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...
Routledge eBooks, 2019
Race and Human Diversity is an introduction to the study of human diversity in both its biological and cultural dimensions and the various meanings of race. Robert L. Anemone examines the biological basis of human difference and how humans have biologically and culturally adapted to life in different environments. The book discusses the history of the race concept, evolutionary theory, human genetics, and the connections between racial classifications and racism. It invites students to question the existence of race as biology, but to recognize race as a social construction with significant implications for the lived experience of individuals and populations. This second edition has been thoroughly revised, with new material on human genetic diversity, developmental plasticity, and epigenetics. There is additional coverage of the history of eugenics; race in US history, citizenship, and migration; affirmative action; and white privilege and the burden of race. Fully accessible for undergraduate students with no prior knowledge of genetics or statistics, this is a key text for any student taking an introductory class on race or human diversity.
Using Anthropology to Make Sense of Human Diversity
Phi Delta Kappan, 2003
SURELY WE'VE all heard people say there is only one race-the human race. We've also heard and seen overwhelming evidence that would seem to contradict this view. After all, the U.S. Census divides us into groups based on race, and there are certainly observable physical differences among people-skin color, nose and eye shape, body type, hair color and texture, and so on. In the world of education, the message of racial differences as biological "facts" is reinforced when we are told that we should understand specific learning styles and behavior patterns of black, Asian, Native American, white, and Latino children and when books such as make pseudoscientific claims about race and learning. The Bell Curve 1 How can educators make sense of these conflicting messages about race? And why should they bother? Whether we think of all human beings as one race, or as four or five distinct races, or as hundreds of races, does anything really change? If we accept that the concept of race is fundamentally flawed, does that mean that young African Americans are less likely to be followed by security guards in department stores? Are people going to stop thinking of Asians as the "model" minority? Will racism become a thing of the past? Many educators understandably would like to have clear information to help them teach students about human biological variability. While multicultural education materials are now widely available, they rarely address basic questions about why we look different from one another and what these biological differences do (and do not) mean. Multicultural education emphasizes respecting differences and finding ways to include all students, especially those who have been historically marginalized. Multicultural education has helped us to understand racism and has provided a rich body of literature on antiracist teaching strategies, and this has been all to the good. But it has not helped us understand the two concepts of race: the biological one and the social one. In this article, we explain what anthropologists mean when they say that "races don't exist" (in other words, when they reject the concept of race as a scientifically valid biological category) and why they argue instead that "race" is a socially constructed category. We'll also discuss why this is such an important understanding and what it means for educators and students who face the social reality of race and racism every day. And finally, we'll offer some suggestions and resources for teachers who want to include teaching about race in their classes.
Race: Biological nonproblem, cultural quagmire
Anatomical Record (New Anat), 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 eighteenth century, and who periodically feel impelled to issue sonorous pronouncements on the subject. In spite of – and perhaps because of – the extensive and difficult cultural ramifications of the race issue, such pronouncements have usually presented race as a matter 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 species expanded in number and such 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.
Human nature, cultural diversity and evolutionary theory.pdf
Incorporating culture into an expanded theory of evolution will provide the foundation for a universal account of human diversity. Two requirements must be met. The first is to see learning as an extension of the processes of evolution. The second is to understand that there are specific components of human culture, viz. higher order knowledge structures and social constructions, which give rise to culture as invented knowledge. These components, which are products of psychological processes and mechanisms, make human culture different from the forms of shared knowledge observed in other species. One serious difficulty for such an expanded theory is that social constructions may not add to the fitness of all humans exposed to them. This may be because human culture has existed for only a relatively short time in evolutionary terms. Or it may be that, as some maintain, adaptation is a limited, even a flawed, aspect of evolutionary theory.
Another Look at Ethnicity as a Biological Concept
Critique of anthropology, 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.
Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective
American Anthropologist, 1998
Race is generally used as a synonym for subspecies, which traditionally is a geographically circumscribed, genetically differentiated population. Sometimes traits show independent patterns of geographical variation such that some combination will distinguish most populations from all others. To avoid making "race" the equivalent of a local population, minimal thresholds of differentiation are imposed. Human "races" are below the thresholds used in other species, so valid traditional subspecies do not exist in humans. A "subspecies" can also be defined as a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. Genetic surveys and the analyses of DN A haplotype trees show that human "races" are not distinct lineages, and that this is not due to recent admixture; human "races" are not and never were "pure." Instead, human evolution has been and is characterized by many locally differentiated populations coexisting at any given time, but with sufficient genetic contact to make all of humanity a single lineage sharing a common evolutionary fate, [race, subspecies, lineage, haplotype tree, genetic differentiation}
Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 2005
Anthropology is the study of human diversity, its history, and its origins. For most of the past two centuries, the study of human diversity has often involved cataloging of this variation into a small number of largely geographic groups called races. While modern biological anthropologists see more value in the study of the genetics of human diversity and the evolutionary history of our species, the nature and significance of human races i s a controversial issue of tremendous political importance. It is also a topic which biological anthropologists are particularly qualified to address. In response to the recent publication of a series of books on race that have received wide publicity and very mixed reception from the public and the scientific community, we solicited essay reviews for the four books listed on the left, from two biological anthropologists, Dr.
Syllabus for Human evolution and diversity (Anth151)
The 2014 version of my first-year course in human evolution and diversity -- note: it's taught in a department that's predominantly social, cultural, developmental and applied anthropology, not biological anthropology.
Apes, Essences, and Race, 2001
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...
Human races: classifying people vs understanding diversity
Current Genomics, 2005
Abstract: The idea that all humans naturally belong to one of a few biological types or races that evolved in isolation was unchallenged for centuries, but large-scale modern studies failed to associate racial labels with recognizable genetic clus-ters. Recently, the conclusions of ...