Biological Concept Of Race Research Articles

Why Social Constructionists Should Embrace Minimalist Race

ABSTRACTMy thesis is that social constructionists should embrace minimalist race. By this I mean they should accept the minimalist concept of race and the existence of minimalist races. They are likely to reject this suggestion because they are antirealists about biological race. But their antirealism about biological race is based on their identification of the biological concept of race with the racialist concept of race. The minimalist concept of race is free of the invidious features that make the racialist concept objectionable. It represents race as ancestry marked by patterns of visible physical differences. The reasons social constructionists have to reject the racialist concept of race do not extend to the minimalist concept of race. Social constructionists should accept that minimalist races exist, because it is overwhelmingly plausible that such races exist. Furthermore, they need minimalist races to account for the biological correlate of social race and to secure the biological materials the project of social construction requires.

The (Mis)appropriation of Biological Anthropology in Race Science and the Implications for Forensic Anthropology

Most biological anthropologists acknowledge that phenotypic human variation is distinct from human race. However, there is the potential for the research on human variation to be (mis)interpreted by the public as a reification of biological races. To explore this possible misuse, this study is a content analysis of articles (n = 1146) in the prominent race science journals Mankind Quarterly; The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies; and The Occidental Quarterly. The goal is to investigate how race science employs research in biological and forensic anthropology to justify arguments. Articles were evaluated according to country affiliation, discipline, data sets, racial/ethnic terminology, position on racial hierarchy, position on racial segregation and eugenics, focus of study, views of scientific community, and the average power index (PI). Additionally, specific examples of (mis)appropriation are highlighted. Though the primary discipline represented in these publications is psychology, biological anthropology maintains a presence. Skeletal and dental traits, genetics, and paleoanthropological data are used to argue for biological racial differences and taxonomic distinctions. The research of forensic ancestry estimation was regularly used to legitimize the concept of biological race. While the PIs of the articles are low, they are present on the internet and circulate within social media. The continued use of biological anthropology to reinforce racial essentialism should force practitioners to question the ethical implications of their research. Finally, we provide discussion regarding shiftsin methodology and terminology to address how biological and forensic anthropologists can rectify the damage this research may directly and indirectly cause.

Explanation of Ancestry Estimation in Forensic Anthropology Textbooks

The way we teach about race and racism can have profound impacts on undergraduate learners, both positive and negative. Textbooks represent a space in which hidden curriculum about race can cement misconceptions and biologically essentialist thinking, leading to the ongoing support of practices that harm racially minoritized populations. In this study, I critically examine five popular introductory level, undergraduate, forensic anthropology textbooks, with attention to chapters on ancestry estimation, and offer recommendations for supplementary or alternative content. Specific coverage of core concepts related to race and ancestry estimation practices in forensic anthropology are evaluated, as well as the order of presentation and consistency of key messages. Though each chapter focuses on distinct examples and approaches, none cover all of the concepts or present a consistent message about ancestry estimation as it pertains to the biological race concept. In particular, messaging within each chapter demonstrates some ambiguity in the distinction between race and ancestry, while also presenting a narrative through which racial typology practices are delineated as “in the past” and distinct from current ancestry estimation practices. These results demonstrate a need, at the undergraduate level, for a more explicit discussion of the biological race myth in lieu of traditional approaches that focus on demonstrating the practicality and validity of such methods. Finally, detailed presentations of ancestry estimation

The need to incorporate human variation and evolutionary theory in forensic anthropology: A call for reform.

In 1992, Norm Sauer called for a language shift in which practitioners would move away from the socially loaded term "race" and replace it with the less provocative term "ancestry." While many heeded the call and moved towards ancestry in their research and reports, the actual approach to research and analysis did not change. In response to this change, there was a large growth in ancestry estimation method development in the early decade of the 2000s. However, the practice of ancestry estimation did not adequately incorporate evolutionary theory in interpretation or trait selection and continued with little critical reflection. In the past decade, there has been an increase in ancestry validation methods with little critique of the "race" concept or discussion of modern human variation or reference samples. To advance, forensic anthropologists need to reckon with the practice of ancestry estimation as it is currently practiced. We are calling for another reform in the axiom focusing on evolutionary theory, population history, trait selection, and population-level reference samples. The practice needs to abandon the terms ancestry and race completely and recalibrate to an analysis of population affinity. Population affinity is a statistical approach based on the underlying population structure that would allow the understanding of how microevolutionary forces act in concert with historical events (e.g., colonization, the Transatlantic Slave Trade, etc.) to shape modern human variation. This is not to be confused with geographic ancestry that all too often can be perceived as interchangeable with social race and as an affirmation of the biological concept of race. It is time to critically evaluate the social and scientific implications of the current practice of ancestry estimation, and re-frame our approach to studying and analyzing modern human variation through a population structure approach.

Ancestry Studies in Forensic Anthropology: Back on the Frontier of Racism.

Simple SummaryWithin the practice of forensic anthropology ancestry is oftentimes used as a proxy for social race. This concept and its implications were explored via a content analysis (2009–2019) of the Journal of Forensic Sciences. Our findings revealed antiquated views of race based on the trifecta of continental populations (Asia, Europe, and Africa) continue to be pervasive in the field despite scientific invalidation of the concept of race decades earlier. Moreover, our employment of modern geometric morphometric and spatial analysis methods on craniofacial coordinate anatomical landmarks from several Latin American samples produced results in which the groups were not patterned by ancestry trifecta. Based on our findings we propose replacing the assumption of continental ancestry with a population structure approach that combines microevolutionary and cultural factors with historical events in the examination of population affinity.One of the parameters forensic anthropologists have traditionally estimated is ancestry, which is used in the United States as a proxy for social race. Its use is controversial because the biological race concept was debunked by scientists decades ago. However, many forensic anthropologists contend, in part, that because social race categories used by law enforcement can be predicted by cranial variation, ancestry remains a necessary parameter for estimation. Here, we use content analysis of the Journal of Forensic Sciences for the period 2009–2019 to demonstrate the use of various nomenclature and resultant confusion in ancestry estimation studies, and as a mechanism to discuss how forensic anthropologists have eschewed a human variation approach to studying human morphological differences in favor of a simplistic and debunked typological one. Further, we employ modern geometric morphometric and spatial analysis methods on craniofacial coordinate anatomical landmarks from several Latin American samples to test the validity of applying the antiquated tri-continental approach to ancestry (i.e., African, Asian, European). Our results indicate groups are not patterned by the ancestry trifecta. These findings illustrate the benefit and necessity of embracing studies that employ population structure models to better understand human variation and the historical factors that have influenced it.

Does the human microbiome tell us something about race?

This paper critically discusses the increasing trend in human microbiome research to draw on the concept of race. This refers to the attempt to investigate the microbial profile of certain social and ethnic groups as embodied racial traits. Here, race is treated as a necessary category that helps in identifying and solving health challenges, like obesity and type-2 diabetes, in ‘western’ or indigenous populations with particular microbial characteristics. We are skeptical of this new environmentalist trend to racialize human bodies due to two reasons: (i) These race studies repeat outdated historical narratives, which link especially nutrition and race in ways that are prone to stir stereotypical and exclusionary views on indigenous groups. (ii) The concept of biological race used here is taxonomically problematic and conceptually inconsistent. It leads to a view in which human races are constituted by other non-human species. In addition, this approach cannot group biological individuals into human races and decouples races from ancestry. To support this critique, we draw on case studies of microbiome research on indigenous groups in Latin America.

Uncloaking a Lost Cause: Decolonizing ancestry estimation in the United States.

Since the professionalization of US‐based forensic anthropology in the 1970s, ancestry estimation has been included as a standard part of the biological profile, because practitioners have assumed it necessary to achieve identifications in medicolegal contexts. Simultaneously, forensic anthropologists have not fully considered the racist context of the criminal justice system in the United States related to the treatment of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color; nor have we considered that ancestry estimation might actually hinder identification efforts because of entrenched racial biases. Despite ongoing criticisms from mainstream biological anthropology that ancestry estimation perpetuates race science, forensic anthropologists have continued the practice. Recent years have seen the prolific development of retooled typological approaches with 21st century statistical prowess to include methods for estimating ancestry from cranial morphoscopic traits, despite no evidence that these traits reflect microevolutionary processes or are suitable genetic proxies for population structure; and such approaches have failed to critically evaluate the societal consequences for perpetuating the biological race concept. Around the country, these methods are enculturated in every aspect of the discipline ranging from university classrooms, to the board‐certification examination marking the culmination of training, to standard operating procedures adopted by forensic anthropology laboratories. Here, we use critical race theory to interrogate the approaches utilized to estimate ancestry to include a critique of the continued use of morphoscopic traits, and we assert that the practice of ancestry estimation contributes to white supremacy. Based on the lack of scientific support that these traits reflect evolutionary history, and the inability to disentangle skeletal‐based ancestry estimates from supporting the biological validity of race, we urge all forensic anthropologists to abolish the practice of ancestry estimation.

Biological Conceptualization of Race

The conception of racial categories from a biological perspective is unconsciously embedded in the individual’s cognition. This is true even among university students majoring in biology and medicine. Even though students have never learned about “race” explicitly in formal biology class, they are highly likely to implicitly construct, and hold biological concepts of race. This study investigated how Korean college students majoring in General Science Education define the concept of race and acquire a scientific conception of race. The study draws on Efstathiou (2009)’s framework of the “founded concept.” Two open-ended questions regarding race conceptualization were administered to 218 college students. Furthermore, interviews with three students were conducted to explore any biological meaning of race. The results suggest four types of conception held by students about race. These were race as a typological means of distinguishing human diversity, race as a biological concept, race as a social construct, and race as a bio-social mixture. Additionally, in-depth interviews indicated that students constructed their biological concept of race unintentionally through learning biology. There are three mediators which have a role as mediator in the transfiguration process of finding and founding race concepts in a biological context: skin color, reproductive isolation, and ethnicity. Accordingly, science teachers should carefully teach this information in order to help prevent any misunderstanding of biological racial concepts. Teaching strategies and other educational implications are discussed.

The objective existence of race

There are currently two very different concepts of race in terms of negation and identity. The emergence of these different perspectives of race is related to its definition. Scholars who deny the existence of human races regard different races as being different species in biology. However, the ethnic problem is an academic issue that can be discussed and the concept of race is still used widely in social life. Race should not be confused with racism. All modern humans on Earth are the same species. Races are human populations with common genetic traits. The concept of race is not a biological concept of race, but a geographic concept of race. After the birth of modern humans, they dispersed and migrated to different parts of the world. The environment in different regions determined the genetic variation of the migration branches of each population. Gradually, different geographical species of modern humans were formed. This is what we are talking about when we speak of race. The divisions of race do not depend on only one trait, but on the comprehensive consideration of multiple traits. The academic community uses macroscopic morphological indices, such as skin color, hair color, eye color, nose shape, lip shape, head shape, facial shape, skin texture, earwax type, and blood type, to describe and classify human races. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms and gene copy number polymorphisms contribute to the formation of different races. Through the measurement and observation of the head and face morphological index and stature of the Mongolian, Northern Han, and Dai populations, this study found significant differences in the head and face characteristics between North Asian, East Asian, and South Asian types. The North Asian-type ethnic groups were found to have taller stature, a wider head, a narrower nose, and a thinner lip, while South Asian-type ethnic groups were of shorter stature, with wider noses and thicker lips. The head and facial features of the East Asian-type ethnic groups are between the North and South Asian-type ethnic groups. Scholars may deny the existence of human races or that races are different species, but they cannot deny the existence of different modern geographical races or their obvious morphological differences. Since the differences between races are geographic, the genomic differences between individual races are naturally small; thus, 99.9% of the DNA sequences from different races are identical. However, this difference of about 0.1% of DNA sequences leads to the division of races. Although the speed of integration between ethnic groups is currently increasing, the differences in traits between different races are still obvious. The main racial characteristics have not disappeared and the differences between races will persist for a long time. This study proposes that the concept of race is outdated and does not actually conform to its objective status.

Population Demography, Ancestry, and the Biological Concept of Race

For more than 50 years, biological anthropology has argued against the use of the biological race concept. Despite such efforts, aspects of the concept remain in circulation within society and within the discipline itself. As commonly articulated, anthropology's rejection of the biological race concept lacks an evolutionarily based explanatory grounding. Biological patterns of variation in living humans do not map onto commonly utilized categorizations of race, but this knowledge does not explain why human evolution has not produced such structures. This article attempts to offer one such explanation by constructing a biocultural framing of race around ancestry. By examining ancestry through two related lenses, genealogical and genetic, it is shown that the coherence of race as a biological concept has been disrupted by demographic changes in our recent evolutionary past. The biological construction of race is invalid not because it is impossible but because evolutionary forces have actively worked against such patterns in our evolutionary past.

A MOST DANGEROUS ERROR

A genealogy of the English word racism shows that its dominant sense was shaped by Franz Boas, Ruth Benedict, and Ashley Montagu around 1940 in order to establish a broad consensus against a narrow form of antisemitism found among some anthropologists in Nazi Germany. Their strategy, which was to challenge the biological concept of race on which racism, on their account, was said to be parasitic was subsequently adopted by UNESCO in 1950 and is still advocated by many today. But this approach was not formulated to address anti-black racism. The limitations of this strategy were quickly exposed by black thinkers such as Oliver Cromwell Cox and Frantz Fanon. They understood that the problem was a form of systemic racism that could not be separated from the economic inequalities produced by slavery and colonialism. It could not be reduced to a system of thought open to scientific refutation: the problem had been misdiagnosed from the outset.

Four Ways of Thinking about Race

This essay presents four ways of thinking about race. They consist of four related but distinct race concepts: the racialist concept of race, which is the traditional, pernicious, essentialist, and hierarchical concept of race; the concept of socialrace, which is the antiracist concept of race as a social construction; the minimalist concept of race, which is the deflationary concept of biological race that represents race as a matter of color, shape and geographical ancestry; and the populationist concept of race, the race concept that represents races as populations, deriving from geographically separated and reproductive isolated founding populations. Taken together, the four concepts can help us better navigate our way through the murky conceptual domain of “race.”

Book Review Article: “Our Task is to Overcome Racism in a World in which Racial Differences Exist.”

According to philosopher Michael O. Hardimon, human races do exist. He distinguishes four “race” concepts: the racialist one, which implies essentialism, hierarchy, and the idea of differences in important traits such as intelligence; the minimalist one, which merely refers to races as populations characterized by common physical features, biological relatedness, and common origin; the populationist one, which is roughly the minimalist one plus the data from population genetics; and the concept of “socialrace”, that is, a group which is considered to be a racialist race. Michael O. Hardimon thinks that only the first concept should be rejected. As for the possibility of mental differences between the races, he dismisses it and accuses those who consider these differences to exist of being “scientific racists” (p. 26). The author demonstrates in a convincing manner that the minimalist and the populationist concepts are compatible with current data from population genetics, and he demonstrates that a biological concept of race is perfectly consistent with an antiracist stance. In his chapter on “socialrace”, he endorses the idea of “institutional racism”, which implies that all the differences in socio-economic outcomes between the races are the result of a hidden oppressive institution. One may agree with the author on the necessity to “overcome racism in a world in which racial differences exist”, without necessarily agreeing with him on what “racial differences” really are, and without necessarily endorsing his idea of “institutional racism”, which is unlikely to foster mutual understanding and reduce the risk of racial conflicts.

Teaching Race (Bioculturally) Matters: A Visual Approach for College Biology Courses

Race and racism are considered standard subject matter in introductory college courses in the social sciences, but remain relatively absent in biological science courses (Donovan, 2015; Morning, 2011). Given a resurgence of biologically deterministic racial science (e.g., Risch et al., 2002; Shiao et al., 2012) and ongoing racial tensions in the United States, it is imperative that biology professors actively engage students in introductory and upper-level courses. This paper presents a tested approach used in an introductory natural science course (for undergraduate, non-science majors) at a mid-sized regional university. A biocultural focus is advocated for teaching about the fallacies (i.e., biological race concept) and realities of race (i.e., racism) (e.g., see Gravlee, 2009; Thompson, 2006). Further, an emphasis is placed on using a visual approach for relaying these complex and sensitive topics.

Testing Common Misconceptions about the Nature of Human Racial Variation

Race is a hot-button topic in American society, but one that needs to be addressed in the biological science curriculum. This paper examines how college students in a large introductory course came to understand race through the exploration of four key concepts about the nature of human biological and genetic variation. Using clicker data collected from four courses (n = 296), change in starting and ending understanding of content was compared using paired t-tests and mean difference scores. Results indicate statistically significant improvement in student understanding of common fallacies of the “biological race concept” after a single exposure to content.

Race and its development

This article is composed of several parts including a brief history for differentiating the races, geographical distribution and physical characteristics of races, ways through which the characteristics of races were formed, the blurring of boundaries between races, queries on the biological concept of race, race in actual life, anti-racism and concluding remarks. French philosopher and physician F. Bernier proposed the concept of race to describe the diversity of humans for the first time in 1684. Linnaeus divided Homo sapiens into Europeans, Asians, Americans and Africans. Blumenbach divided human beings into yellow, red, white, brown and black races and recognized that there were transitional human populations between neighboring races. Different races previously occupied different territories and possessed different physical characteristics which were clearly observable in the period earlier than 300 years before present. For a long time, the Mongoloid or Yellow race was distributed in the eastern and central parts of Asia, Southeast Asia and the Americas; the Caucasian or European or White race was distributed in Europe, western and southern parts of Asia and north Africa; the Negroid or Black race was distributed throughout most of Africa; and the Australoid or Brown race was distributed in Australia and neighboring islands, and usually included in the Black race. Ancient humans migrated from Africa around 1.8 Ma and dispersed in large areas of Eurasia. They diverged in physical characteristics due to genetic drift, mutation and adaptation to new environments. The expansion of European into Americas, Africa and Australia in last hundreds of years has changed the geographical distribution of races, and more and more hybrids have been blurring the boundary between races in physical characteristics described in the earlier literatures. This led to the gradual disappearance of the reality of biological concept of race which was queried by F. Boas and successive challengers in anthropological studies. In 1996 a “Statement on Biological Aspects of Race” was announced by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists that the classification of race has no genetic basis and no legitimate position in the biological science. Race is a social and political concept. The use of race concept has been declining. In the beginning of this century only 50% of physical anthropologists and 31% of cultural anthropologists in the US accepted the validity of biological races in Homo sapiens . There are many reasons for the decline in the acceptance of race as a means of understanding human variation. However, it is necessary to point out that the anthropologists who refuse to accept the biological concept do not deny the biological differences among various populations. They consider that the humankind varies clinally. In 1997, six racial categories were defined by the US Office of Management and Budget: White or Caucasian, Black or African American, Asian, Amerindian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander and some other race. Most of them are classified based on external appearance and the geographical distribution of their ancestors, while the category Asian includes populations the ancestors of which migrated from east and central Asia as well as south Asia and had been attributed to Mongoloid and Caucasian respectively in early 20th century. Epidemiological studies show disparities among different races/ethnicities in many diseases including diabetes, hypertension, carcinomas of lung, bronchus, colon, rectum, mammary gland and cervix in female and prostate in male, melanoma, asthma, and premature delivery etc. But it has been also pointed out that the frequency of some diseases among people of specific origin can be an artifact of environmental and/or social factors, and not purely because of their genetic heritage—especially diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and cancer. Knowledge concerning physical characteristics of different races/ethnicities is also useful in forensic practice and studies. In the US, there is a long history of racism dating back to Slave Trade. Although the racial segregation was abolished in 1964, the influence of racial discrimination still exists, so the anti-racism movement continues. In sum, the connotation of race concept has been changing through time, and it remains a social problem in some countries.

“Everyone is Just Mixed to Me”: Exploring the Role of Multiraciality in College Students' Racial Claims

ABSTRACTExamining discourses of multiraciality through college students' claims about race offers helpful insights for educators striving to create equitable campuses for mixed race students. One area of discourse is the positioning of multiracial individuals as evidence for the social construction of race. Another critiques the multiracial movement, with its large college student base, for reinforcing the biological concept of race. This study investigates how a diverse sample of 40 undergraduate students from two U.S. West Coast institutions used multiraciality in varied ways to assert their claims about race and whether it mattered. Six patterns of multiracial discourse emerged in their racial claims. These findings suggest that the novelty of multiraciality allows it to be invoked to support various claims about the nature of race, namely whether race is biological, and the current and future relationship between mixedness and “post-racial” progress. Implications for research and practice also are discussed.

Foucault y el concepto biológico de raza: entre el poder y la ciencia.

En este artículo examinamos el concepto biológico de raza en el plano filosófico y en el plano científico. Primero nos ocuparemos de la crítica de Michel Foucault al racismo desde la bio-política y, en un segundo gran apartado, recorreremos la historia de la ciencia para mostrar si el racismo biológico cuenta con algún tipo de fundamentación científica. El resultado general más importante es que el concepto biológico de raza deriva de la lucha de poder entre las sociedades y sus individuos, que optaron por subordinar la ciencia para preservar su hegemonía político-racial.

Bred for the Race

In the first four decades of the twentieth century, horse racing was one of America’s most popular spectator sports. Members of America’s elite took to breeding and racing horses as one of their preferred pastimes. Coinciding with an increase in immigration and the rediscovery of Mendelian genetics, the idea that careful breeding of thoroughbreds would result in improved horses resonated with Americans worried about racial degeneration. Scientists committed to racial ideologies looked to thoroughbreds—whose owners and breeders maintained extensive pedigree records—to understand the science of genetic inheritance. Harry H. Laughlin, superintendent of research at the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, pored over breeding charts and race results to develop a mathematical model of inheritance that he called the “inheritance coefficient.” He believed his careful study of horses would yield findings that he and his fellow eugenicists could apply to humans. Thoroughbred breeders followed trends in genetics while contributing to the production of scientific knowledge. Pedigree charts available to bettors at race tracks helped normalize concepts of biological inheritance for race track attendees of all classes. Horse racing’s popularity in the United States contributed to the diffusion of the concept of biological race that originated as an ideological project of the ruling class. This paper analyzes the role of thoroughbred breeding and racing in the formation and popularization of racial ideology by situating breeding farms as sites of knowledge production and racecourses as places that exhibited performances of racial science for large audiences.

Are human races cladistic subspecies?

In the article titled ‘A new perspective on the race debate’，Robin O. Andreasen argues that contrary to popular scientific belief, human races are biologically real—it is just that we are wrong about them. Andreasen calls her contemporary biological concept of race ‘the cladistic race concept’ (or CRC). Her theory uses theory from cladistics—a systematic school founded by entomologist Willi Hennig in 1950—to define human races genealogically as cladistic subspecies. In this paper I will argue that despite its promise as a biological definition of human races, Andreasen's CRC is unconvincing. In particular, I will show that the central problem of the CRC is its attempt to apply cladistics below the species level. In other words, there is good reason to think that cladistic subspecies are not real, and therefore, they cannot be the target of a realist concept of race.