The complexities of the race issue are real, of course, and it is important that we come to terms with them; but they will not be resolved by biologists.

Apes, essences, and races: What natural scientists believed about human variation, 1700-1900

Scientific views on human variation and the relationship between humans and apes changed dramatically between 1700-1900. This paper traces the history of those changes from an initial consensus on the homogeneity of man and on casual models tied to environmental contrasts to the turn of the 20th century when "race was everything". Over the course of these two centuries new sciences were born and matured and vast quantities of data were collected, generated and digested. Yet, paradoxically, while the overwhelming majority of data indicated that discrete interpopulational contrasts among humans were elusive, the broader social constructs, likely among them economics, would rely on a scientific foundation that viewed the differences as innate and fixed. By the turn of the twentieth century Europeans and European-Americans would explain their economic and military superiority in biological terms, even if contradicted by the data. Through an analysis of changing perspectives on...