Specifying Race: The Colonial Constitution of Race in a Set-Theoretic Framework

STILL SEARCHING FOR A TRUE RACE? REPLY TO KRAMER ET AL. AND ALBA ET AL.

Racial labels and categories, like all terms and concepts, are human-made classifying devices that we learn, internalize, and then use to interpret the everyday world in which we live. But conventional American racial categories are rooted in colonialism, slavery, and an elaborate ideology developed to justify a system of racial inequality. Given racial categories’ sociohistorical rather than biological roots, the notion that “races” describe human biological variation has been officially rejected by the American Anthropological Association. As we critique outmoded systems of racial classification, we must also question the labels we use for “races.”

AAPA Statement on Race and Racism.

Defining race and ethnicity in Optometry.

Using culturally sensitive language for race.

The recent review article by Stevens and colleagues (February 28) 1 explores the genomic, epigenomic, and transcriptomic signatures of prostate cancer in racialized groups. We agree that racial inequities in prostate cancer incidence and outcome need to be described and urgently addressed in order to achieve health equity. However, we have several concerns regarding the methods used and the possible implications of inherent genetic racial differences. We recognize that the appropriate use of race in research is complicated and that we are all learning to do this better with the shared goal of reducing health disparities. Since racial categories are socio-political constructs and poor proxies for human genetic variation, 2,3 the rationale for the use of these categories must be clearly explained in the methods to avoid inadvertently perpetuating the myth of race as an inherent biological category. The apriori stratification of cases by racial category in the analysis in genomic studies, while unfortunately still common, can introduce bias. 4 This can be difficult when reviewing at previously published studies, but we should be clear going forward that there is no scientific reason to keep genomic data segregated by racial category 4 unless it is to look at how racism might lead to differences. 4 A recent review points out that "[m]ost somatic genome defects are shared between prostate cancers from Black and White men" 5 and describes the fact that "chronic or recurrent prostate inflammation is likely an important driver of neoplastic transformation and malignant progression in the gland." 5 In addition, we believe that the use of the categories "African American" and "European American" mixes both self-identified race and the genetic ancestry construct of 'European American.' This This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article introduces ambiguity and confusion in the population descriptors and could inappropriately imply categorical differences, when genetic differences are in fact gradual or clinal. 4 In the discussion, the authors claim that it is "important to confirm and measure ethnicity information from samples using genetic ancestry informative marker data." 1 The delineation between ancestry, genetic ancestry, and genetic similarity is complicated but important to state The authors begin the review article by stating that the differences in the prostate cancer incidence and outcome between these groups "appear to be attributable to socioeconomic factors" 1 but they continue "in addition to socioeconomic factors, biological factors may further widen the gap." 1 The authors appropriately state that "additional large-scale investigations that take into account of potential confounding factors are greatly needed," 1 but the paper does not explicitly consider sources of residual confounding in their discussion of genomic associations between racial categories and outcomes. One 2021 study found that "contemporary next-generation sequencing of primary and metastatic prostate cancer did not reveal any significant differences in actionable mutations between self-reported races." 5 If genes (FOXA1, KMT2D, SPOP, MYC, PTEN, TP53, ZFHX3, and TMPRSS2-ERG) 1 are associated with an outcome we can learn about biologic pathways of disease. But we cannot claim that a social constructed racial category that may be correlated with some of these genes is the cause of that difference. This distinction is especially important to prevent the misattribution of differences to race rather than racism, 7 distracting from the root cause of inequities. The observed differences between racial categories are almost completely due to residual confounding and embodiment of inequality (or allostatic load 8 ). Therefore, the effects of structural racism must be assessed or if that is not possible it must be mentioned as a limitation. For example, there is evidence of dietary factors that explain some of the observed racial and socioeconomic differences in prostate cancer. In addition, we note that not using the word racism in this review paper when there is clear evidence of the role of structural racism in prostate cancer mortality disparity 3,9,10 could lead to misattribution of causation-it could imply that there exist biological differences among racial categories that are strictly social constructs. While we are not questioning the intentions of the authors, we are strongly advocating for the naming of systemic and structural racism, and not race itself, as the root cause of racial inequity in prostate cancer.

Deconstructing Binary Race and Sex Categories: A Comparison of the Multiracial and Transgendered Experience

IntroductionRacial and ethnic categories are frequently used in pharmacogenetics literature to stratify patients; however, these categories can be inconsistent across different studies. To address the ongoing debate on the applicability of traditional concepts of race and ethnicity in the context of precision medicine, we aimed to review the application of current racial and ethnic categories in pharmacogenetics and its potential impact on clinical care.MethodsOne hundred and three total pharmacogenetics papers involving the CYP2C9, CYP2C19, and CYP2D6 genes were analyzed for their country of origin, racial, and ethnic categories used, and allele frequency data. Correspondence between the major continental racial categories promulgated by National Institutes of Health (NIH) and those reported by the pharmacogenetics papers was evaluated.ResultsThe racial and ethnic categories used in the papers we analyzed were highly heterogeneous. In total, we found 66 different racial and ethnic categories used which fall under the NIH race category “White”, 47 different racial and ethnic categories for “Asian”, and 62 different categories for “Black”. The number of categories used varied widely based on country of origin: Japan used the highest number of different categories for “White” with 17, Malaysia used the highest number for “Asian” with 24, and the US used the highest number for “Black” with 28. Significant variation in allele frequency between different ethnic subgroups was identified within 3 major continental racial categories.ConclusionOur analysis showed that racial and ethnic classification is highly inconsistent across different papers as well as between different countries. Evidence-based consensus is necessary for optimal use of self-identified race as well as geographical ancestry in pharmacogenetics. Common taxonomy of geographical ancestry which reflects specifics of particular countries and is accepted by the entire scientific community can facilitate reproducible pharmacogenetic research and clinical implementation of its results.

Nutrient Intakes and Adequacy Among an Older Population on the Eastern Shore of Maryland: The Salisbury Eye Evaluation

This article examines the historical, institutional, and interactional processes by which “Poly” (i.e., Polynesian) has come to be understood as a race and language within a context in the California Bay Area. Rather than understanding “races” as discrete categories—as well as sociolinguistic features as permanently attributable and patterned to specific racialized groups—I argue that racialization is ever‐changing and rooted in power relations that are (re)produced from interaction to interaction, and moment to moment. I primarily draw upon a semi‐structured interview with a Tongan young woman (“Maklea”), and more broadly ethnographic research conducted within her local language context, and argue that a racialized Polyness (i.e., Polynesianness) is becoming raciolinguistically enregistered due to experiences with White supremacy and processes of colonialism. That is, Polyness is in the process of being rendered mutually perceivable as a racial category and coherent set of semiotic practices as Polynesian diasporic peoples in this community are confronting policing, gentrification, and an ideology of oppressionlessness. The raciolinguistic enregisterment of Polyness is occurring as Maklea, and more broadly Polynesian young people, are grappling with and challenging the ways White supremacist institutions and systems are seeking to violently structure their lives and ways of knowing, being, valuing, and speaking.

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Book Forum: Cross-Cultural PsychiatryFull AccessCross Cultural PsychiatryJOAN FERRANTE, PH.D., JOAN FERRANTESearch for more papers by this author, PH.D., Highland Heights, Ky.Published Online:1 Jan 2001https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.158.1.155AboutSectionsView EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail This edited volume contains 32 articles organized into eight sections: Basic Mechanisms, Psychopharmacology, Diagnosis, Schizophrenia, Affective Disorder, Inpatient Treatment, Gender Issues, and Children and Adolescents. Because identifying “cultural” factors influencing diagnostic and therapeutic outcomes is the theme that ties the sections together, I will focus on the meaning of the term “cultural.” In this volume, the terms “culture,” “race,” “ethnicity,” and “national origin” are interchangeable concepts, with a primary emphasis on race. In fact, most of the research discussed is comparative in that it involves two or more “distinct” racial categories.Most of the contributors, however, seem uneasy about classifying people and caution (if only with one sentence) against simplistic applications. Contributors Lin, Smith, and Mendoza point out thatcross ethnic differences in pharmacological responses are often substantial and of clinical significance. However, unless these findings are understood in the context of interindividual variability in drug responses that exist in any given ethnic group, they are likely to be interpreted stereotypically and simplistically. Such a misunderstanding might lead to the indiscriminate treatment of all persons from a particular group with a set dose range, thereby neglecting the need for individual tailoring of any treatment regimen in the clinical setting. (p. 48)Likewise, Ilena M. Norton reminds us that the category of Native American and Alaska Native includes “over 550 federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native villages,” each of which has “important differences in language, customs, family structure, illness experiences, and healing traditions” (p. 78). This uneasy, cautionary posture takes on even greater significance when we consider that the U.S. system of racial classification is undergoing a major revision. In October 1997, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget declared that, for the first time in U.S. history, people can identify themselves on the census and other official forms as belonging to more than one of the five racial categories. The five official racial categories are 1) white, 2) black, 3) Native American, Eskimo, and Aleut, 4) Asian, and 5) Hawaiian and Pacific Islander. The official ethnic categories are 1) Hispanic and 2) non-Hispanic. Note that Hispanics can be of any race. The Office of Management and Budget has yet to decide how it will count people who identify with more than one race. The number of racial categories could be as small as five categories or as large as 63, depending on how people respond to the race question. The number 63 represents the number of ways the five official racial categories can be combined.The significance of this change may eventually change the way clinicians think about a patient’s race. The well-known case of the golfer Tiger Woods, who appears to be black, helps to illustrate this point. Woods’s mother was born in Thailand and is half Thai, one-quarter Chinese, and one-quarter white. His father was born in the United States and is half black, one-quarter Chinese, and one-quarter American Indian. (Woods has classified himself on several occasions as Asian and on other occasions as a blend of all races.) U.S. Census Bureau statistics tell us that Woods is not unique. One in every 24 children in the United States is classified as a race different from one or both of their parents. The rate varies depending on the parents’ classifications. For example, one in 43 children living with a white parent is classified as a different race; one in 15 children living with a black parent and one in five children living with an Asian/Pacific Islander parent are classified as a different race.The lesson for clinicians and researchers is to think of race as a category into which people have been classified (or into which they have even been forced). At the same time, clinicians should not view race as an illusion, because the consequences of racial classification are real. In fact, the consequences of racial classification are so real that, for literally hundreds of years, clinical and other researches have ignored the “racial ancestries” they cannot observe from simply studying someone’s physical features.Edited by John M. Herrera, William B. Lawson, and John Sramek. New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1999, 406 pp., $150.00. FiguresReferencesCited byDetailsCited ByHorticultural Research (Japan), Vol. 9, No. 2Nippon Shokuhin Kagaku Kogaku Kaishi, Vol. 54, No. 6 Volume 158Issue 1 January 2001Pages 155-155 Metrics History Published online 1 January 2001 Published in print 1 January 2001

As genomics initiatives have spread around the world-often in the name of genetic diversity and inclusion-they have not only invoked promises of a medical revolution, but also revived categories of human difference that resemble erstwhile racial classifications. This is despite the fact that geneticists broadly dismissed racial categories as obsolete and unfounded after the Human Genome Project was completed in 2003. In fact, contemporary genomics initiatives have often ended up reinforcing ethnocentric and nativist conceptions of difference, drawing intense criticism from activists and critical social scientists. This roundtable brings leading population geneticists grappling with the question of genetic identity and ancestry, especially in the global South, together with some of the most prominent scholars of race in genomics. The result is an engaging and insightful dialogue on questions that have vexed the field for decades. How do we-indeed "can" we reconcile the boundaries of biological and social difference? How do notions of "genetic ancestry" and "biogeographical ancestry differ from erstwhile racial and ethnic categories? Can racial categories ever be shorn of their colonial and oppressive legacies? Here we scrutinise the methodological and epistemological frameworks in contemporary genomics that work to define populations and shape our understanding of biology, society, health, and disease. We seek to clarify perspectives across the disciplinary divide, and to advance constructive and grounded critiques that contend with the question of justice in genomics.

Classifying racial and ethnic group data in the United States: the politics of negotiation and accommodation

Working Against Biological Explanations of Racial Difference in the Clinic and Beyond

Systems of racial classification have inherent incoherencies which have caused a misconstrued concept of race that requires amelioration in present-day society and medicine. Races like White and Black incorrectly generalize people based on arbitrary criteria that inevitably result in racial bias. Biological differences between people of different races do exist, however these differences do not constitute race per se, but localized interbreeding over time between people of a geographic location leading to traits becoming predominant in those respective populations. That is, biological differences arise due to evolutionary genetics, not inherent categories of mankind. Characteristics like skin color and hair texture are no more meaningful than other features that vary among human appearance, such as hair color, eye color, and height, since genetic difference is found in most biological aspects of the body with no regard to the arbitrary physiognomic and other visual differences that human culture perceives. The societal construction of race becomes further evident when evaluated for the mixing of races in which racial categories effectively dissolve. All humans correspond to the same species and share all the physiology and genetics that make us human. Fine-scale genetic variation of about 0.1% exists between populations and individuals, but society picks and chooses the phenotypes that it wishes to portray as distinctive groups of people. Medicine should include the genetics of difference when making clinical decisions without mistakenly reinforcing race due to its stigmatizing, prejudicing connotations and persistence of harmful racial bias. Many claimed racial biological differences, such as hypertension in African-Americans, are attributed more so to environmental conditions than to genetic factors. Medical differences can arise from inherited deleterious mutations of ancestral origin that were retained in certain areas and populations due to persistent, relatively isolated breeding. But to simply attribute observed differences in health to mere racial categories despite the biological inconsistency of race is to deny patients of their individuality and right to beneficence and justice. Instead, race-based medicine must be salvaged for more scientific practices that do not presuppose unethical racial difference but examine genetic difference in patients as individuals to alleviate racial health disparities.