Front and Back Covers, Volume 25, Number 2. April 2009

Abstract

Front cover caption, volume 25 issue 2Front coverEthnicity, Race and the Limits of Human IdentityThe front and back covers show artist Sean Weisgerber's interpretation of the theme of this issue, the problem of classifying human identity in a world of fusion and change. Articles address biometric security, the use of the concept of ‘tribe’ in US army counter‐insurgency programmes, and human identity as constituted in and through debate among Afghani refugees recently returned from northern Pakistan to Afghanistan.The difficulty of fitting human diversity into strictly defined categories is most acutely evident in questions asked on census forms. In this issue, Peter Aspinall considers the broad range of terms proposed and debated for the ‘mixed race’ population. Many have complex histories and have been used to subsume individuals of varied and sometimes disparate ethnic and racial origins.Dissatisfaction with the widely used term ‘mixed race’, contested by anthropologists and sociologists among others on the grounds that it references the now discredited concept of ‘race’, has led to the search for an alternative. In 1994 the Royal Anthropological Institute advanced ‘mixed origins’, although such advocacy has gained little momentum.‘Mixed race’ now competes with terms such as ‘mixed heritage’, ‘dual heritage’ and ‘mixed parentage’ amongst data users, and UK government usage also reflects this diversity in terminology. However, research indicates that the term of choice of most respondents in general and student samples of this population is ‘mixed race’. Terms invoking just two groups – such as ‘mixed parentage’, ‘dual heritage’, and ‘biracial’– are preferred by few.While ‘mixed origins’ is likely to have a continuing niche role in professional practice, such as legal usage and assessment of health risks, it is premature to argue that the umbrella term ‘mixed race’ should be replaced by candidates that are not self‐descriptors.Bruno Latour's editorial places such questions in a broader context as he draws attention to a lively debate on the biggest question of all, the essence of nature itself. In the context of an emergent multi‐naturalism, has anthropological theory itself been ‘decolonizing enough’?